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

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

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

Sadie said:
That is so amazing! I can't wait to see the pictures!
Click to expand...

This is the one they took immediately on landing...

InSight-First-Photo.jpg


...and this is the best one so far...

PIA22575-16.jpg
 
steewith2ees said:
Plenty of new additions to make here but I thought I would Lazarus the thread with this from yesterday...

Cern experiment hints at new force of nature - Experts reveal ‘cautious excitement’ over unstable particles that fail to decay as standard model suggests (Guardian 29/3/21)​

​

Click to expand...

I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that there are an infinite number of 'particles' yet to be 'discovered'.

The trick is to realise that 'particles' are simply packets of energy that can be configured in infinite ways No doubt this is a gross simplification and I'm not clever enough to provide a proof, but it keeps my head happy...
 


If this truly is a discovery of a direct collapse black hole it’s a game changer. And given the youth of the beast it makes itself a doubly game-changing game changer 8o

Joshing aside, if this observation pans out it dramatically shifts the discussion on the early universe. I’ve always been on the fence regarding early-period black holes, but this potential result significantly shifts my suspicions towards direct collapse.

Fascinating stuff as ever from Anton!
 


Interesting new paper this. Seemingly rules out standard versions of cyclical cosmology - although not Penrose’s interpretation which has always struck me as more feasible.

Paper seems legit which will surely piss off the hippies 😃

(if they actually gave a shit about actual physics that is)
 
Shambles said:


Interesting new paper this. Seemingly rules out standard versions of cyclical cosmology - although not Penrose’s interpretation which has always struck me as more feasible.

Paper seems legit which will surely piss off the hippies 😃

(if they actually gave a shit about actual physics that is)
Click to expand...


I reached a personal impasse with my ability to objectively discuss how these models compare that I knew was coming even before the 'cosmological crises' or the x factors of dark matter and energies influence that I am trying to rectify in the most remedial manner = my math has always been shit and got no further than my GCSE B grade which, being a mediocre C grade student in all 10 of my subjects took massive effort on my part (I got 3 B's in the other Sciences only because its possible to wing it at that level.)

With objective truth in general being a thing of the past thanks to the internets ability to allow people to engage in subjects that they can challenge without having to be forced to educate themselves over a lifetime like snotty experts have traditionally done. Instead, by combining a couple of YT vids and their 'common sense', they are able to highlight the many paradoxes that occur in nature by simply pointing out how little sense they make to anyone who doesn't understand things they refuse to learn.

So, I have restarted a Maths GCSE through a local adult training center as a way to try and reset. Unlike most other disciplines it needs to be used as well as learned and having had no need since 1994's final test paper I am back at square one. With folk questioning why the answer to 1 + 1 is 2 instead of a potential range of intangibles IMO I am going to need Math if I want to live in this Cyperpunked dystopia at all and not just for my interests in particle and Astrophysics.

The lady in the video doesn't sound very convinced mind xx
 
Yeah, Sabine is a prickly auld stick who takes no shit. I respect that =D

I kinda wish I knew more maths but honestly don’t think I could get to where I would like to be so am begrudgingly happy to stick with “word-based physics.”

I’ll obviously never be able to truly argue the toss over competing models, but still enjoy the armchair physicist aspect :)
 
jasperkent said:
I agree that it's extremely difficult to make sense of quantum mechanics -- the physicists who study it readily admit that.

But "ruled out"?
I'm not so sure about that.
Click to expand...

Quantum Mechanics itself is obviously not ruled out! I was talking about the video I posted that details an experiment that rules out Bohmian Mechanics specifically - I wasn’t throwing out the baby with the bath water! =D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top