Astrophysics = Selling snake oil?

It was a news story so I assumed this may be the place for it.

As for explaining about Hawkins etc, I can't as I'm not intelligent enough to prove or disprove the stories. But some clever chaps said he was wrong and now it appears lots of other people were wrong too. So maybe they are all just making it up.
HAWKING you cretin.
 
It was a news story so I assumed this may be the place for it.

As for explaining about Hawkins etc, I can't as I'm not intelligent enough to prove or disprove the stories. But some clever chaps said he was wrong and now it appears lots of other people were wrong too. So maybe they are all just making it up.
Fair enough.

The point is that nobody is "wrong" (for a start that article doesn't even mention Hawking). In general, that's not how science works.

All this story is about is that we had a partial idea about how some things work out there in the cosmos.

Some of it is hypothetical but based on observations (dark energy/dark matter for example - its the only way of explaining observations/measurements but we don't have a clue about it's reality).

Some of it is observational. "We found this; we checked the observations; this seems to be the case; how do we fit it into theory as it seems to straddle several concepts (black holes/neutron stars); over to you guys to work out where it fits".

The universe is fairly large, full of weird shit and hard to understand, oddly enough. It will continue to lob curved balls at us until it goes cold.
 

RedDinger

Swinger
Fair enough.

The point is that nobody is "wrong" (for a start that article doesn't even mention Hawking). In general, that's not how science works.

All this story is about is that we had a partial idea about how some things work out there in the cosmos.

Some of it is hypothetical but based on observations (dark energy/dark matter for example - its the only way of explaining observations/measurements but we don't have a clue about it's reality).

Some of it is observational. "We found this; we checked the observations; this seems to be the case; how do we fit it into theory as it seems to straddle several concepts (black holes/neutron stars); over to you guys to work out where it fits".

The universe is fairly large, full of weird shit and hard to understand, oddly enough. It will continue to lob curved balls at us until it goes cold.
OK, I'll leave Hawkings out of it.

The main problem with the article, and many others, is that its presented as fact by the writer. Though when you get to the actual quotes its mainly conjecture.
 
OK, I'll leave Hawkings out of it.

The main problem with the article, and many others, is that its presented as fact by the writer. Though when you get to the actual quotes its mainly conjecture.

somewhat like your first post in this thread and title you gave the link
 
But some clever chaps said he was wrong and now it appears lots of other people were wrong too. So maybe they are all just making it up.
Another person who does not understand the Scientific Method.

Being "wrong" is a huge part of how science is driven forwards.
 
Its a piece of p*ss. Make something up that can't be proved. Accuse someone else of making something up that was wrong and you're right. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

Hawkin was a charlatan.
Before starting a new thread:

- ensure you have read the whole of this sticky, and post accordingly, especially concerning the posting of links and extracts from articles
- check to ensure there isn't already an ARRSE thread on the subject - use the search function
- make sure your post contains some analysis and/or discussion of the issue. One sentence is not enough
- resist the temptation to post a 'breaking news' story unless there is something substantive to report
- you aren't writing a headline for the Sun. Keep the thread title to the point and factual, so it can be found easily by the search function


 
OK, I'll leave Hawkings out of it.

The main problem with the article, and many others, is that its presented as fact by the writer. Though when you get to the actual quotes its mainly conjecture.
I don't think it is presented as fact.

The article says:

"Nuclear physics is not a precise science where we know everything,"
"We don't know how nuclear forces operate under the extreme conditions you need inside a neutron star.
So, every single current theory we currently have of what goes on inside of one has some uncertainty."
. . . the discovery challenges current theoretical models.
Far from stating anything as fact it underlines how science works. We thought we knew something; it seemed to work; we found something new that challenges our ideas; how do we reconcile this.
 
Its a piece of p*ss. Make something up that can't be proved. Accuse someone else of making something up that was wrong and you're right. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

Hawkin was a charlatan.
Morning @RedDinger,
If there's any scientific bllx ever needed clarifying in layman's(thicky) terms. Try Quantum Physics.
One of my neibourghs lectureded this in Nottingham Uni'., and tried to explain it many times, over beer and sober.
Easy to wind him up by saying, "So anything is possible between two given points".
Don't know why but it would set him off on a rant. At this point I'd wander away looking for interesting conversation...or snatch!
Is there a 'Quantum Physics' thread?
 

endure

GCM
Morning @RedDinger,
If there's any scientific bllx ever needed clarifying in layman's(thicky) terms. Try Quantum Physics.
One of my neibourghs lectureded this in Nottingham Uni'., and tried to explain it many times, over beer and sober.
Easy to wind him up by saying, "So anything is possible between two given points".
Don't know why but it would set him off on a rant. At this point I'd wander away looking for interesting conversation...or snatch!
Is there a 'Quantum Physics' thread?
You could have a read of The Quantum Universe by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw.

Or How To teach Quantum Physics To Your Dog by Chad Orzel.

However, you probably still won't understand it. Buggered if I did. I think the phrase "if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't" was ascribed to Richard Feynman.
 
Sorry to be pedantic but there are in several parallel universes...
Or possibly billions in the multiverse concept.

I can't get my brain around that. Sounds like BS but some Brainiac will show you the maths to prove it. Or not.
 
You could have a read of The Quantum Universe by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw.

Or How To teach Quantum Physics To Your Dog by Chad Orzel.

However, you probably still won't understand it. Buggered if I did. I think the phrase "if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't" was ascribed to Richard Feynman.
I think 'In Search of Schrodinger's Cat' by John Gribbin is probably the clearest introduction to quantum weirdness I've read, the Brian Cox one wasn't as straightforward.

There's nothing particularly complicated about it (unless you're trying to understand the maths) but people tend to insist on trying to apply common sense to quantum which never ends well.
 
I think 'In Search of Schrodinger's Cat' by John Gribbin is probably the clearest introduction to quantum weirdness I've read, the Brian Cox one wasn't as straightforward.

There's nothing particularly complicated about it (unless you're trying to understand the maths) but people tend to insist on trying to apply common sense to quantum which never ends well.
Bits of the Cox book were straightforward. Probably the Forshaw bits.

I will download the Gribbin book tomorrow.

Your point about applying common sense is very true. Wave particle duality, superpositioning etc are hard to get one's brain around. I think the problem is that we live in a metre world (1-2M tall, use kilometres etc) and simply cannot conceive the impossibly smaller quantum world.

Nor, in many respects, the much larger cosmological world. I know that most of everything consists of nothing but cannot get my brain around a teardrop sized chunk of matter that weighs millions/billions of tons
 

ipso_facto

Old-Salt
Do you ever read anything apart from Qanon and wibble bollox?

The rocket was a tiny little thing built by a three man private company. The second stage failed to ignite because of an electronics failure. You can actually see it did not ignite (if you care to look). The avionics gubbins was recovered when it returned to Earth by parachute. So that's what happened. Not the first failure and certainly not the last space exploration failure.

It's not your ideas that are contagious. Its your newfound tendency to spread your wibble out over multiple threads having previously confined your moronic comments to the Trump thread.

Your user page sums you up nicely. Tinfoil CT twat.
If you say so.

 
Top