Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?

syfy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 252 posts

Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?

#231

Post by banmeagaindan2 »

memetomancer wrote: post #89
dumpsterdiver wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a question: Just over 20 years ago when the accepted view was that the expansion of the universe was slowing down, would you have backed that position with as much certainty as you are backing this one? That the universe is a mere 13.7 billion years old? We cannot prove the absence of light in a place that is already so far away that it's light will never reach us. Do you agree? We can prove what we can observ…

The problem here is that you are taking a simplified layman's description, making naive assumptions about it and then brazenly dismissing the whole of contemporary cosmology as if you have profound insights that went completely over the heads of some seriously smart physicists. You then make an analogy about "Pangaea" as if you alone are the brilliant shining light of reason, but if you took just a small amount of ti…

I get where you're coming from but there is a general frustration out there about physics that a lot of nerds share. We need kicks as well as truth or the heart won't be in it. People invest a lot of energy into something if they feel they are involved with the general effort because it gives meaning and we enjoy that. Our lay ideas will be incorrect - but the urge to ask questions being stifled by a existing body of understanding we don't understand makes us apathetic and prone to leveling.

Somebody like Graham Hancock is actually delivering more people to the pipeline of scientific understanding than Richard Dawkins. We don't want to hear it but it's true. Similar things are true of WebMD and doctors, Elon Musk and space research. All the time the domain experts are shooting themselves in the head because the true opposition isn't a cruder wrong idea - it's apathy. Creationists at least give a shit about what version of events took place, the population that doesn't care is much larger. There is no critical mass of creationists that is going to undermine scientific research but the universities being defunded by an apathetic public turning hostile because they believe we're a waste of dollars - that is only a matter of time.

Science and expertise are an ecology - the people on the edge only exist because of a bigger enterprise capable of providing support. So it's not great that the stories the general public and scientists tell themselves are starting to sound like a protagonist antagonist relationship.

Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?

#233

Post by Enginerrrd »

zemnmez wrote: post #59
iwonderwhy wrote: post #55

All right hackernews. Genuine question, not sure where else to ask. If galaxies and stars at the other “end” formed out of matter resulting from the big bang, just as the matter we are made of, how did we get here at the same time that that matter got there? Is it because speeds faster than light are possible, and around the big bang all matter was spread near instantly at that speed? I don't understand how matter of…

this is because things aren’t ‘moving apart’— space itself is expanding (into what? nobody knows). it’s not that the galaxies are being propelled apart from a force in a particular place either; everything is expanding away from everything else . On the traditional balloon model, the surface of the balloon represents space itself. Those dots on the surface of an expanding balloon are not moving relative to space (the…

>space itself is expanding (into what? nobody knows)

This is a conflation of two different things. Most of the current evidence points to a universe which, when it began, was already infinite in size, but infinitely dense. In that model, it remains infinite in size, but is also expanding.

Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?

#234

Post by SenorTibbs »

banmeagaindan2 wrote: post #231
memetomancer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that you are taking a simplified layman's description, making naive assumptions about it and then brazenly dismissing the whole of contemporary cosmology as if you have profound insights that went completely over the heads of some seriously smart physicists. You then make an analogy about "Pangaea" as if you alone are the brilliant shining light of reason, but if you took just a small amount of ti…

I get where you're coming from but there is a general frustration out there about physics that a lot of nerds share. We need kicks as well as truth or the heart won't be in it. People invest a lot of energy into something if they feel they are involved with the general effort because it gives meaning and we enjoy that. Our lay ideas will be incorrect - but the urge to ask questions being stifled by a existing body of…

This is a really great point and I believe it is (at least partially) driving the anti-science rhetoric that seems to be metastasizing. When a topic is inaccessible to the general public, and only experts in the field can understand it and hold a monopoly on information, then you inevitably start to see pushback against it.

That being said however, making certain fields more accessible to the populace often comes with the price of a false sense of understanding. You see this a lot in medicine with WedMD, where heuristics that largely ignore the deeper pathophysiology have empowered some to believe they are more knowledgeable than their doctors.

This must be doubly true for the more abstract forms of physics - where any simplified analogy is going to give rise to false notions via extrapolation. I think there has to be some sort of balance between the two

Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?

#235

Post by mensetmanusman »

ddevault wrote: post #182
mensetmanusman wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do particles in this model re-adjust their spacing to the new space being created? e.g. after 10^18 seconds, would the diameter of a hydrogen atom still be the same? or is it scaled to be huge (relative to now) ?

Space is growing, not the matter within it. The diameter of a hydrogen atom is dominated by the fundamental forces, and the expansion of space is insufficient to overcome this force.

so shouldn’t this fine-scale readjustment of the electron/proton distance be measurable?

Maybe this is the ‘wind’ preventing the electron from reaching the nucleus :)

Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?

#236

Post by cthalupa »

banmeagaindan2 wrote: post #231
memetomancer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that you are taking a simplified layman's description, making naive assumptions about it and then brazenly dismissing the whole of contemporary cosmology as if you have profound insights that went completely over the heads of some seriously smart physicists. You then make an analogy about "Pangaea" as if you alone are the brilliant shining light of reason, but if you took just a small amount of ti…

I get where you're coming from but there is a general frustration out there about physics that a lot of nerds share. We need kicks as well as truth or the heart won't be in it. People invest a lot of energy into something if they feel they are involved with the general effort because it gives meaning and we enjoy that. Our lay ideas will be incorrect - but the urge to ask questions being stifled by a existing body of…

>Somebody like Graham Hancock is actually delivering more people to the pipeline of scientific understanding than Richard Dawkins. We don't want to hear it but it's true.

This is a pretty bold statement. You are arguing that psuedoscience is resulting more people being scientific than actual science is?

Such an extraordinary claim needs some significant evidence behind it.

Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?

#237

Post by tresCommatoso »

When i was a kid, we used to dream about the "ping-pong" machine of light. Basically- the light bending of the black holes allowed for images of the sky to be stored, distorted and bounced around to almost noise - of skys objects in diffrent times.. Drive it through a simulation, and you could see a nova light up, reflected back from the ping-pong machine over the aeons.. There was this nasa book, "Cycles of fire" we sat and daydreamed about..

Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?

#238

Post by vl »

zemnmez wrote: post #59
iwonderwhy wrote: post #55

All right hackernews. Genuine question, not sure where else to ask. If galaxies and stars at the other “end” formed out of matter resulting from the big bang, just as the matter we are made of, how did we get here at the same time that that matter got there? Is it because speeds faster than light are possible, and around the big bang all matter was spread near instantly at that speed? I don't understand how matter of…

this is because things aren’t ‘moving apart’— space itself is expanding (into what? nobody knows). it’s not that the galaxies are being propelled apart from a force in a particular place either; everything is expanding away from everything else . On the traditional balloon model, the surface of the balloon represents space itself. Those dots on the surface of an expanding balloon are not moving relative to space (the…

Is there red shift between Sun and Milky Way? Sun and Earth? Earth and Moon? If so, have we detected it?

Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?

#239

Post by banmeagaindan2 »

SenorTibbs wrote: post #234
banmeagaindan2 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get where you're coming from but there is a general frustration out there about physics that a lot of nerds share. We need kicks as well as truth or the heart won't be in it. People invest a lot of energy into something if they feel they are involved with the general effort because it gives meaning and we enjoy that. Our lay ideas will be incorrect - but the urge to ask questions being stifled by a existing body of…

This is a really great point and I believe it is (at least partially) driving the anti-science rhetoric that seems to be metastasizing. When a topic is inaccessible to the general public, and only experts in the field can understand it and hold a monopoly on information, then you inevitably start to see pushback against it. That being said however, making certain fields more accessible to the populace often comes wit…

Here is a example solution for the WebMD problem - I think it's about empowerment and tribalism - in positive senses of those words.

In Japan there exists an institution called Ningen Dock. Almost nobody in the West has heard of it outside of Randox Research which is astonishing as most Japanese people visit it once a year. I believe this is a psycho-social-medical institution. It purports to be a medical institution but it's something more.

Youtubers describe their experiences of Ningen Dock if you're curious.

It works like this - most people in Japan visit the 'dock' - a metaphor from shipyards. There is a brain dock, a heart dock, a lung dock and so on. Every major hospital has this department where the patient is checked head to foot once a year. Here is the important part. They are given a grade sheet - the sort a schoolteacher awards students. Here you see your kidney was given a B-, a liver a C-. These are hints about your lifestyle choices. Perhaps you should feel bad. In one more year there will exist another Ningen Dock. I believe this institution is responsible for a superior resilience against lifestyle disease that overwhelms healthcare in other developed states. It's preventative healthcare taken seriously instead of mouthing platitudes about lifestyle choices while back in Western reality you're never far from a fatty who knows they're making mistakes. It could be you or me!

Now Sir Gwern and other analytical thinkers of HN will have spotted the problem. False positives leading to needless surgeries. This is how Western doctors are trained to think and they find Ningen Dock incomprehensible. If though we assume Japanese MDs are not idiots and positive externalities exist from the Ningen Dock then it could easily be paying for itself. The hypochondriacs don't menace the healthcare system. Their energy is redirected to superior choices. For everybody the locus goes away from the doctor and analysis and toward being responsible on your health to the best of your ability - guided by timely medical advice. The system also develops a giant database of longitudinal information which can be used to spot health patterns across populations - to enhance targeting of the analytical process. I'm sure there are lots of other tangible advantages I haven't mentioned.

So that is patient empowerment - but the tribalism aspect is important too. The system is saying to the people - we're on your side, we're on the same team, we are in your corner, we are working for you. A lot of people don't feel that way and it needs to be said. Think of the rise of ASMR videos. Hundreds of millions of people watching supposed doctors treating them. There's something there. Just the insistent affirmation would be positive for mental health.

Re: Why is there a normal galaxy sitting at the edge of the Universe?

#240

Post by banmeagaindan2 »

cthalupa wrote: post #236
banmeagaindan2 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get where you're coming from but there is a general frustration out there about physics that a lot of nerds share. We need kicks as well as truth or the heart won't be in it. People invest a lot of energy into something if they feel they are involved with the general effort because it gives meaning and we enjoy that. Our lay ideas will be incorrect - but the urge to ask questions being stifled by a existing body of…

>Somebody like Graham Hancock is actually delivering more people to the pipeline of scientific understanding than Richard Dawkins. We don't want to hear it but it's true. This is a pretty bold statement. You are arguing that psuedoscience is resulting more people being scientific than actual science is? Such an extraordinary claim needs some significant evidence behind it.

Is it really an extraordinary claim? In your own experience have you never settled for a poorer model of something, a lower resolution because you feel either you didn't have the cognitive resources to get there or you felt unmotivated? When the topic becomes more complex - this happens to more and more people.

If you have a compelling story you may be motivated to sip on the subject. After a time you probably shrug off the old understanding and get to something more robust and probably more scientific.

I acknowledge some people will head into annoying dead ends - but you have to respond to the question of whether you prefer some people to be wrong and some people get to better places - or if you want most of those people to have checked out altogether. After all it seems to me that longer people ponder on it the more it is they converge on something - often something true or useful. Those are your choices. If you want to call me a liar then I suggest taking this seriously means getting a whole lot better at telling stories that go in the direction you approve of instead of what to the inside looks like doubling down on accuracy but to the outside looks like obfuscation.

Practical test - A lot of scientists are concerned about CO2 emissions and climate change. A lot of the population thinks they're full of shit because of politics. Some people have noticed though - that there doesn't exist a conflict of interests in getting improved technologies that happen to reduce CO2 emissions. Just as many right wingers are going to buy passive houses, closed loop energy, solar panels, Teslas as left wingers. Instead of perusing this thought a lot of people veer off into sermonizing on the topic - but I have to wonder why anybody gives a shit about the means when it seems like pushing on one lever gets instant blowback and pushing on the technology lever wins friends every time. It's almost as if all these groups have ulterior motives different to the public facing ones.

Post reply on HN