Where is the article?

 

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1811/1811.08832.pdf

I think this is it?

(The original paper--can't access the interview without paying, I think.)

 

I can't read the articles for some reason, so I'm not sure if they are trying to imply an alien visitation or something, lol, but this is a pretty neat object that people have been following for maybe a year or more. Its significant because its the first interstellar object like this that we have observed and followed. Definitely not the first one to fly through our solar system, they probably do all the time. But its the first one we have studied.

I remember reading an article that implied that its weird shape could indicate that it was made by some intelligent being. But this is a very small object, so it doesn't have enough gravity to pull itself into a nice round ball like larger things such as planets do. Very small objects can have very weird an elongated shapes and stay that way for billions of years as long as they don't crash into anything. I also remember reading that at one point it accelerated faster than what we would expect from just the tug of gravity from our solar system, and people were also trying to theorize aliens, but things like this can accelerate for many reasons, like solar radiation.

It probably is a splinter from some collision millions or billions of years ago, that is still flying off in whatever trajectory the collision sent it. Instead of having a smooth rotation it is tumbling ass over teacup, which is what things sometimes do after colliding with other things. Astronomers went back and forth calling this a comet vs. asteroid for awhile, but finally designated it an asteroid. Definitely a nerdy outcast in our neighborhood

 

I love it when things tumble ass over teacup. If I were an interstellar object, that's exactly how I'd roll too.

 

As an interstellar object, I think I'd still drive a Volvo.

 

Last night's episode of How the Universe Works had fun with`Oumuamua. People trained all sorts of instruments on it hoping to hear radio waves or something, but, alas, it was a natural object. lol But they were still delighted to have discovered it. I love the innate playfulness of many astronomers and cosmologists.

 

Of course we were visited. This guy told me




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

@Neuropyramidal. I have never understood why dark energy has to be posited. Maybe you can explain it to me. Here's how I think about it.

(1) The fabric of space-time is real. They always show the graphic of a grid that "gives," like a permanent dent in a trampoline, wherever a planet or any physical thing, even an ant or a bacteria, exists.

(2) Everything is speeding away from everything else in all directions at the same time. They will keep speeding up until everything is moving outward at the speed of light.

That's because (to me) the fabric is getting less dented. Each planet or star gas cloud or whatever is moving from a high density neighborhood towards a less populated place. Because everything is moving to a place in space-time that is tauter than where they were before, everything picks up more and more speed.

Ultimately, it becomes like the difference between watching a pebble roll down a rocky moraine and watching a BB roll down a solid flat sheet of polished steel and on towards no resistance at all.

OF COURSE everything is getting faster and faster and faster as space-time fabric becomes slicker (less bumpy).

Everything is headed towards the speed of light. So why does the math require dark energy?

 

As i understand.(insert grain of salt) Dark energy is not a physical object. Its an effect that has been observed but its cause has yet to be identified. Kind of like black holes aren’t holes but thats the name given to them when they were first observed. Everything is flying space (which supposedly has no mass) as if it were flying through something soupy. We have yet to identify what that soup is. Dark matter would be the grid if the grid were physical. Dark energy would be would be the math that explains how objects react to it. A lot of physics is theoretical. They are observing and coming up with math to explain why it behaves that way. Granted PBS and Discovery Channel never gave a degree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I like that soup analogy.

Whether or not space-time has physicality, I don't think about. I see it as a phenomenon that can move from ripply to smooth.

For example, what people call gravity doesn't have physicality, but its intensity changes with distance. People weigh less as they move away from the mass of the earth.

I don't believe in gravity. I believe in space-time. I.e., there is no "pull." There is being impacted by the mass of objects that are distorting space-time.

The further objects get away from the distortions, the faster expansion can go is what I think.

So, since/if that is what happens, why is dark energy needed to account for the speeding up. Wouldn't the increasing distance itself and the resulting less distortion in the phenomenon of space-time be enough to account for the measured increase in speed? That's what Discovery never mentions--the decreasing distortion factor.

 

I thought about this a bit too. Gravitational “pull” was newtons description of what he observed. He likened it to magnetism. His math added up so that was fine until you expand it. Space is supposed to be a vacuum. But if it was, objects would act independently and not in relation to each other. (Nothing connecting them) If you take a basketball, spray it with water then spin it on your finger, the water flies off. Thats what objects on the surface of earth should do. But they dont. If you put that basketball in a tub of water, then spin it, it spins the water with it creating a draw. If you put in a rubber duckie, it will pull it to the surface of the ball. The further away the less the pull. So as the gravitational pull draws in gases, those gases stack up creating our atmosphere. On the earths surface, we dont feel a “pull” to the center of the earth. Its more of a gravitational “smoosh” of all the layers on top of us pushing down as they are squeezed by the swirl. Thats why antigravity will never work. Its not like magnetism at all. Also. Its not like we are sitting on the surface of water like the grid suggests. Galaxies are all around us in all directions, spinning in all directions. So its not flat. Its more like we are deep in the middle of the ocean. Its just easier to conceptualize, like the tub. There is something out there. We can see its effect but its either too small to see or exits in a state we havent figured out how to detect yet. Thats how i see it. Anytime i see a show or read an article it seems to fall in line with that.
P.S.
The the further from the big bang we get, the less the draw from center we have. So the less it should slow it down but it shouldnt speed up unless there is another force acting on it pulling the opposite direction. They can suggest that the inertia from the initial blast is still acting on it and is giving it a final zing as it encounters less friction. (Smoother waters). If you slide a puck across ice, even if it hits a slick spot, its doesnt speed up, it just slows down less. If we are picking up speed that would suggest another “gravity” is pulling us out.
P.S.S
Or we are are still in the acceleration phase. We will peak and then slow down. Eventually contracting for another big bang.
I need to stop before a P.S.S.S


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

https://apple.news/AvwWALRdKQQi0f4V5UWk4tg
Kind of sums it up. Clear as mud


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

An extremely interesting test of our finding would be the observation of precise gravitational light deflection by individual galaxies, which is albeit a difficult measurement. Our theory predicts a stronger light deflection for very compact galaxies so, excitingly, it could one day be falsified or confirmed by such a measurement.


I love this! I hope they do it within my lifetime.

 

Were always just waiting for technology to catch up to our imagination.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That's right about Dark Energy not being a physical object. Its a model people came up with to explain why things are accelerating faster than we expect.

And black holes are interesting. They are kind of like an 'edge' to our universe. And to me the most interesting thing about them is that according to how the math of black holes works, when something falls into a black hole, the black hole does NOT expand in proportion to the volume of the thing that fell into it. If you put a duck into a bathtub the water rises by an amount that forms the exact volume of the duck [assuming the duck doesn't collapse under the water pressure].

However, if a duck falls into a black hole, the black hole does not expand that way. The black hole expands by an amount that you would expect if the duck, instead of going INSIDE the black hole, actually just stretched out on the surface 2 dimensionally. Like the mass from the duck now resides not inside the hole but flattened out into 2 dimension on the surface. Like if you flattened it completely, then sewed it into the surface of a balloon, so the balloon was a little bigger.

This is odd, and is one of the reasons some theoretical physicists are looking more at the Holographic Principle, that everything possibly exists actually on the very edges of the universe and we are just a Holographic projection from the edge. Sounds crazy, and it might turn out to be crazy, but there are a few other mathematical principles that back it. Another strange thing that backs it is that according to known math, the maximum amount of matter that can be inserted into any given volume is the amount that can be represented on the SURFACE of that volume in the smallest units we know, Planck Areas. To me that is really weird. Why would our maximum matter in a certain space be limited by that???

And its possible the grid might be the Higg's boson. Its likely, according to the major theories about it, that the Higg's field extends all through space, and different things interact with it in different ways as they pass through it. The different ways that things interact with it give those things the property that we call "mass". At CERN they isolated Higgs a few years ago, and last time I checked, the properties of the particle were matching up with what they would expect if this was true.

Interesting times we live in.

 

Yes! We are SO lucky. I wish I had a naturally mathematical mind so I could understand more of the theories.

But at least we all get moments of flinging ourselves into the sheer joy and wonder of whatever we are able to grasp.

 

Hadnt heard of the holographic principle. Ill check it out. Sounds odd. But with black holes. I just assumed the rubber ducky would be crushed until it reached fusion, Released energy, “fed” the black hole and dissipated. Every thing is building blocks with empty space between them. Remove the empty space and an object becomes smaller. (Yes this is the plot from honey i shrunk the kids) So if a planet slipped into a black hole, it wouldn’t retain its volume, it would be shredded into it smallest parts including lots of mass loss due to matter becoming energy. Effectively becoming tons of atom bombs. Another thing i thought about is if space isnt a total vacuum, is creating vacuum situations on earth really replicating space? Also we have to be careful not to make the math support our conclusions. When Hawking was first studying black holes, the math added up but when they were determined to not be holes after all, he didnt want to accept it and kept fighting for his original conclusions. Him and another guy had to come to an agreement where they were both right. Ya... reality doesn’t need people to agree for it to exist. I could be misquoting. But i believe Einstein said “science is not a destination but a journey”. Meaning don’t get locked into anything. Allow your understanding to change along with new information. We like to think humans are the pinnacle of intelligence. We are still babies. Trying to make sense of a universe that exists on a scale i think few people can even grasp. We hear the word infinite but keep trying to limit the universe.
P.s. a quick search credits someone else for the quote not Einstein. But the example hasnt been found.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Of course! . When you open your eyes to all the awe-inspiring things in the universe that are actually real, it makes you wonder, why do humans need Bigfoot? Ghosts? Why do they need aliens to be visiting farmers and examining their underpants? The world is so much more interesting without all that drivel....

 

We like to put everything in tidy little boxes of understanding. If we cant figure something out, we reach further and further out until we find something to cling to. Other times it can bring comfort to know this isnt all there is. There is a point to us beyond the obvious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk