It’s like the stars when observed at veryx2 far distance they start to behave weird. Blinking a bit faster than normal this might cause the reason for much faster expansion when calculating. Entropy suppose to be improbable right but at far distance all those improbable they probably all eventually add up. Just my thought anyway.
Have you ever had a dream that
That you, um, you had, you’ll, you would
You could, you do, you would you want you
You could do some, you…
You’ll do, you could you, you want
You want him to do you so muchYou could do anything, do anything
Have you ever had a dream
You could do anything, do anything
Have you ever had a dream
You could do anything, do anything
Over and over again. That scope is really opening things up.
It’s almost like cephid variable measurement is a shitty metric for measuring universe expansion because you’re not actually measuring the edge of the universe just the rate of travel of two objects.
Good riddance, the answer can never be too simple.
The human need for ‘constants’ may already be too simple. Gravity for example is treated as a constant value in Physics but is actually variable.
I might have missed something, but AFAIK, gravity is the same everywhere. Bigger things, bigger gravity, sure, but two equal things in different locations don’t have different gravitational attraction
Your understanding of what constitutes “Physics” (tip: it’s not a bunch of kids in a classroom) tells me that we can safely ignore your opinion.
Dogulas knew:
I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe.
– Arthur Dent, the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy Radio Series.
Sounds more like Arthur knew…
“The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ but ‘That’s funny…'” --Isaac Asimov
No flying machine will ever reach New York from Paris.
One of the Wright brothers said that. It’s actually my favorite quote because it always reminds me we have no idea what the fuck we’re wrong about.
No flying machine will ever reach New York from Paris.
googles
Interestingly, when he wrote that, it was part of a larger quote saying virtually the same thing that you are, just over a century ago:
Wilbur in the Cairo, Illinois, Bulletin, March 25, 1909
No airship will ever fly from New York to Paris. That seems to me to be impossible. What limits the flight is the motor. No known motor can run at the requisite speed for four days without stopping, and you can’t be sure of finding the proper winds for soaring. The airship will always be a special messenger, never a load-carrier. But the history of civilization has usually shown that every new invention has brought in its train new needs it can satisfy, and so what the airship will eventually be used for is probably what we can least predict at the present.
Oh, and to provide numbers:
https://www.distance.to/New-York/Paris
That’s 5,837.07 km.
As of the moment, the longest flight by distance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Atlantic_GlobalFlyer
In February 2006, Fossett flew the GlobalFlyer for the longest aircraft flight distance in history: 25,766 miles (41,466 km).
That’s 7.1 times the Paris-to-New-York flight distance.
As for time:
No known motor can run at the requisite speed for four days without stopping…
The longest flight by time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager
The flight took off from Edwards Air Force Base’s 15,000 foot (4,600 m) runway in the Mojave Desert on December 14, 1986, and ended 9 days, 3 minutes and 44 seconds later on December 23, setting a flight endurance record.
Plus X-37B has flown round the earth for two and a half years on its longest flight. I know it’s not really what he was thinking about as it’s launched in space from a rocket in orbit but then that just adds even more to the notion tech advancement can be almost impossible to predict.
“Brought in its train” what an interesting phrase, do people still say this? Is it the same as “in its wake” we use today?
At a computer trade show in 1981, Bill Gates supposedly uttered this statement, in defense of the just-introduced IBM PC’s 640KB usable RAM limit: “640K ought to be enough for anybody.”
That quote was in the context of the 1981 personal computer market, and in that context is correct.
It’s like a game company CEO saying 12GB of video ram is enough in 2024 so we don’t all need an RTX 4090.
12GB of video ram is enough in 2024
And then Stable Diffusion showed up
Im getting away with my 8gb for now.
Its the language/text stuff that really needs like 30gb GPUs.
Im getting away with my 8gb for now.
I don’t think that you can do the current XL models with 8GB, even for low-resolution images. Maybe with --lowvram or something.
I’ve got a 24GB RX 7900 XT and would render higher resolution images if I had the VRAM – yeah, you can sometimes sort of get a similar effect by upscaling in tiles, but it’s not really a replacement. And I am confident that even if they put a consumer card out with 128GB, someone will figure out some new clever extension that does something fascinating and useful…as long as one can devote a little more memory to it…
I do XL all the time, at about 30-45 seconds per image. 8gb is surprisingly enough for SDXL, and I run like 7gb models with 3-6 Lora on top.
We abandoning materialism yet?
The most exciting result of scientific discovery is “well that’s odd.”
yo… what
-Science
“Oh no… Oh no… Oh shit… RUUUUUUUUUN!!!”
I never though I’d see a resonance cascade, let alone create one!
The
cakeBigBang is a lie.
original source :
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad1dddsee also :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble’s_law
Hubble tension
In the 21st century, multiple methods have been used to determine the Hubble constant. “Late universe” measurements using calibrated distance ladder techniques have converged on a value of approximately 73 (km/s)/Mpc. Since 2000, “early universe” techniques based on measurements of the cosmic microwave background have become available, and these agree on a value near 67.7 (km/s)/Mpc. (…)
(…) The most exciting possibility is new physics beyond the currently accepted cosmological model of the universe, (…)Can someone give me the spark notes I started reading but I’ll never get through that or probably even understand all of it
It’s simple, imagine you’ve got two smart friends that both have an opinion about a TV show you didn’t watch - you can’t tell who is right but the fact they disagree suggests they might be wrong when they say you can’t have flying cars and time travel.
Basically,
Everything you know is wrong.
Black is white, up is down, and short is long
Do all parts of a growing, living creature expand at the same speed?
In America, our guts grow way faster than our brains, bc that’s where we do most of our thinking. :-D
Ohhh that makes sense! You have some REALLY smart people over there!
Damn straight - it has it right there in our flag (the red is bacon 🥓)!
Holy fucking shit. How have I never seen that version of your flag before? That other one is so boring why isn’t this one flying everywhere?
Bold of you to presume that it isn’t!? :-P
And if you think that’s something, wait till you see our history books:
And our newspapers:
(save us from ourselves?)
Well damn! No wonder you guys are so patriotic! I think I might be a bit jealous of your freedom and your news industry.
(Wish I could help 😞 I’m just up here in this other little North American country. The really cold one. Just wishing someone saves you from yourselves before that stink moves too far up and gets embedded in the carpet. Unfortunately we’ve been getting more and more whiffs of it in the past couple years. We may need help too.)
Yeah, it’s spreading all over the world. Again. Except this time we seem to be for rather than against it, for some reason? :-(
From my limited understanding, the discrepancy comes from the two ways to measure the universe’s expansion: calculation from cosmic microwave background and calculating a cepheid variable, which uses pulsating stars (pulsars?)
Isn’t it more likely that one, or both, ways of measuring are wrong? As in, they’re not useful for measuring the universe’s rate of expansion?
Isn’t it more likely that one, or both, ways of measuring are wrong? As in, they’re not useful for measuring the universe’s rate of expansion?
Now, scientists using the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes have confirmed that the observation is not down to a measurement error.
I’m trying to understand the distinction you are making. Could you elaborate?
Not a scientist but the article seems to mean that they checked that the tools themselves had no defects giving incorrect measurements.
This comment seems to be questioning the methodology of how we measure the rate of expansion so tackles a different aspect of the conversation.
But that’s about as much as I can contribute haha
Why couldn’t this still be “big bang”? Look at a grenade for example. When it explodes, a shock wave expands from it in a near perfect sphere, but the fragments previous packed inside of it explode out at different speeds depending on their mass.
If you were in the center of that explosion, measuring the speed of fragments traveling away from you, they’d travel at different speeds. Only the initial shockwave would be constant.
This is more like you measure the fragment speeds with both a laser and with radar, and get different readings off the same fragment.
Maybe because the speed of things is not the same thing as the speed of space expansion.
Seeing the universe expanding at different rates could just mean we’re not as close to the center as we thought, and the parts further away from the center are moving faster. That’s my layman’s hypothesis though
There is no center of the universe fwiw, there is no middle everything is expanding out from. Just a substrate that exists everywhere that inflates
It’s fun to think it might just start going backwards or something because we have literally no idea what is actually happening, like it’s very possible we’ll never actually be able to see or measure anything outside the universe but there could be all sorts of things going on.
There is no center.
Yes there is and it is me.
Can I have some money?
This is amazing news. It’s like being shown that Neutonian physics are wrong, so now we have the ability to come up with a better model, then massive advancements in technology can occur.
We did find out that Newtonian physics is wrong. Einstein got famous for it and we now use general/special relativity and quantum phsyics.
No, Newtonian physics works just fine. Unless things are too big, too small, too fast, or too slow.
At least that’s what a meme I once saw said.
So it works fine on human scales, but for most of the universe it is inadequate. That means it’s wrong. Quantum physics and relativity are also wrong since he are unable to reconcile the two, despite them both being the best models we have for their respective scales. We have known for the past century that we have only just begun to understand the universe, and that all our models are irreconcilable with each other, meaning that they are ultimately wrong.
Just because a model is useful doesn’t mean it is right.
I agree with the essence of your point but personally I’d never use the word “wrong”, only incomplete. Seems weird to call Newton’s laws “wrong” when the only reason that we are willing to accept GR is that it reduces to Newton.
All models are wrong. Some models are useful.
I prefer mine:
literally every model is a metaphor and not a true representation of the actual phenomenon it’s modeling.
It’s not so much that it reduces to Newtonian predictions but that at human scale and energy levels the difference between Newtonian and general relatively is so small it’s almost impossible to tell the difference.
What you’re describing is literally what it means for general relativity to reduce to Newtonian mechanics. You can literally derive Newton’s equations by applying calculus to general relativity. In fact, if you ever get a physics degree, you’ll have to learn how to do it.
I think it’s better to say that Newtonian physics is incomplete rather than wrong.
Bingo. All models are “wrong”, good models are useful despite being “wrong”. Relativity is wrong too since it can’t account for anything quantum… Relativity isn’t better, it’s just more accurate under certain conditions - but outside of those conditions it’s more complex than it needs to be, and Newton’s models are good enough.
Ah. So it’s relative.
Neutonian physics are wrong
Dangerous way of putting that since we have so many easily weaponized idiots who will carry that water, a better way to say it would be “our understanding of neutonian physics is incomplete at the moment”
I agree, it is more accurate that way. English is not my first language, so I missed that detail. In South Africa, we also don’t have a significant anti-science movement, so it does not always occur to me naturally. The scientific approach is generally well respected and understood here.
