|
|
it was only denied because of people who loving hate science |
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
|
They should all be banned, IMO
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
|
This was on the IFLScience facebook page today with the caption "Baby rabbits look like old kung-fu masters" I loving love science!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
|
they totally do, lol |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
|
i have a phd and my research was even featured there but i refuse to join the i loving love science facebook group
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
|
i've liked the page on facebook, because i do in fact loving love science |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
|
Bwee posted:I am going to goldmine this when you are done regardless of the contest Thanks. Yeah, just waiting for questions really at this point. The whole SR-GR side-trip was because of the wormhole question. I had thought most people had a basic rundown of astronomy stuff until Pizzatime asked that question about the stars and I was like whoa... I should write up some astronomy/astrophysics stuff. Bwee posted:i have a phd and my research was even featured there but i refuse to join the i loving love science facebook group Yeah, most "science fans" don't understand anything about science or the history of science, or the methodology of science, it's just... 'Holy poo poo! Did you know Science discovered a breed of bacteria that can survive in extreme temperatures? That poo poo's loving amazing!!! GO SCIENCE!!' etc... |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
|
to be fair, go science. |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
|
I'll admit that I have an irrational fear of black holes I have no idea why |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
|
you do a good job at communicating science secdrone, it's a really important and difficult skill. your explanations were great
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
|
i'm loving indifferent to science
---------------- |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
|
Stormyish posted:I'll admit that I have an irrational fear of black holes this is not an irrational fear at all. It's absolute obliteration, and completely inescapable. Even assuming you could survive long enough to cross the event horizon, you know without a doubt everything about who you are is locked away from the universe for good, no matter what. So all the fun descriptions about 'all of your paths move toward the singularity', that's more of a description of a particle's trip into a black hole. We are made up of many particles, and the gravity on a black hole, particularly a spinning black hole, would mean each one would be getting a different level of distortion and enormous tidal forces would be present, across your axis of travel relative to the black hole.  So it'd be kind of like this:  except your body is like a singular noodle. You normally are fairly rigid but that wouldn't be the case in the forces involved with a black hole. Any kind of probe to go into a black hole would have to be built to withstand it... and obviously, its not much use anyway considering it cannot send information out. Though I would like to think we'll do it someday. That's not even the only thing, too... frame dragging... enormous radiation problems as you meet up with focused light falling inside the hole along the same paths as you... it's pretty hellish. There are better ways to go. But I guess it's kind of rad too. Bwee posted:you do a good job at communicating science secdrone, it's a really important and difficult skill. your explanations were great Thank you! I hope people enjoyed it. Understanding GR and SR, it's just an absolutely astounding concept and actually understanding it is very worthwhile imo. |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
|
what are your thoughts on the movie interstellar
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
|
Bwee posted:what are your thoughts on the movie interstellar Visually stunning and an intriguing concept, I felt like it lost steam after the primary antagonist situation is handled... It was actually pretty good, science wise. It introduced the concepts of relativistic time dilation in GR to an enormous audience, a lot of which thought it was just some kind of conceit for the plot but those that dug or asked questions about found out that under extreme conditions, those numbers could add up for down-well. (Even though the biggest problem would be the gravity well of the singularity, not individual planets -- they shouldn't have had an issue with the ship aging a lot while they were down on the surface of the water world, for example.) There were of course a lot of scientific flaws, particularly everything after he somehow survives entering the event horizon obv... tho even that was built on a certain scientific paper's proposal for closed timelike curves, just a kind of insane idea for an application for that particular one. Plot wise I never really felt attached to the characters. I found the robots to be the most likeable characters and that's always a bad sign when metal boxes are beating out human actors. But the ships, the desolate future world, the travel through the stabilized, traversable wormhole (and the depiction of the wormhole as spherical, which was an accurate and great touch), the appearance of the singularity mostly, all that stuff was so spot on it was hard to hate it. |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
|
they dropped too heavy of a hint with the "the data we need for the equation is INSIDE A BLACK HOLE" stuff halfway through, which made the ending obvious imo this thread is amazing, what books would you recommend about relativity and black holes? ---------------- |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
|
What's the deal with dark matter? What is "space" made out of? Is it still hydrogen and helium atoms everywhere? |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
|
smoobles posted:they dropped too heavy of a hint with the "the data we need for the equation is INSIDE A BLACK HOLE" stuff halfway through, which made the ending obvious imo A fun intro to some of the ideas and concepts I've talked here is the fiction novel Flatterland: Like Flatland, Only More So by Ian Stewart, who did the fantastic annotated flatland I've got downstairs. It's a fun little allegory over a variety of different physical situations and problems. Flatland by Abbott also great to read, though obviously isn't particularly about black holes or relativity as it predated them... Death By Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries by NDT is a very entertaining book on a variety of cosmic phenomenon General Relativity from A to B by Robert Goch is a great book, slightly under an actual textbook and more entertaining to read, but yeah... I love the title. It covers A to B, not A to Z. Exploring Black Holes: Introduction to General Relativity by Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler Hawking's books on black holes and of course a brief history of time Most of the stuff I have is pretty old and it looks like there's some highly rated stuff on amazon for new intros, I might give this one a shot A Most Incomprehensible Thing: Notes Towards a Very Gentle Introduction to the Mathematics of Relativity by Peter Collier, pretty highly rated but I haven't read it yet. There's Einstein's books that are all kind of hard to read and dated at this point but still great. There's textbooks, plenty of which you can find, that will give you tons of problems in SR and GR. The internet is an enormous resource for this tho, you can find calculators, tons of info, great stuff off wikipedia (where a vast majority of the images I use came from) and hundreds of different lectures on various parts of relativity (where a huge chunk of the other pictures came from) online. Oh and here's the only way drilldo will ever understand it: The Manga Guide to Relativity joke_explainer fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
|
your body is like a singular noodle |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
|
mycophobia posted:your body is like a singular noodle Actually my body is like rubber, and now you're the noodle man. |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
|
Alright, any other astronomy ot astrophysics questions I can make an attempt at answering? Or more detail on whatever that has been mentioned before. We haven't gone into dark matter or energy yet for example |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
|
joke_explainer posted:Alright, any other astronomy ot astrophysics questions I can make an attempt at answering? Or more detail on whatever that has been mentioned before. We haven't gone into dark matter or energy yet for example I think you missed this maybe.. Chef Shimi posted:What's the deal with dark matter? What is "space" made out of? Is it still hydrogen and helium atoms everywhere? |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
|
Chef Shimi posted:I think you missed this maybe.. Oh I did! Great question. Cool opening picture since there is going to be a big bunch of text here: The neutrino detector at the University of Tokyo being filled with water.  So, like GUISSEPPE pointed out, if the universe made perfect sense, the initial acceleration of the universe's expansion imparted by the big bang should be being slowed by gravity, over a long enough timescale. It was thought we'd have a 'Big Crunch' -- where all the receding galaxies would slow down to a relative stop, then slowly speed back up toward each other, before eventually all matter in the universe was clumped together, eventually forming a massive super universal singularity. But, when we measured the velocities of distant galaxies, they weren't slowing. They weren't decelerating. They are all speeding up. In Einstein's work, there was a thing he termed the 'cosmological constant'. This was just an unfortunate thing people sometimes do when a stubborn theory refuses to work. They carefully modify every parameter until the theory matches up with the observational data. This isn't necessarily always wrong, but theorists especially appreciate a good "natural" theory, that doesn't require any tweaking to line up with observational data. Anyway, the cosmological constant didn't quite work as they would hope it would; the universe seemed unstable with it, and inexplicable without. Einstein was originally shooting for a static universe IIRC, and Hubble confirmed in 1929 that it was an expanding universe, so it had to be further fine-tuned.  Relative distribution of matter and energy in the universe It wouldn't be until the 80s that dark energy would be proposed. It explains the runaway expansion: It's energy with a negative vaccum pressure, that seems to only weakly interact with normal matter in our universe in terms of gravity. On a small scale, it's not enough to do anything relevant; all mass once close enough still attracts each other. But the negative pressure has a profound effects on the galaxies, given the total spread of dark energy. Here is what we know about it. It is:
So, in about, oh, let's say 50 times the current age of the universe, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation will be long since invisible as it's redshifted past the point of producing any visible particle, and all non-gravitationally bound galaxies will be gone forever (relative to us, light from them can never reach us and light from us can never reach them, as space of all distant galaxies will have drastically accelerated expansion. Unfortunately at this point most of the evidence of the big bang is hidden! New civilizations are going to have a heck of a time figuring that out, if there are any. And it's all Dark Energy's fault. On the other hand, it's probably the reason the universe is so nice and flat -- most theories seem to think dark energy had something to do with the early inflation of the universe that led to its observable size being larger than 13.8 billion light years and smoothed out any potential topological defects. (Or did it? More on that later.) Even odder about the whole thing though is the acceleration is not something that started right away. If it did, galaxies could never have formed... Estimates show it probably started about 7 billion years ago. Weird, eh? Sorry to say no one has figured this one out exactly. That's what we know; We have observational evidence to confirm the effects though the actual mechanism or reason for them is all over the place. People aren't sure if it's a fundamental feature of the vacuum, a side effect triggered by the vast distances of interacting energy-stress tensors in Einstein's universe. Nor why it just started at a certain point in the universe's worldline. The observational evidence comes from the velocity evidence of the expansion of the universe (generally clocked by supernovas, which have predictable brightness in certain conditions that we call 'standard candles', much like the Cetei variable stars mentioned before) and data from things like the CMB, which show that matter in the universe, baryonic and dark matter, only account for 30% of the needed yield to have a universe of the critical density needed to have not collapsed already. Other survey studies show the same result for the distribution of matter in the universe. It has not been detected directly so we can't even rule out that it's just some need for further refinement in our model of gravity (but, we've already seen how fine tuning can go wrong...). Anyway, jury's still out. We aren't going to spot it because it doesn't interact except by gravity as far as we can tell), which basically means no touching or shining a light on it. The breakdown of matter above shows how little of our universe is actually baryonic matter:, with only 4.9% being matter (and less than 1% of that is stars, planets, etc, the rest is dust), 68.3% of it being dark enregy, and 26.8% of it being dark matter. So what's dark matter? It's very important to remember the difference between the two: Dark matter causes a positive pressure stress-energy tensor effect meaning it does attract other objects. It's only like dark energy in that it can't be seen, doesn't absorb reflect or emit light or any radiation. It is 95% of the matter in the universe. It has been experimentally observed, indirectly, in many different ways. The rotation of galaxies doesn't make sense without far more matter than it observed holding the galaxies together, with a far weaker mass-to-luminosity ratio than you would expect. The velocities of distant galaxies show linked patterns that shouldn't be massive enough to emerge unless they were somehow heavier than they seem like they should be, by a lot. It causes strong gravitational lensing:  The lensing effect can only be explained by some kind of massive, non-interacting objects that can only be explained by what we've termed 'dark matter'. The 'lensing' effect is the most frustrating and curious part perhaps, as you have these enormous gravitational lenses and absolutely nothing to explain them -- just an area of non-interaction, except where freaking light is being distorted for no visible reason.  Outlined in blue, the proposed ring of dark matter lensing the light from the area behind it So what is it? There's three theories: Weakly interactive massive particles, massive compact halo objects, or robust associations of massive baryonic objects.. WIMPs, MACHOS, and RAMBOS. Yeah, seriously. MACHOS were thought to be rogue black holes, or any grouping of cold normal matter which produces no signals and floats through space. Overwhelmingly the case is against MACHOs! The current prevailing theory is WIMPs, or a type of particle that, during the formation of the universe, was removed from the equation in such a way as to only interact with the weak nuclear force and gravity. RAMBOs are theoretical mega-clusters of invisible, cold stars.This also seems unlikely, but it helps give you the picture of how little we know. We're sure the numbers are off for mass by an enormous margin, and everything we measure has galactic behavior going crazy wrong, but we can't say for sure what dark matter or dark energy is. It's one of the current biggest pushes in astronomy and astrophysics: Solve these (or resolve the underlying conflict in our models) and our understanding of the universe gets one of the grandest mysteries solved. |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
|
joke_explainer posted:Yeah, most "science fans" don't understand anything about science or the history of science, or the methodology of science, it's just... 'Holy poo poo! Did you know Science discovered a breed of bacteria that can survive in extreme temperatures? That poo poo's loving amazing!!! GO SCIENCE!!' etc... I loving love tediously observing three or more petri dishes in a controlled laboratory enviroment for months on end |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
|
to be fair, experimental designs are way more fun than regular quantitative methods like fiddling with multivariate statistics after 2000 respondents have answered your survey |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
|
I loving love preparing 115,200 slides over the course of 6 months |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
|
science is largely boring and repetitive but i seriously can't imagine doing anything else other than teaching it
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
|
to be fair mine wasn't really a slight against science, but against grad student indentured servitude |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
|
Pro Target posted:owned
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
|
the brain is really cool
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
|
Brains are really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
|
[Brain when confronted by a harsh reality] This could be a cool video game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
|
Hitler had a brain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
|
Miss Psychosis posted:Brains are really dumb. yeah brains are dumb but "the brain" in genereal is cool
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
|
Miss Psychosis posted:Hitler had a brain. |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
|
Sorry you didn't like the thread Miss P. |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
|
Miss Psychosis posted:Hitler had a brain. |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
|
the result of science (in a broader sense that includes the humanities and social sciences) is p cool though. and its good and cool that people are willing to pursue that career (it's also good and cool when people are willing to be firemen, nurses, accountants, carpenters and so on ad infinitum) |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
|
I read every post by joke_explainer in this thread but i still can't figure out what joke is being explained ... it must be a doozy |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
|
alnilam posted:I read every post by joke_explainer in this thread but i still can't figure out what joke is being explained ... it must be a doozy Bump, so alnilam gets another chance to figure it out. Also, feel free to correct anythung I screwed up new science-educated BYOB people. |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
joke_explainer posted:Bump, so alnilam gets another chance to figure it out. Also, feel free to correct anythung I screwed up new science-educated BYOB people. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:10
|
|
