Something Is Fundamentally Wrong with Our Conception of the Universe. Next nonsense

[hadit]

You're complaining about imprecision, not them being totally wrong.

So you believe that the universe is a computer simulation

Lol

I didn't say that. Quote me if you think I did.

Lol now that my point is fully proved, you never said anything.

You just won a potato peeler medal

IOW, you made it up.

Nope, you might need to grow up a bit.

One Number Shows Something Is Fundamentally Wrong with Our Conception of the Universe

None of the numbers match, why? because as I said no one has even the least clue what they are looking at so every week there is a new universe invented.

There's a puzzling mystery going on in the universe. Measurements of the rate of cosmic expansion using different methods keep turning up disagreeing results. The situation has been called a "crisis."

The problem centers on what's known as the Hubble constant. Named for American astronomer Edwin Hubble, this unit describes how fast the universe is expanding at different distances from Earth. Using data from the European Space Agency's (ESA) Planck satellite, scientists estimate the rate to be 46,200 mph per million light-years (or, using cosmologists' units, 67.4 kilometers/second per megaparsec). But calculations using pulsating stars called Cepheids suggest it is 50,400 mph per million light-years (73.4 km/s/Mpc).

If the first number is right, it means scientists have been measuring distances to faraway objects in the universe wrong for many decades. But if the second is correct, then researchers might have to accept the existence of exotic, new physics. Astronomers, understandably, are pretty worked up about this discrepancy.

What is a layperson supposed to make of this situation? And just how important is this difference, which to outsiders looks minor? In order to get to the bottom of the clash, Live Science called in Barry Madore, an astronomer at the University of Chicago and a member of one of the teams undertaking measurements of the Hubble constant.

The trouble starts with Edwin Hubble himself. Back in 1929, he noticed that more-distant galaxies were moving away from Earth faster than their closer-in counterparts. He found a linear relationship between the distance an object was from our planet and the speed at which it was receding.

"That means something spooky is going on," Madore told Live Science. "Why would we be the center of the universe? The answer, which is not intuitive, is that [distant objects are] not moving. There's more and more space being created between everything."

Hubble realized that the universe was expanding, and it seemed to be doing so at a constant rate — hence, the Hubble constant. He measured the value to be about 342,000 miles per hour per million light years (501 km/s/Mpc) — almost 10 times larger than what is currently measured. Over the years, researchers have refined that rate.

Things got weirder in the late 1990s, when two teams of astronomers noticed that distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther away, than expected, said Madore. This indicated that not only was the universe expanding, but it was also accelerating in its expansion. Astronomers named the cause of this mysterious phenomenon dark energy.

Having accepted that the universe was doing something strange, cosmologists turned to the next obvious task: measuring the acceleration as accurately as possible. By doing this, they hoped to retrace the history and evolution of the cosmos from start to finish.

Madore likened this task to walking into a racetrack and getting a single glimpse of the horses running around the field. From just that bit of information, could somebody deduce where all the horses started and which one of them would win?

That kind of question may sound impossible to answer, but that hasn't stopped scientists from trying. For the last 10 years, the Planck satellite has been measuring the cosmic microwave background, a distant echo of the Big Bang, which provides a snapshot of the infant universe 13 billion years ago. Using the observatory's data, cosmologists could ascertain a number for the Hubble constant with an extraordinarily small degree of uncertainty.

"It's beautiful," Madore said. But, "it contradicts what people have been doing for the last 30 years," said Madore.

Over those three decades, astronomers have also been using telescopes to look at distant Cepheids and calculate the Hubble constant. These stars flicker at a constant rate depending on their brightness, so researchers can tell exactly how bright a Cepheid should be based on its pulsations. By looking at how dim the stars actually are, astronomers can calculate a distance to them. But estimates of the Hubble constant using Cepheids don't match the one from Planck.

The discrepancy might look fairly small, but each data point is quite precise and there is no overlap between their uncertainties. The differing sides have pointed fingers at one another, saying that their opponents have included errors throwing off their results, said Madore.

But, he added, each result also depends on large numbers of assumptions. Going back to the horse-race analogy, Madore likened it to trying to figure out the winner while having to infer which horse will get tired first, which will gain a sudden burst of energy at the end, which will slip a bit on the wet patch of grass from yesterday's rain and many other difficult-to-determine variables.

If the Cepheids teams are wrong, that means astronomers have been measuring distances in the universe incorrectly this whole time, Madore said. But if Planck is wrong, then it's possible that new and exotic physics would have to be introduced into cosmologists' models of the universe, he added. These models include different dials, such as the number of types of subatomic particles known as neutrinos in existence, and they are used to interpret the satellite's data of the cosmic microwave background. To reconcile the Planck value for the Hubble constant with existing models, some of the dials would have to be tweaked, Madore said, but most physicists aren’t quite willing to do so yet.

Hoping to provide another data point that could mediate between the two sides, Madore and his colleagues recently looked at the light of red giant stars. These objects reach the same peak brightness at the end of their lives, meaning that, like with the Cepheids, astronomers can look at how dim they appear from Earth to get a good estimate of their distance and, therefore, calculate the Hubble constant.

The results, released in July, provided a number squarely between the two prior measurements: 47,300 mph per million light-years (69.8 km/s/Mpc). And the uncertainty contained enough overlap to potentially agree with Planck's results.

But researchers aren't popping their champagne corks yet, said Madore. "We wanted to make a tie breaker," he said. "But it didn't say this side or that side is right. It said there was a lot more slop than everybody thought before."

Other teams have weighed in. A group called H0 Lenses in COSMOGRAIL's Wellspring (H0LICOW) is looking at distant bright objects in the early universe called quasars whose light has been gravitationally lensed by massive objects in between us and them. By studying these quasars, the group recently came up with an estimate closer to the astronomers' side. Information from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), which looks at gravitational waves from crashing neutron stars, could provide another independent data point. But such calculations are still in their early stages, said Madore, and have yet to reach full maturity.

For his part, Madore said he thinks the middle number between Planck and the astronomers' value will eventually prevail, though he wouldn't wager too much on that possibility at the moment. But until some conclusion is found, he would like to see researchers' attitudes toned down a bit.

"A lot of froth has been put on top of this by people who insist they're right," he said. "It's sufficiently important that it needs to be resolved, but it's going to take time."

Well that's a whole lot of words to say, we just don't know...………………..

But you do right?

Let's see if we have this right. You started by accusing me of saying something which I didn't, them you veered wildly into a giant cut and paste which had nothing to do with what I was saying. Is that about the size of it?

 

[hadit]

Except it's not pretend. It's man attempting to explain his surroundings, and the universe is a strange place to understand.

There is nothing strange about the universe, the strange thing is that we do not know what we are

Then you're not paying attention. The universe is a very strange, fascinating place.

Name one strange thing about the universe?

What happens in the singularity at the center of a black hole.

Are you really so stupid that you think that this question can be answered?

LOL, I don't know why don't you let me in on your brilliance.

It's a strange thing, isn't it? That's what you wanted and I gave it to you. Don't you want it now?

 

[Frannie]

So you believe that the universe is a computer simulation

Lol

I didn't say that. Quote me if you think I did.

Lol now that my point is fully proved, you never said anything.

You just won a potato peeler medal

IOW, you made it up.

Nope, you might need to grow up a bit.

One Number Shows Something Is Fundamentally Wrong with Our Conception of the Universe

None of the numbers match, why? because as I said no one has even the least clue what they are looking at so every week there is a new universe invented.

There's a puzzling mystery going on in the universe. Measurements of the rate of cosmic expansion using different methods keep turning up disagreeing results. The situation has been called a "crisis."

The problem centers on what's known as the Hubble constant. Named for American astronomer Edwin Hubble, this unit describes how fast the universe is expanding at different distances from Earth. Using data from the European Space Agency's (ESA) Planck satellite, scientists estimate the rate to be 46,200 mph per million light-years (or, using cosmologists' units, 67.4 kilometers/second per megaparsec). But calculations using pulsating stars called Cepheids suggest it is 50,400 mph per million light-years (73.4 km/s/Mpc).

If the first number is right, it means scientists have been measuring distances to faraway objects in the universe wrong for many decades. But if the second is correct, then researchers might have to accept the existence of exotic, new physics. Astronomers, understandably, are pretty worked up about this discrepancy.

What is a layperson supposed to make of this situation? And just how important is this difference, which to outsiders looks minor? In order to get to the bottom of the clash, Live Science called in Barry Madore, an astronomer at the University of Chicago and a member of one of the teams undertaking measurements of the Hubble constant.

The trouble starts with Edwin Hubble himself. Back in 1929, he noticed that more-distant galaxies were moving away from Earth faster than their closer-in counterparts. He found a linear relationship between the distance an object was from our planet and the speed at which it was receding.

"That means something spooky is going on," Madore told Live Science. "Why would we be the center of the universe? The answer, which is not intuitive, is that [distant objects are] not moving. There's more and more space being created between everything."

Hubble realized that the universe was expanding, and it seemed to be doing so at a constant rate — hence, the Hubble constant. He measured the value to be about 342,000 miles per hour per million light years (501 km/s/Mpc) — almost 10 times larger than what is currently measured. Over the years, researchers have refined that rate.

Things got weirder in the late 1990s, when two teams of astronomers noticed that distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther away, than expected, said Madore. This indicated that not only was the universe expanding, but it was also accelerating in its expansion. Astronomers named the cause of this mysterious phenomenon dark energy.

Having accepted that the universe was doing something strange, cosmologists turned to the next obvious task: measuring the acceleration as accurately as possible. By doing this, they hoped to retrace the history and evolution of the cosmos from start to finish.

Madore likened this task to walking into a racetrack and getting a single glimpse of the horses running around the field. From just that bit of information, could somebody deduce where all the horses started and which one of them would win?

That kind of question may sound impossible to answer, but that hasn't stopped scientists from trying. For the last 10 years, the Planck satellite has been measuring the cosmic microwave background, a distant echo of the Big Bang, which provides a snapshot of the infant universe 13 billion years ago. Using the observatory's data, cosmologists could ascertain a number for the Hubble constant with an extraordinarily small degree of uncertainty.

"It's beautiful," Madore said. But, "it contradicts what people have been doing for the last 30 years," said Madore.

Over those three decades, astronomers have also been using telescopes to look at distant Cepheids and calculate the Hubble constant. These stars flicker at a constant rate depending on their brightness, so researchers can tell exactly how bright a Cepheid should be based on its pulsations. By looking at how dim the stars actually are, astronomers can calculate a distance to them. But estimates of the Hubble constant using Cepheids don't match the one from Planck.

The discrepancy might look fairly small, but each data point is quite precise and there is no overlap between their uncertainties. The differing sides have pointed fingers at one another, saying that their opponents have included errors throwing off their results, said Madore.

But, he added, each result also depends on large numbers of assumptions. Going back to the horse-race analogy, Madore likened it to trying to figure out the winner while having to infer which horse will get tired first, which will gain a sudden burst of energy at the end, which will slip a bit on the wet patch of grass from yesterday's rain and many other difficult-to-determine variables.

If the Cepheids teams are wrong, that means astronomers have been measuring distances in the universe incorrectly this whole time, Madore said. But if Planck is wrong, then it's possible that new and exotic physics would have to be introduced into cosmologists' models of the universe, he added. These models include different dials, such as the number of types of subatomic particles known as neutrinos in existence, and they are used to interpret the satellite's data of the cosmic microwave background. To reconcile the Planck value for the Hubble constant with existing models, some of the dials would have to be tweaked, Madore said, but most physicists aren’t quite willing to do so yet.

Hoping to provide another data point that could mediate between the two sides, Madore and his colleagues recently looked at the light of red giant stars. These objects reach the same peak brightness at the end of their lives, meaning that, like with the Cepheids, astronomers can look at how dim they appear from Earth to get a good estimate of their distance and, therefore, calculate the Hubble constant.

The results, released in July, provided a number squarely between the two prior measurements: 47,300 mph per million light-years (69.8 km/s/Mpc). And the uncertainty contained enough overlap to potentially agree with Planck's results.

But researchers aren't popping their champagne corks yet, said Madore. "We wanted to make a tie breaker," he said. "But it didn't say this side or that side is right. It said there was a lot more slop than everybody thought before."

Other teams have weighed in. A group called H0 Lenses in COSMOGRAIL's Wellspring (H0LICOW) is looking at distant bright objects in the early universe called quasars whose light has been gravitationally lensed by massive objects in between us and them. By studying these quasars, the group recently came up with an estimate closer to the astronomers' side. Information from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), which looks at gravitational waves from crashing neutron stars, could provide another independent data point. But such calculations are still in their early stages, said Madore, and have yet to reach full maturity.

For his part, Madore said he thinks the middle number between Planck and the astronomers' value will eventually prevail, though he wouldn't wager too much on that possibility at the moment. But until some conclusion is found, he would like to see researchers' attitudes toned down a bit.

"A lot of froth has been put on top of this by people who insist they're right," he said. "It's sufficiently important that it needs to be resolved, but it's going to take time."

Well that's a whole lot of words to say, we just don't know...………………..

But you do right?

Let's see if we have this right. You started by accusing me of saying something which I didn't, them you veered wildly into a giant cut and paste which had nothing to do with what I was saying. Is that about the size of it?

Accused, really, someone is having a major personality crisis.

It's ok, no one has ever won, you never had a chance to be first, naturally they never told you that.

Ask the FBI, it's in my file.

The Kobayashi Maru scenario was an infamous no-win scenario that was part of the curriculum for command-track cadets at Starfleet Academy in the 23rd century. It was primarily used to assess a cadet's discipline, character and command capabilities when facing an impossible situation, as there is no (legitimate) strategy that will result in a successful outcome.

The test primarily consisted of the cadet placed in command of a starship. The ship would soon receive a distress signal from the Kobayashi Maru, a civilian freighter within the Klingon Neutral Zone that had been heavily disabled. Being the only ship in range, the cadet usually either chose to withdraw from the rescue mission or enter the neutral zone and rescue the vessel in risk of violating the treaties. The ship would then be confronted by Klingon K't'inga-class battle cruisers, which typically engaged in a firefight.

It was considered an absolute no-win scenario because it was virtually impossible for the cadet to simultaneously save the Kobayashi Maru, avoid a fight with the Klingons and escape from the neutral zone with the starship intact. A cadet's choice of how to handle the rescue operation gave great insight into his or her command decision-making.

In the 2250s, James T. Kirk became the first (and only known) cadet to ever beat the no-win scenario. After taking the test and failing twice, Kirk took the test a third time after surreptitiously reprogramming the computer to make it possible to win the scenario.

Kirk was subsequently awarded a commendation for "original thinking" and later commented, wistfully, that his stunt "had the virtue of never having been tried." Kirk also went on to defend his "cheating" by arguing that he didn't believe in the no-win scenario. Ironically, Kirk officially defended the test itself, suggesting a no-win scenario is one that Starfleet officer may someday face, however he would later state that he did not believe in a no-win scenario.

 

[hadit]

I didn't say that. Quote me if you think I did.

Lol now that my point is fully proved, you never said anything.

You just won a potato peeler medal

IOW, you made it up.

Nope, you might need to grow up a bit.

One Number Shows Something Is Fundamentally Wrong with Our Conception of the Universe

None of the numbers match, why? because as I said no one has even the least clue what they are looking at so every week there is a new universe invented.

There's a puzzling mystery going on in the universe. Measurements of the rate of cosmic expansion using different methods keep turning up disagreeing results. The situation has been called a "crisis."

The problem centers on what's known as the Hubble constant. Named for American astronomer Edwin Hubble, this unit describes how fast the universe is expanding at different distances from Earth. Using data from the European Space Agency's (ESA) Planck satellite, scientists estimate the rate to be 46,200 mph per million light-years (or, using cosmologists' units, 67.4 kilometers/second per megaparsec). But calculations using pulsating stars called Cepheids suggest it is 50,400 mph per million light-years (73.4 km/s/Mpc).

If the first number is right, it means scientists have been measuring distances to faraway objects in the universe wrong for many decades. But if the second is correct, then researchers might have to accept the existence of exotic, new physics. Astronomers, understandably, are pretty worked up about this discrepancy.

What is a layperson supposed to make of this situation? And just how important is this difference, which to outsiders looks minor? In order to get to the bottom of the clash, Live Science called in Barry Madore, an astronomer at the University of Chicago and a member of one of the teams undertaking measurements of the Hubble constant.

The trouble starts with Edwin Hubble himself. Back in 1929, he noticed that more-distant galaxies were moving away from Earth faster than their closer-in counterparts. He found a linear relationship between the distance an object was from our planet and the speed at which it was receding.

"That means something spooky is going on," Madore told Live Science. "Why would we be the center of the universe? The answer, which is not intuitive, is that [distant objects are] not moving. There's more and more space being created between everything."

Hubble realized that the universe was expanding, and it seemed to be doing so at a constant rate — hence, the Hubble constant. He measured the value to be about 342,000 miles per hour per million light years (501 km/s/Mpc) — almost 10 times larger than what is currently measured. Over the years, researchers have refined that rate.

Things got weirder in the late 1990s, when two teams of astronomers noticed that distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther away, than expected, said Madore. This indicated that not only was the universe expanding, but it was also accelerating in its expansion. Astronomers named the cause of this mysterious phenomenon dark energy.

Having accepted that the universe was doing something strange, cosmologists turned to the next obvious task: measuring the acceleration as accurately as possible. By doing this, they hoped to retrace the history and evolution of the cosmos from start to finish.

Madore likened this task to walking into a racetrack and getting a single glimpse of the horses running around the field. From just that bit of information, could somebody deduce where all the horses started and which one of them would win?

That kind of question may sound impossible to answer, but that hasn't stopped scientists from trying. For the last 10 years, the Planck satellite has been measuring the cosmic microwave background, a distant echo of the Big Bang, which provides a snapshot of the infant universe 13 billion years ago. Using the observatory's data, cosmologists could ascertain a number for the Hubble constant with an extraordinarily small degree of uncertainty.

"It's beautiful," Madore said. But, "it contradicts what people have been doing for the last 30 years," said Madore.

Over those three decades, astronomers have also been using telescopes to look at distant Cepheids and calculate the Hubble constant. These stars flicker at a constant rate depending on their brightness, so researchers can tell exactly how bright a Cepheid should be based on its pulsations. By looking at how dim the stars actually are, astronomers can calculate a distance to them. But estimates of the Hubble constant using Cepheids don't match the one from Planck.

The discrepancy might look fairly small, but each data point is quite precise and there is no overlap between their uncertainties. The differing sides have pointed fingers at one another, saying that their opponents have included errors throwing off their results, said Madore.

But, he added, each result also depends on large numbers of assumptions. Going back to the horse-race analogy, Madore likened it to trying to figure out the winner while having to infer which horse will get tired first, which will gain a sudden burst of energy at the end, which will slip a bit on the wet patch of grass from yesterday's rain and many other difficult-to-determine variables.

If the Cepheids teams are wrong, that means astronomers have been measuring distances in the universe incorrectly this whole time, Madore said. But if Planck is wrong, then it's possible that new and exotic physics would have to be introduced into cosmologists' models of the universe, he added. These models include different dials, such as the number of types of subatomic particles known as neutrinos in existence, and they are used to interpret the satellite's data of the cosmic microwave background. To reconcile the Planck value for the Hubble constant with existing models, some of the dials would have to be tweaked, Madore said, but most physicists aren’t quite willing to do so yet.

Hoping to provide another data point that could mediate between the two sides, Madore and his colleagues recently looked at the light of red giant stars. These objects reach the same peak brightness at the end of their lives, meaning that, like with the Cepheids, astronomers can look at how dim they appear from Earth to get a good estimate of their distance and, therefore, calculate the Hubble constant.

The results, released in July, provided a number squarely between the two prior measurements: 47,300 mph per million light-years (69.8 km/s/Mpc). And the uncertainty contained enough overlap to potentially agree with Planck's results.

But researchers aren't popping their champagne corks yet, said Madore. "We wanted to make a tie breaker," he said. "But it didn't say this side or that side is right. It said there was a lot more slop than everybody thought before."

Other teams have weighed in. A group called H0 Lenses in COSMOGRAIL's Wellspring (H0LICOW) is looking at distant bright objects in the early universe called quasars whose light has been gravitationally lensed by massive objects in between us and them. By studying these quasars, the group recently came up with an estimate closer to the astronomers' side. Information from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), which looks at gravitational waves from crashing neutron stars, could provide another independent data point. But such calculations are still in their early stages, said Madore, and have yet to reach full maturity.

For his part, Madore said he thinks the middle number between Planck and the astronomers' value will eventually prevail, though he wouldn't wager too much on that possibility at the moment. But until some conclusion is found, he would like to see researchers' attitudes toned down a bit.

"A lot of froth has been put on top of this by people who insist they're right," he said. "It's sufficiently important that it needs to be resolved, but it's going to take time."

Well that's a whole lot of words to say, we just don't know...………………..

But you do right?

Let's see if we have this right. You started by accusing me of saying something which I didn't, them you veered wildly into a giant cut and paste which had nothing to do with what I was saying. Is that about the size of it?

Accused, really, someone is having a major personality crisis.

It's ok, no one has ever won, you never had a chance to be first, naturally they never told you that.

Ask the FBI, it's in my file.

The Kobayashi Maru scenario was an infamous no-win scenario that was part of the curriculum for command-track cadets at Starfleet Academy in the 23rd century. It was primarily used to assess a cadet's discipline, character and command capabilities when facing an impossible situation, as there is no (legitimate) strategy that will result in a successful outcome.

The test primarily consisted of the cadet placed in command of a starship. The ship would soon receive a distress signal from the Kobayashi Maru, a civilian freighter within the Klingon Neutral Zone that had been heavily disabled. Being the only ship in range, the cadet usually either chose to withdraw from the rescue mission or enter the neutral zone and rescue the vessel in risk of violating the treaties. The ship would then be confronted by Klingon K't'inga-class battle cruisers, which typically engaged in a firefight.

It was considered an absolute no-win scenario because it was virtually impossible for the cadet to simultaneously save the Kobayashi Maru, avoid a fight with the Klingons and escape from the neutral zone with the starship intact. A cadet's choice of how to handle the rescue operation gave great insight into his or her command decision-making.

In the 2250s, James T. Kirk became the first (and only known) cadet to ever beat the no-win scenario. After taking the test and failing twice, Kirk took the test a third time after surreptitiously reprogramming the computer to make it possible to win the scenario.

Kirk was subsequently awarded a commendation for "original thinking" and later commented, wistfully, that his stunt "had the virtue of never having been tried." Kirk also went on to defend his "cheating" by arguing that he didn't believe in the no-win scenario. Ironically, Kirk officially defended the test itself, suggesting a no-win scenario is one that Starfleet officer may someday face, however he would later state that he did not believe in a no-win scenario.

And now you're randomly quoting stuff that doesn't apply to anything under discussion. You're not really good at this, are you?

 

[Frannie]

Lol now that my point is fully proved, you never said anything.

You just won a potato peeler medal

IOW, you made it up.

Nope, you might need to grow up a bit.

One Number Shows Something Is Fundamentally Wrong with Our Conception of the Universe

None of the numbers match, why? because as I said no one has even the least clue what they are looking at so every week there is a new universe invented.

There's a puzzling mystery going on in the universe. Measurements of the rate of cosmic expansion using different methods keep turning up disagreeing results. The situation has been called a "crisis."

The problem centers on what's known as the Hubble constant. Named for American astronomer Edwin Hubble, this unit describes how fast the universe is expanding at different distances from Earth. Using data from the European Space Agency's (ESA) Planck satellite, scientists estimate the rate to be 46,200 mph per million light-years (or, using cosmologists' units, 67.4 kilometers/second per megaparsec). But calculations using pulsating stars called Cepheids suggest it is 50,400 mph per million light-years (73.4 km/s/Mpc).

If the first number is right, it means scientists have been measuring distances to faraway objects in the universe wrong for many decades. But if the second is correct, then researchers might have to accept the existence of exotic, new physics. Astronomers, understandably, are pretty worked up about this discrepancy.

What is a layperson supposed to make of this situation? And just how important is this difference, which to outsiders looks minor? In order to get to the bottom of the clash, Live Science called in Barry Madore, an astronomer at the University of Chicago and a member of one of the teams undertaking measurements of the Hubble constant.

The trouble starts with Edwin Hubble himself. Back in 1929, he noticed that more-distant galaxies were moving away from Earth faster than their closer-in counterparts. He found a linear relationship between the distance an object was from our planet and the speed at which it was receding.

"That means something spooky is going on," Madore told Live Science. "Why would we be the center of the universe? The answer, which is not intuitive, is that [distant objects are] not moving. There's more and more space being created between everything."

Hubble realized that the universe was expanding, and it seemed to be doing so at a constant rate — hence, the Hubble constant. He measured the value to be about 342,000 miles per hour per million light years (501 km/s/Mpc) — almost 10 times larger than what is currently measured. Over the years, researchers have refined that rate.

Things got weirder in the late 1990s, when two teams of astronomers noticed that distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther away, than expected, said Madore. This indicated that not only was the universe expanding, but it was also accelerating in its expansion. Astronomers named the cause of this mysterious phenomenon dark energy.

Having accepted that the universe was doing something strange, cosmologists turned to the next obvious task: measuring the acceleration as accurately as possible. By doing this, they hoped to retrace the history and evolution of the cosmos from start to finish.

Madore likened this task to walking into a racetrack and getting a single glimpse of the horses running around the field. From just that bit of information, could somebody deduce where all the horses started and which one of them would win?

That kind of question may sound impossible to answer, but that hasn't stopped scientists from trying. For the last 10 years, the Planck satellite has been measuring the cosmic microwave background, a distant echo of the Big Bang, which provides a snapshot of the infant universe 13 billion years ago. Using the observatory's data, cosmologists could ascertain a number for the Hubble constant with an extraordinarily small degree of uncertainty.

"It's beautiful," Madore said. But, "it contradicts what people have been doing for the last 30 years," said Madore.

Over those three decades, astronomers have also been using telescopes to look at distant Cepheids and calculate the Hubble constant. These stars flicker at a constant rate depending on their brightness, so researchers can tell exactly how bright a Cepheid should be based on its pulsations. By looking at how dim the stars actually are, astronomers can calculate a distance to them. But estimates of the Hubble constant using Cepheids don't match the one from Planck.

The discrepancy might look fairly small, but each data point is quite precise and there is no overlap between their uncertainties. The differing sides have pointed fingers at one another, saying that their opponents have included errors throwing off their results, said Madore.

But, he added, each result also depends on large numbers of assumptions. Going back to the horse-race analogy, Madore likened it to trying to figure out the winner while having to infer which horse will get tired first, which will gain a sudden burst of energy at the end, which will slip a bit on the wet patch of grass from yesterday's rain and many other difficult-to-determine variables.

If the Cepheids teams are wrong, that means astronomers have been measuring distances in the universe incorrectly this whole time, Madore said. But if Planck is wrong, then it's possible that new and exotic physics would have to be introduced into cosmologists' models of the universe, he added. These models include different dials, such as the number of types of subatomic particles known as neutrinos in existence, and they are used to interpret the satellite's data of the cosmic microwave background. To reconcile the Planck value for the Hubble constant with existing models, some of the dials would have to be tweaked, Madore said, but most physicists aren’t quite willing to do so yet.

Hoping to provide another data point that could mediate between the two sides, Madore and his colleagues recently looked at the light of red giant stars. These objects reach the same peak brightness at the end of their lives, meaning that, like with the Cepheids, astronomers can look at how dim they appear from Earth to get a good estimate of their distance and, therefore, calculate the Hubble constant.

The results, released in July, provided a number squarely between the two prior measurements: 47,300 mph per million light-years (69.8 km/s/Mpc). And the uncertainty contained enough overlap to potentially agree with Planck's results.

But researchers aren't popping their champagne corks yet, said Madore. "We wanted to make a tie breaker," he said. "But it didn't say this side or that side is right. It said there was a lot more slop than everybody thought before."

Other teams have weighed in. A group called H0 Lenses in COSMOGRAIL's Wellspring (H0LICOW) is looking at distant bright objects in the early universe called quasars whose light has been gravitationally lensed by massive objects in between us and them. By studying these quasars, the group recently came up with an estimate closer to the astronomers' side. Information from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), which looks at gravitational waves from crashing neutron stars, could provide another independent data point. But such calculations are still in their early stages, said Madore, and have yet to reach full maturity.

For his part, Madore said he thinks the middle number between Planck and the astronomers' value will eventually prevail, though he wouldn't wager too much on that possibility at the moment. But until some conclusion is found, he would like to see researchers' attitudes toned down a bit.

"A lot of froth has been put on top of this by people who insist they're right," he said. "It's sufficiently important that it needs to be resolved, but it's going to take time."

Well that's a whole lot of words to say, we just don't know...………………..

But you do right?

Let's see if we have this right. You started by accusing me of saying something which I didn't, them you veered wildly into a giant cut and paste which had nothing to do with what I was saying. Is that about the size of it?

Accused, really, someone is having a major personality crisis.

It's ok, no one has ever won, you never had a chance to be first, naturally they never told you that.

Ask the FBI, it's in my file.

The Kobayashi Maru scenario was an infamous no-win scenario that was part of the curriculum for command-track cadets at Starfleet Academy in the 23rd century. It was primarily used to assess a cadet's discipline, character and command capabilities when facing an impossible situation, as there is no (legitimate) strategy that will result in a successful outcome.

The test primarily consisted of the cadet placed in command of a starship. The ship would soon receive a distress signal from the Kobayashi Maru, a civilian freighter within the Klingon Neutral Zone that had been heavily disabled. Being the only ship in range, the cadet usually either chose to withdraw from the rescue mission or enter the neutral zone and rescue the vessel in risk of violating the treaties. The ship would then be confronted by Klingon K't'inga-class battle cruisers, which typically engaged in a firefight.

It was considered an absolute no-win scenario because it was virtually impossible for the cadet to simultaneously save the Kobayashi Maru, avoid a fight with the Klingons and escape from the neutral zone with the starship intact. A cadet's choice of how to handle the rescue operation gave great insight into his or her command decision-making.

In the 2250s, James T. Kirk became the first (and only known) cadet to ever beat the no-win scenario. After taking the test and failing twice, Kirk took the test a third time after surreptitiously reprogramming the computer to make it possible to win the scenario.

Kirk was subsequently awarded a commendation for "original thinking" and later commented, wistfully, that his stunt "had the virtue of never having been tried." Kirk also went on to defend his "cheating" by arguing that he didn't believe in the no-win scenario. Ironically, Kirk officially defended the test itself, suggesting a no-win scenario is one that Starfleet officer may someday face, however he would later state that he did not believe in a no-win scenario.

And now you're randomly quoting stuff that doesn't apply to anything under discussion. You're not really good at this, are you?

Actually I am rather poor at dueling with simpletons, I need a challenge, you aren't it.

CIAO

 

[james bond]

Nope, you might need to grow up a bit

He's fine, but why do you keep copying and pasting the same stuff? And it's live science which sucks.

Ok there is an idiot on the internet, he just drank what was labeled poison

That's you the idiot on the internet. I was wondering when you were going to start talking about yourself again.

Plagiarized what do you think this is a college course.

Using Research to Paraphrase and Quote with APA! - ppt download

The above is what you do. You are a senior and grown adult. You should know what is wrong with plagiarism. Plagiarizing reflects on you. It explains why you are lazy minded. Can you briefly explain in your own words what you just posted instead of making troll posts when people reply to it?

For example, your article is discussing measurement of universe expansion (cosmic expansion is something else) between Hubble's constant vs. pulsating stars or cepheids. What does their discrepancy cause?

But you do right?

I already explained. Dark energy or God?

 

[hadit]

IOW, you made it up.

Nope, you might need to grow up a bit.

One Number Shows Something Is Fundamentally Wrong with Our Conception of the Universe

None of the numbers match, why? because as I said no one has even the least clue what they are looking at so every week there is a new universe invented.

There's a puzzling mystery going on in the universe. Measurements of the rate of cosmic expansion using different methods keep turning up disagreeing results. The situation has been called a "crisis."

The problem centers on what's known as the Hubble constant. Named for American astronomer Edwin Hubble, this unit describes how fast the universe is expanding at different distances from Earth. Using data from the European Space Agency's (ESA) Planck satellite, scientists estimate the rate to be 46,200 mph per million light-years (or, using cosmologists' units, 67.4 kilometers/second per megaparsec). But calculations using pulsating stars called Cepheids suggest it is 50,400 mph per million light-years (73.4 km/s/Mpc).

If the first number is right, it means scientists have been measuring distances to faraway objects in the universe wrong for many decades. But if the second is correct, then researchers might have to accept the existence of exotic, new physics. Astronomers, understandably, are pretty worked up about this discrepancy.

What is a layperson supposed to make of this situation? And just how important is this difference, which to outsiders looks minor? In order to get to the bottom of the clash, Live Science called in Barry Madore, an astronomer at the University of Chicago and a member of one of the teams undertaking measurements of the Hubble constant.

The trouble starts with Edwin Hubble himself. Back in 1929, he noticed that more-distant galaxies were moving away from Earth faster than their closer-in counterparts. He found a linear relationship between the distance an object was from our planet and the speed at which it was receding.

"That means something spooky is going on," Madore told Live Science. "Why would we be the center of the universe? The answer, which is not intuitive, is that [distant objects are] not moving. There's more and more space being created between everything."

Hubble realized that the universe was expanding, and it seemed to be doing so at a constant rate — hence, the Hubble constant. He measured the value to be about 342,000 miles per hour per million light years (501 km/s/Mpc) — almost 10 times larger than what is currently measured. Over the years, researchers have refined that rate.

Things got weirder in the late 1990s, when two teams of astronomers noticed that distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther away, than expected, said Madore. This indicated that not only was the universe expanding, but it was also accelerating in its expansion. Astronomers named the cause of this mysterious phenomenon dark energy.

Having accepted that the universe was doing something strange, cosmologists turned to the next obvious task: measuring the acceleration as accurately as possible. By doing this, they hoped to retrace the history and evolution of the cosmos from start to finish.

Madore likened this task to walking into a racetrack and getting a single glimpse of the horses running around the field. From just that bit of information, could somebody deduce where all the horses started and which one of them would win?

That kind of question may sound impossible to answer, but that hasn't stopped scientists from trying. For the last 10 years, the Planck satellite has been measuring the cosmic microwave background, a distant echo of the Big Bang, which provides a snapshot of the infant universe 13 billion years ago. Using the observatory's data, cosmologists could ascertain a number for the Hubble constant with an extraordinarily small degree of uncertainty.

"It's beautiful," Madore said. But, "it contradicts what people have been doing for the last 30 years," said Madore.

Over those three decades, astronomers have also been using telescopes to look at distant Cepheids and calculate the Hubble constant. These stars flicker at a constant rate depending on their brightness, so researchers can tell exactly how bright a Cepheid should be based on its pulsations. By looking at how dim the stars actually are, astronomers can calculate a distance to them. But estimates of the Hubble constant using Cepheids don't match the one from Planck.

The discrepancy might look fairly small, but each data point is quite precise and there is no overlap between their uncertainties. The differing sides have pointed fingers at one another, saying that their opponents have included errors throwing off their results, said Madore.

But, he added, each result also depends on large numbers of assumptions. Going back to the horse-race analogy, Madore likened it to trying to figure out the winner while having to infer which horse will get tired first, which will gain a sudden burst of energy at the end, which will slip a bit on the wet patch of grass from yesterday's rain and many other difficult-to-determine variables.

If the Cepheids teams are wrong, that means astronomers have been measuring distances in the universe incorrectly this whole time, Madore said. But if Planck is wrong, then it's possible that new and exotic physics would have to be introduced into cosmologists' models of the universe, he added. These models include different dials, such as the number of types of subatomic particles known as neutrinos in existence, and they are used to interpret the satellite's data of the cosmic microwave background. To reconcile the Planck value for the Hubble constant with existing models, some of the dials would have to be tweaked, Madore said, but most physicists aren’t quite willing to do so yet.

Hoping to provide another data point that could mediate between the two sides, Madore and his colleagues recently looked at the light of red giant stars. These objects reach the same peak brightness at the end of their lives, meaning that, like with the Cepheids, astronomers can look at how dim they appear from Earth to get a good estimate of their distance and, therefore, calculate the Hubble constant.

The results, released in July, provided a number squarely between the two prior measurements: 47,300 mph per million light-years (69.8 km/s/Mpc). And the uncertainty contained enough overlap to potentially agree with Planck's results.

But researchers aren't popping their champagne corks yet, said Madore. "We wanted to make a tie breaker," he said. "But it didn't say this side or that side is right. It said there was a lot more slop than everybody thought before."

Other teams have weighed in. A group called H0 Lenses in COSMOGRAIL's Wellspring (H0LICOW) is looking at distant bright objects in the early universe called quasars whose light has been gravitationally lensed by massive objects in between us and them. By studying these quasars, the group recently came up with an estimate closer to the astronomers' side. Information from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), which looks at gravitational waves from crashing neutron stars, could provide another independent data point. But such calculations are still in their early stages, said Madore, and have yet to reach full maturity.

For his part, Madore said he thinks the middle number between Planck and the astronomers' value will eventually prevail, though he wouldn't wager too much on that possibility at the moment. But until some conclusion is found, he would like to see researchers' attitudes toned down a bit.

"A lot of froth has been put on top of this by people who insist they're right," he said. "It's sufficiently important that it needs to be resolved, but it's going to take time."

Well that's a whole lot of words to say, we just don't know...………………..

But you do right?

Let's see if we have this right. You started by accusing me of saying something which I didn't, them you veered wildly into a giant cut and paste which had nothing to do with what I was saying. Is that about the size of it?

Accused, really, someone is having a major personality crisis.

It's ok, no one has ever won, you never had a chance to be first, naturally they never told you that.

Ask the FBI, it's in my file.

The Kobayashi Maru scenario was an infamous no-win scenario that was part of the curriculum for command-track cadets at Starfleet Academy in the 23rd century. It was primarily used to assess a cadet's discipline, character and command capabilities when facing an impossible situation, as there is no (legitimate) strategy that will result in a successful outcome.

The test primarily consisted of the cadet placed in command of a starship. The ship would soon receive a distress signal from the Kobayashi Maru, a civilian freighter within the Klingon Neutral Zone that had been heavily disabled. Being the only ship in range, the cadet usually either chose to withdraw from the rescue mission or enter the neutral zone and rescue the vessel in risk of violating the treaties. The ship would then be confronted by Klingon K't'inga-class battle cruisers, which typically engaged in a firefight.

It was considered an absolute no-win scenario because it was virtually impossible for the cadet to simultaneously save the Kobayashi Maru, avoid a fight with the Klingons and escape from the neutral zone with the starship intact. A cadet's choice of how to handle the rescue operation gave great insight into his or her command decision-making.

In the 2250s, James T. Kirk became the first (and only known) cadet to ever beat the no-win scenario. After taking the test and failing twice, Kirk took the test a third time after surreptitiously reprogramming the computer to make it possible to win the scenario.

Kirk was subsequently awarded a commendation for "original thinking" and later commented, wistfully, that his stunt "had the virtue of never having been tried." Kirk also went on to defend his "cheating" by arguing that he didn't believe in the no-win scenario. Ironically, Kirk officially defended the test itself, suggesting a no-win scenario is one that Starfleet officer may someday face, however he would later state that he did not believe in a no-win scenario.

And now you're randomly quoting stuff that doesn't apply to anything under discussion. You're not really good at this, are you?

Actually I am rather poor at dueling with simpletons, I need a challenge, you aren't it.

CIAO

Pigeon on a chessboard.

 

[Frannie]

Nope, you might need to grow up a bit.

One Number Shows Something Is Fundamentally Wrong with Our Conception of the Universe

None of the numbers match, why? because as I said no one has even the least clue what they are looking at so every week there is a new universe invented.

There's a puzzling mystery going on in the universe. Measurements of the rate of cosmic expansion using different methods keep turning up disagreeing results. The situation has been called a "crisis."

The problem centers on what's known as the Hubble constant. Named for American astronomer Edwin Hubble, this unit describes how fast the universe is expanding at different distances from Earth. Using data from the European Space Agency's (ESA) Planck satellite, scientists estimate the rate to be 46,200 mph per million light-years (or, using cosmologists' units, 67.4 kilometers/second per megaparsec). But calculations using pulsating stars called Cepheids suggest it is 50,400 mph per million light-years (73.4 km/s/Mpc).

If the first number is right, it means scientists have been measuring distances to faraway objects in the universe wrong for many decades. But if the second is correct, then researchers might have to accept the existence of exotic, new physics. Astronomers, understandably, are pretty worked up about this discrepancy.

What is a layperson supposed to make of this situation? And just how important is this difference, which to outsiders looks minor? In order to get to the bottom of the clash, Live Science called in Barry Madore, an astronomer at the University of Chicago and a member of one of the teams undertaking measurements of the Hubble constant.

The trouble starts with Edwin Hubble himself. Back in 1929, he noticed that more-distant galaxies were moving away from Earth faster than their closer-in counterparts. He found a linear relationship between the distance an object was from our planet and the speed at which it was receding.

"That means something spooky is going on," Madore told Live Science. "Why would we be the center of the universe? The answer, which is not intuitive, is that [distant objects are] not moving. There's more and more space being created between everything."

Hubble realized that the universe was expanding, and it seemed to be doing so at a constant rate — hence, the Hubble constant. He measured the value to be about 342,000 miles per hour per million light years (501 km/s/Mpc) — almost 10 times larger than what is currently measured. Over the years, researchers have refined that rate.

Things got weirder in the late 1990s, when two teams of astronomers noticed that distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther away, than expected, said Madore. This indicated that not only was the universe expanding, but it was also accelerating in its expansion. Astronomers named the cause of this mysterious phenomenon dark energy.

Having accepted that the universe was doing something strange, cosmologists turned to the next obvious task: measuring the acceleration as accurately as possible. By doing this, they hoped to retrace the history and evolution of the cosmos from start to finish.

Madore likened this task to walking into a racetrack and getting a single glimpse of the horses running around the field. From just that bit of information, could somebody deduce where all the horses started and which one of them would win?

That kind of question may sound impossible to answer, but that hasn't stopped scientists from trying. For the last 10 years, the Planck satellite has been measuring the cosmic microwave background, a distant echo of the Big Bang, which provides a snapshot of the infant universe 13 billion years ago. Using the observatory's data, cosmologists could ascertain a number for the Hubble constant with an extraordinarily small degree of uncertainty.

"It's beautiful," Madore said. But, "it contradicts what people have been doing for the last 30 years," said Madore.

Over those three decades, astronomers have also been using telescopes to look at distant Cepheids and calculate the Hubble constant. These stars flicker at a constant rate depending on their brightness, so researchers can tell exactly how bright a Cepheid should be based on its pulsations. By looking at how dim the stars actually are, astronomers can calculate a distance to them. But estimates of the Hubble constant using Cepheids don't match the one from Planck.

The discrepancy might look fairly small, but each data point is quite precise and there is no overlap between their uncertainties. The differing sides have pointed fingers at one another, saying that their opponents have included errors throwing off their results, said Madore.

But, he added, each result also depends on large numbers of assumptions. Going back to the horse-race analogy, Madore likened it to trying to figure out the winner while having to infer which horse will get tired first, which will gain a sudden burst of energy at the end, which will slip a bit on the wet patch of grass from yesterday's rain and many other difficult-to-determine variables.

If the Cepheids teams are wrong, that means astronomers have been measuring distances in the universe incorrectly this whole time, Madore said. But if Planck is wrong, then it's possible that new and exotic physics would have to be introduced into cosmologists' models of the universe, he added. These models include different dials, such as the number of types of subatomic particles known as neutrinos in existence, and they are used to interpret the satellite's data of the cosmic microwave background. To reconcile the Planck value for the Hubble constant with existing models, some of the dials would have to be tweaked, Madore said, but most physicists aren’t quite willing to do so yet.

Hoping to provide another data point that could mediate between the two sides, Madore and his colleagues recently looked at the light of red giant stars. These objects reach the same peak brightness at the end of their lives, meaning that, like with the Cepheids, astronomers can look at how dim they appear from Earth to get a good estimate of their distance and, therefore, calculate the Hubble constant.

The results, released in July, provided a number squarely between the two prior measurements: 47,300 mph per million light-years (69.8 km/s/Mpc). And the uncertainty contained enough overlap to potentially agree with Planck's results.

But researchers aren't popping their champagne corks yet, said Madore. "We wanted to make a tie breaker," he said. "But it didn't say this side or that side is right. It said there was a lot more slop than everybody thought before."

Other teams have weighed in. A group called H0 Lenses in COSMOGRAIL's Wellspring (H0LICOW) is looking at distant bright objects in the early universe called quasars whose light has been gravitationally lensed by massive objects in between us and them. By studying these quasars, the group recently came up with an estimate closer to the astronomers' side. Information from the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), which looks at gravitational waves from crashing neutron stars, could provide another independent data point. But such calculations are still in their early stages, said Madore, and have yet to reach full maturity.

For his part, Madore said he thinks the middle number between Planck and the astronomers' value will eventually prevail, though he wouldn't wager too much on that possibility at the moment. But until some conclusion is found, he would like to see researchers' attitudes toned down a bit.

"A lot of froth has been put on top of this by people who insist they're right," he said. "It's sufficiently important that it needs to be resolved, but it's going to take time."

Well that's a whole lot of words to say, we just don't know...………………..

But you do right?

Let's see if we have this right. You started by accusing me of saying something which I didn't, them you veered wildly into a giant cut and paste which had nothing to do with what I was saying. Is that about the size of it?

Accused, really, someone is having a major personality crisis.

It's ok, no one has ever won, you never had a chance to be first, naturally they never told you that.

Ask the FBI, it's in my file.

The Kobayashi Maru scenario was an infamous no-win scenario that was part of the curriculum for command-track cadets at Starfleet Academy in the 23rd century. It was primarily used to assess a cadet's discipline, character and command capabilities when facing an impossible situation, as there is no (legitimate) strategy that will result in a successful outcome.

The test primarily consisted of the cadet placed in command of a starship. The ship would soon receive a distress signal from the Kobayashi Maru, a civilian freighter within the Klingon Neutral Zone that had been heavily disabled. Being the only ship in range, the cadet usually either chose to withdraw from the rescue mission or enter the neutral zone and rescue the vessel in risk of violating the treaties. The ship would then be confronted by Klingon K't'inga-class battle cruisers, which typically engaged in a firefight.

It was considered an absolute no-win scenario because it was virtually impossible for the cadet to simultaneously save the Kobayashi Maru, avoid a fight with the Klingons and escape from the neutral zone with the starship intact. A cadet's choice of how to handle the rescue operation gave great insight into his or her command decision-making.

In the 2250s, James T. Kirk became the first (and only known) cadet to ever beat the no-win scenario. After taking the test and failing twice, Kirk took the test a third time after surreptitiously reprogramming the computer to make it possible to win the scenario.

Kirk was subsequently awarded a commendation for "original thinking" and later commented, wistfully, that his stunt "had the virtue of never having been tried." Kirk also went on to defend his "cheating" by arguing that he didn't believe in the no-win scenario. Ironically, Kirk officially defended the test itself, suggesting a no-win scenario is one that Starfleet officer may someday face, however he would later state that he did not believe in a no-win scenario.

And now you're randomly quoting stuff that doesn't apply to anything under discussion. You're not really good at this, are you?

Actually I am rather poor at dueling with simpletons, I need a challenge, you aren't it.

CIAO

Pigeon on a chessboard.

Kids game, play on kid

 

[hadit]

Let's see if we have this right. You started by accusing me of saying something which I didn't, them you veered wildly into a giant cut and paste which had nothing to do with what I was saying. Is that about the size of it?

Accused, really, someone is having a major personality crisis.

It's ok, no one has ever won, you never had a chance to be first, naturally they never told you that.

Ask the FBI, it's in my file.

The Kobayashi Maru scenario was an infamous no-win scenario that was part of the curriculum for command-track cadets at Starfleet Academy in the 23rd century. It was primarily used to assess a cadet's discipline, character and command capabilities when facing an impossible situation, as there is no (legitimate) strategy that will result in a successful outcome.

The test primarily consisted of the cadet placed in command of a starship. The ship would soon receive a distress signal from the Kobayashi Maru, a civilian freighter within the Klingon Neutral Zone that had been heavily disabled. Being the only ship in range, the cadet usually either chose to withdraw from the rescue mission or enter the neutral zone and rescue the vessel in risk of violating the treaties. The ship would then be confronted by Klingon K't'inga-class battle cruisers, which typically engaged in a firefight.

It was considered an absolute no-win scenario because it was virtually impossible for the cadet to simultaneously save the Kobayashi Maru, avoid a fight with the Klingons and escape from the neutral zone with the starship intact. A cadet's choice of how to handle the rescue operation gave great insight into his or her command decision-making.

In the 2250s, James T. Kirk became the first (and only known) cadet to ever beat the no-win scenario. After taking the test and failing twice, Kirk took the test a third time after surreptitiously reprogramming the computer to make it possible to win the scenario.

Kirk was subsequently awarded a commendation for "original thinking" and later commented, wistfully, that his stunt "had the virtue of never having been tried." Kirk also went on to defend his "cheating" by arguing that he didn't believe in the no-win scenario. Ironically, Kirk officially defended the test itself, suggesting a no-win scenario is one that Starfleet officer may someday face, however he would later state that he did not believe in a no-win scenario.

And now you're randomly quoting stuff that doesn't apply to anything under discussion. You're not really good at this, are you?

Actually I am rather poor at dueling with simpletons, I need a challenge, you aren't it.

CIAO

Pigeon on a chessboard.

Kids game, play on kid

Debating with you IS playing. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

 

[Frannie]

Accused, really, someone is having a major personality crisis.

It's ok, no one has ever won, you never had a chance to be first, naturally they never told you that.

Ask the FBI, it's in my file.

The Kobayashi Maru scenario was an infamous no-win scenario that was part of the curriculum for command-track cadets at Starfleet Academy in the 23rd century. It was primarily used to assess a cadet's discipline, character and command capabilities when facing an impossible situation, as there is no (legitimate) strategy that will result in a successful outcome.

The test primarily consisted of the cadet placed in command of a starship. The ship would soon receive a distress signal from the Kobayashi Maru, a civilian freighter within the Klingon Neutral Zone that had been heavily disabled. Being the only ship in range, the cadet usually either chose to withdraw from the rescue mission or enter the neutral zone and rescue the vessel in risk of violating the treaties. The ship would then be confronted by Klingon K't'inga-class battle cruisers, which typically engaged in a firefight.

It was considered an absolute no-win scenario because it was virtually impossible for the cadet to simultaneously save the Kobayashi Maru, avoid a fight with the Klingons and escape from the neutral zone with the starship intact. A cadet's choice of how to handle the rescue operation gave great insight into his or her command decision-making.

In the 2250s, James T. Kirk became the first (and only known) cadet to ever beat the no-win scenario. After taking the test and failing twice, Kirk took the test a third time after surreptitiously reprogramming the computer to make it possible to win the scenario.

Kirk was subsequently awarded a commendation for "original thinking" and later commented, wistfully, that his stunt "had the virtue of never having been tried." Kirk also went on to defend his "cheating" by arguing that he didn't believe in the no-win scenario. Ironically, Kirk officially defended the test itself, suggesting a no-win scenario is one that Starfleet officer may someday face, however he would later state that he did not believe in a no-win scenario.

And now you're randomly quoting stuff that doesn't apply to anything under discussion. You're not really good at this, are you?

Actually I am rather poor at dueling with simpletons, I need a challenge, you aren't it.

CIAO

Pigeon on a chessboard.

Kids game, play on kid

Debating with you IS playing. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

Who is talking?

That's ok, you stay there where they know you

 

[hadit]

And now you're randomly quoting stuff that doesn't apply to anything under discussion. You're not really good at this, are you?

Actually I am rather poor at dueling with simpletons, I need a challenge, you aren't it.

CIAO

Pigeon on a chessboard.

Kids game, play on kid

Debating with you IS playing. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

Who is talking?

That's ok, you stay there where they know you

Figure out yet how motor drives can be tuned to counter the earth's rotation and keep telescopes pointed at an object in the sky for long periods of time? Have you figured out how a spectrometer works? There's so much you need to know before you can even credibly post on these subjects.

 

[Frannie]

Actually I am rather poor at dueling with simpletons, I need a challenge, you aren't it.

CIAO

Pigeon on a chessboard.

Kids game, play on kid

Debating with you IS playing. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

Who is talking?

That's ok, you stay there where they know you

Figure out yet how motor drives can be tuned to counter the earth's rotation and keep telescopes pointed at an object in the sky for long periods of time? Have you figured out how a spectrometer works? There's so much you need to know before you can even credibly post on these subjects.

You never told us how a spectrometer sees INVISIBLE CO or how a telescope photo of something unknown makes the thing known?

See son, the telescope is not the point, understanding what is photographed is.

Yawn

 

[hadit]

Pigeon on a chessboard.

Kids game, play on kid

Debating with you IS playing. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

Who is talking?

That's ok, you stay there where they know you

Figure out yet how motor drives can be tuned to counter the earth's rotation and keep telescopes pointed at an object in the sky for long periods of time? Have you figured out how a spectrometer works? There's so much you need to know before you can even credibly post on these subjects.

You never told us how a spectrometer sees INVISIBLE CO or how a telescope photo of something unknown makes the thing known?

See son, the telescope is not the point, understanding what is photographed is.

Yawn

Oh, I told you. You didn't understand it.

 

[Frannie]

Kids game, play on kid

Debating with you IS playing. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

Who is talking?

That's ok, you stay there where they know you

Figure out yet how motor drives can be tuned to counter the earth's rotation and keep telescopes pointed at an object in the sky for long periods of time? Have you figured out how a spectrometer works? There's so much you need to know before you can even credibly post on these subjects.

You never told us how a spectrometer sees INVISIBLE CO or how a telescope photo of something unknown makes the thing known?

See son, the telescope is not the point, understanding what is photographed is.

Yawn

Oh, I told you. You didn't understand it.

So a photo of a black hole determines how black holes formed, its mass or what happens to the contents

Yawn.

Better yet Hawking knew all this without even looking

Fools believe

You figure out the market reaction to a USA China trade deal, and how many 757s China will order from boeing?

Or are you gonna play astronomer all day while I trade

 

[hadit]

Debating with you IS playing. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

Who is talking?

That's ok, you stay there where they know you

Figure out yet how motor drives can be tuned to counter the earth's rotation and keep telescopes pointed at an object in the sky for long periods of time? Have you figured out how a spectrometer works? There's so much you need to know before you can even credibly post on these subjects.

You never told us how a spectrometer sees INVISIBLE CO or how a telescope photo of something unknown makes the thing known?

See son, the telescope is not the point, understanding what is photographed is.

Yawn

Oh, I told you. You didn't understand it.

So a photo of a black hole determines how black holes formed, its mass or what happens to the contents

Yawn.

Better yet Hawking knew all this without even looking

Fools believe

You figure out the market reaction to a USA China trade deal, and how many 757s China will order from boeing?

Or are you gonna play astronomer all day while I trade

Since the thread is about astronomy, I won't comment on other stuff. You should learn that.

 

[Frannie]

Who is talking?

That's ok, you stay there where they know you

Figure out yet how motor drives can be tuned to counter the earth's rotation and keep telescopes pointed at an object in the sky for long periods of time? Have you figured out how a spectrometer works? There's so much you need to know before you can even credibly post on these subjects.

You never told us how a spectrometer sees INVISIBLE CO or how a telescope photo of something unknown makes the thing known?

See son, the telescope is not the point, understanding what is photographed is.

Yawn

Oh, I told you. You didn't understand it.

So a photo of a black hole determines how black holes formed, its mass or what happens to the contents

Yawn.

Better yet Hawking knew all this without even looking

Fools believe

You figure out the market reaction to a USA China trade deal, and how many 757s China will order from boeing?

Or are you gonna play astronomer all day while I trade

Since the thread is about astronomy, I won't comment on other stuff. You should learn that.

Well unlike you I am free to do as I choose.

I would hate to be in your situation.

Try freedom, you might like it

Perhaps you would have some investments if you didn't babble about nonsense astronomy so often

 

[MAGAman]

Sciences doesn't always have one, perfect answer. Discrepancy occurs between measurement instruments, disagreed theories and other various factors. Moreso, a theory today might become debunked, Even a law can be proven inaccurate.

Science has a reasonably good grip on some stuff.

The problem is giving them Godlike credibility on cosmic, or even planetary prognostication.

These people work for the people writing them checks. Some are competent. Some are stupid. Some are corrupt.

 

[hadit]

Figure out yet how motor drives can be tuned to counter the earth's rotation and keep telescopes pointed at an object in the sky for long periods of time? Have you figured out how a spectrometer works? There's so much you need to know before you can even credibly post on these subjects.

You never told us how a spectrometer sees INVISIBLE CO or how a telescope photo of something unknown makes the thing known?

See son, the telescope is not the point, understanding what is photographed is.

Yawn

Oh, I told you. You didn't understand it.

So a photo of a black hole determines how black holes formed, its mass or what happens to the contents

Yawn.

Better yet Hawking knew all this without even looking

Fools believe

You figure out the market reaction to a USA China trade deal, and how many 757s China will order from boeing?

Or are you gonna play astronomer all day while I trade

Since the thread is about astronomy, I won't comment on other stuff. You should learn that.

Well unlike you I am free to do as I choose.

I would hate to be in your situation.

Try freedom, you might like it

Perhaps you would have some investments if you didn't babble about nonsense astronomy so often

Interesting. You start multiple threads about astronomy and astrophysics, then when people post on those threads, you complain that they "babble about nonsense astronomy so often". You obviously have no idea how idiotic that is. Start a thread on investments if you want. Like you said, you're free to talk about it. Guess what, I'm also free to decide what I want to talk about, and I choose to talk about astronomy and astrophysics in threads devoted to, yup, you guessed it, astronomy and astrophysics. Isn't freedom cool?

 

[Frannie]

You never told us how a spectrometer sees INVISIBLE CO or how a telescope photo of something unknown makes the thing known?

See son, the telescope is not the point, understanding what is photographed is.

Yawn

Oh, I told you. You didn't understand it.

So a photo of a black hole determines how black holes formed, its mass or what happens to the contents

Yawn.

Better yet Hawking knew all this without even looking

Fools believe

You figure out the market reaction to a USA China trade deal, and how many 757s China will order from boeing?

Or are you gonna play astronomer all day while I trade

Since the thread is about astronomy, I won't comment on other stuff. You should learn that.

Well unlike you I am free to do as I choose.

I would hate to be in your situation.

Try freedom, you might like it

Perhaps you would have some investments if you didn't babble about nonsense astronomy so often

Interesting. You start multiple threads about astronomy and astrophysics, then when people post on those threads, you complain that they "babble about nonsense astronomy so often". You obviously have no idea how idiotic that is. Start a thread on investments if you want. Like you said, you're free to talk about it. Guess what, I'm also free to decide what I want to talk about, and I choose to talk about astronomy and astrophysics in threads devoted to, yup, you guessed it, astronomy and astrophysics. Isn't freedom cool?

You just don't get it, my astronomy threads show that no one knows anything because the math fails, and yet you keep arguing that it's a done deal.

You can be interested in the universe and jumbo jet stocks at the same time. Or at least I can

So how are your telescope stocks doing?

Perspective matters

 

[hadit]

Oh, I told you. You didn't understand it.

So a photo of a black hole determines how black holes formed, its mass or what happens to the contents

Yawn.

Better yet Hawking knew all this without even looking

Fools believe

You figure out the market reaction to a USA China trade deal, and how many 757s China will order from boeing?

Or are you gonna play astronomer all day while I trade

Since the thread is about astronomy, I won't comment on other stuff. You should learn that.

Well unlike you I am free to do as I choose.

I would hate to be in your situation.

Try freedom, you might like it

Perhaps you would have some investments if you didn't babble about nonsense astronomy so often

Interesting. You start multiple threads about astronomy and astrophysics, then when people post on those threads, you complain that they "babble about nonsense astronomy so often". You obviously have no idea how idiotic that is. Start a thread on investments if you want. Like you said, you're free to talk about it. Guess what, I'm also free to decide what I want to talk about, and I choose to talk about astronomy and astrophysics in threads devoted to, yup, you guessed it, astronomy and astrophysics. Isn't freedom cool?

You just don't get it, my astronomy threads show that no one knows anything because the math fails, and yet you keep arguing that it's a done deal.

You can be interested in the universe and jumbo jet stocks at the same time. Or at least I can

So how are your telescope stocks doing?

Perspective matters

You don't understand the difference between what we know, what we're learning and how the process works. Of course perspective matters, and you have the perspective of a mole opining on what lies above the ground. Open your eyes and learn something, you might be more interesting.