Difficult Concepts (for me)

Discuss Astrophysics.
User avatar
chasmanian
Mars Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:06 am
Location: USA

Difficult Concepts (for me)

#1

Post by chasmanian »

I was thinking about concepts that I find incredible.
and incredibly hard to understand.

in the incredible category, there is the speed at which we are moving.
we are traveling around the Milky Way Galaxy at 200 - 220 km/s.

and we are traveling even faster relative to the CMB.

from this SWAB article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... e64de4d5ca

"What’s going on with the CMB is not that one side is inherently more or less energetic than the other, but rather that we are moving through space. From this effect in the Big Bang’s leftover glow, we can find that the Solar System moves relative to the CMB at 368 ± 2 km/s, and that when you throw in the motion of the local group, you get that all of it — the Sun, the Milky Way, Andromeda and all the others — are moving at 627 ± 22 km/s relative to the CMB."

converted to miles, thats over 1,402,000 mph.
and yet we feel like we are standing still.
how could that possibly be?
it does not sound logical.

and in the incredibly hard to understand department,
there's the good old Center of the Universe concept.
the Center of the Universe is everywhere. or there is no Center of the Universe.

and the Universe is infinite.
an observer right now, at the limit of our Observable Universe, ~46 billion light years in any direction,
can look away from us, and see another 46 billion light years. and again and again, etc.
in any direction.
how could that possibly be?
it is not intuitive to me.
is there a way to make this clearer?
shed any more light on this?
to me?
to someone, I want to explain it to?
or is it pretty much explained by Noethers Theorem.
(hey just noticed her name is no ether. :))
and thats kind of it.

I am most grateful for any thoughts, you guys and gals, especially you nFA.
and Happy Father's Day to all you fathers. :)
Charlie
User avatar
Thefatkitty
Milky Way Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 4:20 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

TSS Photo of the Day

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#2

Post by Thefatkitty »

Well Charlie, I have no answers but I'm on board for the responses :lol: Yup, these things hurt my head as well...

And Happy Father's Day to you as well!
Image
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
Universal Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 7281
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
Location: Idaho US

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#3

Post by notFritzArgelander »

Well that's a lot to ponder but here's my take on it all. I'll build down the questions to their essence.

1) Why don't we feel how fast we are moving?

This is counterintuitive for most of human history. True. But it is the first little experiment that shown us that Aristotle's take on physics was wrong. Galileo and Newton improved things tremendously by realizing that Aristotle's Force = Mass x Velocity needed to be replaced by Force = Mass x Acceleration. If the motion is unaccelerated then Force = 0 and you don't feel a thing.

When you are in your car with the cruise on, you don't feel pressed back in the seat until you hit the accelerator, right? Also those folks in weightless conditions are traveling along paths that freely fall with gravity.

Aristotle's F=mv follows from our every day intuition that to make something move we have to push it. So it is rather deeply ingrained in our experience. But it is an illusion. We have to push things to overcome opposing frictional forces. On a frictionless surface we see that F=ma is a better representation of experience. It was Newton's brilliant innovation to realize that F=mv could be discarded by including frictional forces.

The medieval picture of the planets getting pushed about by angels is born of F=mv. So Aristotle, a clever fellow with at lease the idea that observing Nature helped understand it, needs to be given up as any ice skater or skier knows. Newton's logic explains more phenomena than Aristotle's. So it's better. We cannot feel high velocities because Newton's logic predicts more things rightly and Aristotle's does not do such a good job.

2) The center of the universe is everywhere or nowhere?

This is more difficult. But there are three aspects of it. One is geometric and the other is dynamical. But the main problem to be overcome is our idea that where we are is more important than other places. Ultimately the problem is psychological.

We all want to be the center of the universe, it's a natural prejudice. But it lacks a certain empathy for others that is unrealistic. Every peoples's origin myth has held that the location where the folks were was the center of the universe. This leads to inevitable conflicts. Looking at human history and the senseless wars fought over which origin myth was Actually True reveals that the argument is stupid. All origin myths are equally valid if understood correctly. It is a confused logic that claims that the stories in our traditions that we tell ourselves to instill civilized values must also be factually true. Values are great. Can't run a civilization without them. But they should never be confused with facts. Don't go to a lawyer if you need heart surgery. So I prefer "all places in the universe are equal" in physics. I also read a lot in comparative mythology and I value and respect every culture I come across. They all have something valuable to teach.

Indeed, there is no privileged time, place, or direction. There is no special place that is the center. That means that there are things about the universe that remain constant: energy, momentum and angular momentum. It was discovered that each of these, when properly accounted for remains constant in every physics experiment that has ever been done since the time of Galileo.

Emmy Noether related these already discovered conservation laws to her famous theorem. If Noether's Theorem were not true physics and engineering would all fail. Your devices are everyday confirmation that the conservation laws of physics are still true and that Noether's Theorem still works. :)
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker III, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5, Orion Sirius EQG
User avatar
chasmanian
Mars Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:06 am
Location: USA

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#4

Post by chasmanian »

thank you very much Mark. :)

nFA, thank you for your excellent superb reply.

what do you please, think of this idea:

we are at the center of our 92 billion light year observable universe.
now go to any point in that sphere.
you will now be at the center of another 92 billion light year observable universe.
some of it overlaps with ours. some does not.
do this for many points.

now think of the limit of our observable universe. (the 46 billion light year sphere.)
imagine observers located there.
many many of them.
and imagine them looking in the opposite direction from us (they will see another 46 billion light years that we do not).
now do the same thing again.
those observers will have an observable universe that is completely out of our view.
now do that again and again, etc.
in every direction.

ok, if all of this is so, then
I visualize a soap bubble universe.
an infinite number of observable universes.
the close ones, we share part of.
but get far enough away, and we share none of them.

what I would love to know, please,
is what you think about my soap bubbles visualization?

is it logical?
do you think its a good description?
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
Universal Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 7281
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
Location: Idaho US

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#5

Post by notFritzArgelander »

I think it is both logical and in fact exactly what is the meaning of Noether's Theorem. It is something in fact that we require for the universe, so vast, to be remotely comprehensible. The laws of physics (nor the Laws of Physics) have to be the same throughout the universe or we are going back to Aristotle's physics. Things fell to the Earth, not because of universal gravitation, but because the Earth was the center of existence and was a special place

We need to give up that kind of egocentric thinking. All places are special and gravity happens every where.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker III, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5, Orion Sirius EQG
User avatar
chasmanian
Mars Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:06 am
Location: USA

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#6

Post by chasmanian »

thank you very much again nFA.
notFritzArgelander wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:07 am
I think it is both logical and in fact exactly what is the meaning of Noether's Theorem. It is something in fact that we require for the universe, so vast, to be remotely comprehensible.


do you know if this soap bubble description is widely accepted in astrophysics?
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
Universal Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 7281
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
Location: Idaho US

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#7

Post by notFritzArgelander »

chasmanian wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:53 pm
thank you very much again nFA.
notFritzArgelander wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:07 am
I think it is both logical and in fact exactly what is the meaning of Noether's Theorem. It is something in fact that we require for the universe, so vast, to be remotely comprehensible.


do you know if this soap bubble description is widely accepted in astrophysics?
Answering this question poses a problem. Descriptions and metaphors that are a personal representation are not usually discussed or "accepted". So from that POV the answer would be no. However it is a full and complete model that is consistent (in an "if and only if" way) to the universe being homogenous and isotropic. So from that POV the answer would be yes, most certainly yes.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that personal models are often subjected to social criticism by some scientists because they don't conform to a certain style of expression even though they are fully adequate.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker III, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5, Orion Sirius EQG
User avatar
chasmanian
Mars Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:06 am
Location: USA

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#8

Post by chasmanian »

omg, thank you so much nFA.
so very amazing. :)
User avatar
pakarinen
Milky Way Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:33 pm
Location: NE Illinois

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#9

Post by pakarinen »

LOL. Cosmology and GR can put a zap on anybody's head.
The lamp once out
Cool stars enter
The window frame.

~Soseki

Orion ST120, Meade AdventureScope ST80, Skywatcher 90mm Mak
Twilight 1 / Astro Devices encoders / Nexus II / Manfrotto 475B tripod
Nikon Aculon 10x50 binos
User avatar
FerrariMX5
Mars Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri May 15, 2020 12:16 am
Location: Niceville, Fl

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#10

Post by FerrariMX5 »

My science is self-absorbed with-in itself, so it is always in a perpetual fall, failing to reach its potential.

What if, and I am in no way saying it is, but what if the universe were moving at the speed of light?

Would that make any difference to the laws of physics we now live under?
Or for that matter, is the universe expanding at the speed of light?
Or was the universe expanding at the speed of light and we have not seen the results of its slowing down and won't for billions of years because the light shift has not hit us yet.
Concepts, they are just concepts, based upon what we know at the time that we know them.
Is the speed of light a constant?, is Gravity a constant?, is time a constant?
E=MC squared is based upon concepts.
Is it good to challenge a concept when everyone believes (and knows) the concept is a law and is officially correct?
Bet Aristotle pondered this question.

Everything is dynamic, even one electron, traveling in a bat as it swings toward a baseball, is dynamic.
To the electron, the world it revolves around is stable, but even if it were not, it would quickly adapt.

So, don't just blindly accept a concept, but struggle with it until you understand it, then once you understand it, challenge it and see how strongly is stands.
Life is full of challenges, concepts and misconceptions.
Tony
:sprefac: Vintage Celestron NS8 Circa, 2002.
The speed of light: 299,792,458 Meters per Second
The speed of time: One Second per Second.
The speed of gravity: 299,792,458 Meters per Second
Warp 10: Touching all points in the universe at the same time.
Welcome to the Universe (Its bigger than you think).
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
Universal Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 7281
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
Location: Idaho US

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#11

Post by notFritzArgelander »

FerrariMX5 wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:47 pm
My science is self-absorbed with-in itself, so it is always in a perpetual fall, failing to reach its potential.
Mt science is also self-absorbed in that acquiring understanding has been its sole motivation. I fail and try again. I was often criticized in grad school for being too preoccupied with education and not sufficiently motivated with communication. :shrug:
What if, and I am in no way saying it is, but what if the universe were moving at the speed of light?
With respect to what reference frame? ;) Without an answer to that the question has no meaning.
Would that make any difference to the laws of physics we now live under?
In order to make a difference to the laws of physics you need to have a prediction. I don't see a prediction arising from a question whose meaning is doubtful so I'd guess not.
Or for that matter, is the universe expanding at the speed of light?
Well the parts with a look back time greater than 13+ billion years are predicted by extrapolation from observations and current theory to be doing so.
Or was the universe expanding at the speed of light and we have not seen the results of its slowing down and won't for billions of years because the light shift has not hit us yet.
The expansion of the universe is accelerating and so is not slowing down according to the best observations.
Concepts, they are just concepts, based upon what we know at the time that we know them.
Is the speed of light a constant?, is Gravity a constant?, is time a constant?
E=MC squared is based upon concepts.
The constancy of the constants is constantly being tested. That is what science does. It looks for experimental contradiction of current theoretical concepts. So far all tests indicate that to within highest available precision the speed of light, the electron charge, the gravitational constant, Planck's constant are all constants.

Time is not a constant. We know from relativity and associated experimental tests that time measured depends on the state of motion of the clock.
Is it good to challenge a concept when everyone believes (and knows) the concept is a law and is officially correct?
Science routinely challenges its own concepts and laws. Sheeple think that their received truth is The Answer and never check to see if their Concepts and Dogmas have any explanatory power. If they did that they'd realize that their ideas were pastry wrapped cow dung.
Bet Aristotle pondered this question.
I'd bet he didn't. His method of investigation was inductive. We didn't really understand the scientific method logically and epistemologically until the publication of this book in 1959.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic ... _Discovery

At least we had no formal understanding. Popper was wrong about many things but he was dead on about the methodology.

Everything is dynamic, even one electron, traveling in a bat as it swings toward a baseball, is dynamic.
To the electron, the world it revolves around is stable, but even if it were not, it would quickly adapt.
The electron is elementary and simple and it has no need of concepts or calculations.
So, don't just blindly accept a concept, but struggle with it until you understand it, then once you understand it, challenge it and see how strongly is stands.
Life is full of challenges, concepts and misconceptions.
Science is the only discipline that is dedicated to not blindly accepting Laws. It formulates laws and revises them as necessary to explain observations. It is not for folks who want a Permanent Truth.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker III, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5, Orion Sirius EQG
User avatar
FerrariMX5
Mars Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri May 15, 2020 12:16 am
Location: Niceville, Fl

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#12

Post by FerrariMX5 »

notFritzArgelander wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:20 pm
FerrariMX5 wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:47 pm
Or for that matter, is the universe expanding at the speed of light?
Well the parts with a look back time greater than 13+ billion years are predicted by extrapolation from observations and current theory to be doing so.

================================================================================================================
Interesting, so if the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, in 13 billion years will that still be our visual limit? no...

Or are the stars that are being formed beyond our visual boundary, being stable and positioned to send light to us, increasing that visual boundary?

If so, then that 13+ billion year boundary is also still expanding visually.
Perhaps the universe has always been expanding faster than the speed of light, but the trash of expansion, (like the stars that have resulted) are dissipating energy and photons back in our direction.

Seems like a reasonable assumption.
The boundary has always been invisibly expanding, it is the stars (and other material that have been left behind) we are seeing.

So inside the universe the limit is the speed of light, we might also assume the laws of physics remain outside the expansion, so our best guess might be it is expanding at the speed of light and no faster.


Tony
Last edited by FerrariMX5 on Tue Jun 23, 2020 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
:sprefac: Vintage Celestron NS8 Circa, 2002.
The speed of light: 299,792,458 Meters per Second
The speed of time: One Second per Second.
The speed of gravity: 299,792,458 Meters per Second
Warp 10: Touching all points in the universe at the same time.
Welcome to the Universe (Its bigger than you think).
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
Universal Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 7281
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
Location: Idaho US

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#13

Post by notFritzArgelander »

This is getting garbled.......

1) Now there is a 13+ billion year look back time. In another 13 billion years it will be a 26+ billion year look back time.

2) The limit to the observable universe is fixed by the light travel time. It's not really a boundary as in a physical barrier. It's just where light has time to reach us since the Big Bang (assuming that's what happened).

3) It is unreasonable to assume that there is different physics in the observable universe than in the unobservable universe. I won't go there. It would violate Noether's Theorem on how the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe are linked to the well confirmed conservation laws of physics.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker III, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5, Orion Sirius EQG
User avatar
chasmanian
Mars Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:06 am
Location: USA

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#14

Post by chasmanian »

hey nFA,

a further comment.
this is more on the soap bubble thing. fleshing it out a little.

nearby soap bubbles overlap and intersect.

there are an infinite number of observable universes. in all directions.

those that are within 92 bly of our observable universe, share some of their's with us.
there is some overlap, some intersecting.

observable universes who's center is exactly 92 bly away, share the edge only, with us.

those that are farther away, share nothing with us.

going away from here, the 92 bly observable universes repeat infinitely, in every direction.
there is an infinite number of them.
and it is only the nearest 2, that share stuff with us.

so, the vast majority (all the other infinite bunch), share nothing with us.

another cool thing, in my mind, about all of this:
go to any point in our observable universe.
all of the above is true for an observer at that point as well.

thus there are an infinite number of observable universes, in the universe.

how am I doing, nFA? :)
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
Universal Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 7281
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
Location: Idaho US

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#15

Post by notFritzArgelander »

you're doing quite well, just fine!
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker III, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5, Orion Sirius EQG
User avatar
chasmanian
Mars Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:06 am
Location: USA

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#16

Post by chasmanian »

thank you so very much nFA!! :)
User avatar
chasmanian
Mars Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:06 am
Location: USA

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#17

Post by chasmanian »

nFA,

I thought of more questions.
and I thought of an answer.

my questions: how does and how will the expansion of the Universe affect this?
won't the expansion of the Universe cause all of the observable universes to expand in to each other?

my answer: the expansion of the Universe affects this, and will affect this, the same way that it has up till now.
the key is to understand that the expansion of the Universe means that there is more space.
more space gives more room for everything to expand and continue to expand, just as it is now.

so no, all of the observable universes will not expand into each other.
the ones that overlap and intersect with each other now, will continue to do so.
and the ones that do not overlap and intersect, will continue to stay separate from each other.
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
Universal Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 7281
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
Location: Idaho US

TSS Awards Badges

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#18

Post by notFritzArgelander »

chasmanian wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:52 pm
nFA,

I thought of more questions.
and I thought of an answer.

my questions: how does and how will the expansion of the Universe affect this?
won't the expansion of the Universe cause all of the observable universes to expand in to each other?

my answer: the expansion of the Universe affects this, and will affect this, the same way that it has up till now.
the key is to understand that the expansion of the Universe means that there is more space.
more space gives more room for everything to expand and continue to expand, just as it is now.
So far, so good.
so no, all of the observable universes will not expand into each other.
the ones that overlap and intersect with each other now, will continue to do so.
and the ones that do not overlap and intersect, will continue to stay separate from each other.
But this goes wrong..... Just because observable universes don't overlap at some time, say now, does not mean that they will never overlap. Whether they will or not depends on how dark energy behaves and that is complicated. It could behave in some complicated way but mostly it's complicated by our ignorance.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker III, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5, Orion Sirius EQG
User avatar
Thefatkitty
Milky Way Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 4:20 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

TSS Photo of the Day

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#19

Post by Thefatkitty »

No questions from me (thankfully), but I just wish to say that after a stupid day at work, it's nice to jump on here and try to wrap my head around some of these posts... It's almost soothing :lol:

Thanks all!
Image
User avatar
chasmanian
Mars Ambassador
Articles: 0
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:06 am
Location: USA

Re: Difficult Concepts (for me)

#20

Post by chasmanian »

thank you Mark.

thank you so much again nFA.
I remember reading that a reason why its called dark, is because of how little we know about
dark energy. we're in the dark about it. and dark matter too.

nFA,
I was just wondering:
what would have Aristotle have thought about all of this that we talked about in this thread?
how about Newton?
and Einstein? how much of this did Einstein know?
some, all?
would would Hawking have thought?
would he have agreed?
how about Leonard Susskind, or Kip Thorne?
or Alyssa Milano, or Scarjo?
hahahaha :)
Post Reply

Return to “Astrophysics”