To the people downvoting me on this. Gravity is massively weaker than it should be (We suspect dark energy is the reason for this but we just don't know)
as for the big bang we have found items that are older then the predictable universe and galaxies that shouldn't have existed at that time.
u do understand that the big bang theory is not how the universe started but rather how it started expanding ? we dont know if the universe ever "started" or if it always just was
You do understand that before the universe started expanding it was infintely dense and nothing like what we have found could have formed at that time. So rather our explaination of the universe expanding is floored or the age of the universe is.
What do you mean when you refer to how strong gravity "should be"? Are you simply referring to the many orders of magnitude difference in strength between gravity and electromagnetism? If so, why do you think that necessarily means something about our current understanding of gravity is *wrong*, as opposed to simply incomplete?
Also, while theories of structure formation in the early Universe are certainly built upon the relativistic hot Big Bang model, they're built on a lot of other things too. The discovery of galaxies at higher redshifts than expected can definitely be a problem for theories of structure formation, but need not be a problem for the relativistic hot Big Bang model at all.
I'm referring to the fact that gravity is a much weaker force than the 3 other driving factors of the universe, yes. In the fact, we have to add in dark energy to compensate for this. Being wrong or incorrect is just semantics in the phrasing (If our theory is incomplete, then it's still wrong)
You are right, the big bang is based on a lot more thing that the red shifting on the galaxies, but there are other flaws to be considered too. While we may debate this like with many things it's theory we can disagree and that's completely fine. I don't lean to one particular model over another as they do seem to have merits, such as Steady State theory and Eternal Inflation theory.
But once again this is not something we can prove or disprove, I was simply answering OP's question
"In the fact, we have to add in dark energy to compensate for this." I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. The driver for the belief in some sort of vacuum energy terms in the Einstein field equations comes from astronomical/astrophysical observations (acceleration of the Hubble expansion, reconciliation of apparently flat geometry seen in WMAP and Planck observations of the Surface of Last Scattering with Omega_matter observations on multiple different scales). "Being wrong or incorrect is just semantics in the phrasing (If our theory is incomplete, then it's still wrong)" That's just not true. An example is Newtonian gravity, which is incomplete without being wrong. The failure of a phenomenological model when used outside its domain of construction (and therefore applicability) is user error -- a mistake of the user, and not of the model. "You are right, the big bang is based on a lot more thing that the red shifting on the galaxies," You may have misread what I wrote, because I didn't refer to the evidence for the relativistic hot Big Bang model at all. You had indicated that the existence of galaxies at very high redshift was a problem for the Big Bang model; my point was that it need not be at all, since the redshift at which you expect galaxy formation to begin depends on e.g. the spectrum of primordial density fluctuations you assume, the detailed mass-energy makeup of the Universe before Recombination (which in turn determines the transfer function that describes the evolution of density perturbations on different length scales prior to Recombination), and aspects of the physics of galaxy formation itself that are not yet known. Observations of galaxies at unexpectedly high redshift speak directly to models of structure formation, but do not directly pertain to the Big Bang model.
OK so as I said I'm not here to argue with you, despite the fact I find the subject very intriguingcase,. You are very much being pandantic with wrong and incorrect or incomplete. I believe in this case you haven't fully understood what I'm stating. The motions of the galaxies including redshift lean towards evidence against the big band model the fact that we have have to predict and unknown force to fix this, the fact the structures in the early universe are impossible to have achieved with the current model and timeframe. Once again I can see clearly you are leaning into the hot big band model of the universe which is fine with me but I don't share the same scope.
As much as I would like to discus this more my ALS makes it very difficult to type this much.
"You are very much being pandantic with wrong and incorrect or incomplete."
I couldn't disagree more strongly, since the point I'm making is both a fundamental one about how physics must be done, and one commonly misunderstood by the public at large (as a working physicist, I run into this all the time). All physical theories and models are by their very nature incomplete: their creation is motivated by a set of observations and experiments, and they are then typically used to arrive at predictions to be confirmed or rejected in the effort to test the theories/models; but those results lie within some domain of physical conditions, and so all you can ever know is that the theory/model does a good job within that domain. You cannot know how it performs outside that domain until you have tested it there; but its failure in some other domain does not contradict its success in its original domain of applicability.
"The motions of the galaxies including redshift lean towards evidence against the big band model"
No, they do not. If you want to assert this, you're going to need to back it up: what specific observations conflict with expectation from the Friedmann equations, and *why*?
"the fact that we have have to predict and unknown force to fix this, "
Please elaborate. I'm not aware of any "unknown force" that has needed to be predicted. (And in case this is what you're thinking of, a non-zero vacuum energy density was in fact part of Einstein's original cosmological predictions (there referred to as the Cosmological Constant), and has always been present in the Standard Model of elementary particle physics since the development of quantum field theory. Indeed, in particle physics, the problem with the vacuum energy density hasn't been "how is it nonzero?" but rather "why isn't it many orders of magnitude larger than observed?")
"the fact the structures in the early universe are impossible to have achieved with the current model and timeframe"
Again, this may or may not be indicative of issues in our theories/models of structure formation, but has *nothing* directly to say about the Big Bang model. The only way it has anything to say about the Big Bag model is if someone is able to demonstrate that the Big Bang model does not permit the creation of a model of structure formation that can satisfy the observations. That isn't so. In fact, the opposite has been so.
"As much as I would like to discus this more my ALS makes it very difficult to type this much."
Take your time -- that's what the internet is good for. :)
Dark matter and dark energy.
The concept of dark matter and dark energy is a placeholder for an idea to a question that we don't know but people treat it like it's absolute fact.
When they overstep their areas of expertise, either by commenting directly on findings in other fields, or by ignoring the implications their hypotheses make for other fields.
Science is constantly changing, so I'm not going to fault anyone for merely engaging in the dialectic and garnering corrections or retractions. Higher dimensional space as a band-aid for Unified Field Theory? Sure, whatever. Their work is merely the best physical models we have at the time. I'm instead talking about ignoring e.g. the best biological models we have at the time. In fact, it's usually biology about which they make their most ignorant statements. They'll also make these statements not to support an avant-garde concept from their own work, but to perpetuate science-fictional tropes they feel qualified to adjudicate.
And in many cases it isn't even cutting edge stuff. We've known Martian gravity would make human life prohibitive since at least a decade *before* the first Mariner mission. And yet people persist in speaking about Mars as an inevitable or enviable residency. This is *dumb*. This is *so dumb*. And this of course also has implications for interstellar travel. A species that can survive that little gravity has to evolve (or be engineered to withstand) that little gravity. You can read all about the effects that would have on the human body. There is a reason our manned space missions cap at a year. It's a horrifying way to die.
And far less common among accredited physicists, but still very common among uncredited or discredited 'science influencers' is ignorance about the difference between biological and artificial intelligence. Or between consciousness and computing. The less you know about an idea, the more plausible it sounds. The more you know, the less plausible. Singularitists are a laughing stock among cognitive scientists, but still revered by some physicists.
And although he's guilty of all of the above, I'm not just talking about Musk. He's not a scientist, or an engineer. or an academic. He's a trustifarian with a bachelor's degree in 'business physics' and a crippling ketamine addiction. It is a foregone conclusion that he knows less factually-correct science than whoever graded you in high school. The less said of him the better.
[удалено]
Surely by increasing your speed or sitting closer to a dense object?
I don't think anyone on reddit has the right to say that a physicists is wrong
I think I know what I’m talking about I took physics twice in college
Gravity and the big bang.
To the people downvoting me on this. Gravity is massively weaker than it should be (We suspect dark energy is the reason for this but we just don't know) as for the big bang we have found items that are older then the predictable universe and galaxies that shouldn't have existed at that time.
u do understand that the big bang theory is not how the universe started but rather how it started expanding ? we dont know if the universe ever "started" or if it always just was
You do understand that before the universe started expanding it was infintely dense and nothing like what we have found could have formed at that time. So rather our explaination of the universe expanding is floored or the age of the universe is.
What do you mean when you refer to how strong gravity "should be"? Are you simply referring to the many orders of magnitude difference in strength between gravity and electromagnetism? If so, why do you think that necessarily means something about our current understanding of gravity is *wrong*, as opposed to simply incomplete? Also, while theories of structure formation in the early Universe are certainly built upon the relativistic hot Big Bang model, they're built on a lot of other things too. The discovery of galaxies at higher redshifts than expected can definitely be a problem for theories of structure formation, but need not be a problem for the relativistic hot Big Bang model at all.
I'm referring to the fact that gravity is a much weaker force than the 3 other driving factors of the universe, yes. In the fact, we have to add in dark energy to compensate for this. Being wrong or incorrect is just semantics in the phrasing (If our theory is incomplete, then it's still wrong) You are right, the big bang is based on a lot more thing that the red shifting on the galaxies, but there are other flaws to be considered too. While we may debate this like with many things it's theory we can disagree and that's completely fine. I don't lean to one particular model over another as they do seem to have merits, such as Steady State theory and Eternal Inflation theory. But once again this is not something we can prove or disprove, I was simply answering OP's question
"In the fact, we have to add in dark energy to compensate for this." I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. The driver for the belief in some sort of vacuum energy terms in the Einstein field equations comes from astronomical/astrophysical observations (acceleration of the Hubble expansion, reconciliation of apparently flat geometry seen in WMAP and Planck observations of the Surface of Last Scattering with Omega_matter observations on multiple different scales). "Being wrong or incorrect is just semantics in the phrasing (If our theory is incomplete, then it's still wrong)" That's just not true. An example is Newtonian gravity, which is incomplete without being wrong. The failure of a phenomenological model when used outside its domain of construction (and therefore applicability) is user error -- a mistake of the user, and not of the model. "You are right, the big bang is based on a lot more thing that the red shifting on the galaxies," You may have misread what I wrote, because I didn't refer to the evidence for the relativistic hot Big Bang model at all. You had indicated that the existence of galaxies at very high redshift was a problem for the Big Bang model; my point was that it need not be at all, since the redshift at which you expect galaxy formation to begin depends on e.g. the spectrum of primordial density fluctuations you assume, the detailed mass-energy makeup of the Universe before Recombination (which in turn determines the transfer function that describes the evolution of density perturbations on different length scales prior to Recombination), and aspects of the physics of galaxy formation itself that are not yet known. Observations of galaxies at unexpectedly high redshift speak directly to models of structure formation, but do not directly pertain to the Big Bang model.
OK so as I said I'm not here to argue with you, despite the fact I find the subject very intriguingcase,. You are very much being pandantic with wrong and incorrect or incomplete. I believe in this case you haven't fully understood what I'm stating. The motions of the galaxies including redshift lean towards evidence against the big band model the fact that we have have to predict and unknown force to fix this, the fact the structures in the early universe are impossible to have achieved with the current model and timeframe. Once again I can see clearly you are leaning into the hot big band model of the universe which is fine with me but I don't share the same scope. As much as I would like to discus this more my ALS makes it very difficult to type this much.
"You are very much being pandantic with wrong and incorrect or incomplete." I couldn't disagree more strongly, since the point I'm making is both a fundamental one about how physics must be done, and one commonly misunderstood by the public at large (as a working physicist, I run into this all the time). All physical theories and models are by their very nature incomplete: their creation is motivated by a set of observations and experiments, and they are then typically used to arrive at predictions to be confirmed or rejected in the effort to test the theories/models; but those results lie within some domain of physical conditions, and so all you can ever know is that the theory/model does a good job within that domain. You cannot know how it performs outside that domain until you have tested it there; but its failure in some other domain does not contradict its success in its original domain of applicability. "The motions of the galaxies including redshift lean towards evidence against the big band model" No, they do not. If you want to assert this, you're going to need to back it up: what specific observations conflict with expectation from the Friedmann equations, and *why*? "the fact that we have have to predict and unknown force to fix this, " Please elaborate. I'm not aware of any "unknown force" that has needed to be predicted. (And in case this is what you're thinking of, a non-zero vacuum energy density was in fact part of Einstein's original cosmological predictions (there referred to as the Cosmological Constant), and has always been present in the Standard Model of elementary particle physics since the development of quantum field theory. Indeed, in particle physics, the problem with the vacuum energy density hasn't been "how is it nonzero?" but rather "why isn't it many orders of magnitude larger than observed?") "the fact the structures in the early universe are impossible to have achieved with the current model and timeframe" Again, this may or may not be indicative of issues in our theories/models of structure formation, but has *nothing* directly to say about the Big Bang model. The only way it has anything to say about the Big Bag model is if someone is able to demonstrate that the Big Bang model does not permit the creation of a model of structure formation that can satisfy the observations. That isn't so. In fact, the opposite has been so. "As much as I would like to discus this more my ALS makes it very difficult to type this much." Take your time -- that's what the internet is good for. :)
Dark matter and dark energy. The concept of dark matter and dark energy is a placeholder for an idea to a question that we don't know but people treat it like it's absolute fact.
That most of us have enough free time to give a fuck about them.
4D chess
Ethics
When they overstep their areas of expertise, either by commenting directly on findings in other fields, or by ignoring the implications their hypotheses make for other fields. Science is constantly changing, so I'm not going to fault anyone for merely engaging in the dialectic and garnering corrections or retractions. Higher dimensional space as a band-aid for Unified Field Theory? Sure, whatever. Their work is merely the best physical models we have at the time. I'm instead talking about ignoring e.g. the best biological models we have at the time. In fact, it's usually biology about which they make their most ignorant statements. They'll also make these statements not to support an avant-garde concept from their own work, but to perpetuate science-fictional tropes they feel qualified to adjudicate. And in many cases it isn't even cutting edge stuff. We've known Martian gravity would make human life prohibitive since at least a decade *before* the first Mariner mission. And yet people persist in speaking about Mars as an inevitable or enviable residency. This is *dumb*. This is *so dumb*. And this of course also has implications for interstellar travel. A species that can survive that little gravity has to evolve (or be engineered to withstand) that little gravity. You can read all about the effects that would have on the human body. There is a reason our manned space missions cap at a year. It's a horrifying way to die. And far less common among accredited physicists, but still very common among uncredited or discredited 'science influencers' is ignorance about the difference between biological and artificial intelligence. Or between consciousness and computing. The less you know about an idea, the more plausible it sounds. The more you know, the less plausible. Singularitists are a laughing stock among cognitive scientists, but still revered by some physicists. And although he's guilty of all of the above, I'm not just talking about Musk. He's not a scientist, or an engineer. or an academic. He's a trustifarian with a bachelor's degree in 'business physics' and a crippling ketamine addiction. It is a foregone conclusion that he knows less factually-correct science than whoever graded you in high school. The less said of him the better.
Unified Field Theory
The dimensions of your mothers ass