BF2S Forums The Kepler launch and the Ares parachute test

Runs_with_sciss0rs wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Runs_with_sciss0rs wrote:

Have you ever been to an actual lauch, Kam?

I was at the last Shuttle night launch.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tampastorm/3232821785/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tampastorm/3221484258/

http://stormsurge.us/Shuttle.html

O wow nice pictures. What does it feel like having that rumble go through you? It must feel so cool

It's something you have to experience.. you feel it in the ground, your bones . Highly Recommended.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Fm, that's just being facetious.

Curiosity like 'whats over that next hill' 'will this boat carry me to the next island' 'whats that bright yellow thing in the sky'

Your metaphor fails because we know what is around every corner. It's an infinite universe...everything is around any one corner.

Who says it's an infinite universe. Currently accepted theories tell us that it isn't. It's these sort of questions they try to answer with further space exploration.

Am I the only one that read the title as
"The Kepler lunch and the arse parachute test"?
I thought "damn that sounds like an eventful food consumption time, not just your run of the mill lunch!"

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Your metaphor fails because we know what is around every corner. It's an infinite universe...everything is around any one corner.

Who says it's an infinite universe. Currently accepted theories tell us that it isn't. It's these sort of questions they try to answer with further space exploration.

see above poster who already noted the fallacy

Not what I'm saying.

He said:

Yaocelotl wrote:

I disagree that the universe is infinite because that has not been proven, so it makes it a theory not a fact.

Which is not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying the commonly accepted theories are that the universe is finite. Not that there is any real concensus on this point.

Hubble's law suggests that the universe is expanding - which pretty much makes the infinite universe concept unviable. Something infinite cannot expand.

I also strongly disagree with his interpretation of what a theory and a fact are. Theories do not become fact. Theories become more strongly validated theories. You can disprove a theory, but can never prove one conclusively. That's not how science works.

Your point on an infinite universe being empirically untestable which you made in response to the challenge by the previous poster, is hardly relevant in the original context of your post - which was: "everything is around any one corner". According to the Big Bang model, it simply isn't.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

http://i41.tinypic.com/2akgpio.jpg

Not a bad shot considering .

Certainly worth the $0.40 a year I paid to stimulate the NASA economy.


Edit: .. ahah NASA <3 Me

http://i42.tinypic.com/9s5vzr.jpg

Right now they are waiting to re-aquire the signal in Australia (our partners )

holy shit.....you're FAMOUS

Not easy shooting something at night @ supersonic speeds 115 miles away . There was some luck involved.

Bertster7 wrote:

I also strongly disagree with his interpretation of what a theory and a fact are. Theories do not become fact. Theories become more strongly validated theories. You can disprove a theory, but can never prove one conclusively. That's not how science works.

That is exactly how science works. Most of our physical models are most certainly based on theories that are difficult if not impossible to prove, but they make sense and they explain all the data that we do have. It's difficult to take you too seriously if you don't understand this.

Bertster7 wrote:

Hubble's law suggests that the universe is expanding - which pretty much makes the infinite universe concept unviable. Something infinite cannot expand.

Your point on an infinite universe being empirically untestable which you made in response to the challenge by the previous poster, is hardly relevant in the original context of your post - which was: "everything is around any one corner". According to the Big Bang model, it simply isn't.

Not necessarily. The only section of the universe that we can see is ct in radius even with the most powerful telescopes we have - it is quite literally impossible to know how much universe there is outside of that.

Although brief(er), it does cover Hubble and red shift.

Bertster7 wrote:

A theory always remains unproven - in the case of physics at least (maths is different). It can only be well tested. Failing a test disproves a theory. Passing tests doesn't. At no point does a theory become fact.

If you are describing the scientific method here, then I think you added a negative to your previous statement.

You said:

Bertster7 wrote:

I also strongly disagree with his interpretation of what a theory and a fact are. Theories do not become fact. Theories become more strongly validated theories. You can disprove a theory, but can never prove one conclusively. That's not how science works.

You described exactly how the scientific method works as you did again in this most recent post, but then you said that was not how science works.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I take it from that you don't know what Hubble's law is? Or what red and blue shift are? By observing the shift in light spectrum we can tell that the universe is moving away from us in all directions, therefore it is expanding. The further away we look the faster it is expanding. Any event horizon (unless extra dimensional) is not overly relevant to that.

I take it you didn't understand the point of my post.

While most of the celestial bodies we can see are moving away from us (some are blue-shifted), we have to take into account our perspective in the universe. If we were the center of the universe, then yes either everything is moving away from us or there is additional space being added in between. (not quite the same thing)  However, we aren't. We are at some arbitrary point in the universe, and as far as we can see around us is defined by the distance ct, where t is the time since the universe began. Some models are designed to overcome this error in perspective in order to describe the expansion of the universe from a perspective that isn't tied to Earth, but as we have established they are still theories and theories not nearly as well established as most.

We cannot necessarily extrapolate the behavior of the space around us to the rest of the universe. It's true that the Big Bang is fairly widely accepted, but that has to do with many of the other questions it gives answers to such as the existence of CMB radiation and the formation of large (hundreds of light-years across structures. The reason for, method of, and limits to the expansion of the universe is still a question that we have extremely unsatisfactory answers for.

Hey Kmarion, why don't we each donate one penny towards buying Miami some snow plows?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Hey Kmarion, why don't we each donate one penny towards buying Miami some snow plows?

Right, so that's the equivalent.. there is absolutely nothing to be gained.. what a fucking joke.

Back to watching Bertie destroy you.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Therefore for all your tenuous grammatical pedantry, it looks as though I had interpreted your position perfectly correctly. Whereas my position has been absolutely clear throughout.

Dude, you had a fucking negative okay? It's not that big of a deal, nobody really cares, but it's perfectly impossible to tell what you meant to say when you accidentally negated all of it.

No. Negated the subject (which is his interpretation of what a theory and a fact are). What I said was grammatically correct. I was a little concerned I might've slipped up when I posted my previous response. I have since checked and am satisfied that what I wrote was perfectly grammatically correct and meant what I meant.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Most of our physical models are most certainly based on theories that are difficult if not impossible to prove

Difficult or impossible to prove. All physical theories are impossible to prove.

I when I said "theories" I was talking about the ability to prove whether the universe is infinite or not, alluding to the inability to know if GR is correct and if we really could never know what happens past ct. When I said "physical models" I was talking about the theory I was using earlier that is based on an infinite universe. This is  truly is an argument of semantics.

Really? Sounds like frantic back peddaling to me.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Current Big Bang theory suggests there is no centre of the universe. That the expansion suggested in Lemaitre and supported by Hubble's observations is not fixed around any particular point.

How many blue-shifted galaxies can we see then? 50? 100? Out billions upon billions. Most of this can be explained because those galxies are fairly local and are orbiting other ones.

FLRW model demands homogeneity. FLRW + perturbations is generally accepted as the best model that we have right now, as it is the easiest one and it gets us pretty damn close, but it is by no stretch of the imagination considered a good model. Working on the problem of the expansion of the universe is directly tied to the dark energy problem, and that's really what the cosmological community is trying to work on right now. Kinda silly for us to attempt to use models that the pros aren't very happy with.

I was just letting you know. It's not a point of contention.

All models in use are imperfect. That's why gravity doesn't fit in with electromagnetism or the nuclear forces. The standard model is just fine for our purposes (I was a bit confused originally reading your post - haven't heard it called the FLRW model before, not what any of my books or lecturers have called it).

Are you suggesting we don't use Newtonian dynamics or quantum theory since they are just approximations?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Right, so that's the equivalent.. there is absolutely nothing to be gained.. what a fucking joke.

Back to watching Bertie destroy you.

I can quite honestly say that the possibility of gaining any genuinely useful information from the probe itself is less than the probability that Miami needs a shitload of snow plows in the next 50 years.

'Course it is.

Any additional information about other stars and planets is useful. Are you suggesting it won't find anything?

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Therefore for all your tenuous grammatical pedantry, it looks as though I had interpreted your position perfectly correctly. Whereas my position has been absolutely clear throughout.

Dude, you had a fucking negative okay? It's not that big of a deal, nobody really cares, but it's perfectly impossible to tell what you meant to say when you accidentally negated all of it.

No. Negated the subject (which is his interpretation of what a theory and a fact are). What I said was grammatically correct. I was a little concerned I might've slipped up when I posted my previous response. I have since checked and am satisfied that what I wrote was perfectly grammatically correct and meant what I meant.

You used a pronoun, and juxtaposed with your previous statements, one has to assume you are talking about the last used noun. "That" is too ambiguous to assume anything else.

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Difficult or impossible to prove. All physical theories are impossible to prove.

I when I said "theories" I was talking about the ability to prove whether the universe is infinite or not, alluding to the inability to know if GR is correct and if we really could never know what happens past ct. When I said "physical models" I was talking about the theory I was using earlier that is based on an infinite universe. This is  truly is an argument of semantics.

Really? Sounds like frantic back peddaling to me.

In context that makes perfect sense, if you drop the context and try to pick it apart because someone couldn't understand what you said then of course it's wrong.

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Current Big Bang theory suggests there is no centre of the universe. That the expansion suggested in Lemaitre and supported by Hubble's observations is not fixed around any particular point.

How many blue-shifted galaxies can we see then? 50? 100? Out billions upon billions. Most of this can be explained because those galxies are fairly local and are orbiting other ones.

FLRW model demands homogeneity. FLRW + perturbations is generally accepted as the best model that we have right now, as it is the easiest one and it gets us pretty damn close, but it is by no stretch of the imagination considered a good model. Working on the problem of the expansion of the universe is directly tied to the dark energy problem, and that's really what the cosmological community is trying to work on right now. Kinda silly for us to attempt to use models that the pros aren't very happy with.

I was just letting you know. It's not a point of contention.

All models in use are imperfect. That's why gravity doesn't fit in with electromagnetism or the nuclear forces. The standard model is just fine for our purposes (I was a bit confused originally reading your post - haven't heard it called the FLRW model before, not what any of my books or lecturers have called it).

Are you suggesting we don't use Newtonian dynamics or quantum theory since they are just approximations?

Other models are better though. The FLRW model has the advantage of being relatively easy and still accurate (if you include perturbations) but other models that don't need conditions such as a homogeneous universe (such as the Szecheres model) are more pertinent to reality. You don't look for something you lost in the woods under a light post because the lighting is better there...

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Right, so that's the equivalent.. there is absolutely nothing to be gained.. what a fucking joke.

Back to watching Bertie destroy you.

I can quite honestly say that the possibility of gaining any genuinely useful information from the probe itself is less than the probability that Miami needs a shitload of snow plows in the next 50 years.

'Course it is.

Any additional information about other stars and planets is useful. Are you suggesting it won't find anything?

The "useful" information you speak of is determining whether there are other planets that are approximately the same temperature as Earth.

Whoop-die-fuckin doo. I challenge anyone to a) find a skeptic that believes no such planets exist and b) can draw interesting/important conclusions from proof otherwise.

NASA is not scientific just because it is NASA. NASA has people fighting over the budget, many fighting tooth and nail for their project because it is their project, not on merit.