« on: 16/02/2024 23:10:46 »
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Haven't you heard about contributors to discoveries in physics who were not a PhD?Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?If that extremely specific thing is a physics 'thing', then the answer is yes.
Don't you feel that delusion of grandeur yourself by making that guarantee? Do you think established scientific models never failed and never changed?Why so? Many of my experiments show that currently widespread explanations for physical phenomena don't provide correct predictions.This is just another example of your delusions of grandeur. I'll make another guarantee. If your experiment disagrees with established science then I guarantee that your experiment was faulty.
I have never seen a cat drag its anus across the parlour carpet alan.Cats tend to be cleaner than dogs.Depends on your definition of clean. They certainly spend more time licking themselves, and in more places, than dogs, but anyone allergic to cat saliva (and a surprisingly large number of people are) wouldn't agree with the proposition.
OK, but that proposal doesn't predict 'sameness'. One direction (the direction in which the nearest bang happened) would look different from the direction away from it, or to the side. You didn't really say what you intended when you presume this 'sameness doctrine'....I didn't intend for my words to be taken in exactly that way. A bang being an "explosion" of stuff into surrounding space fits my proposed scenario on the basis that big crunches form here and there, now and then, across all space, as gravity causes accumulations of "stuff" into crunches.
You presume the "sameness doctrine" then? It sort of contradicts the view you've been pushing of a bang being an explosion of stuff into empty space.
But I'm not talking about the observers at the edge of the universe. I was talking about the observers near the edge of one of the local bangs, which can only spread material so far in a mere 13.8 billion years. There should definitely be less stuff visible (like none) in the far distance in the direction away from where the center of the bang was.Quote from: HalcThe observers at the fastest moving outer edge of all that would see stars and galaxies and such in one direction, and nothing in the other (the direction of the empty space into which they were moving).Not if space is infinite and filled across that infinity with matter and energy; there wouldn't be any outward edge to the infinite universe, just local crunches, banging here and there across the infinite space.
The direction should be able to be discerned by the relative motion of distant objects in different directions, but the scale is so large that observations beyond a finite limit are not available due to a natural "speed of light and time it takes for such events to occur and play out..."Unless galaxies can outrun light, a very finite size of material from a bang into empty space, a finite time ago, can only get so big in that time. There very much would be an anisotropy in the various directions, except if the observer by freak chance was at the exact center of the local bang.
By the way...Recession rates are measured as the increase in proper distance over similar cosmic time. It assumes the cosmic frame, an expanding metric, in which such rates are not a velocity, but a rapidity. Rapidity has no limit, so rates well in excess of c are possible.
Why do pop sci articles & videos repeatedly say Galaxies at the Far Edge are moving Faster than Speed of Light?
They clearly don't, Right?
Even Space does Not expand at FTL, Correct?The expansion rate is not a speed (it has different units), so it cannot be meaningfully compared with a speed. Many pop sites make the mistake of comparing the expansion rate with a speed.
I treat my ideas as memes,The essence of a meme is that it gets promulgated by others, so you can't define anything as a meme until it has been distributed by third parties.
The ones I posted here had won internal competitions in my mind. I'll just let them to compete externally with everyone else's ideas.Science is not about competition, though there can be rewards for first publication or early exploitation of a discovery. Either your hypothesis stands up to experimental test and predicts something better than a previous hypothesis, or it doesn't.
I treat my ideas as memes, just like any others. The ones I posted here had won internal competitions in my mind. I'll just let them to compete externally with everyone else's ideas. Hopefully they will win or lose for their own merits. Whatever the final result, I'll win some or learn some.Put it round the other way. If you can resolve an anomaly, publish your observation or calculation and get an honorary PhD from an institution that wants to bask in reflected glory. But publish it in a peer-reviewed physics journal, not a chat forum!If you really want to try add something to physics then you should go to college and get a PhD in physics.Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?
Put it round the other way. If you can resolve an anomaly, publish your observation or calculation and get an honorary PhD from an institution that wants to bask in reflected glory. But publish it in a peer-reviewed physics journal, not a chat forum!If you really want to try add something to physics then you should go to college and get a PhD in physics.Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?
. I suppose the real question is why do comets and other icy bodies not undergo sublimation?They do, but it's slow.
I think success is a possible outcome. I'll just hope for the best, while being prepared for the worst.This thread is an anticipation to what may happen when my hypotheses and their justifications somehow get more attention and acceptance among science community and wider audience.The delusions of grandeur is strong with this one!
My Concern is A.G.I.That's also in the mission statement of OpenAI.
Our vision for the future of AGIhttps://openai.com/blog/planning-for-agi-and-beyond
Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence?AI systems that are generally smarter than humans?benefits all of humanity.
This term, "critical capacity" stems from the idea that the compression of atoms can produce a nuclear explosionA nuclear explosion requires energy, binding energy of nuclei of atoms, but the most compressed matter seems to get is that in a neutron star, which doesn't really have nuclei to speak of. The energy of a neutron star 'blown apart' is less than the energy of one in the compressed state, so it would require external input of energy to be made to explode. Supernovas have way more bang for the mass.
We from Earth see a Galaxy at the near End of the Observable Universe.It depends when they look. If the cosmic age of the universe appears to be 13.7 billion years as it does here, then they'd also see similarly aged things at the same distance. If the Milky Way had already formed back then, then yes, they'd see it, appearing at a cosmic age of 1 billion years. They'd need a very powerful telescope to see it.
We are looking back in Time, so it looks Young. (1 billion age)
If someone in that Galaxy was to look at Us, would Milky Way look alot Younger to Them as well?
They seem to be near about at the Edge of our Observable Universe.What you describe is about 2/3 of the way there, maybe 31 billion LY away, where the observable universe goes out to about 48 billion LY away.
We might be at their Edge of O.U.We are always at the edge of something's OU, yes. We are also always at something eles's event horizon.
What if They stopped looking at Us and pointed their Hubble Bubble in the Opposite Direction?An observable universe has nothing to do with actual observation going on. If by 'Hubble Bubble', you mean something like a telescope, then by pointing it a different way, different celestial objects would be visible to it, stuff that we could never see from here.