All Activity

You Canadians are so NICE! In even simpler terms, the South wanted to keep their slaves, the North wanted to do more business with countries opposed to the slave trade. There were folks on both sides who felt that slavery was wrong in principle, but the South relied more heavily on owning both the resources and the labor for production. The North was more interested in preserving the union of the states than in emancipating slaves. We even kept the concept of slavery and use it in our prison system, and people of African descent are still persecuted and not treated the same way white people are. But the North won because the states are still united as a country... sort of.

Lol for that matter I ignore anything stated in any form of pop media regardless of who the speaker is.

So ? That only describes the accelerated portion. Matter and radiation also contribute. In your idea you cannot have expansion before a BH can form and neither stars nor a BH can form until you have sufficient expansion to allow atoms to form. To put it bluntly your idea is a literal impossibility. It's like the chicken before the egg scenario. As far as DE is concerned a lot of research and evidence suggest it may be the Higgs field itself.

You are naive to think 19th century USA was an ideal democracy.

Here here, I totally agree. Posting a video as an explanation on a discussion forum is like giving someone flowers but not putting them in a vase for them. You've just given them more labor, not a gift. This is far too critical. Jesus, it was a video interview. He probably would have been more specific in print. I'm not a fan of the popular scientist approach to many subjects, but his statement was completely reasonable for the popular science crowd. We do know which chemicals make you depressed and which don't, to a great degree.

What if you are in the minority, and the majority has no interest in such a compromise?

He also clearly said at the outset that he was talking about future knowledge - “the day will come” and “I’m imagining a future” and you are just completely ignoring these caveats and end up overstating what he claimed. Do we know of chemicals that make people depressed? Do we know of ones that don’t? Yes. Is this knowledge exhaustive? No! But he’s not claiming that it is.

That strikes me as an unjustified assumption. People can vote for war if they feel suitably motivated, for instance by persuasive leaders. If different parts of a country are sufficiently alienated from one another and those separate parts have a system to vote independently, they might even vote to go to war against the others. And then again, no country has a theoretical ideal democracy in the first place.

For me, this is a too simple explanation. I believe that in a theoretical ideal democracy the civil wars are inpossible - the people in different regions of the country would simply vote for some compromise decision.

Here you have some criticism of the serotonin hypothesis of depression , from two profs of psychiatry: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jul/analysis-depression-probably-not-caused-chemical-imbalance-brain-new-study Neil deGrasse Tyson clearly said "we know which chemicals make you depressed and which don't and why" - which I guess isn't the case at all.

But these calculations are also based on the misterious dark energy

Could posters please post their discursive points in text and not by saying "here, click this." It's against forum rules, and it's a nuisance when you are somewhere that you can't watch videos. Usually, a clear text explanation of one's position is also much faster to read, especially when it comes to presenting facts. (I've seen videos that take half an hour to get to the point that one paragraph of text could have adequately made) Also, @Otto Kretschmer should retract his inaccurate comments about SSRI treatment and respond to my post addressing that. There is nothing wrong with critiquing pharmaceuticals used in treatment, but it needs to be done from an informed and fact-based perspective.

You know physics isn't a bunch of guesswork from the imagination. Even if you include all the mass of every galaxy you still wouldn't get any expansion from those galaxies. All baryonic matter which forms blackholes only accounts for 3 percent the mass terms. What causes expansion is thermodynamics and their equations of state for all particles of the SM model. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) With that one can accurately calculate everything involving expansion. The calculator in my signature does just that and it can predict up to 80 billion years into the future assuming the evolution of matter, radiation and the cosmological constant stays at the same rate of change.

There's more to this than that, watch this before you cast your final vote...

Good points; I had not taken your recent exchange into account. I would add the option of "AI overconfidence" for lack of a formal word or definition. A user may participate in a discussion in good faith with no malicious intend but is unable to interpret, internalise or curate AI / LLM output for the context. Side note; I used an LLM to generate a definition of this option and this is the output: The act of using automated tools, such as language models, to generate content on topics beyond one's expertise, which is then presented as knowledgeable input. This behavior is characterized by a significant reliance on technology to simulate expertise or competence, without the individual possessing the necessary understanding or skills to assess the accuracy, relevance, or context-appropriateness of the generated content.

The objects are far from the colossal black hole, but the the mass of the colossal black hole is billion times the sum of the masses of all the astronomical objects that we have observed until now, including all the galaxies, supermassive black holes and supernovae. All the objects in a sphere centred in the colossal black hole have a spiral motion towards the colossal black hole, from any direction in the three-dimensional space.

@swansont I've just noticed that recently (2 months ago) NdGT did make a proper video about the neuroscience of depression:

Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something*. You might want to open a separate thread. Your new pictures seem to have the same issues that I hinted at in my picture (and that @joigus helped highlighting). Objects that we observe accelerating away from each other seem to get closer in your model. The universe is not one dimensional. The universe is also not a flat disk as a spiral galaxy. Hint: look at how the stars move in a (flat) galaxy disk versus the movement of matter in a rotating sphere. There are other issues but this one is pretty simple to explain and discuss, hence my initial focus on this. *) https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#:~:text=Copyright does not protect ideas,your written or artistic work.

Except that's not what he said. He said "we're kinda almost there" - which is less bold than what you quoted - and he mentions chemicals causing depression and how some depression is addressed but not cured by antidepressants, but he never makes a statement about its cause in humans. He's not making black-and-white statements. His tone makes it clear that there are still unknowns and things work for only some people. The rest is stating the goal that we hope to reach. How is that not an accurate portrayal? IMO he takes a proper tone in how he presents it.

I'd say a crash course is prophetic irony...

But surely this is due to relativistic effects (loss of energy as gravitational radiation) which only become significant at close range, isn’t it? Yet you are proposing spiral paths for objects far from the black hole, aren’t you? Or have I misunderstood?

Not really. A gravitational orbit plus a dissipative environment will be a possible model to account for closing spiral orbits, as @exchemist has pointed out. It just doesn't seem to do what you claim it does. I would relax about getting credit for this idea for the time being.

This is inaccurate. Your "proof" is like saying milk isn't helping calcium deficient bones because blood calcium levels rise within hours of drinking but it takes weeks for bone density to increase. After carrying a message, serotonin is usually reabsorbed by the nerve cells. SSRIs work by blocking reuptake, meaning more serotonin is available to pass further messages between nearby nerve cells. This isn't a rapid mood booster in depressives, but rather provides an unusual surplus of neurotransmitter which assists in a healing process that can take quite a while before a more favorable (to emotional response) pattern of signaling pathways is established. Further quite a bit of therapeutic knowledge exists as to how to reap the most benefit from an SSRI course, so we do know a bit about the mix of chemical, behavioral, environmental, and social contributions to depression. Not having seen the video, I don't know how far I'd go in agreeing with NDGT, but your "how come SSRIs don't work in a few hours" criticism is not based on an understanding of how SSRI works.

Do you think it's right that someone could publish a model without ever admitting that it is based on my ideas ? I've found an explanation as to why the objects have a spiral motions towards a black hole instead of orbiting around it at this address: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/32753/why-does-matter-spiral-into-blackholes