Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion WWII in HD

So you think the show is "for a dude-bro sitting on a Lazy Boy eating Cheeto's" but your ok with them showing these things as long as its broadcasted to the masses? what kind of physicist are you, thats like A rod saying he is ok with MLB broadcasting a 7 year old playing T ball as long as his name is on the jersey. Either the proper thing should be shown or not at all.

pretty drunk hope the words came out right

Yeah but see regardless of if they dumb it down for dude-bros like me, you're trying to argue that the documentaries are some how false and that we're too stupid to understand the theory they're presenting? I didn't misunderstand anything, I understood exactly the 'theory' they were setting forth. You seem to think that we know how it all works and that seemingly your theory is not theory at all but reality? Otherwise pretty much anything can happen, but how do we really know? Well what I mean is, how do you really know, since you have the real answers that transcend scientific reality. So in essence, I allegedly misunderstand a theory that was dumbed down for me, but that somehow makes you right? Did I get it this time?



How do you know what governs the fabric of space? How do you know it won't become so huge that 'it' can't support itself, therefore causing a cataclysm of some sort? How do you know that space/time won't expand so far that it collapses onto itself causing another big bang and starting the endless cycle over again?

[A rather harrowing new theory about the death of the universe paints a picture of "phantom energy" ripping apart galaxies, stars, planets and eventually every speck of matter in a fantastical end to time.

Scientifically it is just about the most repulsive notion ever conceived.

The speculative but serious cosmology is described as a "pretty fantastic possibility" even by its lead author, Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth University. It explains one possible outcome for solid astronomical observations made in the late 1990s -- that the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing pace, and that something unknown is vacuuming everything outward.

The question Caldwell and his colleagues posed is, what would happen if the rate of acceleration increased?

Their answer is that the eventual, phenomenal pace would overwhelm the normal, trusted effects of gravity right down to the local level. Even the nuclear forces that bind things in the subatomic world will cease to be effective.

"The expansion becomes so fast that it literally rips apart all bound objects," Caldwell explained in a telephone interview. "It rips apart clusters of galaxies. It rips apart stars. It rips apart planets and solar systems. And it eventually rips apart all matter."

He calls it, as you might guess, the Big Rip.

The standard view

Driving the known acceleration of the universe's expansion is a mysterious thing is called dark energy, thought of by scientists as anti-gravity working over large distances.

Conventional wisdom holds that the acceleration will proceed at a constant rate, akin to a car that moves 10 mph faster with each mile traveled. With nothing to cap the acceleration, all galaxies will eventually recede from one another at the speed of light, leaving each galaxy alone in a cold, dark universe within 100 billion years. We would not be able to see any galaxies outside our Milky Way, even with the most powerful telescopes.

That's the conventional view, remarkable as it sounds.

The Big Rip theory has dark energy's prowess increasing with time, until it's an out-of-control phantom energy. Think of our car accelerating an additional 10 mph every half mile, then every hundred yards, then every foot.

Before long, the bumpers are bound to fly off. Sooner or later, our hypothetical engine will come apart, regardless of how much we spend on motor oil.]



But eventually heat has to transform into another form of energy when it has exhausted it's source. How does heat energy stay constant? Wouldn't heat energy eventually transform into dark energy or some sort?

[In a "heat death", the temperature of the entire universe would be very close to absolute zero. Heat death is, however, not quite the same as "cold death", or the "Big Freeze", in which the universe simply becomes too cold to sustain life due to continued expansion, though, from the point of view of anything that might be alive, the result is quite similar.]

How many people that watch those shows, do you think, know what entropy really is? Or how to define energy properly, or even force? Not many. This is why these shows have to dance around the ideas rather than telling you what it is exactly the research shows. They can't delve into the details of the concept while making it tangible to their broad audience, other than the basic "entropy means everything heats up over time", etc. They do a pretty good job, considering.
It is sort of along the same lines of sci-fi movies. It would be boring if giant spaceships were seen ripping through space without some kind of gallant hum or roar, even though that is what necessarily occurs since space does not allow the transmittance of sound. They need to spice things up, even at the sake of what's real, to hold their audiences attention.

If it gets the youth (or anyone really) interested in science who were not before, it is worth the laymen misrepresentation. Do I wish everyone were at the level of understanding that scientists are so it could be truly represented? Of course, but that is not the case.

There are so many miscontextualized statements in that post I can't begin to answer them in the time I currently have. I'll get to this later. In the mean time, though, that post is exactly why science television shows are put in laymen terms. When armchair scientists begin to read New Scientist and think they know what the fuck they are talking about, is when it all goes wrong (New Scientist is also dumbed down, it is not a research journal).

Also, don't confuse philosophy with physics. Physics attempts to describe the universe. It never accepts half-assed theories because 'oh well wut du we no lol wut is even real?' It accepts theories because to the physics populous it seems the most correct theory at the present time.

Here is an absolutely fantastic montage of film moments set to the same peice of Pale Blue Dot narrated by Sagan. Also music by Mogwai.

I watch it from time to time to renew my zest for life (and film of course):

Pale Blue Dot Montage

LoL, armchair scientists, that's cute haha. Funny thing is, no one is claiming to be anything other than you, ("I'm a physicist (literally).")ironic eh? You burst onto the scene dropping bombs putting me into my place or something haha, all I was doing was trying to turn some people onto a very interesting series, which was inspired by the original post content. Next time I go this route, I'll PM you my post and you can proof read it and check it for dumbed down science show ideas, sound good?

All I originally did was correct your misunderstandings, which I assumed you might appreciate since you seemed interested. Instead you attempted to tell me I was wrong, and that you in fact were correct in your understandings, which was not the case at all. I'm not putting you in your place, you put yourself there.

I don't care if people do or do not know the nitty gritty of science. But I do care when people misinterpret the meaning and preach it as if they know it to be true (see: religion); it gets annoying.

*buzzer*

Wrong answer. I never said you were wrong, I only said no one is right, and that ultimately no one knows. I also challenged that the info I got from the documentary was worth more than anything you could say. Unfortunately your credibility is zero, History channel is above zero. *shrugs*



Or what gets annoying are physicists that can't comprehend what they're reading on the forum. I didn't misinterpret anything, and I didn't preach anything. See your problem is you insubstantially put yourself on a pedestal, because you wanted to flex your e-peen and drop science knowledge. The irony is, I wasn't preaching anything, but simply drawing attention to a cool show and mentioning some of the topics discussed. How that turns into me preaching about something I know nothing about is typical of someone like you to say who goes on a tangent without understanding what's actually going on. I also didn't misinterpret anything, maybe History channel and the host of PHD scientists who contribute to the show somehow misinterpret what they're presenting, but those ideas came from them not me, which also contributes to how much of ass you are when you break it down.

Recap:

I say there's a cool show on TV, say some of the things they talk about. You challenge it, somehow saying I originally said it, and that the theories are crack pot even though the credibility of the show, the channel and the scientists who work on it are all established in their fields. Meanwhile you are nothing but a tough internet poster who alleges they know more than pretty much the whole science community, and can't comprehend the meaning of a post and blows it up and tries to make himself look like a scholar when in reality you made yourself look like an asshole.

If I put myself in my place you put your head in your ass, I'll take the former of the two.

Fun debate though.

How many physicists or scientists do you know that visit internet wizard game forums?

Wow, I don't know that I can watch the show after reading all this. Seems too confrontational and controversial... J/K, on my TIVO for Tues.

-Bal.