All Activity

No. Rapid expansion of everything that exists, not an explosion.

This thought came to me while I was reading. If the universe is expanding, then it needs to expand outwards into something. But this means that there needs to be something outside of the universe for it to expand into. The term universe tends to refer towards everything. But if there is something outside of everything then that means that the universe is not everything. Does this therefore mean that the universe is finite?

Genuinely not me this time. Will make it -2 now by way of proving the first isn't me. Just buy bees Dim. Be a bee keeper. Don't buy weapons grade nuclear material.

I’m not a physicist but I suspect the reception you will get will depend on: (1) what predictions your model makes that enable its validity to be tested and (2) whether it is compatible with the rest of physics. We get a lot of people who just dream stuff up with no attention to how their ideas could be validated experimentally, and a lot more who think their ideas can exist in a vacuum, when they are incompatible with everything else. Obviously no one is going to tear down the whole of physics, just because of a claim to account for a handful of phenomena in a different way. Good luck.

What a weird echoing labyrinth your mind must be.

Are papers allowable as starting points for discussion on this forum? I experience tremendous bias in science forums favoring peer-reviewed concepts and a lack of open-mindedness toward fresh ideas. I recently wrote a paper and published it on ResearchGate to explain my mathematically supported physics insights. As part of my research, I even developed a new system of units based on the concept of distributed charge and the concept that there are two quantifiable types of charges: electrostatic and magnetic. Through these enhanced physics tools, I have demonstrated how the Relativity equations are easily expressed as fluid Aether equations. More importantly, my work demonstrates that the so-called "anomalous" quantum Hall effect is better explained in terms of magnetic charge than electrostatic charge, which validates my theory. My theory similarly explains numerous other physics observations better than the Standard Model. The problem I encounter is the instant hostility that arises from such a claim, rather than a measured scientific approach that would begin by reading the paper and checking out the simple equations. Is it safe to post the paper and expect a proper scientific critique rather than an unresearched, knee-jerk reaction?

A sudden sharp transient would be harder on the ear drum, I would have thought.... like a shotgun.

Would the sudden ness of the sound matter? I remember reading on Reddit that sudden sounds are more dangerous for some reason.

Indeed you do... There's no such thing as a sentient iceburg,

Missed yet again, need a new scope on that rifle?

Mostly, a path to knowledge doesn't include a mysterious or ghostly apparition; unless you believe it does...

jnana has been banned for spamming, thread hijacking, soapboxing and bad-faith arguments.

I'm just happy that my locus of control is mine to influence, I don't care what you do with yours... 😉 Hmm, another neg for a reasonable post; it's getting difficult to not assume...

Anytime. Solidarity within groups of reasonable people feels more urgently needed now more than ever. Without being too OT and alarmist, when dictatorships are at your door, eliticide is shortly behind them. I think black holes could just be matter in a transient state constantly in motion toward a convergence in spacetime from our perspective. There has to be an original core made up of the remnant star somewhere but the matter on it's way crosses the event horizon and reaches that core at vastly different rates relative to observer positions located outside of black holes. What pours into the event horizon trickles down to the core along stretching geodesics (did I use that term correctly?) I'm speculating from ignorance but who knows Jack O'Neill effect might give one of y'all an inspiration pump.

I agree, anytime I see aliens described as humanoid I cringe, the idea of aliens being remotely human is unlikely to say the least. It has to be said the "humanoid" shape often described is used to back the idea that "aliens" are time travelers or from another plane of existence. One mystery being used to explain yet another mystery... not a path to knowledge. Oh yeah there is the speculation that the "aliens" we see are really just biological probes/drones that are made to look like us... I think they missed the mark a bit with the grays... While I wasn't following Avi all that closely I am saddened to learn he ran off the rails, he started out on track, I don't understand the "why" in cases like this. To have the cashe' to be able to pull off an investigation (I understood his point) and then ruin it with hubris just boggles my mind.

Lets diverge a thread into why putting weed killer on dandelions and not keeping bees yourself is a moral blindspot off most peoples radar. Famines incoming. Buy bees, keep bees, do everything in your power to support bees, even if you're vegan because they pollinate your diet. There, I'm OT now lol happy now Dim? I've gone into a topic where individual action would have an impact.

Dyou think he sees the irony in the fact that while poo pooing philosophy, his approach to language use and advocacy of precision based language is very relevant to philosophy of language and that he often waxes classicly philosophical in both speaking engagements, interviews, unscripted and scripted via his documentary work. I think that kind of tees me off a little bit because I'd say he definitely falls into the category of people smart enough to know better. Philosophy is in everything we do. There are so many current idioms and turn of phrase that have common everyday usage but are actually linguistic snapshots of the works of individual philosophers or people engaged in philosophy. I mean the existence of science owes itself to natural philosophy. @Eise Is this a situation where you can apply the non-identity argument? That Neils assaults on philosophy and his field and academic position and ability to make those assaults are made possible by philosophies very existence? Similarly to how you would apply it to arguments against antinatalism? Sorry for the tangents. You should really show up more on the ethics and politics boards. Your input would be invaluable truly. Like frat boys.

They were missing from the discussion thread.

I second this (regardless of his opinions about philosophy.)

As a rank amateur in these matters, I must say Pigliucci and Peter Woit are 2 people I value highly as thoughtful but clear and well grounded, with functioning bullshit detectors. Degrasse Tyson and Krauss are slightly too glib for my taste.

Don't exaggerate, MigL. Pigliucci is perfect for the job. I think the problem is simply that many scientists, like Tyson and Krauss, have no idea that (nearly) no philosopher today sees philosophy as a way to empirical truths. Also see the feud between Krauss and David Albert.

! Moderator Note Posting your speculation in someone else’s thread is hijacking, and the rules require material for discussion be posted here, not via links.

You would be surprised how many ppl we see that don't know how that term is applied. It's simply become habit to define it. Understanding clear logic doesn't allow one to ignore physics however. As I mentioned numerous times you still haven't addressed your faster than c signals. Anyways you seem to refuse to acknowledge that a physics model requires far more than verbal logic. It's pointless for me to continue trying to provide direction for improvement from you. Good luck with your idea as you seem to feel your idea is complete and requires no improvement I see no point in continuing. Good luck Just an FYI toroid based models at the quantum level already exist and have been tested for and are still being examined. So it will take far more than verbal logic to be convincing. Although they wouldn't be useful to you from your descriptives of your model idea. They don't make the same claims you do.