Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Weeeell, technically it's the current inflationary theory, but that title isn't as sexy. Basically this thread is how science is always wrong. Now, this is not a bad thing, and the misconceptions about such a state lead to some unfortunately silly assumptions and luddite dismissals of evidence.

For my first trick, I shall show you that the Big Bang was not, in fact, the beginning of the universe, and that we have found evidence for events that happened PRIOR. If these observations hold up it may be the single biggest discovery in cosmology since the background radiation itself.

Furthermore, Roger Penrose, a notorious scientific maverick and publisher of the above study, believes that all of our physics are wrong. He has worked with both Einstein and Stephen Hawking and is instrumental in the theories of black holes, black-body radiation, and the No Boundary Proposal, which theorized the very thing which he just found evidence for.

In less theoretical news, we may have re-gained a 9th planet for our solar system, a distant planet larger than Jupiter that is chucking snowballs at the inner solar system. The existence of such a body, so far from the sun, and whose path would create such a stirring in the Oort cloud may redefine how we think of the formation of solar systems all together. It had been theorized before that a small red-dwarf companion star was to blame, but the math didn't fit... however, it would appear that we were very close to living in a binary system, considering it is somewhat likely that the Oort cloud and this Jovian planet could just as easily have combined forces to create another star for us to gaze upon (though likely smaller, cooler and much dimmer).

Also, speaking of stars, recent observations have basically tossed out our ideas of how large a star needs to be to create a black hole when it goes supernova. We now basically have zero clue how marginal-mass black holes actually form.

Now many people like to use examples like this as reasons to doubt science and insert their own, unfounded beliefs as fact into discussions on anything ranging from Evolution, to climate change to geocentrism. Newton was an avid student of Alchemy, which didn't happen to be viable... does that make his calculus any less amazing? His laws of gravitation were shown to be false by Einstein, but we still use it because it's close enough for government work and the math is easier.

All science is wrong. All science was more wrong yesterday and will be less wrong tomorrow. That does not mean that unscientific ideas are right.

And, since we're talking about stars, here's a picture of the surface of ours:

that dark spot (sunspot) on the lower right hand side... that's the size of the earth. Yeah.

Link to the full-size pic. <-- You'll wanna click that.

Fuck you Ravariel, for playing on public misconceptions of the Big Bang. The Big Bang's greatest focus has and always will be the motherfucking shape of the universe. We observed that the universe is expanding in an explosion like manner, and deduced that all of the universe had been compacted to a small part prior but had then exploded.

"Omg there was something before the Big Bang the theory is all wrong and there never was a big bang"

No it's not.

jk, I did read more than just the title. Interesting read.

This doesn't mean that ALL science is wrong, dummy!
Infact it's not a "wrong" of science, it's now an improvement because we understand more..
It's a good thing for the scientific community.

Physics still applies at universal level, even if there is more than one universe (which I had believed for some time now).

At 11/30/10 09:59 AM, Ravariel wrote: For my first trick, I shall show you that the Big Bang was not, in fact, the beginning of the universe, and that we have found evidence for events that happened PRIOR. If these observations hold up it may be the single biggest discovery in cosmology since the background radiation itself.

huh, interesting. although last time i heard about gravitational waves being searched for, it was to prove something else about the Big Bang (thanks for confusing me Discovery channel!).

In less theoretical news, we may have re-gained a 9th planet for our solar system, a distant planet larger than Jupiter that is chucking snowballs at the inner solar system.

while we're on the topic of Oort clouds and the outer solar system; Eris, the planet that helped demote Pluto, may in fact be smaller than Pluto rather than its larger cousin. (not that this will promote either of them from dwarf-panets but the more you don't know!)

Also, speaking of stars, recent observations have basically tossed out our ideas of how large a star needs to be to create a black hole when it goes supernova. We now basically have zero clue how marginal-mass black holes actually form.

damned!

All science is wrong. All science was more wrong yesterday and will be less wrong tomorrow. That does not mean that unscientific ideas are right.

well there is always the possibility it will be more wrong tomorrow, but hopefully it'll reright itself sooner or later.

Link to the full-size pic. <-- You'll wanna click that.

imma go rol... i mean study, and then have me a look at that.

I seem to hear an amazing space discovery that "threatens to change everything we know about X" like every week...

Testament to how little we know about space, or to how sensationalist news reporting is?
OR BOOOTTHHHHH???

The Big Bang probably wasn't the start of the universe but it did happen, probably more then once. Eventually everything will push together because of gravity. Too much in one place, all trying to push in on each other, and bam, you got the Big Bang.

I dont even know what your saying

please sum up what you mean in a sentenace using small words I understand

I say the big bang theory is too socialist, We need more free-market Cosmology. And no multyversal healthcare bills crammed down our throughts, and no new space taxes either, and... uh... black hole cap and trade?

This is a politics forum after all.

Joke Thread? I don't know.

Oh well, just to play it safe. The big bang refers to the expansion and development of the very early universe, not the cause of it.

Just to play it extra safe, very amusing thread.

At 11/30/10 10:52 AM, SohlTofang wrote: This doesn't mean that ALL science is wrong, dummy!

Yeah, it does. In no area of science are we at the end of possible knowledge. In all areas our understanding, ability, and theories can be improved, thus lowering the amount of "wrongness" in each.

Infact it's not a "wrong" of science, it's now an improvement because we understand more..
It's a good thing for the scientific community.

............indeed..... :)

Physics still applies at universal level, even if there is more than one universe (which I had believed for some time now).

What physics? String theory? Because that's had issues for a while. Quantum Mechanics? Just look at Schrodinger's cat for why there are issues with macro-level implications for those. And Relativity has issues once you get to the micro scale. None really work for all

At 11/30/10 03:30 PM, darkrchaos wrote: The Big Bang probably wasn't the start of the universe but it did happen, probably more then once. Eventually everything will push together because of gravity. Too much in one place, all trying to push in on each other, and bam, you got the Big Bang.

Uh, just because a previous iteration of the universe collapsed (or a part of it did... just because there are echoes of events prior to the Big Bang, doesn't mean that this iteration will end in a crunch. In fact, current observational data has the expansion of the universe accelerating. Unless there is some other force at work, this does not bode well for crunching anytime in the future.

At 11/30/10 04:26 PM, yonokowhat wrote: I dont even know what your saying

please sum up what you mean in a sentenace using small words I understand

Sorry, no can do. I have put it in as plain of language as I can. Unless you want me to go over every facet of cosmology and macro-scale physics, which this topic is not about. If it interests you I would suggest picking up A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. It'll give you a good starting point for the issues under discussion.

At 11/30/10 05:17 PM, The-universe wrote: Joke Thread? I don't know.

Oh well, just to play it safe. The big bang refers to the expansion and development of the very early universe, not the cause of it.

Just to play it extra safe, very amusing thread.

Um... did you actually read the post, or just the title? Including links?

At 11/30/10 09:59 AM, Ravariel wrote: Weeeell, technically it's the current inflationary theory, but that title isn't as sexy. Basically this thread is how science is always wrong. Now, this is not a bad thing, and the misconceptions about such a state lead to some unfortunately silly assumptions and luddite dismissals of evidence.

For my first trick, I shall show you that the Big Bang was not, in fact, the beginning of the universe, and that we have found evidence for events that happened PRIOR. If these observations hold up it may be the single biggest discovery in cosmology since the background radiation itself.

It was the beginning of the Universe, but again science is like wikipedia, its always changing. This by no way at all disproves the Big Bang Theory

Furthermore, Roger Penrose, a notorious scientific maverick and publisher of the above study, believes that all of our physics are wrong. He has worked with both Einstein and Stephen Hawking and is instrumental in the theories of black holes, black-body radiation, and the No Boundary Proposal, which theorized the very thing which he just found evidence for.

He didn't say all of our physics are wrong, he said there's a factor we don't know about yet.

In less theoretical news, we may have re-gained a 9th planet for our solar system, a distant planet larger than Jupiter that is chucking snowballs at the inner solar system. The existence of such a body, so far from the sun, and whose path would create such a stirring in the Oort cloud may redefine how we think of the formation of solar systems all together. It had been theorized before that a small red-dwarf companion star was to blame, but the math didn't fit... however, it would appear that we were very close to living in a binary system, considering it is somewhat likely that the Oort cloud and this Jovian planet could just as easily have combined forces to create another star for us to gaze upon (though likely smaller, cooler and much dimmer).

Its hard to tell when you're just viewing it from one side of the system

All science is wrong. All science was more wrong yesterday and will be less wrong tomorrow. That does not mean that unscientific ideas are right.

You point to examples in Astronomy, you don't point to anything else. You're just pointing to something we are handicapped in studying because we're on a planet in a random solar system, not say the center of the Universe or more viewpoints then one. Not to mention we're constantly moving.

Look at Biology, because we have microscopes we can watch what goes on and know for sure what happens.

At 11/30/10 07:49 PM, Warforger wrote: It was the beginning of the Universe, but again science is like wikipedia, its always changing. This by no way at all disproves the Big Bang Theory

Not yet, and I never said it did. I meant what I wrote. Read carefully :)

He didn't say all of our physics are wrong, he said there's a factor we don't know about yet.

Which means our current explanations are incomplete, and thus incorrect.

Its hard to tell when you're just viewing it from one side of the system

Huh? I have no idea what you're saying here.

You point to examples in Astronomy, you don't point to anything else. You're just pointing to something we are handicapped in studying because we're on a planet in a random solar system, not say the center of the Universe or more viewpoints then one. Not to mention we're constantly moving.

A) "center" is relative. There is no geometric center of the universe. All points are moving away from each other equally. Think of a (spherical) balloon, where spacetime is the surface of the balloon, and a "force" (the air) is what creates the expansion. What point on that sphere is the "center"? Hint: the answer is "none".

B) You seem to be suggesting that if we were in a different location the observable universe would be acting differently and thus be giving us more (or fewer) answers. Is that an accurate assessment of your statement and if so, what evidence do you have for this?

C) How does our motion effect observation and physics?

Look at Biology, because we have microscopes we can watch what goes on and know for sure what happens.

:D <-- awesome face. One piece of bait: taken! Don't feel bad, I was waiting for someone to go there.

We actually know quite little about how biology works. We know a lot, but we cannot yet even build simple simulations of how simple biological systems work. Hormones and neurotransmitters and cell:cell interactions during growth and the differentiation of cells during foetal development. These are all huge mysteries in biology. If they weren't, we could reverse-engineer a brain-like computer, running massively in parallel that could out-pace our current computers by several orders of magnitude without any advance in technology. We could re-grow spinal cords from stem cells made from a person's skin and fix paralysis, and medicine would be perfect. We know so little about biology, how aspirin works in the body is still a bit of a mystery.

Our ideas about biology, evolution, chemistry.... they're all wrong. They're right enough to work as well as we can make them work now, but not nearly as well as nature, an unintelligent, randomized system can make them work.

I picked astronomy not because it has the most mysteries, but because it's a pet brain fetish of mine and because it's flashy and gave me an excuse to post that pic of the sun. Just for kicks, here's another one. Care to take a gander at what that dot on the top right is?

Link to full-size.

Haha Rav, you're so silly.

Behold:

At 11/30/10 08:47 PM, Ravariel wrote: Link to full-size.

those round earthers want us to believe we wouldn't be able to see the remnants of the lunar landings from earth but then they put out stuff like this showing the space station and ship and expect us not to see how theres no contradiction in seeing it orbit the sun in such detail!

i mean come on; they didn't even bother scaling it to their imagined sizes!

At 11/30/10 09:08 PM, poxpower wrote: Haha Rav, you're so silly.

Behold:

Also true.

Funny, that. :D

Was that a picture of a ginger's bush?

At 11/30/10 08:47 PM, Ravariel wrote: A) "center" is relative. There is no geometric center of the universe. All points are moving away from each other equally. Think of a (spherical) balloon, where spacetime is the surface of the balloon, and a "force" (the air) is what creates the expansion. What point on that sphere is the "center"? Hint: the answer is "none".

As far as we can tell the galaxy is a sort of flattened , therefore there can be a center which is theorized to be a black hole

B) You seem to be suggesting that if we were in a different location the observable universe would be acting differently and thus be giving us more (or fewer) answers. Is that an accurate assessment of your statement and if so, what evidence do you have for this?

Yes. We are on the edge of a galaxy with many things blocking our viewpoint of everything along with everything being too small for us to comprehend whats going on exactly.

Here's what I mean

http://blueollie.files.wordpress.com/200 9/03/you_are_here_galaxy.jpg

From that location, could you tell whats going on accurately in the rest of it?

I picked astronomy not because it has the most mysteries, but because it's a pet brain fetish of mine and because it's flashy and gave me an excuse to post that pic of the sun. Just for kicks, here's another one. Care to take a gander at what that dot on the top right is?

Link to full-size.

The ISS Atlantis?

At 11/30/10 01:26 PM, poxpower wrote: I seem to hear an amazing space discovery that "threatens to change everything we know about X" like every week...

Next time you're at the newsagency, check out the cover of New Scientist. It's this exact shit every single week.

At 11/30/10 09:41 PM, JoS wrote: Was that a picture of a ginger's bush?

Goddammit, now I can't see anything else. >_I.S.S. and the Space Shuttle Atlantis... about to dock... in front of the goddamn sun.

At 12/1/10 05:40 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: I don't have the time for an in-depth analysis, but that won't stop me from nitpicking.

Whoo boy. You missed the point something fierce. This may be futile but I'll give it the old college try. You're still new here and have yet to tango with me, but let me give you a hint: I come at my points sideways, from angles that make you think I'm talking about something else, and that seem, to the quick and assumptive reader to be actually counter to the true point, but is actually supporting of it. This is done for a couple of reasons; to teach, to inspire discussion, to ignite thought and contemplation, and as a literary device.

So God created the universe with his left toe fungus and throwing shit at a fan causes pigs to fly? That's what would happen if science were always wrong.

So you're saying Newton's gravity is correct in all cases? And that we know everything there is to know about all aspects of science? Because that's the only way for science to be "right".

1. the Big bang happened billions of years ago. Unless they have an exact time at which the big bang took place, and/or a time machine, there's no way to prove that that came first.

Um, you may want to read that again, and also brush up on your physics. Ripples in the background radiation could not have (easily) been formed during expansion, but rather would only occur from an event prior to the original expansion.

2. No one's saying the big bang was the START of the universe, it is merely the start of the expanding nature OF the universe.

Current Inflationary Theory states that the big bang was the start of time itself, ergo "before" is a meaningless word. Penrose and Hawking only recently (relatively) brought forth the No Boundary Proposal which posits a second dimension of time at right angle to the time we observe that would allow for the inflation we observe and the singularity at the beginning to simply be another point in spacetime, and not the ultimate beginning of it. It solves some other issues with Inflationary theory, too, such as contraction making time run backwards 'n' stuff.

This is the first time observational evidence has been recorded that supports that theory.

3. You really think that after billions of years in space, the evidence will be COMPLETELY untainted?

In this case: yes. There are still issues of observational anomalies, but it has been observed through multiple telescopes, so the issue is not mechanical. Is it 100% proof that their theory is 100% correct? No. Their theory is wrong, too. We just don't yet know by how much.

So according to what's-his-face, since gravity is part of phisics, it must be wrong, ergo, I can fly.

Gravity is a force, not science, but go ahead and try. Maybe you'll teach us something new about gravity that we can use to make our science less wrong.

I'm no science whiz, but isn't having a flawed theory better than having no clue whatsoever? I mean, in this case, we already know that there IS a relationship between supernovas and black holes. Why not explore it?

Wherever did I say we shouldn't explore it? Or that less wrong was worse than more wrong?

Wait, I'm confused, are you advocating Geocentrism or denouncing Evolution? Because you mentioned them in the same manner.

Merely topics upon which a lot of non-science is used as fact. Not claiming all have equal relationship to those uses.

W8, so you're saying that Newton, Keppler, Einstein, all these great, wise men were wrong, but the unknown brit is right?

He's only right in that we're wrong. His theories are wrong, too.

Wow, attacking both intellectuals and evangelicals in one line. Why do I get the feeling you're gonna make alot of enemies?

Only those for whom I have broken this topic. I broke it on purpose, so that those who were able to understand it, could come in and have a cool discussion about science, skepticism and the path of knowledge, and that those unable to understand it would think I was denouncing all of science. Now that I've given you some more hints as to my true point, where do you stand? And are you willing to drop the flamethrower and learn?

Goddammit, somehow my post got borked and erased this middle part. Let's try this again.

At 11/30/10 09:51 PM, Warforger wrote: As far as we can tell the galaxy is a sort of flattened , therefore there can be a center which is theorized to be a black hole

Well, the balloon metaphor was merely for illustrative purposes, and I'm afraid you're wrong about a black hole center of the universe. That would imply that it is the matter moving away from the center through spacetime instead of spacetime itself expanding and bringing the matter along with it. This is not correct for one very simple reason: all motion recorded between galaxies is equal relative to the distance between those galaxies. If a galaxy is X light years away it will be moving away from us at Y speed, no matter which direction we look. If matter was moving through space, away from a central point, we would be moving away from that point at a faster rate, relative to the distance between, than a point equidistant in the opposite direction. This is observationally 100% not the case.

Yes. We are on the edge of a galaxy with many things blocking our viewpoint of everything along with everything being too small for us to comprehend whats going on exactly.
From that location, could you tell whats going on accurately in the rest of it?

Actually yes. That illustration is a bit misleading. Most of that big dusty bright galaxy is, in fact, dark, empty space. There is not much matter at all between us and the rest of our galaxy (relative to the distances involved anyway), and as we have taken pictures of galaxies over 13 billion light years away, observing the behavior of planets in our own galaxy is simple by comparison.

The ISS Atlantis?

Actually the I.S.S. and the Space Shuttle Atlantis... about to dock... in front of the goddamn sun.

Yeah. My brain gets blown a bit every time I see that pic.

At 11/30/10 10:52 AM, SohlTofang wrote: This doesn't mean that ALL science is wrong, dummy!
Infact it's not a "wrong" of science, it's now an improvement because we understand more..
It's a good thing for the scientific community.

Physics still applies at universal level, even if there is more than one universe (which I had believed for some time now).

Actually he's correct. If you look at the history of science you'll see that science is about progress, and learning that everything we know today is...well...wrong.

Look at physics.

Newton's theories replaced earlier ideas by the likes of Aristotle and Copernicus. Then Einstein comes along and guess what? Newtonian physics is now seen as erroneous.

Someday someone will come along to replace Einstein's understanding.

I mean look at quantum physics. Things at that level don't work the way they work at the macro level...even forces like electro-magnetic ones and gravity.

So as we are better able to "see" how things work at the sub-sub-sub-sub-atomic level...we find out just how wrong we were yesterday.

Also I think Rav's point that just because science is continously being refined through the correction of erroneous theories and false/wrong assumptions doesn't mean that we should ignore scientific reasoning and explanations. Furthermore, this does not mean that things that are today beyond science's ability to explain (or even comprehend) are proof of the supernatural.

(Did I nail it Rav?)

i find this post highly amusing... people arguing over theory and calling things wrong when there is not enough evidence to point to anything substantial...

the big bang theory could be wrong... or it could be right... given the distance between us and other star systems we can not be certain that what we chart as movement is correct because we would need to observe from several locations very far apart to make a solid statement... kinda like when you triangulate a position of a radio broadcast...

as far as people arguing over physics and other math on a macro level... this is still a new field in the timeline of science and has loads of headroom for people to advance the field... i am sure if newton had access to an atomic microscope he would have known he was wrong...

saying science is always wrong is a very crooked way of looking at things though... well, crooked to most people who look at science not as a constant but humankind improving (or destroying) our way of understanding...

in other news... nasa has a big finding to announce on the second... it is thought to be that they discovered some form of life on Hartley 2 because it is the astrobiology department who is making the announcment... there is the possibility that they found living bacteria being ejected from the comet.

At 12/1/10 08:43 AM, TheMason wrote: (Did I nail it Rav?)

In one. >:D

At 11/30/10 08:47 PM, Ravariel wrote: Care to take a gander at what that dot on the top right is?

It's a.... holy shit its a Y-Wing! oh man that means all my studies and attempts to make a working light sabre might not be in vain!

this thread is dumb

I agree-ish

Yes science improves doesnt make it shit because its the reason why Im not dead and gunna be able to get a job so your basicly just syaing I should just die which i do not like

At 12/1/10 09:41 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/30/10 08:47 PM, Ravariel wrote: Care to take a gander at what that dot on the top right is?

It's a.... holy shit its a Y-Wing! oh man that means all my studies and attempts to make a working light sabre might not be in vain!

Actually we're already almost done inventing light sabres

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/
socom_plasma_blades/

At 12/1/10 06:49 PM, Warforger wrote:

Actually we're already almost done inventing light sabres

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/
socom_plasma_blades/

junk science.

*goes back to toying with crystals and Duracell batteries*

At 12/1/10 04:06 PM, yonokowhat wrote: I agree-ish

Yes science improves doesnt make it shit because its the reason why Im not dead and gunna be able to get a job so your basicly just syaing I should just die which i do not like

Actually...the OP's point is NOT that science is "shit" because it is not perfect. Instead his point is we should not throw out scientific theories because they are inheriently flawed in favor of supernatural belief systems.

At 12/2/10 04:20 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually...the OP's point is NOT that science is "shit" because it is not perfect. Instead his point is we should not throw out scientific theories because they are inheriently flawed in favor of supernatural belief systems.

Actually it's a little bit broader and more fundamental than even that. I always hesitate to state a point quite so... explicitly... but I think it might help the conversation continue from here so here it is:

You are correct, that is part of my point, but more fundamentally my point is that knowing that our theories are wrong (incomplete, untestable due to technological limitations, etc) actually makes them stronger. By knowing that our ideas are incomplete, and by testing, re-testing, questioning and observing to try and find the wrong bits, any idea in science will, by definition, be a stronger, and more correct idea (omg, paradox, both wrong and right!?) than any idea not backed up by those assumptions of incompleteness and wrongness (and here's the important part) even if the unscientific idea is more factually/objectively correct than the scientific one.

we'll ignore the issues of objective realities and "truths" for now