Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum


Go Back   Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum > Deep Space Tracking Station > A Matter of Balance

Notices

SPONSORED BY
&

Reply Bookmark and Share
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 24-09-2008, 01:08 PM   #1
eurosector
Astrophysics Technician
 
eurosector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: mirrored-Earth
Posts: 255
Default Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200809...nHnM26zKkDW7oF
eurosector is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 26-09-2008, 06:50 AM   #2
Senmut
Eagle Pilot
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Right here. Someplace.
Posts: 622
Default

2 million miles an hour. Be cool if Alpha got caught in one of those streams, huh??
Senmut is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 07:05 AM   #3
Senmut
Eagle Pilot
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Right here. Someplace.
Posts: 622
Default

Right?
Senmut is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 07:58 AM   #4
Bishop
Chief Science Officer
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Australia
Posts: 11,796
Default

Would make for a cool story. Be interesting to know what would happen...
Bishop is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 08:11 PM   #5
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

Coming back as a dead link.
BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 05-11-2008, 08:30 PM   #6
eurosector
Astrophysics Technician
 
eurosector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: mirrored-Earth
Posts: 255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianS View Post
Coming back as a dead link.
That's because this thread is almost two months old and only recently seems to have been paid any attention to here. And, I don't know why as I thought it was really interesting from the start.
eurosector is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2008, 08:41 PM   #7
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

Found another article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26857495/

And it basically shows scientists acting no differently than religionists

"The scientists deduced that whatever is driving the movements of the clusters must lie beyond the known universe."

Yeah - it couldn't be that they don't actually understand everything about the "known universe". Noooooo. It must be something else.

"A theory called inflation posits that the universe we see is just a small bubble of space-time that got rapidly expanded after the Big Bang. There could be other parts of the cosmos beyond this bubble that we cannot see.

In these regions, space-time might be very different, and likely doesn't contain stars and galaxies (which only formed because of the particular density pattern of mass in our bubble). It could include giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our own observable universe. These structures are what researchers suspect are tugging on the galaxy clusters, causing the dark flow."


Or it could be the great Spagetti Monster - or fairies - or Odin - or The Force - or even Yahweh. Because if things are "very different" there, it could be anything one can imagine. And, as we all know, imagination is all that is necessary for one to consider something to be a 'scientific' possibility. LOL

"Most likely [LOL] to create such a coherent flow they would have to be some very strange structures, maybe some warped space time. But this is just pure speculation."

Hey - don't let that from stopping you releasing a 'scientific' press release.

Sigh - what passes for science - or even logic and reasoning - is truly frightening today. It's no wonder the religionists claim science is just another faith. It's because the 'scientists' themselves treat it as such.
BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 05:47 AM   #8
Senmut
Eagle Pilot
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Right here. Someplace.
Posts: 622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eurosector View Post
That's because this thread is almost two months old and only recently seems to have been paid any attention to here. And, I don't know why as I thought it was really interesting from the start.
So did I. Surprising (almost)no one seemed interested before.
Senmut is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 07:48 AM   #9
Bishop
Chief Science Officer
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Australia
Posts: 11,796
Default

I remember reading it and making a comment.... so that's what happens, things disappear.
Bishop is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 05:04 AM   #10
Senmut
Eagle Pilot
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Right here. Someplace.
Posts: 622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony42 View Post
I remember reading it and making a comment.... so that's what happens, things disappear.
It's a plot. Maybe Brian the Brain sabotoged you, so you wouldn't know it.
Senmut is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 08-11-2008, 02:42 AM   #11
Senmut
Eagle Pilot
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Right here. Someplace.
Posts: 622
Default

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...dark-flow.html


More on this.


Unknown "Structures" Tugging at Universe, Study SaysJohn Roach
for National Geographic News
November 5, 2008
Something may be out there. Way out there.

On the outskirts of creation, unknown, unseen "structures" are tugging on our universe like cosmic magnets, a controversial new study says.


Everything in the known universe is said to be racing toward the massive clumps of matter at more than 2 million miles an hour—a movement the researchers have dubbed dark flow.

The presence of the extra-universal matter suggests that our universe is part of something bigger—a multiverse—and that whatever is out there is very different from the universe we know, according to study leader Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

The theory could rewrite the laws of physics. Current models say the known, or visible, universe—which extends as far as light could have traveled since the big bang—is essentially the same as the rest of space-time (the three dimensions of space plus time).

Picturing Dark Flow

Dark flow was named in a nod to dark energy and dark matter—two other unexplained astrophysical phenomena.

The newfound flow cannot be explained by, and is not directly related to, the expansion of the universe, though the researchers believe the two types of movement are happening at the same time.

In an attempt to simplify the mind-bending concept, Kashlinsky says to picture yourself floating in the middle of a vast ocean. As far as the eye can see, the ocean is smooth and the same in every direction, just as most astronomers believe the universe is. You would think that beyond the horizon, therefore, nothing is different.

"But then you discover a faint but coherent flow in your ocean," Kashlinsky said. "You would deduce that the entire cosmos is not exactly like what you can see within your own horizon."

There must be an out-of-sight mountain river or ravine pushing or pulling the water. Or in the cosmological case, Kashlinsky speculates that "this motion is caused by structures well beyond the current cosmological horizon, which is more than 14 billion light-years away."

The study team didn't set out to explode physics as we know it.

They simply wanted to confirm the longstanding notion that the farther away galaxies are, the slower their motion should appear.

Behind the New Space Special Issue of National Geographic
Future Universe Will Stop Expanding, Experts Say
Proof of Big Bang Seen by Space Probe, Scientists Say
That movement is detectable in data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which NASA says "reveals conditions as they existed in the early universe by measuring the properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation over the full sky"—radiation thought to have been released about 380,000 years after the birth of the universe.

Hot gas in galaxy clusters warms the microwave background radiation, and "a very tiny component of this temperature fluctuation also contains in itself information about cluster velocity," Kashlinsky said.

If a cluster were moving faster or slower than the universe's background radiation, you'd expect to see the background heated slightly in that region of the universe—the result of a sort of electron-scattering "friction" between the cluster's hot gas and particles in the background radiation.

Because these fluctuations are so faint, the team studied more than 700 galaxy clusters.

The researchers had expected to find that, the farther away clusters are, the slower they appear to be moving.

Instead, Kashlinsky said, "We found a great surprise."

The clusters were all moving at the same speed—nearly 2 million miles an hour —and in a single direction.

Though this dark flow was detected only in galaxy clusters, it should apply to every structure in the known universe, Kashlinsky said.

Explaining the Unexplainable

To explain the unexplainable flow, the team turned to the longstanding theory that rapid inflation just after the big bang had pushed chunks of matter beyond the known universe.

The extra-universal matter's extreme mass means it "could still pull—tug on—the matter in our universe, causing this flow of galaxies across our observable horizon," said Kashlinsky, whose team's study appeared in the October 20 issue of the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

"Strong Doubts"

Not everyone is ready to rewrite physics just yet.

Astrophysicist Hume Feldman of the University of Kansas has detected a similar, but weaker, flow.

He said the Kashlinsky team's study is "very interesting, very intriguing, [but] a lot more work needs to be done.

"It's suggestive that something's going on, but what exactly is going on? It basically tells us to investigate," he said.

David Spergel, an astrophysicist at Princeton University, echoed the sentiment.

"Until these results are reanalyzed by another group, I have strong doubts about the validity of the conclusions of this paper," he wrote in an email.

He added that, if the result does hold up, "it would have an important implication for our understanding of cosmology."

Study leader Kashlinsky agrees many questions remain unanswered. For starters: What exactly are these things that are apparently tugging our universe?

"They could be anything. As bizarre as you could imagine—some warped space-time," Kashlinsky said.

"Or maybe something dull."
Senmut is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 06:48 AM   #12
Bishop
Chief Science Officer
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Australia
Posts: 11,796
Default

Perhaps our Universe in hanging from a chain around the neck of a cat that belongs to the leader of yet and other universe who travels around in the a body he's piloting and perhaps...

Its actually good to make guesses and throw it out there for everyone to consider. The trouble is that the unwashed masses who don't quite get the speculative trial and error nature of science take the initial musings of science as gospel rather than the first steps in further exploration.
Bishop is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 10:21 PM   #13
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony42 View Post
Perhaps our Universe in hanging from a chain around the neck of a cat that belongs to the leader of yet and other universe who travels around in the a body he's piloting and perhaps...

Its actually good to make guesses and throw it out there for everyone to consider. The trouble is that the unwashed masses who don't quite get the speculative trial and error nature of science take the initial musings of science as gospel rather than the first steps in further exploration.
Even "speculation" requires evidence to make an idea something more than arbitrary (ie irrational). And there is no more evidence for what the scientists claimed was 'likely' (!!!) the cause than there is for your nonsensical suggestion.

The difference is, your suggestion was meant as humor (which relies on contradiction, irrationality, etc) and so was purposefully and appropriately nonsensical. Theirs was meant to be taken seriously - ie to be treated as if it were a rational utterance. However, their suggestion is no less nonsensical - no less fantastical - no less arbitrary - no less irrational - than yours.

That makes what they say something very much other than science - or even reason. Yet their ideas are presented as 'scientific'- which just shows the intellectual degradation that continues in that field.
BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 10:37 PM   #14
AceMartini
Communications Officer
 
AceMartini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,056
Default

First, speculation does not require evidence. Speculation is defined as:

conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.

Science often begins with a hypothesis, which is often nothing better than a guess. A hypothesis "is a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation." It is not presented as fact and does not rise to the level of a theory.

The scientific community uses the concept of "peer review" to judge new ideas. In this case, we see it at work. In the very same story about the "dark flow," we see other scientists questioning its validity and saying that much more study is needed. This is how science works and certainly is not evidence of "intellectual degradation."
AceMartini is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 03:36 AM   #15
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AceMartini View Post
First, speculation does not require evidence.
Scientific speculation most certainly does require evidence. Without evidence for an idea, it is no different than an assertion of faith. In fact, evidence-less speculation is exactly the same as any mystical notion.

It is pure fantasy.

Quote:
Science often begins with a hypothesis, which is often nothing better than a guess.
If a hypothesis or a guess is not based on evidence, then it is not connected to reality. Again, that means it is nothing more than fantasy.

Quote:
It is not presented as fact and does not rise to the level of a theory.
The difference between 'hypothesis', 'theory', and 'fact' is essentially the difference between 'possible', 'probable' and 'certain'. And all of them require some evidence in order to be identified as any of these things.

An idea asserted without evidence - without support for it in reality - is identified as 'arbitrary'.

Quote:
The scientific community uses the concept of "peer review" to judge new ideas.
The review of an idea by individuals is only as good as the standards they apply. If the arbitrary is accepted by such "peers", then their "review" is worthless. To use a concrete example, the review of Galileo's work by the Church was worthless because the Church 'reviewers' held a standard in accord with neither reason nor reality.

Quote:
This is how science works and certainly is not evidence of "intellectual degradation."
The fact that conclusions which are explicitly admitted to be without evidence are taken seriously by the "scientific community" as something it is even possible to attempt to evaluate - to review - rather than simply being contemptuously dismissed out of hand is conclusive evidence of "intellectual degradation".

Accepting for "peer review" this idea is no different than accepting the (purposely) absurd idea Tony put forth. If 'scientists' seriously considered the cat and chain "speculation" one would rightfully laugh those scientists out of their profession and would necessarily consider it not just "intellectual degradation" but intellectual bankruptcy. Yet, without evidence, Tony's "speculation" is no different than the so-called scientist's "speculation". The ideas are equally unsupported. They are equally nonsensical. They are equally arbitrary.

They are nothing.

When a scientist (or anyone else engaged in rational evaluation of an idea) reviews an idea, he is trying to determine whether the idea is true or false (whether it corresponds to or contradicts reality). And the ONLY way he can do that is on the basis of evidence (on the basis of facts of reality). Without such evidence, there is nothing to which to compare the idea. And without something to compare it to, NO conclusion can be reached about it. In other words, no evaluation is possible.

To make a rational evaluation of an idea requires TWO things - the idea and the evidence (ie the thought and the facts of reality to which the thought supposedly corresponds). Without the idea, one simply has random, unrelated facts. Without the evidence, one simply has fantasy.

Yet the claim here is that it is not only possible to scientifically "evaluate" fantasies, but that the evaluation of such fantasies is both a proper and necessary pursuit of scientists.

Both claims are completely false. And this is easily demonstrated.

Say a man claims "X thing" is composed of "b thing" and "c thing". Without evidence being provided for this claim, there is no way to rationally "evaluate" this claim. There is no way to scientifically "review" this claim. An evaluation or a review seeks to identify a claim's truth or falsehood - ie its relation to reality. And that simply cannot be done without evidence.

It is a sheer impossibility.

Without evidence, there is no way to say the claim "X thing is composed of b thing and c thing" is true. There is no way to say the claim is false. There is no way to say it is possibly true, or probably true, or certainly true. There is simply no way to evaluate - to connect the idea to reality - in any way, shape or form. NOT without evidence.

Such an idea is identified as arbitrary. And if it is presented as anything but fantasy, it must simply be dismissed - dismissed as if it had never been presented for rational evaluation.

Put simply, if one presents an idea without evidence, one is treating one's imagination as if it were the facts of reality - the standard of evaluation - rather than treating reality as that standard.

That is what insane people do - not scientists.

Last edited by BrianS; 10-11-2008 at 07:12 AM. Reason: added reference to Tony's example
BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 09-11-2008, 06:21 AM   #16
Senmut
Eagle Pilot
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Right here. Someplace.
Posts: 622
Default

Now now, children! Play nice.
Senmut is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2008, 07:35 AM   #17
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

Who hasn't been nice?
BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2008, 08:18 AM   #18
Senmut
Eagle Pilot
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Right here. Someplace.
Posts: 622
Default

All you children, of course.
Senmut is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2008, 03:35 AM   #19
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

I'm glad you aren't Santa Claus. Everyone would get coal for Xmas.
BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2008, 12:38 PM   #20
Known Space
Eagle Pilot
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Up North! Well, Yorkshire!
Posts: 587
Default

Oh dear. This has been done already .
Only last time it was me who was somewhat denounced for daring not to believe that science is for mere foolish mortals while philosophy is the province of all things of singular genius .To save alot of time and patience and the inevitable closure of the thread due to a particularly stupid comment I will refer people to this one where this whole weary arguement has been done before almost identically.
Personally I have a theory that the Brontosaurus is thin at one end, much ,much thicker in the middle then thin again towards the other end.That is my theory, which is mine, yes indeed it is.
http://www.eagletransporter.com/foru...ead.php?t=5888

Last edited by Known Space; 14-11-2008 at 07:23 AM.
Known Space is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site and contents are copyright Bernard Walsh 2010 all rights reserved, no reproduction of material in any form without written permission email: Bernie.walsh@mac.com