dad
Undefeated
If you repeat like a parrot..get ready for the cracker thing.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
If you repeat like a parrot..get ready for the cracker thing.
Astrophile
Active Member
According to https://obscarnegiescience.edu/PAST/m31var , the first Cepheid variable in the Andromeda galaxy (M31) was discovered by Edwin Hubble on the night of 5/6 October 1923, not in 1929.
None.
dad
Undefeated
If we are talk8ng about the basis of parallax measure .. The first one. If we are talking about cut and paste spam repetition stemming from a defeated position, then the second one.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
What is the speed of dark? - Steven Wright
Back to real science: 'Einstein's Biggest Blunder' May Have Finally Been Fixed | Live Science
'Einstein's Biggest Blunder' May Have Finally Been Fixed
By Tim Childers - Live Science Contributor 13 hours ago Space
The cosmological constant has plagued physicists for more than a century.
There is a fundamental problem in physics.
A single number, called the cosmological constant, bridges the microscopic world of quantum mechanics and the macroscopic world of Einstein's theory of general relativity. But neither theory can agree on its value.
In fact, there's such a huge discrepancy between the observed value of this constant and what theory predicts that it is widely considered the worst prediction in the history of physics. Resolving the discrepancy may be the most important goal of theoretical physics this century.
Lucas Lombriser, an assistant professor of theoretical physics at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, has introduced a new way of evaluating Albert Einstein's equations of gravity to find a value for the cosmological constant that closely matches its observed value. He published his method online in the Oct. 10 issue of the journal Physics Letters B.
How Einstein's biggest blunder became dark energy
The story of the cosmological constant began more than a century ago when Einstein presented a set of equations, now known as the Einstein field equations, that became the framework of his theory of general relativity. The equations explain how matter and energy warp the fabric of space and time to create the force of gravity. At the time, both Einstein and astronomers agreed that the universe was fixed in size and that the overall space between galaxies did not change. However, when Einstein applied general relativity to the universe as a whole, his theory predicted an unstable universe that would either expand or contract. To force the universe to be static, Einstein tacked on the cosmological constant.
Nearly a decade later, another physicist, Edwin Hubble, discovered that our universe is not static, but expanding. The light from distant galaxies showed they were all moving away from each other. This revelation persuaded Einstein to abandon the cosmological constant from his field equations as it was no longer necessary to explain an expanding universe. Physics lore has it that Einstein later confessed that his introduction of the cosmological constant was perhaps his greatest blunder.
In 1998, observations of distant supernovas showed the universe wasn't just expanding, but the expansion was speeding up. Galaxies were accelerating away from each other as if some unknown force was overcoming gravity and shoving those galaxies apart. Physicists have named this enigmatic phenomenon dark energy, as its true nature remains a mystery.
In a twist of irony, physicists once again reintroduced the cosmological constant into Einstein's field equations to account for dark energy. In the current standard model of cosmology, known as ΛCDM (Lambda CDM), the cosmological constant is interchangeable with dark energy. Astronomers have even estimated its value based on observations of distant supernovas and fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. Although the value is absurdly small (on the order of 10^-52 per square meter), over the scale of the universe, it is significant enough to explain the accelerated expansion of space.
"The cosmological constant [or dark energy] currently constitutes about 70% of the energy content in our universe, which is what we can infer from the observed accelerated expansion that our universe is presently undergoing. Yet this constant is not understood," Lombriser said. "Attempts to explain it have failed, and there seems to be something fundamental that we are missing in how we understand the cosmos. Unraveling this puzzle is one of the major research areas in modern physics. It is generally anticipated that resolving the issue may lead us to a more fundamental understanding of physics."
Related: 8 Ways You Can See Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in Real Life
The worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics
The cosmological constant is thought to represent what physicists call "vacuum energy." Quantum-field theory states that even in a completely empty vacuum of space, virtual particles pop in and out of existence and create energy — a seemingly absurd idea, but one that has been observed experimentally. The problem arises when physicists attempt to calculate its contribution to the cosmological constant. Their result differs from observations by a mind-boggling factor of 10^121 (that's 10 followed by 120 zeroes), the largest discrepancy between theory and experiment in all of physics.
Such a disparity has caused some physicists to doubt Einstein's original equations of gravity; some have even suggested alternative models of gravity. However, further evidence of gravitational waves by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) have only strengthened general relativity and dismissed many of these alternative theories. Which is why instead of rethinking gravity, Lombriser took a different approach to solve this cosmic puzzle.
"The mechanism I propose does not modify Einstein's field equations," Lombriser said. Instead, "it adds an additional equation on top of Einstein's field equations."
The gravitational constant, which was first used in Isaac Newton's laws of gravityand now an essential part of Einstein's field equations, describes the magnitude of the gravitational force between objects. It is considered one of the fundamental constants of physics, eternally unchanged since the beginning of the universe. Lombriser has made the dramatic assumption that this constant can change.
In Lombriser's modification of general relativity, the gravitational constant remains the same within our observable universe but may vary beyond it. He suggests a multiverse scenario where there may be patches of the universe invisible to us that have different values for the fundamental constants.
This variation of gravity gave Lombriser an additional equation that relates the cosmological constant to the average sum of matter across space-time. After he accounted for the estimated mass of all the galaxies, stars and dark matter of the universe, he could solve that new equation to obtain a new value for the cosmological constant — one that closely agrees with observations.
Using a new parameter, ΩΛ (omega lambda), that expresses the fraction of the universe made of dark matter, he found the universe is made up of about 74% dark energy. This number closely matches the value of 68.5% estimated from observations — a tremendous improvement over the huge disparity found by quantum field theory.
Although Lombriser's framework might solve the cosmological constant problem, there’s currently no way to test it. But in the future, if experiments from other theories validate his equations, it could mean a major leap in our understanding of dark energy and provide a tool to solve other cosmic mysteries.
'Einstein's Biggest Blunder' May Have Finally Been Fixed
By Tim Childers - Live Science Contributor 13 hours ago Space
The cosmological constant has plagued physicists for more than a century.
There is a fundamental problem in physics.
A single number, called the cosmological constant, bridges the microscopic world of quantum mechanics and the macroscopic world of Einstein's theory of general relativity. But neither theory can agree on its value.
In fact, there's such a huge discrepancy between the observed value of this constant and what theory predicts that it is widely considered the worst prediction in the history of physics. Resolving the discrepancy may be the most important goal of theoretical physics this century.
Lucas Lombriser, an assistant professor of theoretical physics at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, has introduced a new way of evaluating Albert Einstein's equations of gravity to find a value for the cosmological constant that closely matches its observed value. He published his method online in the Oct. 10 issue of the journal Physics Letters B.
How Einstein's biggest blunder became dark energy
The story of the cosmological constant began more than a century ago when Einstein presented a set of equations, now known as the Einstein field equations, that became the framework of his theory of general relativity. The equations explain how matter and energy warp the fabric of space and time to create the force of gravity. At the time, both Einstein and astronomers agreed that the universe was fixed in size and that the overall space between galaxies did not change. However, when Einstein applied general relativity to the universe as a whole, his theory predicted an unstable universe that would either expand or contract. To force the universe to be static, Einstein tacked on the cosmological constant.
Nearly a decade later, another physicist, Edwin Hubble, discovered that our universe is not static, but expanding. The light from distant galaxies showed they were all moving away from each other. This revelation persuaded Einstein to abandon the cosmological constant from his field equations as it was no longer necessary to explain an expanding universe. Physics lore has it that Einstein later confessed that his introduction of the cosmological constant was perhaps his greatest blunder.
In 1998, observations of distant supernovas showed the universe wasn't just expanding, but the expansion was speeding up. Galaxies were accelerating away from each other as if some unknown force was overcoming gravity and shoving those galaxies apart. Physicists have named this enigmatic phenomenon dark energy, as its true nature remains a mystery.
In a twist of irony, physicists once again reintroduced the cosmological constant into Einstein's field equations to account for dark energy. In the current standard model of cosmology, known as ΛCDM (Lambda CDM), the cosmological constant is interchangeable with dark energy. Astronomers have even estimated its value based on observations of distant supernovas and fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. Although the value is absurdly small (on the order of 10^-52 per square meter), over the scale of the universe, it is significant enough to explain the accelerated expansion of space.
"The cosmological constant [or dark energy] currently constitutes about 70% of the energy content in our universe, which is what we can infer from the observed accelerated expansion that our universe is presently undergoing. Yet this constant is not understood," Lombriser said. "Attempts to explain it have failed, and there seems to be something fundamental that we are missing in how we understand the cosmos. Unraveling this puzzle is one of the major research areas in modern physics. It is generally anticipated that resolving the issue may lead us to a more fundamental understanding of physics."
Related: 8 Ways You Can See Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in Real Life
The worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics
The cosmological constant is thought to represent what physicists call "vacuum energy." Quantum-field theory states that even in a completely empty vacuum of space, virtual particles pop in and out of existence and create energy — a seemingly absurd idea, but one that has been observed experimentally. The problem arises when physicists attempt to calculate its contribution to the cosmological constant. Their result differs from observations by a mind-boggling factor of 10^121 (that's 10 followed by 120 zeroes), the largest discrepancy between theory and experiment in all of physics.
Such a disparity has caused some physicists to doubt Einstein's original equations of gravity; some have even suggested alternative models of gravity. However, further evidence of gravitational waves by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) have only strengthened general relativity and dismissed many of these alternative theories. Which is why instead of rethinking gravity, Lombriser took a different approach to solve this cosmic puzzle.
"The mechanism I propose does not modify Einstein's field equations," Lombriser said. Instead, "it adds an additional equation on top of Einstein's field equations."
The gravitational constant, which was first used in Isaac Newton's laws of gravityand now an essential part of Einstein's field equations, describes the magnitude of the gravitational force between objects. It is considered one of the fundamental constants of physics, eternally unchanged since the beginning of the universe. Lombriser has made the dramatic assumption that this constant can change.
In Lombriser's modification of general relativity, the gravitational constant remains the same within our observable universe but may vary beyond it. He suggests a multiverse scenario where there may be patches of the universe invisible to us that have different values for the fundamental constants.
This variation of gravity gave Lombriser an additional equation that relates the cosmological constant to the average sum of matter across space-time. After he accounted for the estimated mass of all the galaxies, stars and dark matter of the universe, he could solve that new equation to obtain a new value for the cosmological constant — one that closely agrees with observations.
Using a new parameter, ΩΛ (omega lambda), that expresses the fraction of the universe made of dark matter, he found the universe is made up of about 74% dark energy. This number closely matches the value of 68.5% estimated from observations — a tremendous improvement over the huge disparity found by quantum field theory.
Although Lombriser's framework might solve the cosmological constant problem, there’s currently no way to test it. But in the future, if experiments from other theories validate his equations, it could mean a major leap in our understanding of dark energy and provide a tool to solve other cosmic mysteries.
dad
Undefeated
Gong
gnostic
The Lost One
You still don’t understand basic science.
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation, like a draft paper, not an accepted explanation. The only requirement for a hypothesis is that the explanation must be “falsifiable”.
The hypothesis hasn’t been accepted or rejected yet, because you probably have started testing yet, or it is still undergoing testing.
Falsifiability means that the hypothesis have the potential of being tested.
A hypothesis isn’t science (eg to reach the status of “Scientific Theory”), because it require to pass 2 other requirements, (A) the testing stage (plus analysis of the evidence or test results) of Scientific Method, and (B) the Peer Review.
The actual testing in Scientific Method, will determine if the hypothesis is -
- “true” and “probable”, hence “verified”
- or is “false” and “improbable”, hence “refuted”.
Anyway, Abiogenesis isn’t science or a accepted scientific theory. Abiogenesis is still a falsifiable and working hypothesis, but haven’t been fully and rigorously tested; meaning, it needs more evidence before it is rejected as improbable or accepted as probable.
So “No, shmogie”, Abiogenesis isn’t true, because it is still undergoing testing as a hypothesis.
Second, and lastly, science doesn’t prove or disprove any hypothesis. Again, you don’t understand science. Science test a potential hypothesis or the current theory through observations, eg observation are either evidence or experiment, any data that can be obtained from the evidence or experiment (eg data such as measurements, quantities, etc).
Proving means constructing a logical mathematical model or finding a mathematical solution (proof), and these models often come in forms of equations, formulas or constants.
Science is more than just equations and numbers. Science relies on evidence and observation, something that can observe, quantify, measure, compare, test or verify/refute.
You are confusing proof with evidence. Scientists test, refute or verify a hypothesis, mathematicians prove or disprove equations.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I understand all of this. What the scientific method is is not my point.
I have run into many highly intelligent atheists, many in this forum, who believe and say that abiogenesis is fact. Some believe their is extant enough evidence to make it so, some believe, in essence, quoting Sherlock Holmes, whenever the impossibles have been eliminated, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
The purity and proper scientific terms and procedures are not in play.
We are talking about a belief based in faith. Tell them so, and they say science is not based in faith.
I would think your post would be better addressed to them. According to your post, they are believers in science, that use itś name in vain.
gnostic
The Lost One
Why do you bringing up atheists?
That you are using atheists about Abiogenesis, just show you are stereotyping and using strawman.
The point is that no hypothesis is accepted as true by default.
What is true or fact, is determine by the evidence and observation.
Some evidence and experiments have already been tested with Abiogenesis, but more evidence and tests are required, and more works need to be done, before this hypothesis can become fact.
Abiogenesis hasn’t reached that stage yet, the evidence we do have now, showed that scientists are heading in the right direction, because these observations have met some of the requirements of Abiogenesis predictions.
Abiogenesis isn’t science yet, but so far it is currently the only hypothesis that is testable, and therefore falsifiable.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
This is and odd claim. There is plenty of evidence that abiogenesis happened. In other words, there is evidence that life started on this planet and we have evidence of approximately when that happened and how life developed afterwards. What we don't have is a tested theory of how it happened. It's a gap in our scientific understanding of the history of Earth.
I guess theists who favour the "Incredible Shrinking God of the Gaps" could claim that life was magicked into existence by their god at that time, but the existence of a gap in science doesn't actually make that sort of thing any more believable. Anybody who offers an explanation for how it happened has to provide reasons why they think other people should take it seriously.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Correct, I have no quarrel with that.
You have evidence of what and where. As a retired criminal investigator, those are important in building a case.
Without how and perhaps who, there is no case, and without truly valuable evidence, it sinks to the level of unsolvable.
I never brought up the creationist view, why did you ?
We are discussing the natural and happenstance of a living organism being created by the unknown combinations of chemicals, in an unknown way, to produce an unknown organism.
So, all the reasons why people think this occurred, fail. They have faith.
Scientific verbiage is dazzling, wonderful smoke and mirrors, but in the end it totally fails.
It is a myth to this point, with not enough evidence to even come close to establishing it. It fills no gaps.
I keep abreast as much as I can with current abiogenesis research, because I know if it can be reasonably established I will have to change part of my world view.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Faith in what? I have no idea how it happened - why do I need faith in anything?
Why would an unknown be a significant part of your world view?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
The point being that abiogenesis is far from being falsifiable.
Many atheist believers in abiogenesis are coming to the point where they believe the bio chemical approach is the wrong track. The track that has been accepted for a century.
They find that the cumulative odds at each step of the process make it virtually impossible. They are becoming vocal in the abiogenesis research field.
They are looking for something else as a way to abiogenesis.
We will see, or not as, the years dictate and we are limited individually by them.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
An unk
Just as one appears to be part of your world view.
It happened you say. I assume you deny creation by God, so currently you de facto accept biogenesis.
You don't need faith in anything. Whether you have faith, or not, whether you care or not, you are limited to abiogenesis.
An unknown is not part of my world view. A scientifically falsifiable factor would be described by you as part of my world view.
Just as one appears to be part of your world view.
It happened you say. I assume you deny creation by God, so currently you de facto accept biogenesis.
You don't need faith in anything. Whether you have faith, or not, whether you care or not, you are limited to abiogenesis.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Eh? What is falsifiable?
I really don't know what you mean. None of the many unknowns in science are a significant part of my world view. Interesting you me? Yes - but that's about it.
We have evidence that life started on Earth at a particular point in time, yes.
Meh. I don't regard something that somebody may refer to as "god" (or "gods") as impossible - I just see no reason at all to take the idea seriously. Even if it was something that is totally outside of currently known science (which is also possible), it's a big leap to "god".
I just don't know how life started - neither does anybody else. I don't need faith and I don't see why it should be at all significant to my "world view".
Limited? I have no idea what you even mean by that - as I said, I just don't know how life started.
ecco
Veteran Member
dad
Undefeated
Tripe.
Not sure if you have a grasp of what time and space is, and how millions of years of time for light travel involves time existing out there? Ha.