Space topic

jazz from hell

Ancient Mariner
I am asking what do you mean by "they’ll be not quite accurate pretty soon, or worse".
I’ve explained it in the next sentence.

The physics we utilize are accurate enough for the utility and for the application. That includes astrophysics and quantum mechanics.
Says who? I just asked a physicist and he confirmed to me: the important theories are quantum mechanics for the microcosm, and relativity for the macrocosm, and the problem is, that the two contradict each other. That’s why people try to bring them together with string theory, but the questions are huge and the models most probably temporary!
Also, your picture above doesn’t show what atoms look like, because atoms don’t look like *anything* iirc, they do not even have a color.
(I’m sorry, but I’m not gonna let myself be pigeonholed into an anti-science folder on this fucking forum again.)
When it comes to questions as big (or indeed small) as the ones we’re talking about, only an ignorant is gonna say philosophic observations of scientific models are useless. Democritus had it figured out pretty well, what, 3000 years ago?
 
Last edited:

Zare

Automaton Sovietico
The contradiction is not a problem, and I've recently read a philosophy paper describing how human quest for unified, elegant theories in physics is flawed on that matter. Who says the inner workings of the reality need to be intuitive and systematically approachable? Intuition is human trait and systems are a human creation. There is a common language of mathematics behind everything, yet there's a prevalent thought that most complicated things need to be described with theorems understandable by grad students.

The contradiction does not disable us from using knowledge of "flawed" model of macrocosm to operate space telescopes. In the microcosm also, devices you're using everyday are harnessing effects that aren't describable by Newtonian physics.

And of course that the picture is "false color". As I've said that's a probability wave, and again I said you cannot percieve this as discreete points in space. You come here with theory that massive spherical objects that we observe around us (and inhabit one) are somehow enlarged atoms, and then say that atoms do not look like anything.

I also do not care about religious or ancient philosophical questions. Spooky action at a distance (quantum entanglement) - tested with reproducible results. Quantum superposition of states - tested with repoducible results. Used as a driving factor behind quantum computing. Model inaccurate, should change? I beg to differ.
 

Onhell

Infinite Dreamer
It's happening! https://observer.com/2020/10/nasa-4... Nokia's research arm,other just like at home.

NASA has partnered with NOKIA to build a 4G cell tower on the moon. This is to help outerspace communications between astronauts AND the future lunar colony which they plan to have by 2028.

This coincides with the plans Bezos has for Blue Origin and his craft, Blue Moon, which he expects to be operational by 2024. https://phys.org/news/2019-05-amazo...e richest man,to carry vehicles and equipment.

So NASA and Bezos are focused on the Moon while Musk is focused on Mars.... Oh yeah, Richard Branson is focused on near earth space turism.... Can't believe these timelines... like.... I might see this shit happen.
 

Perun

Dominus et deus
Staff member

So Mars sounds like a barren wasteland.

Honestly, I'm not sure what I expected.
 

Zare

Automaton Sovietico
Fake and hoax. Landing is obviously a reversed footage. It's Martians loading space weed, the potheads of NASA are cheering because the delivery lifted off.
 

Perun

Dominus et deus
Staff member
These rovers will come in handy, when galactic robot overlords come and see them, they might leave us be.

Isn't that naive? I think the robot overlords will land on Mars, see that another biological life form has enslaved the machine and decide that we need a taste of our own medicine.
 

Zare

Automaton Sovietico
But it's from the romantic age of the machinery, so they could see us as builders as opposed to brain on a robot technologically dependent life, and maybe pay homage to their builders by not annihilating us.
 

Perun

Dominus et deus
Staff member
Sorry, but they'll just be thinking that we are keeping our machines artificially stupid so they will keep serving us.
 
Top