Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Calidovi]

Obviously you didn't actually attempt to read anything I wrote from my very first post onwards, because I was always talking about evolution specifically.

Basically I was responding to the idea that everything's changed because we've adapted to the modern world, therefore we can throw out all the old evolutiony shit. Well, we haven't really changed at all.

Biology hasn't changed.

I agree for the most part.

If that's the case, though, you got me. I wasn't trying to argue against everything you've ever said in your life, but pointing out that 74s didn't seem to make the point that evolution had changed, which you debated. I guess it was similar to a sitcom misunderstanding.

In the last decade, with the proliferation and growth of the internet, human society has developed and changed a lot, and so has humanity.

That's the major quote I was looking at, but the meaning of "humanity" is indeed a bit confusing in that sentence. I guess I read that as being redundant. Perhaps it would have been better for them to say 'human species'.

But if you want to talk about sociology and not science (which was the bit I was talking about all along) then why in heck have you derailed the farking science thread with a discussion that was already part of a sociology thread?

Because this conversation was in a gender thread. I think human evolution and sociology is closer to 'science' than a thread about modern gender roles and sex. Even if you disagree, it's what Solifuge wanted. Also, define 'derailed' when the last post was two days ago.

Okay everyone. It's a neat discussion and folks are getting into it, which is cool. However, this discussion has taken over the thread and buried on-topic posts for 5 pages now. Plus, it's getting snippy and personal again.

If you want to continue it, can you please move to a new dedicated thread, or at least to the General Science Thread?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Of course sociology is a bloody science! The anti-"soft"-science discrimination here is really getting to me. First I find a death threat from a root mathematician (get it? radical?), then this?!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

jk

[Max™]

Positivism is blind, Antipositivism isn't rigorous, "social science" is an extremely ironic term.

[Sergarr]

Apparently, the evidence for acceleration of Universe's expansion rate is not as concrete as we thought. Link to original scientific article in Nature.

This could be big. If that's true and there is actually no acceleration, then the eponymous "dark energy", the one that is supposed to be like 80% of total mass-energy in the Universe, does not actually exist.

[Reelya]

Cue a switch in smugness from the pro dark energy people to the anti dark energy people.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Anybody hear about the hundreds of possible ETI signals discovered recently?

[Gentlefish]

Anybody hear about the hundreds of possible ETI signals discovered recently?

You mean these ones? Apparently they only register 0 to 1 on the (albeit highly subjective) Rio scale. Insignificant to completely un-noteworthy.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

What criteria were used to rate it?

[Max™]

Apparently, the evidence for acceleration of Universe's expansion rate is not as concrete as we thought. Link to original scientific article in Nature.

This could be big. If that's true and there is actually no acceleration, then the eponymous "dark energy", the one that is supposed to be like 80% of total mass-energy in the Universe, does not actually exist.

Well, more accurately, the evidence supporting the dark energy accelerating model is also consistent with a steady expansion model up to 3 sigma, or if the assumptions and calculated deviations are correct then the data gives a 99.7% probability for steady expansion.

They note in the paper that the CODEX telescope will be attempting to observe red shifts with sufficient resolution to see if they change over a 10~15 year period, which should be sufficient to reject either the steady state or accelerating expansion hypothesis.

[Sergarr]

Well, yes, I suppose I haven't clarified that. Still, crazy thing, huh? People actually got Nobel Prize for that shit. One of the few times a physics-related Nobel was given without waiting for decades to confirm its truthfulness, and it turns out to be quite possibly just a statistical artefact?

I can't imagine what these people feel now...

[Reelya]

They note in the paper that the CODEX telescope will be attempting to observe red shifts with sufficient resolution to see if they change over a 10~15 year period, which should be sufficient to reject either the steady state or accelerating expansion hypothesis.

You should say steady expansion there, not steady state. since steady state is actually another incompatible cosmology model.

[Max™]

Whoops, yeah, was looking over the paper in between typing and didn't notice that.

[Starver]

What criteria were used to rate it?

"Do they convey plans for a hugely impractical wormhole-generating gyroscope thingy?"

[Il Palazzo]

Apparently, the evidence for acceleration of Universe's expansion rate is not as concrete as we thought. Link to original scientific article in Nature.

This could be big. If that's true and there is actually no acceleration, then the eponymous "dark energy", the one that is supposed to be like 80% of total mass-energy in the Universe, does not actually exist.

This paper has been in preprint on ArXiV since last year. There was good discussion of it on Physics Forums:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/marginal-evidence-for-cosmic-acceleration-from-type-ia-sne.817386/page-2

What the paper says, is roughly: if we ignore nucleosynthesis and CMB power spectrum, and only consider the SNIa data, then it turns out the accelerating universe is only much more likely, rather than very much more likely than a steady (i.e. Milne-like) expansion - that is, not a solution without dark energy, but a rather convoluted one with DE evolving in a very specific way.

This is a far cry from saying that accelerated expansion is cast in doubt.

[Sergarr]

Apparently, the evidence for acceleration of Universe's expansion rate is not as concrete as we thought. Link to original scientific article in Nature.

This could be big. If that's true and there is actually no acceleration, then the eponymous "dark energy", the one that is supposed to be like 80% of total mass-energy in the Universe, does not actually exist.

This paper has been in preprint on ArXiV since last year. There was good discussion of it on Physics Forums:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/marginal-evidence-for-cosmic-acceleration-from-type-ia-sne.817386/page-2

What the paper says, is roughly: if we ignore nucleosynthesis and CMB power spectrum, and only consider the SNIa data, then it turns out the accelerating universe is only much more likely, rather than very much more likely than a steady (i.e. Milne-like) expansion - that is, not a solution without dark energy, but a rather convoluted one with DE evolving in a very specific way.

This is a far cry from saying that accelerated expansion is cast in doubt.

Ah, okay. So it's just a crank trying to undermine mainstream science, essentially?