New short animation in the works !
Monday, 27 April 2015
Wednesday, 22 April 2015
Fournier's Fractal
I'm trying to find out more about an alternate solution to Olber's Paradox (the sky shouldn't be dark in an infinite eternal universe) : the structure is a fractal. Yes yes, the real Universe isn't a fractal, but it's a neat idea and fun to try and visualise.
Apparently some dude named Fournier found a fractal structure (sometimes it's called a "proto-fractal", not sure why) back in 1907 which allows large blank areas of sky, even though it's infinite in size. Couldn't find out much more than that but I did stumble upon an image of it, so it was easy to make a looping zoom animation.
I can't find much more in the way of fractals that would look more like the real sky that would also allow blank lines of sight. "Fractal cosmology" searches tend to turn up raving loonies or advanced mathematics I don't understand. Hmmm.
Wednesday, 1 April 2015
Dark matter in the inner Milky Way
So, as promised, I read through the original claim of evidence (not proof) of dark matter in the inner part of the Milky Way :
http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03821
... and the "not even wrong" response :
http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07813
... and the "your response was not even wrong"* response to the response :
http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.08784
* They didn't actually say that, but they could have done.
Cautiously, I generally find in favour of the response by McGaugh et al. McGaugh et al.'s most important claim is that the result of the paper is that there is clear evidence of dark matter only beyond 6 kpc from the galactic center, which is not a new or surprising result. This is probably correct. Ideas about whether this is really the case or not have, however, waxed and waned (http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/483/1/103/fulltext/35135.text.html#fg1)
A google search for "Milky Way rotation curve" reveals differing claims as to whether the Milky Way requires dark matter in the inner regions or not, e.g. https://squishtheory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/rotcurve.gif vs http://pages.uoregon.edu/jimbrau/BrauImNew/Chap23/6th/23_21Figure-F.jpg
Therefore the main claim of McGaugh et al. that the paper does not present a new or surprising result appears to be substantiated.
McGaugh also make the claim that this result "follows from any plausible circular speed and Galactocentric distance for the Sun", citing a textbook I don't have. The original authors claim that this statement is factually wrong. I don't know who's right about this.
McGaugh et al. claim that the paper is confusing with its use of the term "inner". However, this is not the case. It's clear the authors mean "closer to the center of the Galaxy than the Sun". McGaugh et al. also state the great care must be taken when combining multiple data sets; while true, this statement is disingenuous. While I've no idea if the author's methods are correct or not, it's abundantly clear that they haven't just thrown everything together willy-nilly.
McGaugh et al. correctly note that the press release about the letter (http://perma.cc/JJ4S-G42D) makes very strong assertions (proof of dark matter) which are not at all warranted by the paper. It is not "direct observational proof" at all, it doesn't automatically falsify all alternatives. It is simply evidence which is compatible with the dark matter model - nothing more, nothing less. The paper is far more ambiguous as to whether it's claiming a really novel result or just improved evidence - the press release is unequivocal that it's a brand new result.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03821
http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03821
... and the "not even wrong" response :
http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07813
... and the "your response was not even wrong"* response to the response :
http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.08784
* They didn't actually say that, but they could have done.
Cautiously, I generally find in favour of the response by McGaugh et al. McGaugh et al.'s most important claim is that the result of the paper is that there is clear evidence of dark matter only beyond 6 kpc from the galactic center, which is not a new or surprising result. This is probably correct. Ideas about whether this is really the case or not have, however, waxed and waned (http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/483/1/103/fulltext/35135.text.html#fg1)
A google search for "Milky Way rotation curve" reveals differing claims as to whether the Milky Way requires dark matter in the inner regions or not, e.g. https://squishtheory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/rotcurve.gif vs http://pages.uoregon.edu/jimbrau/BrauImNew/Chap23/6th/23_21Figure-F.jpg
Therefore the main claim of McGaugh et al. that the paper does not present a new or surprising result appears to be substantiated.
McGaugh also make the claim that this result "follows from any plausible circular speed and Galactocentric distance for the Sun", citing a textbook I don't have. The original authors claim that this statement is factually wrong. I don't know who's right about this.
McGaugh et al. claim that the paper is confusing with its use of the term "inner". However, this is not the case. It's clear the authors mean "closer to the center of the Galaxy than the Sun". McGaugh et al. also state the great care must be taken when combining multiple data sets; while true, this statement is disingenuous. While I've no idea if the author's methods are correct or not, it's abundantly clear that they haven't just thrown everything together willy-nilly.
McGaugh et al. correctly note that the press release about the letter (http://perma.cc/JJ4S-G42D) makes very strong assertions (proof of dark matter) which are not at all warranted by the paper. It is not "direct observational proof" at all, it doesn't automatically falsify all alternatives. It is simply evidence which is compatible with the dark matter model - nothing more, nothing less. The paper is far more ambiguous as to whether it's claiming a really novel result or just improved evidence - the press release is unequivocal that it's a brand new result.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03821
Monday, 30 March 2015
The Absurdly Anthropic
In today's thrilling blog post, I look at the anthropic principle, why it's sometimes trivial-but-useful, but sometimes a complete load of hooey.
The weak anthropic principle basically states that the Universe is the way it is because things happened the way they did. It's unfortunate, and completely unnecessary, that it's more often stated to be about sentient life, because it really isn't. The idea is that by knowing the contents of the Universe, you can constrain the processes that must have happened to form such contents. It really doesn't make any difference if you choose to explain the existence of turkeys, sand, or clouds - using sentient life only sounds mystical if you think there's something fundamentally special about it.
The strong anthropic principle ties in with the idea that the Universe is so carefully fine-tuned to support intelligent life that there must have been a designer. This is wrong every way you look at it. There are so many fundamental parameters that fine-tuning is a myth - if you just alter one, then sure you'll screw everything up and the Universe won't support life anymore. But if you alter two or three...
Moreover, the idea that the Universe looks designed specifically for us, rather than intelligent life in general, looks decidedly ropey to me. Most of the Universe is a complete hell-hole as far as human life is concerned. Even the Earth is often an incredibly hostile place to live - we survive in spite of our environment as much as because of it.
Not that the lack of fine-tuning in any way diminishes the astounding fact that we exist at all. Our existence may be incredibly unlikely, but that in no way requires the hand of a designer.
Placeholder post intended to be replaced with a better summary.
The weak anthropic principle basically states that the Universe is the way it is because things happened the way they did. It's unfortunate, and completely unnecessary, that it's more often stated to be about sentient life, because it really isn't. The idea is that by knowing the contents of the Universe, you can constrain the processes that must have happened to form such contents. It really doesn't make any difference if you choose to explain the existence of turkeys, sand, or clouds - using sentient life only sounds mystical if you think there's something fundamentally special about it.
The strong anthropic principle ties in with the idea that the Universe is so carefully fine-tuned to support intelligent life that there must have been a designer. This is wrong every way you look at it. There are so many fundamental parameters that fine-tuning is a myth - if you just alter one, then sure you'll screw everything up and the Universe won't support life anymore. But if you alter two or three...
Moreover, the idea that the Universe looks designed specifically for us, rather than intelligent life in general, looks decidedly ropey to me. Most of the Universe is a complete hell-hole as far as human life is concerned. Even the Earth is often an incredibly hostile place to live - we survive in spite of our environment as much as because of it.
Not that the lack of fine-tuning in any way diminishes the astounding fact that we exist at all. Our existence may be incredibly unlikely, but that in no way requires the hand of a designer.
Placeholder post intended to be replaced with a better summary.
Sunday, 22 March 2015
Science Friction
Science Friction
Love the title. DjSadhu Rockt's article about his new video and our recent conversation.
"Since I am not a scientist, my job and funding are not on the line, and I can make videos about whatever I want, even if that means mixing personal beliefs with scientific-looking stuff."
Yee-ess... though I'd add here another statement of mine from our conversation :
"When stuff like this goes viral, it undermines a lot of very hard work that has gone on in trying to understanding the Universe. Which is something we don't do for fame (unless you're Tyson or Cox, you won't get any) or money (even less chance of that), but because we think it's worth doing. It typically takes around 7 years of higher education before you start making meaningful contributions in astronomy, let alone coming up with ground-breaking results. Moreover, it's based on exactly the same proven physics that's led to things like rockets, radios, telecommunications, microwaves, radar, satellites, electrical power... pretty much the entire basis of the modern world really. So, if a non-scientist comes along and makes a fancy video with some rudimentary, but easily correctable errors, claiming to have overturned an extremely basic fact of a subject that tens of thousands of people choose as a career for the sole reason that they think knowledge is worth knowing.... well, you can imagine how we feel about that. Instead of communicating our latest hard-won discoveries to the tax-paying public, we have to spend time convincing them about things that were established beyond all doubt centuries ago."
I'd also have added that not only does astronomy not pay well, but it's still at least as competitive as any other sector. It's also pretty much as detached as it's possible to be from any real-world political influences; galaxy evolution doesn't care if you're left-wing, a fascist, or a small turtle. There are no campaigns to ban dangerous chemicals or decide people's rights based on the size of the Orion nebula. It is, as much as is humanly possible, seeking knowledge for knowledge's sake.
"The sun does not lead the planets! That may be the case. I’m open to the idea that it does, but I have yet to find absolute proof for it."
It is not the case. Even the old, pre-telescope geocentric models had everything in the same plane. The cone-shaped model is the equivalent of saying, "a wizard did it, because he'd lost his favourite purple feet". It doesn't make any sense at all.
That the Sun doesn't lead the planets is a fact. It cannot be disproved, ever.
"Regardless of my other opinions, this new “Solar System 2.0” image could easily be widely accepted. "
I'd actually go further. I'd say this "helical paths" business is also an indisputable fact. See my twirly-finger analogy.
"I believe aliens and UFO‘s exist, the moon landing was a hoax, most vaccines contain mercury and are bad for you..."
I simply cannot let that pass. Vaccines are not bad for you; this may not be a statement that's a certain as saying, "Owls exist", but it's pretty frickin' close. To say otherwise is to put lives at risk, and I can't tolerate that.
https://thenib.com/vaccines-work-here-are-the-facts-5de3d0f9ffd0
"But, like I said, my personal beliefs are not on trial here – the helical model is."
Quite right - as far as the video goes.
http://www.djsadhu.com/research/solar-system-2-0-science-friction
Love the title. DjSadhu Rockt's article about his new video and our recent conversation.
"Since I am not a scientist, my job and funding are not on the line, and I can make videos about whatever I want, even if that means mixing personal beliefs with scientific-looking stuff."
Yee-ess... though I'd add here another statement of mine from our conversation :
"When stuff like this goes viral, it undermines a lot of very hard work that has gone on in trying to understanding the Universe. Which is something we don't do for fame (unless you're Tyson or Cox, you won't get any) or money (even less chance of that), but because we think it's worth doing. It typically takes around 7 years of higher education before you start making meaningful contributions in astronomy, let alone coming up with ground-breaking results. Moreover, it's based on exactly the same proven physics that's led to things like rockets, radios, telecommunications, microwaves, radar, satellites, electrical power... pretty much the entire basis of the modern world really. So, if a non-scientist comes along and makes a fancy video with some rudimentary, but easily correctable errors, claiming to have overturned an extremely basic fact of a subject that tens of thousands of people choose as a career for the sole reason that they think knowledge is worth knowing.... well, you can imagine how we feel about that. Instead of communicating our latest hard-won discoveries to the tax-paying public, we have to spend time convincing them about things that were established beyond all doubt centuries ago."
I'd also have added that not only does astronomy not pay well, but it's still at least as competitive as any other sector. It's also pretty much as detached as it's possible to be from any real-world political influences; galaxy evolution doesn't care if you're left-wing, a fascist, or a small turtle. There are no campaigns to ban dangerous chemicals or decide people's rights based on the size of the Orion nebula. It is, as much as is humanly possible, seeking knowledge for knowledge's sake.
"The sun does not lead the planets! That may be the case. I’m open to the idea that it does, but I have yet to find absolute proof for it."
It is not the case. Even the old, pre-telescope geocentric models had everything in the same plane. The cone-shaped model is the equivalent of saying, "a wizard did it, because he'd lost his favourite purple feet". It doesn't make any sense at all.
That the Sun doesn't lead the planets is a fact. It cannot be disproved, ever.
"Regardless of my other opinions, this new “Solar System 2.0” image could easily be widely accepted. "
I'd actually go further. I'd say this "helical paths" business is also an indisputable fact. See my twirly-finger analogy.
"I believe aliens and UFO‘s exist, the moon landing was a hoax, most vaccines contain mercury and are bad for you..."
I simply cannot let that pass. Vaccines are not bad for you; this may not be a statement that's a certain as saying, "Owls exist", but it's pretty frickin' close. To say otherwise is to put lives at risk, and I can't tolerate that.
https://thenib.com/vaccines-work-here-are-the-facts-5de3d0f9ffd0
"But, like I said, my personal beliefs are not on trial here – the helical model is."
Quite right - as far as the video goes.
http://www.djsadhu.com/research/solar-system-2-0-science-friction
Sunday, 8 March 2015
The next Einstein, or not
Oh goodie, another email from a loon who thinks they've got a "better" explanation for dark matter...
This one appears to be (for as usual it is badly written) something about the speed of light being massively slower in intergalactic space because of Bose-Einstein condensates. Inside our galaxy, everything's normal, but outside (because of the lower temperature) light travels a million times more slowly.
This, claims the author, will solve the "problem" of Andromeda being more massive than the Milky Way (it's not a problem, it's a frickin' observation !), make Hubble's Law invalid, etc.
"Let’s now ask the question “Which of these two alternative deductions has more merit?” Firstly, “Is deducing that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are solely responsible for huge amounts of apparently missing universe?”, or secondly, “Is deducing that the speed of light is not an absolute universe-wide and, as a result, the universe is smaller and less heavy."
What kind of mind thinks it's somehow less radical to slow down the speed of light by a factor of a million instead of invoking dark matter ? All without mentioning rotation curves or gravitational lensing...
"I wrote an article which I have been developing and refining over the years."
Oh God, I hope not.
"I now feel it needs peer review."
No, it needs to burned and the ashes scattered to the four winds.
Aaargh.
This one appears to be (for as usual it is badly written) something about the speed of light being massively slower in intergalactic space because of Bose-Einstein condensates. Inside our galaxy, everything's normal, but outside (because of the lower temperature) light travels a million times more slowly.
This, claims the author, will solve the "problem" of Andromeda being more massive than the Milky Way (it's not a problem, it's a frickin' observation !), make Hubble's Law invalid, etc.
"Let’s now ask the question “Which of these two alternative deductions has more merit?” Firstly, “Is deducing that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are solely responsible for huge amounts of apparently missing universe?”, or secondly, “Is deducing that the speed of light is not an absolute universe-wide and, as a result, the universe is smaller and less heavy."
What kind of mind thinks it's somehow less radical to slow down the speed of light by a factor of a million instead of invoking dark matter ? All without mentioning rotation curves or gravitational lensing...
"I wrote an article which I have been developing and refining over the years."
Oh God, I hope not.
"I now feel it needs peer review."
No, it needs to burned and the ashes scattered to the four winds.
Aaargh.
Sunday, 1 March 2015
Mexico City's Hydrogen Sky
After a long hiatus I'm finally ready to finish this off. This is the last such scene I'm planning to do. Now to compile them all into an award-winning YouTube video...
Friday, 6 February 2015
Photographed for NASA, nuked for Discover Magazine
Photographed for NASA, nuked for Discover Magazine
Subscriber-only article, but the asteroid may look a little familiar...
Will write more when the propriety period expires and I can release a larger image. It's an interesting article about using multiple nuclear explosions to deflect an asteroid. The "Z machine" was used to simulate the effects of an X-ray blast on the surface of an asteroid (cough cough ORION PUSHER PLATE ABLATION cough cough).
And I have to give a big round of applause to Discover Magazine for being an absolute delight to work with. They were very keen to get the image as realistic as possible, running it by the scientist responsible for the research to make sure everything was as it should be. They even sent me a Christmas card ! :)
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/15-how-to-stop-a-killer-asteroid
Subscriber-only article, but the asteroid may look a little familiar...
Will write more when the propriety period expires and I can release a larger image. It's an interesting article about using multiple nuclear explosions to deflect an asteroid. The "Z machine" was used to simulate the effects of an X-ray blast on the surface of an asteroid (cough cough ORION PUSHER PLATE ABLATION cough cough).
And I have to give a big round of applause to Discover Magazine for being an absolute delight to work with. They were very keen to get the image as realistic as possible, running it by the scientist responsible for the research to make sure everything was as it should be. They even sent me a Christmas card ! :)
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/15-how-to-stop-a-killer-asteroid
Saturday, 3 January 2015
Please no more of this
I finally lost patience with the "Space Mirror Mystery" dude. An email posted to the astronomy staff of Cardiff University reads as follows :
"Dear Sir,
I have no doubt about your intelligence.
As an advocate, I plead on behalf of entire world that nothing is real beyond 150 million kilometers except mere reflections. I strongly plead that as the inhabitant of earth and within sun light, we are able to see the real space objects within the radius of 150 million kilometers only. Since we get ourselves as zero at the distance of 150 million kilometers, space mirrors appear us on two points, viz, on the point of earth’s shadow and point of sun.
On above rules, the theory of “SPACE MIRROR MYSTERY” is formed and we claim:
Item No-1 Sun is the only star of the solar system as well as the universe and it can be proved.
Item No-2 The space objects what we have observed within 300 million Kilometers from the sun are real space object and ahead of 300 million Kilometers are mere images of the space objects situated within 225million Kilometers to 300 million Kilometers from the sun. From calculation it appears that the real Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune & Pluto are 253, 264, 277, 288 & 292 million Kilometers respectively from sun.
Item No-3 In mass, the real Jupiter is two times bigger than earth but we observe the image Jupiter as twelve times bigger than earth and same real Saturn, Uranus & Neptune are smaller than earth.
Item No- 4 Sun has no spot. Cause of space mirror sun spots appear on sun
Above was strongly objected by Rhys Taylor, Astrophysicist, Astronomical Institute, Prague. I believe he is convinced at zero concepts after a long debate. Please read that debate between me and Rhys in the following link
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.in/2013/02/i-wanna-be-pseudoscientist.html
Please read the debate carefully and change the geography of space science truthfully. You may also read the link
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2014/08/seven-million-years-bad-luck.html
Thanks.
Pradipta Kumar Mohapatra"
Like hell I'm "convinced" of this garbage. In both of those links I completely refute the absurd notion of a giant space mirror; do not expect me to remain civil if you're going to use this to claim the exact frinkin' opposite. Final comment in the "debate" (first link) reads :
"Since you have sent an email to the staff at Cardiff University saying that you think I am convinced of the space mirror, let me state things more bluntly. You are wrong. Your idea is utter nonsense, pure and simple. You have completely ignored my previous response, repeatedly evaded many of my questions, and despite the fact I have shown the fundamental basis of your ridiculous idea to be the gibberish that is is, have failed to change your mind. Go away. I absolutely reject your idea and want nothing further to do with it. Goodbye."
"Dear Sir,
I have no doubt about your intelligence.
As an advocate, I plead on behalf of entire world that nothing is real beyond 150 million kilometers except mere reflections. I strongly plead that as the inhabitant of earth and within sun light, we are able to see the real space objects within the radius of 150 million kilometers only. Since we get ourselves as zero at the distance of 150 million kilometers, space mirrors appear us on two points, viz, on the point of earth’s shadow and point of sun.
On above rules, the theory of “SPACE MIRROR MYSTERY” is formed and we claim:
Item No-1 Sun is the only star of the solar system as well as the universe and it can be proved.
Item No-2 The space objects what we have observed within 300 million Kilometers from the sun are real space object and ahead of 300 million Kilometers are mere images of the space objects situated within 225million Kilometers to 300 million Kilometers from the sun. From calculation it appears that the real Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune & Pluto are 253, 264, 277, 288 & 292 million Kilometers respectively from sun.
Item No-3 In mass, the real Jupiter is two times bigger than earth but we observe the image Jupiter as twelve times bigger than earth and same real Saturn, Uranus & Neptune are smaller than earth.
Item No- 4 Sun has no spot. Cause of space mirror sun spots appear on sun
Above was strongly objected by Rhys Taylor, Astrophysicist, Astronomical Institute, Prague. I believe he is convinced at zero concepts after a long debate. Please read that debate between me and Rhys in the following link
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.in/2013/02/i-wanna-be-pseudoscientist.html
Please read the debate carefully and change the geography of space science truthfully. You may also read the link
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2014/08/seven-million-years-bad-luck.html
Thanks.
Pradipta Kumar Mohapatra"
Like hell I'm "convinced" of this garbage. In both of those links I completely refute the absurd notion of a giant space mirror; do not expect me to remain civil if you're going to use this to claim the exact frinkin' opposite. Final comment in the "debate" (first link) reads :
"Since you have sent an email to the staff at Cardiff University saying that you think I am convinced of the space mirror, let me state things more bluntly. You are wrong. Your idea is utter nonsense, pure and simple. You have completely ignored my previous response, repeatedly evaded many of my questions, and despite the fact I have shown the fundamental basis of your ridiculous idea to be the gibberish that is is, have failed to change your mind. Go away. I absolutely reject your idea and want nothing further to do with it. Goodbye."
Tuesday, 2 December 2014
Hydrogen Storm over Giza
Only visible to those with superhetrodyne receivers for eyes. Different colours are at different frequencies; changing the center frequency gives animation.
I cheated a lot for this one - field of view for the sky is about twice what it should be. The all-sky data is so low resolution it's not really useable except for very wide-angle shots.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
-
Of course you can prove a negative. In one sense this can be the easiest thing in the world : your theory predicts something which doesn...
-
In the last batch of simulations, we dropped a long gas stream into the gravitational potential of a cluster to see if it would get torn... -
And more importantly, how not to build a galaxy. Uniform discs of pure gas turn out to be almost impossible. Exponential discs - where ther...