something quite big

Rubecula

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techandscience/the-largest-thing-in-the-universe-cosmic-collision-12bn-years-ago-created-mega-galaxy/ar-AAwlpr5?ocid=spartandhp

Fathom

Cosmic collision 12 billion years ago. Created mega-galaxy? Any relationship to Big Bang?

Rubecula

as far as I can find out it is not directly related to the big bang. It as also thought to be a lot larger now as more galaxies are thought to have joined the growing mass.

Black Swan

Should Big Bang be reconsidered or revised or not be associated? Butterfly effect?

Rubecula

Black Swan wrote: »

Should Big Bang be reconsidered or revised or not be associated? Butterfly effect?

I think it depends on your personal point of view Swannie'

Fathom

Black Swan wrote: »

Butterfly effect?

Everything's affected?

Black Swan

Stephen Hawking's (and Thomas Hertog) last paper published before his death suggested the existence of parallel universes related to the Big Bang.

Ref:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stephen-hawking-is-still-publishing-new-mind-bending-theories-about-space_us_5ae9d963e4b06748dc8eab21
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/JHEP04(2018)147.pdf

Rubecula

I had heard about that too Swannie thanks for reminding me.

Fathom

Makes note. Read Hawking & Hertog.

Black Swan

I like the position made elsewhere by another that in each era we though we had it right, while considering all those eras before as wrong. Makes me wonder what the future era will consider ours in light of theirs? Rubbish or a foundation to evolve from?

Rubecula

I try to keep an open mind at all times (Try) you never know what the idea will be.

Fathom

Rubecula wrote: »

I try to keep an open mind at all times (Try) you never know what the idea will be.

Cool. Corresponds with research method. Research suggests. Does not prove. Always "open mind" for contrary evidence.

Rubecula

I often disagree with top scientists (even Steven Hawking) but usually it is me that is wrong. Maybe I should stop doubting but I can't help myself.

Fathom

Rubecula wrote: »

I often disagree with top scientists (even Steven Hawking) but usually it is me that is wrong. Maybe I should stop doubting but I can't help myself.

When taking research methods classes. Always told to proceed with caution. Accept nothing on faith.

Rubecula

Fathom wrote: »

When taking research methods classes. Always told to proceed with caution. Accept nothing on faith.

Yes, that is me right enough.

Capt'n Midnight

Rubecula wrote: »

I often disagree with top scientists (even Steven Hawking) but usually it is me that is wrong. Maybe I should stop doubting but I can't help myself.

See Clarkes first law

Clarke's three laws
1 When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2 The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3 Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

- Arthur C. Clarke

Rubecula

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

See Clarkes first law

Clarke's three laws
1 When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2 The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3 Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

- Arthur C. Clarke

thank you Captain

Fathom

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

2 The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Arthur Conan Doyle's methodology of Sherlock Holmes.

Capt'n Midnight

Vetinari: Apprentices? But I can see to it that the finest craftsmen —
Leonard da Quirm: Not craftsmen, my lord. I have no use for people who have learned the limits of the possible.
— The Last Hero , Terry Prachett

Rubecula

Fathom wrote: »

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Arthur Conan Doyle's methodology of Sherlock Holmes.

one of my favourite authors

Rubecula

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Vetinari: Apprentices? But I can see to it that the finest craftsmen —
Leonard da Quirm: Not craftsmen, my lord. I have no use for people who have learned the limits of the possible.
— The Last Hero , Terry Prachett

and another of my favourites

Fathom

Rubecula wrote: »

one of my favourite authors

Finishing complete Sherlock Holmes works. Fast read. Historical take on deductive and intuitive methods applied to crime.

Capt'n Midnight

Fathom wrote: »

Makes note. Read Hawking & Hertog.

way off topic. Watch Kinski and Herzog.

Anyway
Can't wait until some more of the Gaia data has been explained , because info on our galaxy can be used to explain others.
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/home

Always found it odd that so may galaxies including our own have a super massive black hole or two at the centre with roughly a 1 : 700 ratio to the mass of their galaxies.

Fathom

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

way off topic. Watch Kinski and Herzog.

Notes. Thanks!

Rubecula

Fathom wrote: »

Finishing complete Sherlock Holmes works. Fast read. Historical take on deductive and intuitive methods applied to crime.

just like a yellow door "it is a lemon entry my dear, what's on?"

Fathom

Rubecula wrote: »

just like a yellow door "it is a lemon entry my dear, what's on?"

It's elementary.

Rubecula

eat up it's alimentary

Fathom

Rubecula wrote: »

I often disagree with top scientists (even Steven Hawking) but usually it is me that is wrong. Maybe I should stop doubting but I can't help myself.

Karl Popper. Philosophy of science. Falsification. Cool POV Rubecula.

Rubecula

Fathom wrote: »

Karl Popper. Philosophy of science. Falsification. Cool POV Rubecula.

:cool: thank you Fathom one of the nicest comments I have received on my scientific thoughts.:)

Fathom

Rubecula wrote: »

:cool: thank you Fathom one of the nicest comments I have received on my scientific thoughts.:)

Proceeding with caution is a scientific value.

Rubecula

oh I am all for pushing ahead, but sometimes I see the direction differently eg they see things mathematically, I never have done. I like maths but in fact I see things in a picture form so I often find it hard to explain my thoughts.

Fathom

Rubecula wrote: »

I like maths but in fact I see things in a picture form so I often find it hard to explain my thoughts.

Einstein suggested that knowledge was important, but imagination was more so. Thoughts and educated guesses (theories) begin at the top of Wallace's Wheel of Science. Where you are Rubecula? Hypotheses testing, data collection & analysis, and empirical generalizations follow. The Wheel is not a perfect cycle. Stages interact. So jump in and do your thing anytime.

Rubecula

I have a science degree, but that is education, anyone can learn but to teach yourself to learn is a different kettle of fish, and that leads to your theory on theories if you can understand.

for example I know with every fibre of my being that we will never travel faster than light and nobody will ever travel down a wormhole but why would I say that? I know, but how can I explain such things.

Fathom

Rubecula wrote: »

I have a science degree

Cool.

Rubecula wrote: »

for example I know with every fibre of my being that we will never travel faster than light and nobody will ever travel down a wormhole but why would I say that? I know, but how can I explain such things.

How about travel by folding space?

Capt'n Midnight

Fathom wrote: »

How about travel by folding space?

It's a bit like Maxwell's deamon.

It sounds like it might work, but when you work out the energy differential it doesn't.

Fathom

Interesting article by Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor, October 20, 2017: "What is a Wormhole?" Black holes. White holes. Model of folding.

Capt'n Midnight

The big problem with black holes is spagettification. Due to gravity differentials you get streteched out unless the black hole was ginormous, which would mean you wouldn't want to be living near it.

Also lots of radiation given off by the matter falling in isn't going to make the entry fun either.

Rubecula

two types of black hole (super massive and small)
two ways to die … spaghettification and crushed out of existence.

no white holes = no wormholes = no space folding = no way of travelling across huge distances in a human lifetime

Fathom

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The big problem with black holes is spagettification.

This concept affects me now in a completely different domain. Hunger!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Due to gravity differentials you get streteched out unless the black hole was ginormous, which would mean you wouldn't want to be living near it. Also lots of radiation given off by the matter falling in isn't going to make the entry fun either.

I need to read more about black holes after your discussion Capt'n. Thanks!

Rubecula wrote: »

no white holes = no wormholes = no space folding = no way of travelling across huge distances in a human lifetime

Makes me wonder Rubecula if someday with advancing theory, measurement, and technology we might discover a perspective that eludes us today? A few centuries ago, you and I would not be having this conceptual discussion. Today we can. Tomorrow?

Rubecula

Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring us. I hope I am proved wrong about FTL travel but frankly I think we are ultimately doomed. We will only ever colonise the solar system and that will only happen in many thousands of years.

Fathom

Rubecula wrote: »

Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring us.

Rereading Lessons of History (Durant & Durant). They would suggest the same idea.

Rubecula wrote: »

I hope I am proved wrong about FTL travel but frankly I think we are ultimately doomed. We will only ever colonise the solar system and that will only happen in many thousands of years.

Technologically we are advancing geometrically. Per Durant, we've advanced more in past century than in thousands of prior years. What is theory and tech today in 100 years from now will seem primitive if this advancement continues.

Rubecula

the law of diminishing returns will make this a moot point I fear, have you noticed the lowering of IQ amongst the young for example?

Capt'n Midnight

Rubecula wrote: »

the law of diminishing returns will make this a moot point I fear, have you noticed the lowering of IQ amongst the young for example?

People have always complained about younglings

“The beardless youth… does not foresee what is useful, squandering his money.”
- Horace, 1st Century BC

“They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it.”
- Aristotle, 4th Century BC


But grade inflation is just a joke at this stage.

Rubecula

throw them into the Great Rift Valley and see how many walk out, but make sure you throw a couple of snipers in the mix too in case ay of them look like they are succeeding lol lol#

Fathom

Rubecula wrote: »

the law of diminishing returns will make this a moot point I fear, have you noticed the lowering of IQ amongst the young for example?

Not according to James Flynn in Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. Or Megan Gambio of smithsonian.com (December 3, 2012):

In the last half-century, what have the IQ gains been in America? The overall gain is about 3 points every 10 years, which would be 9 points in a generation. That is highly significant.

What does IQ measure? It's a test. Tests attempt to measure something real. Tests are approximations, not reality in themselves. Measurements have error and limitations. They operationalize conceptual models (derived from theories of intelligence in the case of IQ). Theories are educated guesses that suggest, do not prove. Consequently, we have to move with caution when interpreting IQ results. Standardized IQ tests like the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, or WISC, have limitations. Do they adequately account for cohort changes from generation to generation? If the WISC changes, how do you compare one cohort IQ WISC standardization with a different standardization? If it doesn't change, to what extent do these IQ measures exhibit the "Flynn Effect?" If the WISC does change from generation to generation, to what extent can changes in IQ be attributed to changes in the IQ test itself? Further, to what extent do such IQ test changes threaten standardization between generations? (Thanks Rubecula for raising this point. Which is much debated. It may appear on my research methods exam this week. I'm uncertain if there are any right or wrong answers to the IQ debate. Especially from scientific research methods that only "suggest." And theories that are only "educated guesses").

Capt'n Midnight

Fathom wrote: »

What does IQ measure? It's a test. Tests attempt to measure something real. Tests are approximations, not reality in themselves.

IQ tests measure your ability to do that particular IQ test.

Grade inflation is a huge problem.
and exam cheating too.


And bumping up grades doesn't help either. - nice data set.

And the income from foreign students means that Uni's have a huge interest in allowing students to progress to next year.


You can argue about subjective stuff, but when the questions in subjects like maths are getting easier it's very obvious. CBA looking for a link but I can remember seeing articles where questions on today's higher level papers would have been on the lower level ones from yesteryear.

Rubecula

Fathom wrote: »

Not according to James Flynn in Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. Or Megan Gambio of smithsonian.com
(December 3, 2012):
What does IQ measure? It's a test. Tests attempt to measure something real. Tests are approximations, not reality in themselves.

Measurements have error and limitations. They operationalize conceptual models (derived from theories of intelligence in the case of IQ). Theories are educated guesses that suggest, do not prove. Consequently, we have to move with caution when interpreting IQ results.

Standardized IQ tests like the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, or WISC, have limitations. Do they adequately account for cohort changes from generation to generation? If the WISC changes, how do you compare one cohort IQ WISC standardization with a different standardization? If it doesn't change, to what extent do these IQ measures exhibit the "Flynn Effect?" If the WISC does change from generation to generation, to what extent can changes in IQ be attributed to changes in the IQ test itself? Further, to what extent do such IQ test changes threaten standardization between generations?

(Thanks Rubecula for raising this point. Which is much debated. It may appear on my research methods exam this week. I'm uncertain if there are any right or wrong answers to the IQ debate. Especially from scientific research methods that only "suggest." And theories that are only "educated guesses").

I really hope it helps you my friend (but good luck anyway) I wish I had been either a mathematician or an artist, (science never helped me in the slightest)

Fathom

Do Americans worship persons with high IQs? Elaine E. Castles (2012) in Inventing Intelligence: How America Came to Worship IQ concludes that they do. Another Holy Grail? Socially constructed myth; not reality?

Rubecula

Fathom wrote: »

Do Americans worship persons with high IQs? Elaine E. Castles (2012) in Inventing Intelligence: How America Came to Worship IQ concludes that they do. Another Holy Grail? Socially constructed myth; not reality?

never considered it before but yes it sounds very likely.

Black Swan

Fathom wrote: »

Socially constructed myth; not reality?

Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann (1966), The Social Construction of Reality?

Fathom

I'll challenge! Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man.