Universe's first stars bulk up in new simulation

[Jaeqo]

science can be so full of shit sometimes.....

[stmk0]

@Jaeqo Imagine how it's toilet feels.

[polkijm]

Um, is any of that really NEWS? The headline should of read something like 'new simulation gives us some cool graphics to show while we quickly summarize some basic cosmology'.

"This simulation is the most complete representation of early star formation" is a totally awesome phrase, though. They should rap all of these little science news-bites instead. That would rock!

[DarkProject]

"Dark matter is matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter."

It simply means that there is another type of matter around, but we can't see it, or have not done yet, but we know it exist beceause of the gravitational effect.

For example: the galaxies spin too fast for their amount of matter, so there has to be another type of mattery tyhaty exists in a galaxy that makes it spin faster.

[Raikonos]

Pssh. You're all so gullible. Everyone knows God made the universe in 7 days (technically 6) about 6000 years ago.

[HugoArtemisRune]

And afterwards he needed a day off. So much for omnipitence! I dont even get Sundays off.. Wish I were a deity.

[TheMerlinOfAR]

If you had created an universe in six days you might be winded too.

[ccaptorchen]

I'm calling poe's law on this one.

[chamallowbleu]

No, you're wrong there, Hatle made the universe 565656 years ago out of whipped cream and magic. I know it's true cause it says so in the holy Masble - and it took 2.34 seconds

[MaskedWisdom]

Lol, funny dude, people here can't understand sarcasm.

[DracoReincarnated]

Yes, because al the millions of man-hours put in by some of the smartest people on the planet cannot equate to a 3,000 year old book written by goat-herders.

[EnonimusTransmission]

Millions of man hours by the "smartest people on the planet" have come up with the most horrendous conclusions many times in the past. Why should we assume we're so smart now? We just don't realize what dumb things we believe... yet.

Give me historical accounts over extrapolation and imaginary guesses any day.

[DracoReincarnated]

Millions of man hours by the "smartest people on the planet" have come up with the most horrendous conclusions many times in the past.

UNQUOTE

Now we have modern science, a self-correcting mechanism which smashes mistakes to a minimum.

Why should we assume we're so smart now?

UNQUOTE

Looka round you. See anything? Why not in front of you. It's a computer. A benefit of scientific understanding.

[EnonimusTransmission]

"Now we have modern science, a self-correcting mechanism which smashes mistakes to a minimum."

Now we do, indeed. Look around and see that now we have experienced the bloodiest, most destructive and grotesque century of recorded history. This faith in "modern science" has yielded bad fruit thus far, we have to walk forward with caution and humility or it will repeat itself again and again, worse and worse.

[DracoReincarnated]

Wars, though increased in bloodshed due to science, are not perpatrated by science.

Then again, political leaders could just give less grants to scientists to develop weaoons. It comes down to the tribal-thinking of men.

THe benefits of sceince outweigh the negatives.

IN less than a century, smallpox killed 500 million. THat's more than all the wars from that era combined. Smallpox has been eradicated.

[EnonimusTransmission]

Science does not cause wars, but how would you argue against war scientifically? Isn't it just natural selection in our modern era?

Smallpox was supressed (not eradicated, mind you) which is a big benefit, yet we've seen the rise of AIDS and other diseases and threats of uncontrollable disease.

My point is science has always existed. But this faith in our current understanding of it is foolishness as it always has been.

[DracoReincarnated]

how would you argue against war scientifically?

UNQUOTE

The value of human life falls under the jurisdiction of philosophy. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, nothing more.

Isn't it just natural selection in our modern era?

UNQUOTE

Ugh, not this fucking canard again.

1. If you kill because of natural selection, it's now artificial selection.

2. Eugenics was around for thousands of years, even before Darwin.

3. This is a straw man fallacy.

[EnonimusTransmission]

Being condescending an uncivil does not make you right.

[DracoReincarnated]

4. If your insane enough kill people because of a scientific theory, your probably insane enough to kill them anyway, even if the theory doesn't exist.

Smallpox was supressed (not eradicated, mind you)

UNQUOTE

Smallpox only exists in labs, now.

we've seen the rise of AIDS and other diseases and threats of uncontrollable disease.

UNQUOTE

Yup. This isn't science's falut, however.

We don't now how to cure those diseases, but guess what they said a about smallpox 100 years ago?

[Paulginz]

"Look around and see that now we have experienced the bloodiest, most destructive and grotesque century of recorded history. This faith in "modern science" has yielded bad fruit thus far,"

I personally prefer current history to the dark ages. But I don't live in darfur and you're entitled to your opinion.

Blaming war on science and technology makes no sense. Religion, fundamentalist ideology and financial motivations generate wars.

Sience is just a process for discerning truth.

[DracoReincarnated]

We just don't realize what dumb things we believe... yet.

UNQUOTE

Like what? Evolution? Big Bang? Abiogenesis?

Give me historical accounts over extrapolation and imaginary guesses any day.

UNQUOTE

Society.

[DracoReincarnated]

My point is science has always existed. But this faith in our current understanding of it is foolishness as it always has been.

UNQUOTE

Well, science does get results *eye roll*

[Paulginz]

Enominus does have a point.

Scientism is damaging and unscientific. Some modern scientific theories are largely untested.

I wouldn't gasp in surprise if it turns out that string theory is bollocks, or if some known "universal constants" are actually local, or even if abiogenesis doesn't work the way mainstream hypothesis suggest. Scientific understanding is a long way from being complete or fool-proof. Even big corrections might happen.

That said, it's still the most reliable stuff out there.

[DracoReincarnated]

Scientism

UNQUOTE

No such thing. If you're talking about science then say it.

is damaging and unscientific.

UNQUOTE

It doesn't exist.

Some modern scientific theories are largely untested.

UNQUOTE

Which ones?

Quantum Physics don't count.

[DracoReincarnated]

I wouldn't gasp in surprise if it turns out that string theory is bollocks

UNQUOTE

That falls under QM. Strange field of science, almost impossible to get evidence; the most you can prove that it works IN THEORY.

or if some known "universal constants" are actually local

UNQUOTE

We can prove that they're universal. Looking through telescopes, we can see that the same laws of physics apply to distant objects as they do here.

[DracoReincarnated]

or even if abiogenesis doesn't work the way mainstream hypothesis suggest

UNQUOTE

1. Abiogenesis is in its infancy, you won't get any awards for pointing out holes.

2. Look up the Miller-Urey expiriment. THat's just one of many expiriments which add a part to the puzzle of how life started.

[Paulginz]

"We can prove that they're universal. Looking through telescopes, we can see that the same laws of physics apply to distant objects as they do here."

Ehm, the same laws apply if you assume that there's loads of invisible unidentified mass and invisible "stuff" that causes space-time to expand.

I think most people were expecting better than that. (I oversimplify, but that's the situation no?)

Also, good luck with observing the laws of physics beyond the event horizon of a black hole.

[DracoReincarnated]

Scientific understanding is a long way from being complete or fool-proof.

UNQUOTE

I know that. There's still a lot more we don't know.

Even big corrections might happen

UNQUOTE

Good. Then we'll know more than we did last year.

[Paulginz]

Seriously, you shouldn't get so defensive.

I was just pointing out the obvious (yes, abiogenesis is young and full of competing hypothesis... that's why I chose it as a perfect example of not yet sufficiently reliable science)

I'm not some anti-science econut/religious fundamentalist.

But if we forget who posted it,

- "But this FAITH in our current understanding of [science] is foolishness as it always has been." -

is a defendable statement since without skepticism there can be no science.

[Paulginz]

Scientism: Blind faith in science, in it's laws, in it's ability to explain everything.

A position that no real scientist would ever hold.

The definition varies a lot, but to me it's essentially the uncritical "Some guy in a lab coat said it so it must be true" approach that unfortunately many non-scientists have.

TOE attempts in QM do count. It's fed out in the media as theories, not hypothesis.

Occam's razor still applies against counterintuitive theories, even if they're expected nowadays.

[TheHomelessCripple]

@Paulginz

Yes, SOME theories are largely untested, but it's hard to test string theory when it operates at a distance of less than one planck length, a scale smaller than anything that can possibly be observed today.

Or abiogenesis which left absolutely no clues, as basic proteins & bacteria don't fossilize.

[Paulginz]

@TheHomelessCripple It's hard but not unimaginable to get positive proof of abiogenesis: creating life in vitro using only chemicals which form without life and possibly simulating young earth conditions.

"synthetic" viruses have been made, but by copying pre-existing DNA.

Plenty of complex organic compounds have been made etc. There's still a long way to go of course.

Basic logic tells us that unless life has always existed, abiogenesis must have happened. The real question is "how?".

[stmk0]

@Paulginz "Life" is a side effect of entropy. Never forget that.

[gouldman123]

ok If a star is 1 Light year away it mean light takes one year to go from that star to our planet. So close by stars we know are still there but distant ones we see may be there or it could just be the remnents of the last light the star threw out into space before it died.

[aayjay666]

@gouldman123

Yes the light we see from other stars is 'old'. It's entirely possible we view light from stars which are long since dead.

[Topecs]

Actually, very LIKELY, even.

[UncleKennybobs]

wat

[sleestack]

Can we actually see any current stars or are they all from the distant past due to the speed of light travel?

[twomorestars]

The nearest star is 4.3 lightyears away, so the light we see from that star left the star 4.3 years ago and we're seeing it today.

short answer, yes

[deryk703]

Well, every star we see has aged at least a little by the time its light reaches our eyes. Sometimes I wonder how much is so far away its light hasn't reached us.

[oremusboys]

between 10 and 30 billion light years away all of the galaxies are moving so close to the speed of light away from us that we can't see their light. so everything in and beyond that range is dark.

[DracoReincarnated]

The sun is 8 light-minutes form Earth.

So, if the sun were to explode, we would have NO iformation of this until 8 minutes later.

[xsfslayer]

LMFAO get out of my internet XD ahaha

[Izwat]

nice

[Izwat]

your wrong perhaps you need to watch more Science Channel documentaries about the bigbang. bigbang mede all the mater that we see today and the dark or green mater gases were there before the bigbang hits the name dark energy knowone has seen it and knowone knows were it come from the so called bigbang was made to existent by the dark energy just like you said in your 3comment

[supafly377]

DamienZshadow is CORRECT. You are WRONG. The Science Channel isn't the most reliable source for up-to-date science. DamienZshadow's second comment states the most reliable and latest theory accepted by the scientific community. His 3rd comment is also true. Dark MATTER is to make sense of gravity, Not fuel for the Big Bang. If you REALLY want to understand science DON'T go to the Science Channel, go to a more reliable/current source like The New Scientist/Scientific American.

(P.S Spellcheck)

[DracoReincarnated]

Izwat-

Bad science meets bad spelling

[doughboy1337]

Interesting.

[Izwat]

you never heard of any physicist claim that stars are from darkmater? merly mede by the gases it possess some how still if you see in this video there are talling oss that stars form in big giants from the green mater 3billion years after the bigbang there saying that the bigbang made only gases and no mater stars mede mater and planets are debri from stars from self exploding star right

[DamienZshadow]

Ugh, did anyone ever tell you how frustrating it is when you open your mouth? Your making my ears bleed with all this nonsense! You honestly have no idea WHAT you're talking about. You're quoting random things from Science Channel documentaries INCORRECTLY.

Simple gases, like Hydrogen, are MATTER and were formed after the Big Bang. These gases condensed and became so heavy their atoms fused and released energy, becoming a star. Dark matter is something totally different!

[Izwat]

that the bigbag made only darkmater and stars are mede by the darkmater if so the chain reaction of the self exploding star well only end when all the darkmater is used up dont forget 5% of our univers we is stars and 95%darkmater ths cant be right

[Paulginz]

Dark mater is just a fancy name for "We don't know why redshift occurs".

Why would the big bang only make dark mater? If so, where would ordinary matter come from?

I've never heard of any physicist claim that dark matter is star fuel. It's widely agreed that stars are made of mainly hydrogen which undergoes fusion to become helium.

[DracoReincarnated]

Dark mater is just a fancy name for "We don't know why redshift occurs".

~~~~UNQUOTE

False.

Red shift is basically the doplar effect, but with light.

Away from us- The freuqency goes closer to infared.

Towards us- The frequency goes closer to ultra-viloet.

[Paulginz]

Yes, I know that. But that's still not a satisfactory explanation:

What I meant was "we don't know why distant stars are accelerating away from us so fast".

And that's where "dark matter" comes in. (To be honest, I would expect that attributing a higher mass to the universe would slow expantion down, but what the hell.)

[hilbert54]

I think dark matter is posited to explain why galaxies don't disintegrate as there is not enough baryonic matter to hold them together gravitationally against their spin.

It is dark energy that is posited to explain universal expansion.

[Paulginz]

Yep.

I learnt about that since I posted that comment, but thanks a lot anyway.

[DamienZshadow]

Those 5% and 95% figures are to explain what happened with most of the energy from the Big Bang. Only a small percentage was converted into the Matter we see and are used to today. Dark Matter is just to make sense of massive gravitational forces that couldn't be created by the observable matter only. Dark Energy is said to make up most of the universe as it compensates for the predicted energy levels in the Big Bang and makes sense out of why galaxies are moving exponentially further apart.

[Izwat]

cool they deleted my comment fron last night stars are med by the gases or darkmater made by the bigbag? bullshit

[Trastlol]

"cool they deleted my comment fron last night stars are med by the gases or darkmater made by the bigbag? bullshit"

Your writing is bullshit. Big bag? Darkmater?

[wokmonster]

Very Very cool. 10/10 I love space stuff.

Speaking of which. Did anybody know they found water on Mars???

Thats just way too cool.

[Energyium]

cool water:)

[VerboseVindication]

Did you know this was already common knowledge months ago?

[wokmonster]

No Actuall I just caught the news about it yesterday. At any rate it's still an awsome thing.

Thanx Man

[DamienZshadow]

It was MOST LIKELY but only until recently was it made certain thanks to the Pheonix rover.

[TECHKLEC]

Yes...I'm a little surprised because of the low vapor presseure on Mars

[alex3914]

Power Power Power soo goood.