The Sound Of Settled Science

ScienceAlert;

As Voyager 2 moves farther and farther from the Sun, the density of space is increasing.
 
It’s not the first time this density increase has been detected. Voyager 1, which entered interstellar space in 2012, detected a similar density gradient at a separate location.
 
Voyager 2’s new data show that not only was Voyager 1’s detection legit, but that the increase in density may be a large-scale feature of the very local interstellar medium (VLIM).

29 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  1. And the next clue in the puzzle is revealed. How long before dark matter and dark energy are recognized as the crystalline spheres of an age that should have known better?

  2. And as a result, we will need to recalibrate our assumptions on the speed of light ‘in vacuo’. If you rebuild GR with speed of light as a function of time (i.e. approx time since the Big Bang) you get interesting results.

    Like you can make the universe 6,400 “years” old, if you like.

    God: getting the last laugh since grannie got her boobs stuck in the tumbledryer…

    1. If we rebuild GR with the speed of light as a function of coconuts we get interesting results. Like you can make the universe 42069 “Han Solos” old if we like.

      Btw please explain in detail for my simple brain how a slight change in the density of a specific portion of interstellar space would impact our calculations of speed of light? Because I truthfully have no idea.

      1. The speed of light and the red-shift are used to determine how far away something is, and how fast it’s moving away from us. The red-shift is a dopler effect, the same as how a train’s horn sounds different when it’s coming towards you from when it’s moving away. The speed of light is a variable, based on the density of the medium it’s going through. That’s part of how a crystal can break sunlight into a rainbow.

        If we assume that there’s 1 particle per cm of “space” and there’s several hundred instead then it’s much, much denser than a vacuum (but don’t try to breath it!) and the that speed of light needs to be. The 10k year old world is tongue in cheek, but there’s no reason that God couldn’t have made it all 10,000 years ago and “antiqued” it beyond our ability to discover. If you want to look at things that way.

        1. Well, unless you abandon symmetry. Which horrifies a physicist of course. But pure mathematics says modern physics is still an axiomatic system. Symmetry being one such axiom. GR begins with SR – similarly axiomatic.

          And so we run headling into Goedel.

          1. Shush. Andrew was asking. If this is the same Andrew, then this could be the “I understood that, maybe I’ll understand the other things they’re saying” moment. Don’t ruin that possibility. As complex as they need, but no more.

            Feel free to correct if I have the basics wrong, of course. I’m a conservative. I try harder when someone proves to me that something I’ve believed isn’t factually based.

  3. You never know for sure until you check, and not even then. That’s why the scientific method is so great. It’s not about telling you stories to shore up your beliefs.

    But they really should say “the density of matter in space” because the headline is misleading, making it sound like some new aspect of “spacetime” when it really isn’t. It’s just that they found more stuff there than their models predicted they would, and now they have to change their models. That’s what real scientists do when their models fail.

    1. Do you mean that climate scientists are not real scientists?
      Because their models are ALWAYS wrong, and they just ignore inconvenient facts?
      The scientific method and climate alarmist bullschnizzle have ZERO in common.

      1. Cosmologists use infinitely more scientific rigor in their analysis but never claim their science is settled, as the woefully imprecise minions of CAGW do as a matter of impulse and policy for payoffs, their so-called settled science nowhere near up to making valid or meaningful observations or predictions about the earth’s chaotic climate.

  4. What these observations indicate is that the interstellar medium is not as well-understood as first thought. The acquired data, however, don’t really show very much. For example, the variation might not be uniform in all directions.

    1. Smart people understand the more we learn about something the less we realize we actually know.
      Except climate “scientists” who are charlatans and rent seeking politicians for the most part.
      Like covid “experts” with completely different guidance at different times, they urge us to follow the science they agree with.

      1. Whatever models or explanations that are derived are based on available data and what is known so far.

        A good example of that is the ring system of Saturn. From ground-based telescopes, there appeared to be a small number of distinct rings separated by empty spaces. As a result, astronomers derived equations that explained what was seen. And then spacecraft were sent there, starting with Pioneer 11 in 1979. Although its camera had poor resolution, the pictures it sent back indicated that the ring system was more complex than had been observed for more than 300 years.

        Next month marks the 40th anniversary of the flyby of Saturn by Voyager 1, which presented us with the first detailed observation of the rings. The empty spaces that were observed from the ground were filled with ring material that wasn’t as reflective. One result was that many textbooks had to be revised, numerous papers were written, and graduate students earned their degrees through theses using those results as research topics.

        What made the difference was how observations were made. This was the first time that the rings were closely observed in any fashion. The telescopes that had been used were based on the ground and observations had to be made through the terrestrial atmosphere. Hubble was nearly a decade into the future.

        With the flybys of Voyager 2 and New Horizons and the multi-year mission of Cassini, more data were acquired and the models revised accordingly.

        1. Correction: based on available data PLUS a set of axioms and derived results that are assumed to explain the phenomenon. As we have seen with the transition from Newtonian mechanics to GR, and then to modern quantum mechanics, sometimes the fact that we are using a model to estimate reality runs smack bang into material under/overestimation.

          Polling is a great example. Using polls (observed data) to estimate human behaviour in a way that requires that said human behaviour follow a temporally static, a priori distribution, well…. mmmmkay. Off you go then. So no chance of the polled individuals being intimidated into telling you what they think you wish to hear.

          Estimation methodolgies of the simlating kind suffer from the flaw that randomness is undefined and unfalsifiable as is. So we’ll build an entire scientific edifice on a primitive, atomic, pre-axiomatic notion, with NO methodology for rejecting the premise, besides the methodolgy itself, which is based on the premise. Go stats!

          Fact is, we are quite good at some physics. But we are practically drowning in aesthetic assumptions that may or not turn out correct.

          Ah, doppler redshift. Of course. Couldn’t possibly be space itself distorting light. No, we can’t see it here, so it cannot be true over in, say, the Andromeda Galaxy…

          Physicists are so damned terra-centric it is becoming tedious. And boring.

          I think the cosmological models are well past due for an Einstein-style shakeup.

          And don’t get me started on climate “science”. All the rejects from MathPhys larping it up pretending to do science, but really just enjoying an excuse for a fully funded, paid ski, kayak and camping holiday to Baffin Island. Come on. Oh but they are “measuring things” … Geez, spare me.

          All of “empty” space is uniform. My physics department said so.

          Sure. Why not?

          1. Wandering lot in that one BDSM. We’re possibly converting here, try to keep the posts on point and relative short. “The rules that work here are the rules that work everywhere” is part of that to which I was alluding with the crystalline spheres of our times. It wasn’t intended to answer, it was intended to raise questions with those who hadn’t seen that phrase before, and so (possibly) open a portion of history to them that otherwise would have been science has always been settled.

            I’d like to hear more, but it needs to be broken down into manageable chunks. Or I need to stop drinking rum, and that won’t happen! (hic.)

    1. Thats the entire point every time she uses this headline. Its a reference to Al Gores famous quote “the science is settled”. The point is that Al Gore is misrepresenting science in the name of science. Her headline isnt science bashing at all, I hope it isnt.

    1. Meanwhile, we have a (sometimes) black (you-know-what) hole in Ottawa spaghettifying this country.

      1. You think he applied shoe polish back there?

        As lub… nope, I don’t want to know how he and his Butts decide things. Or what they want to do or think with respect to the colour of their… (oop, need a bucket)

        (pardon me, I think I’m going to be ill.)

  5. They maybe could have worded it better. Space getter denser? Maybe the matter was getting denser but the space remained the same. OK Maybe Ièm being a bit pedantic here.

    1. Even though the headline was a bit misleading I can accept that because it intrigued me, I read it, and I’m glad I did. It’s new science from 40 space-probe years away. Also, see how durable made in USA equipment was back then? A little pricey maybe…

  6. “A little pricey maybe…”
    The 2 space crafts have travelled 18.3 and 17.9 billion km so breaking down the cost into a per km amount makes their respective journeys seem reasonable indeed.

Navigation