I heard a good one years ago. When the Spanish Conquistadors (spelling?) discovered South America, they sailed up and down on the edge of vision to tantalise the natives that there may or may not be “aliens” arriving.
No, they just turned up, killed everybody and stole the gold.
It’s entirely possible aliens aren’t Christian, I suppose.
Oh first question no doubt. “Have you ever found a god?”
So here’s Avi Loeb talking about the ‘whistleblower’ David Grusch and yet he isn’t really talking about the same thing as Grusch.
Grusch specifically refers to “exotic materials” while Loeb talks about natural things that come to Earth from outside of the solar system, i.e. rocks. You might call this exotic matter, but that is different from the “exotic material” that Grusch talks about. To me, “exotic material” implies something that has been manufactured and is of unknown origin.
Are we being manipulated here? Is this just a pantomime to distract us from more serious Earth-bound matters, or is what Grusch saying actually true? If it is true, then there’s nothing more serious. It would be the most important revelation in human history.
Anyway, I think you know which side of the Oort Cloud I’m on. I want to believe! Ha, ha.
“Something weird is going on” apparently.
This is a good summary of Dr. Avi Loeb’s Galileo expedition currently taking place off the coast of Papua New Guinea and other stuff such as rumours concerning other whistleblowers about reveal themselves.
I’ll also attach the Event Horizon video of Dr. Loeb giving an update from the deck of the boat.
Abi Loeb has certainly made some claims over the years.
Yes, he has and maybe this expedition will result in some evidence to support some of those claims.
Sunset.
On Mars.
Dream, discover, adventure, create, learn, design, develop and progress. The talents that make us who we are. What a picture:
Great. We can colonise Mars and fuck that planet up, too.
Yeah. I mean, why just fuck up this one when we can fuck up an already fucked up, desolate and uninhabitable rock even more.
That’s Old Trafford mate.
Hmm. I need to read more on that and understand how his theory works exactly alongside the CMB and stuff. That’s an outlier of a theory.
JWST found some interesting galaxies that my have been “too old” but it was likely down to the assumed brightness of the stars that formed them prior to applying red shift.
It doesn’t.
When one new line of evidence is in such huge contradiction to the consensus model, a model that has been reached as a result of successfully reconciling loads of different lines of evidence, it can be almost reflexively viewed as being the result bad data, bad interpretations, bad intentions, or some combination of all.
A quick scan of the interpretations on this suggest there is a good amount of bad science in this paper
Meanwhile dark matter and dark energy want a chat about their roles in all this. Said it before, we have something radically wrong about the universe, hope we find it in my lifetime.
There’s an argument that dark energy and dark matter are the cosmological equivalent of the god of the gaps fallacy.
I did wonder. Having not seen the paper I was making sure that I wasn’t making a tit of myself… again, again.
I don’t see how we can be wrong when we can and do measure the effects of both. Their existence is not really open to argument. What they are however?
What’s more likely, we’re wrong or we can’t see or detect a huge amount of the galaxy. We can measure that things are not happening as they should but inventing things to make the maths work always seems very un scientific.
Effectively 95% of the universe is invisible to us, that’s a hell of a lot of stuff that needs inventing to make our understanding work. More likely our understanding is 95% wrong.
An interesting read:
Pretty much my point:
Even if the simulations can be made to match the data, McGaugh, for one, considers it an implausible coincidence that dark matter and visible matter would conspire to exactly mimic the predictions of MOND at every location in every galaxy. “If somebody were to come to you and say, ‘The solar system doesn’t work on an inverse-square law, really it’s an inverse-cube law, but there’s dark matter that’s arranged just so that it always looks inverse-square,’ you would say that person is insane,” he said. “But that’s basically what we’re asking to be the case with dark matter here.”
I would say that not only is there considerable argument over whether Dark Matter is real, most scientists in the field aren’t tied to it being a literal thing. Dark energy is a phenomenon that is real, but without an explanation for it, dark matter became the place holder that was needed to make the models work. So it is treated as real in a mathematical sense, but alternative explanations for why dark energy exists are totally fair game and not controversial.
Of course, trying to find evidence that dark matter is a literal thing is an active area of research, but only because that is the occam’s razor approach to testing the hypothesis, not because it is needed to prove science right. Other explanations for why Dark Energy is observed wouldnt make the “science wrong” on dark matter because that isnt really how physics have positioned dark matter anyway.
but what gets lay people interested in an idea is often a very unhelpful treatment of what the actual issues are, hence issues like are posed as “something is wrong with the universe and scientists might be wrong”.
I’m not sure how something can be wrong with the universe. There’s certainly something wrong with our understanding of it. You well know that Occam’s razor is slightly more complex than the oft touted “the simplest explanation is often correct” It is instead that explanation that requires the fewest (and smallest) assumptions is usually correct. Inventing 95% of the substance of the universe is a slightly bigger assumption than “Hmmm, we might have some of this wrong”
What where and how? Norfolk.