• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler

Astronomy/Cosmology/Astrophysics thread - Even though there are no gods I still pray

The whole thing was impressive if you can put up with Baumgartners prima donna type behaviours on the official feature length docu. The other guy was a bellend, i dont care how much higher he went, its of no scientific or cultural significance
 
@ mister -
I dont read much about strings or multiverses but its widely accepted that small black holes can puff in and out of existence all the time - if we're to grab one and have a look at whats going on the lab @ CERN has the accelerators to do it..
 
Last edited:
I think the term 'parallel universes' is somewhat misleading as the popular image is of universes where anything that can happen has happened, is happening and will happen simultaneously, whereas in reality they're just trying to 'prove' that extra dimensions 'exist'. This doesn't necessarily mean other universes per se, just levels of our own universe that we currently (and probably never will) have access to. Pretty much what the article states...
 
I think the term 'parallel universes' is somewhat misleading as the popular image is of universes where anything that can happen has happened, is happening and will happen simultaneously, whereas in reality they're just trying to 'prove' that extra dimensions 'exist'. This doesn't necessarily mean other universes per se, just levels of our own universe that we currently (and probably never will) have access to. Pretty much what the article states...

This is also the basis for quantum mechanics (which i have no real understanding of in depth, the standard model, quanta and spin are terms ive yet to properly read into) - "whatever can happen, will happen". Its all about probabilities so with my level of maths thats me fucked, again.

Maybe a quartet of bees with a dash of ganj will help my thinking in such areas
 
OK no problem.

What's people's thoughts on black holes?

Evey

At the singularity in the center, when the laws of physics break down, there is another universe.. just as our universe was spawned from a singularity inside another.
 
This is also the basis for quantum mechanics (which i have no real understanding of in depth, the standard model, quanta and spin are terms ive yet to properly read into) - "whatever can happen, will happen". Its all about probabilities so with my level of maths thats me fucked, again.

Maybe a quartet of bees with a dash of ganj will help my thinking in such areas

The way I see it 'quantum theory' in a nutshell simply states that energy is delivered in tiny discrete 'packets' or 'quata' which can exhibit properties of both waves and particles (wave/particle duality) simultaneously, although they are actually neither. This is why I like the standing wave model ( or interference patterns in energy) as the basis for matter as one can just about visualise a quantum energy 'wave' interacting with another energy wave to form a node in the energy field which we detect as a matter particle . Its so fucking hard to visualise these concepts though, which is why physicists have to resort to maths to 'prove' their ideas - though that does bugger all to help us mere mortals...

BTW stee, do you REALLY still pray even though there is no 'god'?
 
Last edited:
What did I see?

Eclipse (sorry bear with me) August 1999. The night before, laying outside my tent staring at the sky watching the Leonids. I know what a 'shooting star' looks like, seen many. Saw a few that night. But then, out of nowhere, the sky lit up with a horizontal streak. The streak went across the whole of the sky, lasted maybe a second or less, and was an even, thin strip of light about 'halfway' up the sky. Immensely bright.

Obviously something burning up in our atmosphere...is this a meteor? A fireball? Never seen anything like it before or since.
 
Last edited:

Rather depends on which bits you're pondering the reality of. The LHC is definitely real. The words used in the article are also all real. Many, many things in, of and related to that linky are indeed real. Selected highlights of Real or Not Real include...

The staggeringly complex LHC ‘atom smasher’ at the CERN centre in Geneva, Switzerland, will be fired up to its highest energy levels ever in a bid to detect - or even create - miniature black holes.

If successful a completely new universe will be revealed – rewriting not only the physics books but the philosophy books too.

It is even possible that gravity from our own universe may ‘leak’ into this parallel universe, scientists at the LHC say.

The first sentence is "real" in the sense it is factually accurate. The second sentence is not so real in the sense that it is meaningless and doesn't seem to actually say anything despite using several actual words - this is a special form of writing known as "Shoddy Hack Wanting to Knock Off Early". Third sentence is back to being real again as it refers to an actually real theory created by actually real people.

It refers to one particular variety of multiverse cosmology for which the term "parallel universe(s)" fits rather well as it would literally refer to universes existing in parallel yet separated by an inconceivably tiny distance and all this floating in a higher dimensional "bulk" which is where all them there gravitons go a-wafting off into when popped into existence by LHCs and the like (gravity in general too obviously but we'd only get to "see" it happen via the medium of really big machines smashing really teensy things at each other and picking up the pieces veeeeeeeeeeeeery carefully afterwards).

Aha! Seems there is some approximation of reality involved elsewhere in that article too only it completely fails to mention it is discussing (at least) two utterly unrelated ideas - one of which that has fairly wide (if certainly also tentative) support whilst t'other appears to mainly be favoured by the bloke that came up with it and his pet tortoise. Latter idea being "Gravity's Rainbow" I'd never heard of it myself but am sure more knowledgable folk here have and could maybe elaborate and elucidate a tad?

EDIT: Modicum of elaboration and elucidation - Did Thomas Pynchon Predict Parallel Universes, Mini Black Holes, and the Death of the Big Bang Theory?

Also, Big Bang theory could be debunked by Large Hadron Collider.

Is very much this kinda reporting that gives such a distorted picture of subjects like this. Whilst this obscure theory may sound kinda kewl (can see why they'd choose to run an article on this rather than some of the more mundane (as far as "mundane" gets in theories of the beginnings of all things anyway) but to suggest that there is a major rivalry between two distinct camps or equally respected scientists over whether this barely mentioned idea or the Big Bang itself are considered equally possible is just plain misleading.
 
Last edited:
What did I see?

Eclipse (sorry bear with me) August 1999. The night before, laying outside my tent staring at the sky watching the Leonids. I know what a 'shooting star' looks like, seen many. Saw a few that night. But then, out of nowhere, the sky lit up with a horizontal streak. The streak went across the whole of the sky, lasted maybe a second or less, and was an even, thin strip of light about 'halfway' up the sky. Immensely bright.

Obviously something burning up in our atmosphere...is this a meteor? A fireball? Never seen anything like it before or since.

Now you're around Stee, if you care to reply with a simple answer...
 
Orion is currently my favourite constillation for all the beautiful features mentioned but mainly because of 'a Ori' or Betelgeuse, the star that forms the upper left shoulder / hand of the hunter. Its a red supergiant, 427 light years away and with a diameter 800 times that of the sun. Its huge - and Its is visible to the naked eye as a twinkling red star, as its magnatude varies alot. Its size, instability and its late stage in stellar evolution (despite being a relatively young star) makes it the prime candidate out of all the stars in our galaxy to go supernova, as we are well overdue one (on average each galaxy experiences one supernova every century - our last was Keplar's S/N, a type Ia that went in 1604!).

When it does blow its thankfully just far away enough to not cause us any grief, but it will look spectacular, becoming brighter than the moon and easily visable in the day time. According to the experts, it could go any time now, but in astronomical terms, that could be any time over the next 1,000,000 years. Because observers are unsure of the stars initial mass, this makes predicting its death difficult, latest estimates reckon it will be about another 100,000 years before the fireworks begin but what the fuck do they know - ive decided its happening in my life time so thats that.

Loved this post. :)

I also intend sticking around for the event too, watching it in close proximity from my flying space drone. I'll drink a virtual Guinness while watching it happen, in celebration.

This is why I'm very, very careful when crossing the road. I don't want a double decker bus wiping me out from existence before the singularity. %)
 
Now you're around Stee, if you care to reply with a simple answer...

Yeah obvious answer would be simply a larger fireball across the sky, the streak being caused by its wake - if its seriously disturbed the atmosphere on entry then it could have charged particles rushing in from space behind it such as in an aurora, might explain how such a large portion of the sky was illuminated at once

This is a semi - educated guess
 
Bumpity bump. Disappointed to see this thread going 'off the charts' already. I'm currently formulating a reply to another thread about alien intelligence which is probably more suited to this one, but its difficult finding the time at the mo', so bear with me....
 
I watched that horizon all about dark matter the other day - was really good. They were talking about how the behaviour of stars orbiting galaxies doesn't do what it should according to newton, which first gave them the idea of dark matter - ie following how it works in our solar system, the stars that are further out should be travelling slower than the stars close to the centre; to get around this theorist postulated that there must be loads more mass there that we can't see which is dark matter. I didn't realise though that when plotted on a graph the line is actually flat - the speed roughly constant however far out the star is. (plotting the graph for our solar system gives a curve (inverse power law?)).

Dark matter theories are thought preferable to having to abandon the idea that newton's gravity equations aren't actually universal (or change with distance). I always iconoclastically thought (with only stoned amateur research) there's no dark matter and gravity varies with distance or something vague like that (or the supermassive black hole did some magic like antigravity). However, also in the program, they showed how you can see gravitational lensing (where the gravity makes light bend around an object, creating a ring) around distant galaxies - the lensing is much wider than would be expected for the size of the galaxy which heavily suggests there is matter spread out in the manner predicted by dark matter theories.
 
Ah, this is relating to the search for WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) isn't it? I've got that episode queued up on iPlayer for when there's no wife or kids around so I can actually fucking listen to it...
 
Yeah, Horizon docs are almost always well worth a watch in my opinion. I watch pretty much any and all docs on these kinda subjects that I come across and as such I rarely come across ones I've not already seen these days. This led me to watching more talks, lectures and the like. I think they are excellent for those who have a keen interest and are perhaps left wanting something with just a little more meat on the bones than the vast majority of documentaries on these topics are able to go into. There is something to suit all levels of interest from absolute beginner up to maths-laden lectures for the ultrakeen. I'm certainly not able to "do the maths" but even the more technical presentations are usually perfectly understandable for the most part - at least in general terms - and you get the gist.

I found the two series below to be especially pleasing. They're aimed at the general public so nothing too heavy-going but more to get your teeth into than most documentaries I've seen covering the same subject matter tend to provide. I'd highly recommend watching the lot for those who have a real interest, and for those that aren't so sure I suspect picking out one or two that tickle your fancy may well whet your appetite to go through the others. I found them really rather addictive and thoroughly enjoyed all of them - even those that I doubted would really hold much interest for me - and learnt something new along the way from each of 'em.

Astronomy Lectures by Professor Ian Morison

Astronomy - Carolin Crawford on the Mechanisms of the Universe

Bumpity bump. Disappointed to see this thread going 'off the charts' already.

Am determined to make an EADD Cosmology Thread stick sooner or later so this one is now Indexed so it shall never die ;)
 
Yeah, Horizon docs are almost always well worth a watch in my opinion. I watch pretty much any and all docs on these kinda subjects that I come across and as such I rarely come across ones I've not already seen these days. This led me to watching more talks, lectures and the like. I think they are excellent for those who have a keen interest and are perhaps left wanting something with just a little more meat on the bones than the vast majority of documentaries on these topics are able to go into. There is something to suit all levels of interest from absolute beginner up to maths-laden lectures for the ultrakeen. I'm certainly not able to "do the maths" but even the more technical presentations are usually perfectly understandable for the most part - at least in general terms - and you get the gist.

I found the two series below to be especially pleasing. They're aimed at the general public so nothing too heavy-going but more to get your teeth into than most documentaries I've seen covering the same subject matter tend to provide. I'd highly recommend watching the lot for those who have a real interest, and for those that aren't so sure I suspect picking out one or two that tickle your fancy may well whet your appetite to go through the others. I found them really rather addictive and thoroughly enjoyed all of them - even those that I doubted would really hold much interest for me - and learnt something new along the way from each of 'em.

Astronomy Lectures by Professor Ian Morison

Astronomy - Carolin Crawford on the Mechanisms of the Universe



Am determined to make an EADD Cosmology Thread stick sooner or later so this one is now Indexed so it shall never die ;)

Well done shambles - ive listened to both Prof Crawford and Morrisons Gresham youtube playlists a few times each

anyone with an interest in this field needs to watch these - they're approx. an hour each and between the 2 of them they cover almost everything you want to know. Prof Crawfords talk on galactic superclusters (her particular field of expertise) is beautiful.
 
Top