Oh, and incidentally the fact that the universe looks damn flat is a big problem, since it requires a specific critical energy density for the universe. The baryonic matter is way too small and dark matter also can't make up the numbers, so we are led to the dark energy problem: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy: Cosmic Microwave Background Estimated distribution of dark matter and dark energy in the universe The existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies, most recently by the WMAP spacecraft, indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to a certain critical density. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured by the CMB, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.[7] The WMAP five-year analysis estimate a universe made up of 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter, and 4% ordinary matter.[9] More recently, the WMAP seven-year analysis gave an estimate of 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter and 4.6% ordinary matter.[2]
Inflation theory solves that problem. Given a universe many, many times larger than the observable portion, the density of the observable portion is forced to a value of one. It's analogous to the way the curvature of the earth appears flat, because the curvature is so slight.
Ok I don't know much cosmology so I can't say much about this, and would love if someone can explain it to me because it confuses me quite a lot, but the general hand-wavy idea I have is this: -Inflation explains why the universe is flat, in accordance with observations, but doesn't say much (anything?) about the energy density of stuff in the universe, or the composition of that stuff. -We explain the evolution of the universe post-inflation using a FLRW metric, which is only flat if the energy density of the universe equals some critical value. Again, nothing predicted about composition but we do measurements and stick in values in accordance with what we see. -Regular + dark matter does not give the critical density, so we need dark energy too, i.e. without dark energy, we cannot make the FLRW universe flat, contradicting our observations and inflation. -Thus we need dark energy. Or something like that Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If this is the same book that says my probability of procreating with you is 50% and is responsible for death then I suggest we don't get into your book. There's rather too much crazy in there for my liking. Also, there is a fundamental difference between calling someone stupid, and saying some of their posts are stupid. In fact, it's not hard to see from what I said I wasn't even referring to the content of Fraggle's posts, but the "I am the linguistics mod, therefore I am clever," preface. That is an important distinction an if you can't understand that I feel sorry for your clients. Hang on, you aren't a proper lawyer are you? In that case, I feel sorry for your students. But wait a minute, you aren't a physicist either are you? What do you do exactly? I'll make it simple for you. Based on the posts I've read on here, Fraggle Rocker is not stupid but I object to his posts. Pretty much every word that comes out of your mouth (or keyboard) leads to the impression that you are stupid.
Furthermore, if Fraggle Rocker has a problem with my postings he can take it up with me directly. Much like the rest of your public activities, your input is neither needed nor requested.
I don't intend for that to be the fallacy of Argument from Authority. I don't have a degree in linguistics so virtually everything I know is readily available for verification by other laymen, especially now in the Internet Era. Please feel free to peer-review anything I post. This is after all a place of science and scholarship--or at least our mission as Moderators is to make it so. Most of the members are satisfied with my level of accuracy because I try very hard to check my facts, but we all make mistakes occasionally. I don't and I won't--beyond my brief response above, which leaves you free to continue peer-reviewing my assertions like a good scholar. However, it might be nice if next time you proffer a subsantive refutation rather than, to coin a phrase, "Argument against Authority." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Allow me to return the unrequested favor. WW is one of our most knowledgeable and respected members. The hadron thingie is guaranteed to be controversial so there's not much need to point out that a sizeable number of other scientists disagree with him even if many do. This is science in action--at least 21st century science struggling under corporate and government influence. We hardly need to be skeptical of his explanations of uncontroversial undergraduate-level physics. But we all have a right to a healthy skepticism of cosmology in its current state. It is an awkward mixture of theoretical physics, pure abstract mathematics, philosophy, and a dash of astronomy. It has not even been around long enough to qualify as "hard" science, as evidenced by the fact that they change their fundamental models every generation. I still remember the entertaining eleven-dimensional model of microcosmology (elementary particles) of the 1980s, and macrocosmology (the whole universe) is no more stable: Dark matter and energy? Expanding space? The Big Bang is the central phenomenon in this model, and nobody has really figured out how it worked! This puts 21st century cosmology on a par with 18th century chemistry, 19th century physics, or 20th century biology.
Argument from authority is how it came across (to me at least) but I'm willing to accept that's not how it was meant. If I do disagree with you in future I'm sure it won't be too long before I let you know about it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Leading me to... I absolutely disagree with you here. Walter Wagner is probably more respected than he is knowledgeable, but in my estimation, Walter Wagner is a confounded fool with no more right to be listened to than a mildly retarded sea cucumber with Tourette's syndrome. That may sound harsh but Walter Wagner is responsible, along with partner in crime Luis Sancho, of taking the focus in the popular media away from the serious work the LHC is doing and, as I alluded to in a previous post, is actually responsible for someone's death. In the physics community there is absolutely and categorically no doubt about the safety of the LHC. There is literally one guy called Plaga who is in the physics community (he's actually an astrophysicist, so particle accelerators aren't really what you'd expect him to know about anyway) that has written a paper claiming that particle colliders could be dangerous, but that was debunked by another paper by Giddings and Mangano. The LHC is doing really important and interesting work - most people know about the Higgs but there is the LHC will do lots of other things like possibly discover supersymmetry and so lots of study of the properties of quark gluon plasma (see my avatar). I find it deeply annoying that all anyone in the media will ask about the LHC is "what is the probability of a black hole being created?" This type of uninformed opinion is dangerous. I don't know where you are in the world but in the UK we had an episode where a study linked the MMR vaccine to autism. Despite other studies finding no such link, the media picked it up and ran with it, whipping up a paranoid frenzy where people opted out of the vaccine in their thousands. That led to a bunch of people getting measles that wouldn't otherwise have, and some were seriously ill. In this case, as a direct result of Walter and Luis' actions someone committed suicide. We should not even give Walter Wagner the time of day, never mind our respect. This is a different topic. Cosmology and particle physics are related but the standard model doesn't need the big bang to be true. The predictions of the big bang matches very well with what we observe, and we know that the big bang is consistent up to a very small fraction of a second after t=0. I think it's been figured out pretty well. I'm afraid I can't claim the credit. It came from another forum I post on. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
For the "threat" of MMR, that was Richard Barr and Andrew Wakefield, who sought a new issue to sue deep-pockets firms over, transfered large sums of money, ignored or bypassed ethical supervision, experimented on children without medial cause and in at least once case paid a 4-year-old for the "consent" to draw blood without parental supervision. Wakefield is no longer licensed to practice medicine. http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4871728.stm http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814 For the "threat" of LHC products, that is Walter Wagner and Luis Sancho, among others. Walter enjoys a distinguished position in this group since not only did he instigate (il)legal proceedings, but he sought to raise funds and establish a tax-free organization. http://www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_takeaction.php (No idea who picks up the mail at that address anymore.) For the "threat" of RHIC products, that is Walter Wagner again, with multiple lawsuits. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...=398025583#Critics_of_high_energy_experiments For the "threat" of ceramic tiles, that is Walter Wagner, no information as to if lawsuit. http://www.weitzlux.com/dangerousproducts/news/uraniumtiles_1164.html For the "threat" of thorium mantles in lanterns, that is Walter Wagner, lawsuit again. http://books.google.com/books?id=-sE7JVywygQC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195 For the "threat" of not dating Walter Wagner, that is Walter Wagner. http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20069143,00.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1347272.html // To be fair, Wagner does some things which aren't about his self-promotion and crusades against baseless fears, example: http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2659885&postcount=4 but my first encounter with him was his meaningless anti-LHC arguments and his wrapping himself in the mantle of presumed authority. example: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4830&view=findpost&p=260869
Conclusion: Walter Wagner appears to be a money-and-publicity hungry opportunist more so than a crackpot. In other words, he doesn't have to believe in his own cause to pursue it. The same could be said about many people, including just about every lawyer I know (and, unfortunately, many politically savvy scientists).
Actually, you could insert just about any entity into that sentence and it would seem true. CERN, Brookhaven, any entity that needs funding by promoting itself via the media - which covers just about any corporation or public entity and host of others. Which, of course, is your conclusion.
Agreed! I originally had written that this is the basis for most climate research...but then realized that would open a horrible political can of worms in the wrong forum, so forget I said it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As an aside, I'm surprised that you don't seem to deny the allegation that you may not personally subscribe to your own disaster theories, Mr. Wagner. Truth be told, I secretly admire those that can create a living off the sheeple through misinformation, but that doesn't mean I think we should allow it.
Yes, and we ridicule NASA when their press campaign turns out to be based on shoddy science and hyperbole.
. hmm, weird, that terrorists are also humans like us, and us can be terrorists, where ever we would move, we will always have bad people Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i mean, we can have murders and terrorists on planet mars too! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
. sorry to interrupt. Now, who want to buy an iPhone? only for 199.999 dollars!! a special offer! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! you can just ask for more axessories or options to add on this phone, and we will provide the rest. No shippement cost is needed to pay.
let me make this simple yes, the universe is flat ON LARGE SCALES mass warps the universe so it cant be pefect, but when we say the universe is open, closed or flat, we mean overall, and that stupid light experiment is redundant because you can prove it by measuring the density of the universe which we have done and checking how close it is to the density required for a flat universe which can be EASILY calculated using only newtonian laws of gravity
