 
     |
| The Universe Is Not Locally Real (Page 3/3) |
|
Valkrie9
|
OCT 18, 04:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Jake_Dragon
|
OCT 18, 07:38 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by TheDigitalAlchemist:
I am disappointed. (I'm sure I'm NOT alone in this) As per Stephen Hawking, "The Universe is revealed when one places ones face betwixt a pair of the aforementioned boobies." Stephen Hawking.
|
|
 Click to show
|
|
|
|
Valkrie9
|
OCT 20, 01:15 AM
|
|
|
|
TheDigitalAlchemist
|
OCT 20, 04:44 PM
|
|
|
whoopsie [This message has been edited by TheDigitalAlchemist (edited 10-26-2022).]
|
|
|
|
Valkrie9
|
OCT 26, 02:07 AM
|
|
So then, C² is not possible, because we have not yet measured light, particle limits, the mysterious dark energy.
Making possible warp speed travel, if your imagination allows the probability of infinite space, velocity.
Far out, deep thought, querying truth.
Hmmmn.
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
OCT 26, 09:55 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by TheDigitalAlchemist:
whoopsie
|
|
That's an imaginary whoopsie. It never happened. It's not real.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
OCT 26, 04:48 PM
|
|
I used to think that Physics, among the various kinds of sciences, had the most certainty to it. The knowledge of gravity and the three other fundamental forces. The hierarchy of matter, from molecules down to atoms, from atoms into protons and neutrons, and the resolution of protons and neutrons into their component "quarks". The behaviors of photons. The constancy of the speed of light.
Compared to all that, the Darwinian Theory of Evolution seemed more speculative to me. More open to doubt.
Now I think the opposite. Physics has become a "house of mirrors", leaving the (modern) Darwinian Theory of Evolution as the most firmly established of the various sciences. The foundations underpinning Physics are now as arguable and "squishy" as landfill that liquifies during earthquakes, whereas the foundations of Evolution are as solid as granite bedrock by comparison.
"Prove me wrong."
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 07, 08:54 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cvxjet:
I just want to chime in with one of my...Pet peeves; To me, the whole Dark Matter thing is big bunch of BS- They had a problem with gravity not being consistent over large distances, so they came up with "Dark Matter".....Solved that one problem, but created a number of other problems, so they had to come up with secondary concept; "Dark Energy"......and that has created other problems.
That alone would make me doubt it...But they have been trying for decades to prove "Dark Matter" with no success whatsoever!
Another scientist came up with a different hypothesis..."Gravity varies over very long distances"...he has tested his hypothesis a number of times and it has always worked out.
Dark matter.....Dark energy....next, they need to come up with "Dark magic"... |
|
"The case for dark matter has strengthened"
| quote | | Evidence that once favored the "modified physics" hypothesis is now seen to be more consistent with the dark matter explanation. |
|
Don Lincoln for Big Think; January 6, 2023.
https://bigthink.com/hard-s...ark-matter-evidence/
The columnist concedes that it's not conclusive, but this reinterpretation of observational data from the Gaia satellite aligns with the idea that "dark matter" is real—a kind of matter that we cannot see or detect (to date), and that cannot be explained away as an illusion that arises from an incomplete understanding of the force of gravity.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-07-2023).]
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
JAN 08, 07:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JAN 09, 08:26 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Patrick:
I've been playing around at an Artificial Intelligence site, Stable Diffusion Demo, that creates images from text prompts.
Since dark matter and boobies have been mentioned in this thread, that's what I inputted for fun.
|
|
Son of a...
|
|
|
|
