What's new
By:

Maybe I'm a softy but this made me a little emotional

Astronomy is bad ***, but I want to know how this stuff is figured and how much of it is true. How does one go about coming up with a diagram on that scale and actually believe they have it right? I'm skeptical of its accuracy. Not saying astronomers are dumb or anything. I just think they might be making a lot of assumptions and selling it as truths.
 
Hack said:
Astronomy is bad ***, but I want to know how this stuff is figured and how much of it is true. How does one go about coming up with a diagram on that scale and actually believe they have it right? I'm skeptical of its accuracy. Not saying astronomers are dumb or anything. I just think they might be making a lot of assumptions and selling it as truths.
Click to expand...

Distances are observed using parallax or similar notions, and you can use changes in the electro-magnetic spectrum to determine relative speeds and directions.
 
One Brow said:
Distances are observed using parallax or similar notions, and you can use changes in the electro-magnetic spectrum to determine relative speeds and directions.
Click to expand...
Or, you can just take the amount of unicorns and divide it by the amount of leprechauns. Then sprinkle that figure with 10 bigfoots and 2 loch ness monsters and there is your answer
 
fishonjazz said:
Or, you can just take the amount of unicorns and divide it by the amount of leprechauns. Then sprinkle that figure with 10 bigfoots and 2 loch ness monsters and there is your answer
Click to expand...

I was going to say you should have eskimos in there somewhere, but everyone knows they are imaginary.
 
PKM said:
I don't believe it. Haha.. prove it!

You silly science followers ...
Click to expand...

Your sarcasm suggests that you believe that most if not all scientists/astronomers are 100% right, 100% of the time. That's very foolish in my opinion. New discoveries are made all the time. Theories are constantly evolving. Believing we know it all right now, is, well, pretty dumb.

heyhey said:
I'm pretty sure that they exaggerated the brightness but that's not really the point.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty that had nothing to do with my point.

One Brow said:
Distances are observed using parallax or similar notions, and you can use changes in the electro-magnetic spectrum to determine relative speeds and directions.
Click to expand...

Ya, but is it accurate millions of light years away? Mapping the closest stuff is one thing. Perfectly mapping out the entire visible universe + some, is quite another.

I'm sure even the brightest astronomers will tell you that there is margin of error in the calculations due to our limits in technology.
 
Hack said:
Ya, but is it accurate millions of light years away? Mapping the closest stuff is one thing. Perfectly mapping out the entire visible universe + some, is quite another.

I'm sure even the brightest astronomers will tell you that there is margin of error in the calculations due to our limits in technology.
Click to expand...

As far as we know, the light spectrum is perfectly preserved with distance (we have found no measurable change), and as far as we know, if you have instruments sensitive to get a difference from parallax, the process is accurate. I agree there is a margin of error for any measurement. However, you can reduce that margin of error by making multiple measurements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

Apparently, we use a many other methods, as well.
 
Hack said:
Your sarcasm suggests that you believe that most if not all scientists/astronomers are 100% right, 100% of the time. That's very foolish in my opinion. New discoveries are made all the time. Theories are constantly evolving. Believing we know it all right now, is, well, pretty dumb.
Click to expand...

To no one but you, I bet.

And what you wrote should never have to be said.. kinda obvious.
 
Hack said:
Your sarcasm suggests that you believe that most if not all scientists/astronomers are 100% right, 100% of the time. That's very foolish in my opinion. New discoveries are made all the time. Theories are constantly evolving. Believing we know it all right now, is, well, pretty dumb.



I'm pretty that had nothing to do with my point.



Ya, but is it accurate millions of light years away? Mapping the closest stuff is one thing. Perfectly mapping out the entire visible universe + some, is quite another.

I'm sure even the brightest astronomers will tell you that there is margin of error in the calculations due to our limits in technology.
Click to expand...

While there are other definitions of a super cluster I find this one to be particularly amazing. It gives me a new way to visualize the real scale and "structure" of the universe that I did not possess before. These astronomers have given me a gift that I will have for the rest of my life.

You don't need to know the exact position and velocity of every molecule of water in a river to map it. You don't even need to know the position of every twist and turn of that river to make a fairly useful one. In the same way we don't need 100% accuracy to know where these galaxies and galaxy clusters are "flowing".
 
heyhey said:
While there are other definitions of a super cluster I find this one to be particularly amazing. It gives me a new way to visualize the real scale and "structure" of the universe that I did not possess before. These astronomers have given me a gift that I will have for the rest of my life.

You don't need to know the exact position and velocity of every molecule of water in a river to map it. You don't even need to know the position of every twist and turn of that river to make a fairly useful one. In the same way we don't need 100% accuracy to know where these galaxies and galaxy clusters are "flowing".
Click to expand...

But you can't measure the exact position and velocity at a given moment for even a single molecule.

Captain Irrelevant Information has spoken. Good bye for now.
 
Siro said:
But you can't measure the exact position and velocity at a given moment for even a single molecule.

Captain Irrelevant Information has spoken. Good bye for now.
Click to expand...

Really I thought a water molecule was big enough. You usually here about photons and the like when this quantum **** is discussed. At what scale does this rule begin?
 
heyhey said:
Really I thought a water molecule was big enough. You usually here about photons and the like when this quantum **** is discussed. At what scale does this rule begin?
Click to expand...

Well, quantum mechanics controls all of reality at all scales. But sometimes quantum effects are too subtle to be detected at a macro scale. An example would be the wave nature of people. We still do exist in a particle-wave duality, like anything on the quantum scale, but the wavelength is too small to measure. Consequently, Uncertainty applies to all things in this universe. You cannot know the exact position and momentum of any object to a greater degree of accuracy than that imposed by the uncertainty limit.
 
Siro said:
Well, quantum mechanics controls all of reality at all scales. But sometimes quantum effects are too subtle to be detected at a macro scale. An example would be the wave nature of people. We still do exist in a particle-wave duality, like anything on the quantum scale, but the wavelength is too small to measure. Consequently, Uncertainty applies to all things in this universe. You cannot know the exact position and momentum of any object to a greater degree of accuracy than that imposed by the uncertainty limit.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being difficult. There is a scale at which we can stll be relatively certain of where **** is and where it's going and at what speed. I have a pretty damn good idea where my boots are and what their velocity is.(relative to their setting)
 
heyhey said:
Now you're just being difficult. There is a scale at which we can stll be relatively certain of where **** is and where it's going and at what speed. I have a pretty damn good idea where my boots are and what their velocity is.(relative to their setting)
Click to expand...

That's the essence of the issue. The position and velocity of your foot cannot be determined with better accuracy than the Heisenberg Uncertainty limit. However, there is no conceivable application where that level of imprecision can be of consequence for such a macro object. When it comes to measuring a particle however, uncertainty becomes much more significant. But the same laws apply to both situations.

There are certain things that happen on the quantum scale that are just not going to happen on the macro scale. I'm sure you've heard of the example of quantum tunneling. A particle has a decent chance of just teleporting across a thin barrier. A person does not, though. That is not because the laws of physics governing the human-scale are different, but because for a human to tunnel across a wall, a whole ****load of interacting molecules have to do it at the same time. That's pretty much impossible from a practical point of view.
 
Wasn't there a super cluster in a Portland hotel a few years back? I also remember something about a pillow fort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top