420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
Subject
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
DROPPIN BOMBS ON YOUR WORLDVIEW by Isaac Newton - Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:19:20 EST ID:TRhiJN4K No.54268 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1407809960691.jpg -(183766B / 179.46KB, 625x933) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 183766
What if the Big Bang didn't really happen? I know there's a lot of fanciful math that is really eloquent and beautiful regarding the subject, but the Big Bang relies on very shaky ground. Hubble noticed that the Frauenhoffer lines of light from distant cosmic objects was shifted almost always towards the red end of the spectrum. The further-seeming objects appeared to have a greater magnitude of this effect. It was deduced that this effect was solely from a Doppler effect upon light. Thus, everything seemed to be moving away from everything else... and the Theory of the Big Bang came to be. We came to find more things which seemed to support it, as well.

Problems?

Barnard Effect- for an as-yet-unexplained reason, sunspots have a detectable redshift. They are not moving away from us as stationary blemishes on the face of the sun, but the effect is the same as the cosmological one, just of a lower magnitude. This effect was discovered around the same time that the Big Bang theory was developed and was largely swept under the rug due to its embarrassing discontinuity with that theory.

Quasars- According to our understanding of the redshift, these objects are both very distant and gigantic. Yet, we observe variations in their luminosity which occur across the entire object, as well as jets suggesting superluminal velocities. Most likely they are not hypergiant-protogalactic star monsters, but are actually much closer, smaller exotic stars exhibiting an extreme version of this Barnard's effect.

The motion of spiral galaxies does not fit with the known laws of gravity. As if it were a single object, a galaxy's furthest stars rotate fast enough to keep a congruent shape compared to the innermost stars.. the exact opposite of how gravity works in the solar system. So how do we fix this? Throw in a non-detectable, non-reactive, exotic matter that takes up most of the mass in the universe, but can never be proven to definitively exist. Whatever happened to Occam's Razor?

That's just a start. Truth be told, modern cosmology is showing that it is not unlike the epicycles and phlogiston of the past. Take dark matter for example. An exciting idea in science fiction, but…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Henry Russell - Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:17:07 EST ID:riVRYHVm No.54269 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>for an as-yet-unexplained reason, sunspots have a detectable redshift.
>as well as jets suggesting superluminal velocities.

Sources?

>Whatever happened to Occam's Razor?

As far as I recall, introducing dark matter WAS the application of "Occam's Razor" in this particular case. Do you have a better explanation? Got a new formula for gravity for us to review?

>How is this different from aether?

Dark matter hasn't been shown to be bunk yet. Work is ongoing.

>A neat idea, but by its very nature, it is unobservable.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Edward Pickering - Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:33:08 EST ID:ruPFqd4c No.54274 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1407832388370.jpg -(951649B / 929.34KB, 2823x2146) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Barnard Effect

Bro, you're just making up shit. Also, you seem to be under the impression that galaxy motion is the only evidence for dark matter. This is wrong. Case in point, because of gravitational lensing, astronomers have actually mapped its distribution (pic related). Please educate yourself before attempting to "drop bombs on my worldview" again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing
>>
Johan Galle - Tue, 12 Aug 2014 22:48:40 EST ID:YOJeQJFe No.54279 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Pretty much everything you said is wrong.

>the Big Bang relies on very shaky ground
No. It really doesn't. We say the universe is expanding not because it is the only possible explanation for redshift but because it predicted so much. Baryonic accoustic osculation, the CMB, the acoustic peaks and the multipoles in the CMB, angular size scale tests, the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect the Sachs Wolfe effect, primordial abundances, reionisation... In my book it is on quote firm footing. I consider the first to be perhaps the strongest evidence.

>Barnard Effect- for an as-yet-unexplained reason
I believe you mean Evershed. The exact mechanics are not understood but there is no reason to believe it is not non-doppler effect. It is not discontinuous with the expanding universe.The evershed effect shows both positive and negative shifts and yet comic ones are allays the latter at great distance.This effect of yours explains redshift but nothing beyond that. It doesn't explain any of the features above or even why there is a Hubble law to begin with.

>Quasars- According to our understanding of the redshift, these objects are both very distant and gigantic. Yet, we observe variations in their luminosity which occur across the entire object, as well as jets suggesting superluminal velocities. Most likely they are not hypergiant-protogalactic star monsters, but are actually much closer, smaller exotic stars exhibiting an extreme version of this Barnard's effect.
No. Quasars have a finite reaction time to changes. See reverberation mapping. Showing the scale of the disk. Quasars are not close, they are seen behind galaxies and show no parallax. They also all happen to be aligned with the centers of galaxies of the same redshift, why would this be true in they were not distant and not associated with these galaxies? Jets do not suggest superluminal motion, this effect was predicted and is simply due to geometry.

>As if it were a single object, a galaxy's furthest stars rotate fast enough to keep a congruent shape compared to the innermost stars
No again. Galaxies have flat rotation curves but this is not solid body rotation (linear increasing, not flat) so they don't keep shape.

>Whatever happened to Occam's Razor?
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Do elementary particles have surface? by Bernard Burke - Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:37:20 EST ID:CvBrhfpC No.52866 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1390520240126.gif -(391680B / 382.50KB, 875x631) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 391680
Or are they just spherical packets of energy?
18 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Paul Goldsmith - Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:49:40 EST ID:ZNVNOuFx No.52914 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>52907
Because of the fundamental forces of the universe, and quantum mechanics. Really it all comes down quantum theory - if you don't have a good grasp of it you're not going to get much more than a dumbed down explanation. I found this blog post which does an ok job of explaining it to laymen

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-15_NutshellReadMore.html

String theories is not part of the standard model. Not all, or even most physicist think of it as being the underlying phenomenon to particle physics. You also have to be very careful using the term dimension. While we often use it to mean spatial dimension, scientifically it just means the number of variables needed to describe something. These could be spatial extent but it could also be charge etc.
>>
George Hale - Sat, 01 Feb 2014 03:51:40 EST ID:3nUT6QAF No.52915 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>52909
Check your naive realism, bro.
>>
Giuseppe Piazzi - Sat, 01 Feb 2014 07:38:20 EST ID:QuyP+R2q No.52916 Ignore Report Quick Reply
goddammit /sagan/
why are you always shitting on my birthday cake?!
>>
Henrietta Levitt - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 20:01:31 EST ID:FgL9rJVX No.54259 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>52866

Theoretically they might. Instruments we have may be imprecise and unable to measure their surface. Quantum particles don't behave physically like other packets of matter, so defining any relative surface by their movements is tricky if impossible because it may not exist.
>>
Edwin Hubble - Mon, 11 Aug 2014 12:45:24 EST ID:NY5AqFwk No.54264 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Elementary particles are scalar fields which are defined across the entire universe, not little billiard balls.


NIGGAZ ON THE MOON! CHINA STRONG! by James Christy - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 05:20:20 EST ID:SPDJPldQ No.54248 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1407662420257.jpg -(281714B / 275.11KB, 900x675) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 281714
I think I'm doing too many drugs because I swear I didn't think it was all the way back in December when this happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khsVmq8v2CI

Didn't see a thread. It's so cool to see landers on the moon again, eve if they are droids. I'd love it if they got any shots of the U.S./U.S.S.R. landing sites but I feel that's unlikely.

It's so disheartening to know even this won't shut up the hoaxnuts.
>>
Urbain Le Verrier - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:09:25 EST ID:5O93DDXg No.54256 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Got me all exited thinking they secretly had men on moon. But it was just that rover.
Still awesome.
>>
Arno Penzias - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:32:37 EST ID:Zbe0PVOU No.54257 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54248
>It's so disheartening to know even this won't shut up the hoaxnuts.

Why is it disheartening? It's not like anyone believes them.
>>
Urbain Le Verrier - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 16:45:01 EST ID:5O93DDXg No.54258 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54257
Exactly this. There is observable man made shit on the moon including mirrors to bounce lasers off of for measurements.

Some dumb ass in the comments there is claiming he can see more detail with his telescope so therfore it's a fake. Not even considering how cost and weight ineffective strapping an HD IMAX camera on would be.

In short dumb asses who don't consider the difficulty of such a feat annoy me. That's all they will even do though. We can leave them behind while they continue to tell us there is nothing to see out there.
>>
Edwin Hubble - Mon, 11 Aug 2014 05:49:18 EST ID:H3af7FdZ No.54260 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54258
Just because people went to the moon doesnt mean that Stanley Kubrick didnt film it in a studio for propaganda purposes.
Do you realize how hard is it do do quality television on the moon?
>>
Edwin Hubble - Mon, 11 Aug 2014 05:53:52 EST ID:H3af7FdZ No.54261 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54260
heres a documentary about it with all of the insiders.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26EicKfNYPg
its actually disguised as a mockumentary so all of the dumb people will disregard it


drunk ideas by Margaret Burbidge - Sat, 09 Aug 2014 00:22:31 EST ID:dL+21hmf No.54230 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1407558151630.png -(31955B / 31.21KB, 659x634) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 31955
so im moderately drunk here so forgive me for the stupidity of this post and try to enjoy it as something to laugh at rather than get angry over.

I know nothing of astronomy, my knowlege of the subject consists of only shitty usually misinformed images im semi-knowledgeable in biology though, and that shits the tits despite being the lowest level of what i consider real science(fuck pych, thinking theyre not just bullshit)

apologies, more to the point. I've heard that theoretically, if you were viewing the universe from inside a black hole, you would see the universe from all time perspectives rather then in just the present. now as i've stated, i know dick about shit regarding anything outside of shit on earth BUT do you think what with time being relative and (if im not mistaken) the majority of black holes' properties being unknown, that black holes could be connected to the big bang or the "origin" of the universe.

(using this example because i can see the 1st image on thsi board is an hourglass. so maybe its kinda like the universe is an hourglass but the bottem of the hourglass is connected to the top (im gonna make some shitt ms paint right meow) with gravity removed from the equation thanks of black holes.

i dunno man, i hope you guys can decipher this post to some degree, as well as the image.Hope the ignorance is stupidity makes you laugh rather then become upset at my absurdity)
2 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Viktor Ambartsumian - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 01:53:50 EST ID:LovWryZQ No.54242 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No but I got a really high concept out of it.

Cosmic deities that sit on the other side of black holes, able to see the entire universe at once.

Sounds like something out of a fantasy lore generator
>>
Jocelyn Bell - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 04:34:54 EST ID:ruPFqd4c No.54245 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1407659694829.png -(16655B / 16.26KB, 291x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>mfw this thread
>>
Joseph-Louis Lagrange - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 05:08:11 EST ID:dL+21hmf No.54246 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1407661691630.jpg -(45078B / 44.02KB, 695x525) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>54245
im sober now and FUCK YOU FAGGOT, MAKE THAT FACE TO MY FACE BITCH


nb though kentucky gentlemen for days though
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 06:49:09 EST ID:Ar8ZIqLY No.54249 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1407667749477.jpg -(881989B / 861.32KB, 1024x1097) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Can no one else see that OP is clearly describing the universe as a Torus, a topological object that many scientists axually DO think the universe is shaped as?
>>
George Herbig - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 12:50:33 EST ID:NY5AqFwk No.54253 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54230
> inside a black hole, you would see the universe from all time perspectives rather then in just the present
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/blackholes.html#q11

> the majority of black holes' properties being unknown
The no-hair theorem states that black holes are fully characterized by mass, electric charge and angular momentum. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem, but also http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/black-holes-may-have-hair/

> black holes could be connected to the big bang
I don't think this is a meaningful idea.

> "origin" of the universe
The Big Bang model describes the ongoing metric expansion of space and shows that the universe long ago was hot and dense, but says nothing about its origin.


Reverse time travel by Karl Jansky - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 04:19:28 EST ID:415JX8nG No.54244 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1407658768897.jpg -(20059B / 19.59KB, 600x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 20059
Just another crack pot idea on time travel, this would not be able to send a concrete object back in time, just decay particles from weak nuclear interactions.

But in theory could it be possible to entangle a w or z boson at the points marked on the diagram? Since the weak force does not completely obey the arrow of time, would this phenomenon be exploitable in a relatively high mass environment? just to get time going faster to get more information to the past, I don't know the math of the weak force, but would being in a field of higher gravity also magnify the frequency of the bosons time line?

I guess you would have to entangle it before it even existed, which im not sure is possible, but why not? It's not like quantum mechanics makes perfect sense to anyone
>>
Fred Hoyle - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:48:32 EST ID:YOJeQJFe No.54250 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54244
The wavey line is just how you draw photons, w and z bosons. It has nothing to do with it not obeying causality or the arrow of time. I personally was taught to draw meak interactions as a dashed line, it makes no difference. These are just there to make it clear what is what, it does not represent the path of the particle.
>>
Fred Hoyle - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:49:08 EST ID:YOJeQJFe No.54251 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54250
>weak* interactions
>>
George Herbig - Sun, 10 Aug 2014 12:18:55 EST ID:NY5AqFwk No.54252 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54244
What Fred said. Also, what do you want to entangle it with? Nothing is interacting at the marked points.

It's interesting that you mentioned entangling a particle before it exists - the nonlocality of entanglement isn't limited to spacelike intervals, it can apply to timelike intervals as well - see http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156673-the-first-quantum-entanglement-of-photons-through-space-and-time.


Time as a function of total mass by Roger Penrose - Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:16:32 EST ID:415JX8nG No.54151 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1406186192412.jpg -(23102B / 22.56KB, 600x399) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 23102
I just had the idea that time becomes more consequential the smaller of an object you observe.
Many quantum effects have zero time dilation
Atomic effects have whatever incredibly small fraction of interaction with time
Molecular effects operate on the range of seconds
Macro objects and change over minutes
Large masses change over years
Stars change over thousands of years
Galaxies noticeably change over tens of thousand of years
Galaxy clusters interact over millions of years
and galactic clusters interact over billions of years.

Am I just high, or would their be a way to correlate the size of a defined system with the Einstein field equations?
7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
William Lassell - Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:14:33 EST ID:wT0xmtkP No.54180 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The smaller something is the less efficient its surface area to space occupied is (Not mass, The actual amount of space it occupies).
As such, Reactions are more likely to happen.

You can also add in the fundamental forces and the long distance behaviour. But that's just crazy complicated.
>>
William Lassell - Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:16:48 EST ID:wT0xmtkP No.54181 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also, As a side note, Just because noticeable change happens over a long period, does not at all effect the fact that change is constantly happening at the same rate.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:57:18 EST ID:Ar8ZIqLY No.54226 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54165
Doesn't M-Theory negate general relativity?
>>
William Fowler - Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:35:04 EST ID:b1iFE80O No.54228 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54226
No. Unified models seek to explain GR, not to negate it. This anyway is more a case for special relativity which is not going anywhere.
>>
Karl Swarzchild - Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:30:35 EST ID:ksAXy5yQ No.54285 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54226
Only in higher, more theoretical levels of multiverse.


<<Last Pages
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.