Pretty interesting lecture on astrophysics

Repatriate · Post by **Repatriate** » December 18th, 2011, 8:14 am

I've been on an astrophysics bender lately and have been running through Neil Degrasse Tyson's books as well as Richard Dawkins (who is an evolutionary biologist), Michio Kaku, and now Lawrence Krauss.

This Lawrence Krauss lecture on youtube is really fascinating.

The physics and mathematics involved is way beyond my depth of understanding but in simple layman terms he's able to explain what the universe consists of and how they measure it. Astrophysics appears to be built around the measurement of light, particles, and gravity. Then universe is formed from "nothing" based on quantum fluctuations in space time.

MrPeabody · Post by **MrPeabody** » December 18th, 2011, 12:50 pm

In the lecture he assumes the universe is flat. Until recently, cosmologists were convinced that the universe was curved. I don't believe the flat hypothesis has been proven with evidence yet. If its not true than his entire theory falls apart.

Repatriate · Post by **Repatriate** » December 18th, 2011, 3:22 pm

MrPeabody wrote:In the lecture he assumes the universe is flat. Until recently, cosmologists were convinced that the universe was curved. I don't believe the flat hypothesis has been proven with evidence yet. If its not true than his entire theory falls apart.

Listen closely to how they measured and defined the universe as flat. They measured it with light and a complex form of triangulation. Light does not behave as if the universe were curved. He goes over why a spherical or curved universe doesn't make sense based on the evidence that they found including the accelerating expansion as well as the zero total energy concept where something comes from nothing ie. Big Bang.

Seeker · Post by **Seeker** » December 18th, 2011, 3:25 pm

The observed accelerating cosmic expansion implies a flat or open universe, it certainly isn't closed. From observation it seems to be flat or very close to flat.

Repatriate · Post by **Repatriate** » December 18th, 2011, 3:41 pm

The only part of his lecture that I had a problem understanding conceptually is the "infinite" part of it. He says rare phenomena happens all the time in the universe because of its infinite nature. When you're calculating on those scales then any probability is a possibility. I think humans just weren't meant to understand how some things work, heh.

MrPeabody · Post by **MrPeabody** » December 18th, 2011, 4:30 pm

Repatriate wrote:
MrPeabody wrote:In the lecture he assumes the universe is flat. Until recently, cosmologists were convinced that the universe was curved. I don't believe the flat hypothesis has been proven with evidence yet. If its not true than his entire theory falls apart.
Listen closely to how they measured and defined the universe as flat. They measured it with light and a complex form of triangulation. Light does not behave as if the universe were curved. He goes over why a spherical or curved universe doesn't make sense based on the evidence that they found including the accelerating expansion as well as the zero total energy concept where something comes from nothing ie. Big Bang.

I understand the methodology, but scientists were using that same technique and concluding that the universe had curvature. Also, there is the issue of how large of a triangle do you have to construct to prove it. Maybe even a larger triangle would show a slightly positive curvature. And how is it possible to survey large triangle with interstellar or intergalactic distances causing communications problems? Do you have a reference that the consensus is now that the universe is flat? One has to be careful with listening to popular cosmologists because what they are doing is translating their mathematical equations into natural language but one is never sure what is the mathematics and what has actually been proven by evidence. A mathematical equation without evidence can never be assumed true. I believe that the "accelerating expansion" and "zero total energy concepts" as well as dark matter have not been proven yet. But, things are changing so fast I can't say for sure anymore.

Repatriate · Post by **Repatriate** » December 18th, 2011, 4:41 pm

MrPeabody wrote:
Repatriate wrote:
MrPeabody wrote:In the lecture he assumes the universe is flat. Until recently, cosmologists were convinced that the universe was curved. I don't believe the flat hypothesis has been proven with evidence yet. If its not true than his entire theory falls apart.
Listen closely to how they measured and defined the universe as flat. They measured it with light and a complex form of triangulation. Light does not behave as if the universe were curved. He goes over why a spherical or curved universe doesn't make sense based on the evidence that they found including the accelerating expansion as well as the zero total energy concept where something comes from nothing ie. Big Bang.
A mathematical equation without evidence can never be assumed true.

Well that goes back to the problem with infinity. Do we really have proof of infinity or is there an end to PI somewhere that hasn't been computed yet. It's a very real mathematical concept yet we can't see the beginning or end of infinity to know whether that's true.

believe that the "accelerating expansion" and "zero total energy concepts" as well as dark matter have not been proven yet. But, things are changing so fast I can't say for sure anymore.

You're right about that it's not certain, actually nothing is when it comes to astrophysics heh. I think Dr. Tyson said that we understand very little of how all this works and by "we" I mean the small number of astrophysicists who can even begin to grasp the technical part of it. It's all interesting though. Flat or not this is the first easy to understand lecture where i've seen a scientist try supporting this with empirical evidence that the layman can understand.

MrPeabody · Post by **MrPeabody** » December 18th, 2011, 4:46 pm

Repatriate wrote:The only part of his lecture that I had a problem understanding conceptually is the "infinite" part of it. He says rare phenomena happens all the time in the universe because of its infinite nature. When you're calculating on those scales then any probability is a possibility. I think humans just weren't meant to understand how some things work, heh.

Think of it in terms of rolling dice. If you chose a pattern no matter how long, it will eventually happen if you have an infinite number of times to roll the dice. If this is the best science can come up with, religion is going to be around for a while longer.

Repatriate · Post by **Repatriate** » December 18th, 2011, 4:52 pm

MrPeabody wrote:
Repatriate wrote:The only part of his lecture that I had a problem understanding conceptually is the "infinite" part of it. He says rare phenomena happens all the time in the universe because of its infinite nature. When you're calculating on those scales then any probability is a possibility. I think humans just weren't meant to understand how some things work, heh.
Think of it in terms of rolling dice. If you chose a pattern no matter how long, it will eventually happen if you have an infinite number of times to roll the dice. If this is the best science can come up with, religion is going to be around for a while longer.

Even this unusual concept is better than following the dictates of a pederast wearing a funny headpiece.

MrPeabody · Post by **MrPeabody** » December 19th, 2011, 6:51 am

The part of this that I found the most interesting was when everyone clapped when this fool pointed out how he thought science had finally discovered how meaningless life is. Why would people clap at this? Aren't they horrified? It just shows how arrogant, flippant, and comfortable Westerners have become. I wonder what they would think if they were all lined up to have their heads chopped off. Would they be ok with that? If life is meaningless and they are consistent then it shouldn't be a problem. Also, if the arrogant scientist is correct then there is no possible reason why chopping off their heads shouldn't be just as valid an action as taking a Sunday walk in the park. When you look at the totality of the situation, science and technology hasn't improved life. A tribe living in the jungles of Brazil is happier than the average American. If you make $100,000 a year, that is just enough to pay your expenses and get your basic needs met as a worker bee slave in the US technical machine. A man in America has no possibility of finding a good woman and if he tries he is exploited by vultures who makes millions by publishing pictures of beautiful women from foreign countries and then charging $10 a letter to talk to them. A poor man in a foreign country can meet a woman and raise a family. Now these scientists sneer at you and strip away your remaining dignity by telling you how insignificant you are. None of this is in the equations and the equations themselves prove nothing. But that doesn't stop the entertainer. This message has been brought to you by the Daniel Pearl Beautify America Project.