It is not my policy to discuss things forbidden by Forum Rules:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/help/terms/
However, @cumbb friend, Walter Alter strikes me as a person unqualified to discuss Modern Physics.
Unlike myself with my modest BSc (Lon) in Physics. Currently studying Uranium 238.
I have to say I felt my mind disintegrating shortly into his Video,
I couldn't take any more of his droning nonsense about half way:
If anyone has the stomach to watch the whole thing, can they inform us of his conclusion? I think it will be about Electric Plasma, somehow. 🙄
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/help/terms/
However, @cumbb friend, Walter Alter strikes me as a person unqualified to discuss Modern Physics.
Unlike myself with my modest BSc (Lon) in Physics. Currently studying Uranium 238.
I have to say I felt my mind disintegrating shortly into his Video,
I couldn't take any more of his droning nonsense about half way:
If anyone has the stomach to watch the whole thing, can they inform us of his conclusion? I think it will be about Electric Plasma, somehow. 🙄
THE RULES: NOT ALLOWED: 2. Discussions of... religion
Since the mainstream-popular-science-gravitation-explanation-attempts are already based on non-science (equivalence-principle, Hubble-law...), moreover unsubstantiated and unprovable ghost-beings (dark matter, dark energy, black holes, big bangs...) are introduced and preached, I assume that someone who can also only unscientifically (no arguments, no being able to distinguish between object and concept, no attention to observation, no mathematics and geometry corresponding to the observations...) in this forum...-)-;
Last edited:
M. @mchambin, we are in the business of Pure Mathematics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy's_integral_formula
But I am a number theorist.
3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2
3^3 + 4^3 + 5^3 = 6^3
I merely play with the unproven theories of Physics.
Euler, of course:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function
I do hope to reduce @cumbb to absurdum. Just my Nature. 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy's_integral_formula
But I am a number theorist.
3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2
3^3 + 4^3 + 5^3 = 6^3
I merely play with the unproven theories of Physics.
Euler, of course:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function
I do hope to reduce @cumbb to absurdum. Just my Nature. 🙂
Not a terrible good video tainted with miss information. Factual
‘Light left these galaxies when the Universe was extremely young, and light has been travelling for most of the age of the universe (13.7 billion years) to reach us,’ he explains. ‘All the galaxies are seen within half a billion years of the Big Bang, and the furthest is seen when the Universe was less than a quarter of a billion years old. By discovering galaxies at early times and comparing with more nearby galaxies when the Universe was older, we can study the formation and evolution of galaxies – the astronomical equivalent of archaeology.’
The four galaxies are forming stars, and have a low abundance of heavy elements. This is expected for young galaxies, since all elements heavier than lithium are not born in the Big Bang but instead form in nuclear processes in stars, and are slowly enriched over time.
https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/news/astronomers-discover-most-distant-galaxies-yet
This page shows the details available in an image at 13.1b light years also it's spectra.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Explora...b/Webb_delivers_deepest_image_of_Universe_yet
This page explains why the red shifts directly measured are much lager than they actually are and need a correction applied
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions_on_its_size
There are also effects on apparent size.
There are simply errors in it. For example, the time of the review is only an assumption. It results on the sole interpretation: red shift as Doppler effect. We have no tools (brightness, size, evolution...) at all to determine the "distance" of the observed objects unambiguously.
Also we are not "in" universe. This is plain nonsense - even if you read Maistream-Populism-"Wikipedia understanding;-) "We" are only part of universe.
But I also like to ignore that, because most of the people don't discuss it anyway.
Also we are not "in" universe. This is plain nonsense - even if you read Maistream-Populism-"Wikipedia understanding;-) "We" are only part of universe.
But I also like to ignore that, because most of the people don't discuss it anyway.
You're reducing me to tears!
I'm unsure of how the gamma function is applied to gravitational theory.
I do read that the function is useful for modeling systems involving constant change.
The gamma function must therefore have many applications, but beyond that realisation it is simply a curiosity to me! 😉
Hands up, Physics class! Who knows what this stuff is? 😉
I would not touch it with a bargepole. This is why I am still alive. 🙂
I would not touch it with a bargepole. This is why I am still alive. 🙂
TBH, I quit Physics years ago. Much prefer Mathematics.
The whole Physics thing disgusted me.
I still wonder what it was that particularurly disturbed me:
No good will come of this study, IMO.
Prefer the study of Numbers:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/octonions-web-exclusive/
Best Regards from Steve P******* ( A 5, 8 thing, but I think 24 matters too) in Portsmouth, UK.
The whole Physics thing disgusted me.
I still wonder what it was that particularurly disturbed me:
No good will come of this study, IMO.
Prefer the study of Numbers:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/octonions-web-exclusive/
Best Regards from Steve P******* ( A 5, 8 thing, but I think 24 matters too) in Portsmouth, UK.
One of the images in the link is interesting
https://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage...um_showcases_galaxy_s_composition_pillars.png
Wow elements already and some spiky noise.
Anyone who mentions the infinite universe annoys me. You would need some more infinities to populate it with what ever. Having several infinities is stupid.
Go back in time and more intelligent comments discussed if it was endless. Might even mention that if we could cross it we might for all we know finish up where we started.
However infinite is a wonderful buzz word.
https://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage...um_showcases_galaxy_s_composition_pillars.png
Wow elements already and some spiky noise.
Anyone who mentions the infinite universe annoys me. You would need some more infinities to populate it with what ever. Having several infinities is stupid.
Go back in time and more intelligent comments discussed if it was endless. Might even mention that if we could cross it we might for all we know finish up where we started.
However infinite is a wonderful buzz word.
Not octonions again!
I'll show you once more what they look like, and that's shallot! 😊
Attachments
A geometrically flat universe with a multiply-connected topology would have finite size.
If the Universe is closed in on itself in all three dimensions like a three-dimensional torus, we could point a spaceship in one direction and eventually return to where we started.
https://www.livescience.com/universe-three-dimensional-donut.html
All he is saying really is that a number of theories are just that and can not be proven in the usual sense of the word. He also appears to have an interest in alternatives. Fortunately active astrophysicist also wonder at times. Even Einstein mentioned indirectly that some one may do a better job than he did. 😉 I'd guess he might think too much over education these days to ever get to grips with it all.
😉 Maybe some one should try answering some questions with one of these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouija
LOL I'd guess that the answer about the electric universe would be no but in all respects maybe don't know.
But surely that goes without saying?
In science, a theory can never be proven to be true beyond any doubt.
As I said earlier, scientific knowledge is subject to revision when new evidence or better explanations come along.
I fail to understand why some contributors find it necessary to constantly remind us of this fact!
Laymen often do not understand this. For science to maintain credibility, we must be clear about it.
At the same time, others misunderstand the use of the term scientific theory.
Some think a scientific theory is just a guess, not well confirmed, and no better than other guesses
that have no confirming data at all. This leads to poor policy decisions in government, and worse.
At the same time, others misunderstand the use of the term scientific theory.
Some think a scientific theory is just a guess, not well confirmed, and no better than other guesses
that have no confirming data at all. This leads to poor policy decisions in government, and worse.
According to Karl Popper, a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can (and should) be scrutinised with decisive experiments.
Karl Popper debunked Freud theory.
Psychoanalytical theories were crafted in a way that made them able to refute any criticism and to give an explanation for every possible form of human behaviour. The nature of such theories made it impossible for any criticism or experiment—even in principle—to show them to be false.
He generalized it to all false theories, the ones one cannot disprove.
Karl Popper debunked Freud theory.
Psychoanalytical theories were crafted in a way that made them able to refute any criticism and to give an explanation for every possible form of human behaviour. The nature of such theories made it impossible for any criticism or experiment—even in principle—to show them to be false.
He generalized it to all false theories, the ones one cannot disprove.
Last edited:
Lots of what we talk about here relates to hypotheses and not theories.
There's a good description of the difference between hypothesis and theory in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
In brief:
"A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true."
"A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data."
Unfortunately:
"In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice."
Last edited: