The Cosmology Thread

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
Post Reply
User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:47 pm

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Ethell
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: South-Central, PA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Ethell » Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:31 pm

Defund NASA? Yes.

Put the funds toward creation museums? Nonsense.

Let the private world take over space exploration. NASA can't do it anything close to economically.
-----------------------------
"So do not fear for I am with you, do not be dismayed for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you. I will uphold you by my righteous right hand."

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:55 pm

Ethell wrote:
Defund NASA? Yes.private then fine

Put the funds toward creation museums? Nonsense.

Let the private world take over space exploration. NASA can't do it anything close to economically.
That's very nice but it has nothing to do with cosmology. If you want to talk cosmology science probes and NASA/JPL vs. Private then fine. Though why private enterprise would do anything related to cosmology without a funding agency & project scientists is a good question.
This is Harpy-Bob deciding to push his wee spoon into the mash. He wants to see some calculations!!!

Have you decided how much time dilation you need? It's a ratio.... something like 2.3 x 10^6... if the planet exited the BH yesterday. So when did the planet exit the BH? Once we have the ratio then we can size the Holy BH mass & go from there. Remember the following?
Ethell, brave BH Engineer, wrote:...the reason we have a 6000 year old universe from Earth's perspective yet a billions year old universe at distances relates to relative reference frames
Well.... we're going to test it. Oh Holy Black Hole we make the Earth Young! Yes, we can write a hymn too. It will be glorious even if it is a Requiem Mass.

We're determining the region with the right gravitational field to produce the specified dilation. And the field has a gradient that relates to a tidal force. Assuming, as is quite possible, that the planet can't survive that tidal force (also if it's radiating in the X-Ray band then it's unlikely to survive), we can estimate the max. tidal force that the planet might survive and calculate the max time dilation ratio that is consistent with planetary survival. That should be interesting. That should indicate whether a BH is a solution at all. Pioneering stuff for Black Hole Creationists. How the planet leaves the region within the BH is a peripheral question and definitely deep-end stuff so we'll leave that one.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
gravel
Now it's a mess. Uniquely so.
Now it's a mess. Uniquely so.
Posts: 7853
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by gravel » Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:31 pm

The best part is Ham is holding a Dalek.

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:59 pm

Ethell, in mchat, wrote:Really will get to Cosmology! Working on figuring out a good math model to evaluate the shear tension on the earth and all that.
I have a suggestion. We don't want the Earth anywhere near shearing or breaking up. So don't worry about the dynamics of the planet breaking up. That's really very complex and it's not helpful and not practical anyway. It's undesirable to break the planet up. We have a milder condition, concerning tidal forces, that is both more useful & more practical to us and it's the first of two conditions that will help.

The tidal condition is the Roche limit. That is the distance of the earth from a large grav. source where the Earth's inherent gravitational force on a mass sitting on the near side of the Earth, along a line to a large grav. source, is just balanced by the tidal force due to that large grav. source. At that Roche distance, unless the planet is a loose aggregate of gravel held together solely by gravitation, it won't break up. But things that aren't nailed down will start to leave the planet eg atmosphere, water, people etc. So that imposes the maximum tidal force and it essentially says that the tidal acceleration between the center of the Earth and the near side is one g. toward the large grav. source mass. And we prefer that the planet be subject to less tidal force. So that avoids the complex planet breakup issue, of which God would disapprove anyway, and might retain the atmosphere which is needed. :D

The second condition is that the planet has to be close enough to the Schwarzschild radius, Rs, (event horizon) that it does undergo significant time dilation. And there is a pretty simple equation for gravitational time dilation from the Schw. solution, no charge, no spin, spherical BH, which is prob fine for us. If you play with the equation you'll note that time dilation is a very very tiny effect except very near the Schwarzschild radius, Rs. And it's meaningless when the orbital radius is < Rs. Just as well; I don't want to go there anyway. It's good news that we won't have to devise some cockamamie idea for exiting a BH, intact. So that imposes the second condition.

How much time dilation you have to say but something like a ratio of time-far to time-near (inverse of the equation shown) would be useful to know and it's a big number. You have very significant demands for time dilation which is problematic. Cheating on the age of the universe doesn't buy very much. The wrinkle in this is that the photonic orbit is 3/2 * Rs and the natural velocity of that orbit is light speed ie light will orbit the black hole at that radius. The planet definitely won't go light speed. So there is a big question here. How can we avoid the terrific velocity and still orbit the BH undergoing time dilation? You can play with the equation and see how sensitive the dilation is vs orbital radius. They do give a dilation for the photonic orbit but I think it's wrong so I'll check with MTW and see whether there is a better answer. There are some more details eg dilation due to velocity in orbit (special relativity & we'd like to avoid that being significant) and corresponding serious centrifugal force which adds to the tidal force and is hence undesirable. Orbit velocity is a real problem and avoiding the high orbital velocity seems to mean no time dilation. This might be a good reason why matter radiates in the x-ray band as it whirls around a BH in the accretion disk. Not a healthy sign. 8O An orbit that is periodically tangent at Rs is likely insufficient as well because the dilation lasts for a very short local time duration and that imposes a much larger time dilation factor which is not helpful.

If we could drag the planet into a happy orbit around the BH near enough to Rs to undergo time dilation then the question and calculation concerns the minimum mass of the BH that complies with the tidal limit at the proximity to Rs. Right? :wink:
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Thu Aug 14, 2014 7:21 am

I may have the answer to this question about using a BH and time dilation to have a 6,000 yo planet even while the universe is billions of years old and both created at roughly the same time. It's not possible. The possible orbits around the BH prohibit the condition.

The photon orbit at 3/2 * Rs is the nearest orbit to the BH that may persist ie is stable. It's only stable for massless objects at light speed. All orbits with radius less than the photon orbit cannot be stable because the orbital velocity has to be greater than light speed or the orbiting object spirals into the BH. Nothing exceeds the speed of light so the photon orbit is the lowest stable orbit. All stable orbits for objects with mass have a larger orbital radius than the 3/2 * Rs. Any object that passes below the photon orbit radius will spiral into the BH and is destroyed.

The time dilation ratio is inversely proportional to orbital radius. At the photon orbit distance of 3/2 * Rs the time dilation factor T-far/T-near is 1.732 as defined below. That's the maximum dilation that corresponds to the lowest or nearest stable orbit to the BH. So given a universe of billions of years old & maximum dilation, for massless objects in orbit around the BH, of T-far/1.732 are still billions of years old. All larger stable orbits for objects with mass result in less dilation ie a lower ratio than 1.732. For example the time dilation ratio for an orbital radius at 10 * Rs is 1.054. It still poses significant orbital velocity requirements at that distance but the time dilation is insignificant compared to the needs of a young Earth hypothesis.

T-far/T-near = 1 / sqrt( 1 - Rs/r)

T-near = time duration local to the gravitation field at distance r from the BH
T-far = time duration far from the BH
r = distance from the BH eg radius of orbit
Rs = Schwarzschild radius = 2*G*M/c^2; M is mass of BH

Ethell is likely assuming T-far/T-near ratios of at least 10^6 rather than the paltry 1.732 and, more realistically, lower. So Ethell's hypothesis is false. Happy orbits, as I referred to them in the previous post, for objects with mass (like planets) that also undergo substantial time dilation cannot exist. Substantial time dilation is not accessible. And any passage through the large dilation region is brief and results in a spiral path into the black hole and the object is destroyed. This is contradicted by our planet's existence. Gravitational time dilation cannot be a factor in any young earth hypothesis.

Therefore black holes & gravitational time dilation cannot be used to account for a young Earth.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:36 am

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
OldWorldSwine
rootle round the ear 'ole
rootle round the ear 'ole
Posts: 9445
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by OldWorldSwine » Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:24 pm

Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

This idea that nature is inherently probabilistic — that particles have no hard properties, only likelihoods, until they are observed — is directly implied by the standard equations of quantum mechanics. But now a set of surprising experiments with fluids has revived old skepticism about that worldview. The bizarre results are fueling interest in an almost forgotten version of quantum mechanics, one that never gave up the idea of a single, concrete reality.

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
"There's what's right and there's what's right and never the twain shall meet."

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Thu Aug 28, 2014 2:10 am

OldWorldSwine wrote:
Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

This idea that nature is inherently probabilistic — that particles have no hard properties, only likelihoods, until they are observed — is directly implied by the standard equations of quantum mechanics. But now a set of surprising experiments with fluids has revived old skepticism about that worldview. The bizarre results are fueling interest in an almost forgotten version of quantum mechanics, one that never gave up the idea of a single, concrete reality.

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
Nice article but it isn't about cosmology. Should be posted in the Science in the news thread. Same thing for your post Bob.

Science in the news
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:42 am

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
OldWorldSwine
rootle round the ear 'ole
rootle round the ear 'ole
Posts: 9445
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by OldWorldSwine » Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:52 am

Rusty wrote:
OldWorldSwine wrote:
Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

This idea that nature is inherently probabilistic — that particles have no hard properties, only likelihoods, until they are observed — is directly implied by the standard equations of quantum mechanics. But now a set of surprising experiments with fluids has revived old skepticism about that worldview. The bizarre results are fueling interest in an almost forgotten version of quantum mechanics, one that never gave up the idea of a single, concrete reality.

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
Nice article but it isn't about cosmology. Should be posted in the Science in the news thread. Same thing for your post Bob.

Science in the news
Okay, fine.
"There's what's right and there's what's right and never the twain shall meet."

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:56 am

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:10 am

That bubble grew from the initial & expanding supernovae explosions so sometime in the past its wall of high energy stuff was coincident with our solar system. While the x-rays and gamma rays would penetrate our solar system they would not penetrate our atmosphere (it's opaque to that part of the spectrum which is why x-ray astronomy requires probes in space). The charged particle densities would be largely repelled by our heliosphere but not entirely which is why we have cosmic rays. The cosmic ray density at our planet must have been significant. But they collide with atmospheric particles and produce a shower of exotic high energy stuff, like Pions, which decay quite quickly but probably not before reaching the surface. So we're a bubble, within a bubble, within a bubble. Life's little cocoon in the shooting gallery.

There's another article that actually includes a diagram... It shows a small local area within our galaxy and in fact in our local arm (Orion arm), us, the bubble etc.

Image

That's from http://phys.org/news/2014-08-evidence-s ... earth.html

Why do you never post any commentary about these articles? This is a discussion forum so it would be more interesting if you would actually volunteer some of your thoughts. You do think, right?
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:31 am

Rusty wrote:
That bubble grew from the initial & expanding supernovae explosions so sometime in the past its wall of high energy stuff was coincident with our solar system. While the x-rays and gamma rays would penetrate our solar system they would not penetrate our atmosphere (it's opaque to that part of the spectrum which is why x-ray astronomy requires probes in space). The charged particle densities would be largely repelled by our heliosphere but not entirely which is why we have cosmic rays. The cosmic ray density at our planet must have been significant. But they collide with atmospheric particles and produce a shower of exotic high energy stuff, like Pions, which decay quite quickly but probably not before reaching the surface. So we're a bubble, within a bubble, within a bubble. Life's little cocoon in the shooting gallery.

There's another article that actually includes a diagram... It shows a small local area within our galaxy and in fact in our local arm (Orion arm), us, the bubble etc.

Image

That's from http://phys.org/news/2014-08-evidence-s ... earth.html

Why do you never post any commentary about these articles? This is a discussion forum so it would be more interesting if you would actually volunteer some of your thoughts. You do think, right?
Well, what should I say? I find it fascinating, informative, and rather amazing. Generally, I just read the article and post it here because I figure you and Ethell may like to read it. I imagine wos and Thunk may also read them, maybe OWS, and that's about it.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 20858
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Thunktank » Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:46 am

UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote:
That bubble grew from the initial & expanding supernovae explosions so sometime in the past its wall of high energy stuff was coincident with our solar system. While the x-rays and gamma rays would penetrate our solar system they would not penetrate our atmosphere (it's opaque to that part of the spectrum which is why x-ray astronomy requires probes in space). The charged particle densities would be largely repelled by our heliosphere but not entirely which is why we have cosmic rays. The cosmic ray density at our planet must have been significant. But they collide with atmospheric particles and produce a shower of exotic high energy stuff, like Pions, which decay quite quickly but probably not before reaching the surface. So we're a bubble, within a bubble, within a bubble. Life's little cocoon in the shooting gallery.

There's another article that actually includes a diagram... It shows a small local area within our galaxy and in fact in our local arm (Orion arm), us, the bubble etc.

Image

That's from http://phys.org/news/2014-08-evidence-s ... earth.html

Why do you never post any commentary about these articles? This is a discussion forum so it would be more interesting if you would actually volunteer some of your thoughts. You do think, right?
Well, what should I say? I find it fascinating, informative, and rather amazing. Generally, I just read the article and post it here because I figure you and Ethell may like to read it. I imagine wos and Thunk may also read them, maybe OWS, and that's about it.
I do read them and enjoy it. I'm fascinated with it, but as you say, what can I add? I'm happy to let the more knowledgeable discuss it in more detail. Only a couple such experts exist around here.

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:41 pm

OldWorldSwine wrote:
Rusty wrote:
OldWorldSwine wrote:
Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

This idea that nature is inherently probabilistic — that particles have no hard properties, only likelihoods, until they are observed — is directly implied by the standard equations of quantum mechanics. But now a set of surprising experiments with fluids has revived old skepticism about that worldview. The bizarre results are fueling interest in an almost forgotten version of quantum mechanics, one that never gave up the idea of a single, concrete reality.

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
Nice article but it isn't about cosmology. Should be posted in the Science in the news thread. Same thing for your post Bob.

Science in the news
Okay, fine.
You're a sweetie esp. for esp. for posting it in the science in the news forum.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:51 pm

Thunktank wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote:
That bubble grew from the initial & expanding supernovae explosions so sometime in the past its wall of high energy stuff was coincident with our solar system. While the x-rays and gamma rays would penetrate our solar system they would not penetrate our atmosphere (it's opaque to that part of the spectrum which is why x-ray astronomy requires probes in space). The charged particle densities would be largely repelled by our heliosphere but not entirely which is why we have cosmic rays. The cosmic ray density at our planet must have been significant. But they collide with atmospheric particles and produce a shower of exotic high energy stuff, like Pions, which decay quite quickly but probably not before reaching the surface. So we're a bubble, within a bubble, within a bubble. Life's little cocoon in the shooting gallery.

There's another article that actually includes a diagram... It shows a small local area within our galaxy and in fact in our local arm (Orion arm), us, the bubble etc.

Image

That's from http://phys.org/news/2014-08-evidence-s ... earth.html

Why do you never post any commentary about these articles? This is a discussion forum so it would be more interesting if you would actually volunteer some of your thoughts. You do think, right?
Well, what should I say? I find it fascinating, informative, and rather amazing. Generally, I just read the article and post it here because I figure you and Ethell may like to read it. I imagine wos and Thunk may also read them, maybe OWS, and that's about it.
I do read them and enjoy it. I'm fascinated with it, but as you say, what can I add? I'm happy to let the more knowledgeable discuss it in more detail. Only a couple such experts exist around here.
Who cares about expert? Opinions! That's what we like to read. You seem to like posting the news or article url without comment because you do it in other topic areas too eg Faith in the news. You certainly do have expertise. One might think Bob had no opinions. He's just a news channel. I doubt that. I think we should venture our opinions when we post a url. What do you think about the article? This is a discussion forum and the idea of just posting news urls is a cheat. They often go without any discussion at all. It also allows people to rebroadcast stuff that might be unacceptable otherwise and we've seen that. Even if it just an expression of awe we should have some point of view about the item we're importing into the forum.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Thu Aug 28, 2014 2:21 pm

Rusty wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote:
That bubble grew from the initial & expanding supernovae explosions so sometime in the past its wall of high energy stuff was coincident with our solar system. While the x-rays and gamma rays would penetrate our solar system they would not penetrate our atmosphere (it's opaque to that part of the spectrum which is why x-ray astronomy requires probes in space). The charged particle densities would be largely repelled by our heliosphere but not entirely which is why we have cosmic rays. The cosmic ray density at our planet must have been significant. But they collide with atmospheric particles and produce a shower of exotic high energy stuff, like Pions, which decay quite quickly but probably not before reaching the surface. So we're a bubble, within a bubble, within a bubble. Life's little cocoon in the shooting gallery.

There's another article that actually includes a diagram... It shows a small local area within our galaxy and in fact in our local arm (Orion arm), us, the bubble etc.

Image

That's from http://phys.org/news/2014-08-evidence-s ... earth.html

Why do you never post any commentary about these articles? This is a discussion forum so it would be more interesting if you would actually volunteer some of your thoughts. You do think, right?
Well, what should I say? I find it fascinating, informative, and rather amazing. Generally, I just read the article and post it here because I figure you and Ethell may like to read it. I imagine wos and Thunk may also read them, maybe OWS, and that's about it.
I do read them and enjoy it. I'm fascinated with it, but as you say, what can I add? I'm happy to let the more knowledgeable discuss it in more detail. Only a couple such experts exist around here.
Who cares about expert? Opinions! That's what we like to read. You seem to like posting the news or article url without comment because you do it in other topic areas too eg Faith in the news. You certainly do have expertise. One might think Bob had no opinions. He's just a news channel. I doubt that. I think we should venture our opinions when we post a url. What do you think about the article? This is a discussion forum and the idea of just posting news urls is a cheat. They often go without any discussion at all. It also allows people to rebroadcast stuff that might be unacceptable otherwise and we've seen that. Even if it just an expression of awe we should have some point of view about the item we're importing into the forum.
Okay. So you are saying it should look something like this:
-----------------------------------------------
[Link]

Wow!
----------------------------------------------
Is that better?
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:53 am

Billions of Galaxies are Missing from the Cosmos

I struggled whether to post this here or in the "Shenanigans of Jocose" thread.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
OldWorldSwine
rootle round the ear 'ole
rootle round the ear 'ole
Posts: 9445
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by OldWorldSwine » Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:02 am

UncleBob wrote:Billions of Galaxies are Missing from the Cosmos

I struggled whether to post this here or in the "Shenanigans of Jocose" thread.
Could not finish the article, as it is behind their registration wall. It is kind of amusing, though, to think in terms of "missing" galaxies, rather than maybe allowing that we may have made a big mistake in our calculations somewhere. But that's just semantics. It's when things don't add up that you know the science is about to get interesting.
"There's what's right and there's what's right and never the twain shall meet."

Post Reply