The universe is expanding faster than expected

Post by simonh » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:41 PM UTC

kiba wrote: post #12

eloff wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your optimism. I tend to be optimistic about the future myself. But there is no law of the universe that everything will work out ok. Only if we make the right decisions as a species and we don't get unlucky. I'm quite apprehensive that the great filter lies ahead - that technology accelerates too rapidly compared to our wisdom and we end up nearly destroying ourselves. We're getting the ability to progr…

What does it mean to not pass the great filter? Humanity or their successor stop existing?

Post by User23 » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:43 PM UTC

im3w1l wrote: post #42

User23 wrote: post #19

One thing that really frustrates me about cosmology, or at least popular science reporting and books, is a particular kind of lack of intellectual rigor. Specifically, even as a layman, it's clear that observation and model are being conflated. Cosmology is a science in the broadest sense of being a field of human knowledge, but it isn't a science the way that, for example, physics is. It would better be described as…

I think observation and model almost necessarily have to be conflated. What we really see is light hitting our retina, or if you want to go one layer further, nerve impulses in our visual cortex. Everything else is model. So if we accept that everything is model, then what you are really advocating is using verbose descriptions in terms of a fairly established model rather than succinct descriptions in a more specula…

Post by edgefield0 » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

wruza wrote: post #60

edgefield0 wrote: post #35

A few years ago, a published article suggested an alternative to the universe expanding is increasing mass. Older objects increase their mass and therefore are red shifted. Why is this alternative plausible theory recieving such little attention? Edit: changed mass decay to increase in mass. I misremembered the theory.

But you are the oldest, because every distant object that you see only shows its past. The further, the younger.

Post by cygx » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:59 PM UTC

User23 wrote: post #63

im3w1l wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think observation and model almost necessarily have to be conflated. What we really see is light hitting our retina, or if you want to go one layer further, nerve impulses in our visual cortex. Everything else is model. So if we accept that everything is model, then what you are really advocating is using verbose descriptions in terms of a fairly established model rather than succinct descriptions in a more specula…

Thank you for helping clarify what I'm saying. You've definitely got it right. To elaborate, consider the difference between calculating the distance to a star in the Milky Way using parallax where the model is basically just assume your eyes work plus trigonometry and calculating the distance to other galaxies where far more assumptions are required. Edit: response from cygx is completely missing the point about con…

Post by Retric » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 12:04 AM UTC

nobody9999 wrote: post #54

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because information in your brain is constrained by physics. It takes tangible time for signals to travel between neurons. When you're young, you're small, and the distances are shorter. As you age, you grow in size, and the signal length grows also. Thus as you grow you literally think slower; though hopefully, more effectively (wisdom). Your perception of time changes accordingly.

I'd say that subjective passage of time is more related to the amount of time you've lived. When a year is 10% of your total lifetime, it seems a lot longer than when it's 2% of your lifetime.