Comments by "Mosern1977" (@Mosern1977) on "Joe Scott" channel.

  1. New Musk?
    81
  2. Except the BB theory, which we save by adding new 'funny' physics to save it. (Inflation, Dark Energy).
    35
  3. Todd Willoughby - 'Bogus' physics is everything that the astronomers come up with to save the BB theory, instead of scarpping it and create a better theory. 'Inflation' was invented to save the BB theory. 'Dark Energy' was introduced to save the BB theory. CMB = Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. The BB theory hinges on one and one assumption alone - that the galacatic redshift we see is caused by he doppler effect of galaxies moving away from us. This gives the idea that the universe is 'expanding' (in the 4th dimension - allowing us that live on the surface (3rd dimension) to experience that all things move away from us). Now, the issue is that we don't know if galactic redshift is actually caused by the doppler effect - we have no collaborating evidence to support this hypothesis.
    26
  4.  @gabefimbres  - More likely that we will find evidence of the space program run by dinosaurs, before they blew themselves up in an attempt to catch an asteroid to be used in their space elevator some 65 million years ago.
    23
  5. Todd Willoughby - They should go back and take a very good look at their 'discoveries' and I'm sure they'll find the correct answer that doesn't rely on bogus physics. My personal guess would be that the universe is infinte, flat and without a start or end. Matter is generated and consumed constantly, CMB is probably related to that.
    22
  6. Todd Willoughby - To my knowledge (I'd be happy to be shown wrong), there is no proof that galactic redshift is caused by the Doppler effect. It is an assumption. No other measurement technique exist to validate this assumption, and no experiment exist that can validate the fact that space is apparently expanding.
    21
  7. Funny thing this "Interpreter Module" concept. Wonder if I've noticed myself a few times. Basically I've been asleep, dreaming, and then some abrupt external sound has awoken me suddenly. However, when I get to my senses and recall the last part of the dream I had before being awake, it has an explanation for the sound (like I was dreaming I was in a car-crash or something). I've found it very strange that my dream was able to predict the timing of random external events. Maybe this 'Interpreter Module' just changed my recollection of the dream, so that it fits the reality. Hard to know really:)
    16
  8. If it fits through your ear-canal, then probably yes.
    11
  9. Astronomy: Inventing physics as needed since 2000 BC.
    9
  10. Winter isn't leaving...
    8
  11. Spot on. Our current theories are wrong, or our interpretation of what we are seeing is wrong. I'd be flabbergasted if dark matter or energy turns out to be real. I'm 99.9% its our theories that are wrong, especially the BB theory. I hope to see it debunked in the next decade.
    7
  12. Exactly, that's my guess too. Dinosaurs ruled for 200 million years. They never got around to create a space-program. So I guess single-celled are common, multi-cellular is extremely rare, animals even rarer, and intelligence with space-program - could easily be once pr. galaxy.
    6
  13. Pity BB theory hasn't derived anything though. It's been modified to fit with observations, and patched up. It has no scientific value in regards to its ability to predict anything.
    5
  14. I'm glad people with money are doing interesting things with them to the benefit of science and technology and mankind.
    5
  15.  @Mlai00  - I'm 99.999% sure God didn't do it:)
    5
  16. And while finding alien bacterial life would be maybe one of humanities greatest achievements, it would also eventually be met with a "meh" from the generations growing up after its discovery.
    5
  17. Roman Empire ruled for 1000 years, never even got close to a space-program. Not only do you need the intelligence, but you need to develop the correct culture as well.
    4
  18. Don't even know why I bother... Please provide these proofs, live video feeds with thousands of spectators will do nicely.
    4
  19. I look forward to having a car being able to drive in the city during a snow blizzard, but that won't be happening any time soon.
    4
  20. He just want to get home.
    3
  21. But not knowing is irritating...
    3
  22. ​ @tweetypie8706  - In astronomy nearly everything are hypothesis, and BB is one of them. Of course CMB can be caused by different mechanisms than 'afterflow of the BB'. Same with galactic redshift, it doesn't need to be because galaxies are moving away from us. Those are just 'best guess' - and we have no real evidence for either. Hence BB is just 'best guess' - and we have no evidence for it really. But we've got some large issues with it - like Inflation, Dark Energy, and this antimatter problem, just to name a few.
    2
  23.  @davidkelley5382  - you'd be surprised to find out how little actual physical evidence there is for the BB theory. If galactic redshift is not caused by the doppler effect, then BB never happened. We have no evidence for galactic redshift being caused by the doppler effect. It could cause it, but it doesn't need to. Hence, it's all just a theory, and BB theory has its major issues (Dark Energy, Inflation and indirectly Dark Matter), oh - and the fact that we observe galaxies that are borderline 'too young'. BB is not 'proven' by any stretch of the imagination - it is a hypothesis, and should be treated as such.
    2
  24. Still, the dishwasher hasn't changed in 40 years.
    2
  25.  @Iluvme-c5d  - we cannot measure any expansion of the universe in a lab. Just redshifting caused by velocity. Say my method of calculating distance was to use the force exerted by a very long spring connected to the item in question. Double the force means, double distance to the item. Works great! Then I try to measure some real long distances, and I get the same weird result every time. There seems to be something making the tension in the spring drop. <Astronomers be like - insert new physics>. My point here is that you cannot automatically assume some locally working indirect measurement method will always work, if applied to a new environment. Especially if it gives the same strange reading for everything in that new environment. To my knowledge there are no other method (indirect or direct) to measure the velocity of far away objects. We therefore have no way of knowing if these velocity measurements are even valid after X amount of light years. But the consequence of assuming the measurements can be taken at face value, means inventing a lot of 'magic' physics that we have no evidence for (and adding more 'magic' as the number of issues mount). Well that rubs me the wrong way. If your theory hinges on 'magic' physics (Big Bang, Inflation, Expansion of fabric of Space, Dark Energy), then I'd say your "theory" is a "hypothesis" until at least some 'magic' can actually be detected by other measurement methods.
    2
  26.  @lowkey_entertaining9723  - think you got me confused with some of the other nutcases in this very long comment thread. I'm an atheist and very much pro physics.
    2
  27. Many Horses were too.
    2
  28. Hidden variable theory. Apparently been disproved, but I'm not so sure. I'm finding it more plausible than the "collapsing of the wave-function" magic.
    2
  29. We don't even know that it is expanding. We see red-shifted light, that's all. Expansion hasn't been proven to exist at all.
    2
  30. Right, so that we know for sure. And there is no way there can be any other (yet unknown) mechanisms at play at the same time? At the same time we're open for 'Dark Matter', 'Dark Energy', 'Inflation' - just because we understand that we might not understand everything (lets not mention that all of these might just be related to getting the Redshift->Speed relationship wrong). When a hypothesis (BB) hinges on one pretty big assumption, and this hypothesis ends up requiring exotic physics to even match with observations - then I say it's time to have a much closer look at the underlying assumption here. Therefore, until someone pulls out 'Dark Energy' or 'Dark Matter' from a lab/experiment, or prove the Redshift->Speed relationship (Doppler effect) in some other way on galactic scales - I'll remain a skeptic. I predict therefore that when telescopes get powerful enough, we will easily find galaxies that are older than 13.8 billion years (current BB time estimate). I also predict that when this happens, the BB theory will be amended so that it fits with the new data - if it requires some new 'physics' - that will not be a problem - and it will be invented to fit the observations.
    2
  31. Comparing observed galactic redshift with gravity is stretching it pretty far. Gravity can be tested here on earth. Galactic redshift, not so much. There is a big difference between seeing some faint light from millions of light years away and deducing exact cause and effect, comparted to be able to repeatedly perform experiments in a laboratory. Well, if we do see galaxies that are 15 or 16 billion years old (very high redshift) with new telescopes, then what? Would you consider ditching the BB theory, or would you be happy to let that fly, as soon as and 'adjusted' model where introduced. (Long history of adding epi-circles in astronomy).
    2
  32.  @grannykiminalaska  - I'm no expert, but I think they have to start and end at a specific time of day in places with no daylight.
    2
  33. We would put AI as politicians, and world peace will be achieved in 10 microseconds.
    2
  34.  @krashd  - that's the beauty of religion. You will always win.
    2
  35. Usually we don't understand why things work, just how. Fields and forces are such concepts. We give them properties, and can estimate behavior from it. If predictions hold, we now "know" something. We see magnets behaving strange when next to each other, we call it a field, we describe its properties and can now make use of this knowledge for practical applications. Why this field exist, or if such a thing really exist and what it is - is unclear - however, it doesn't really matter as long as we know its behavior.
    2
  36. Well, first you probably need to prove the existence of black holes. Still waiting for that photo.
    2
  37. Easiest way is to get zero or one kid.
    2
  38. Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the former.
    2
  39. Yeah, but we're talking level 5 then. Level 4 would be on nice clear days in more civilized parts of the world. Level 4, I guess around 2025-2030. Level 5 will probably require at least 10-20 years more, because you are suddenly in real AI territory.
    2
  40. Not unless we've gotten the theoretical framework of the universe totally wrong. There are things that are not allowed in this world - for example minus two sheep eating grass.
    2
  41. Galactic light shifting (aka Galactic Redshift) is assumed to be caused by doppler effect. If that assumption is wrong, or partly wrong (which it easily could be), the last 60+ years of astronomy goes down the drain. Its really a nice card house.
    2
  42.  @maxsteele3686  - any theory that doesn't involve the ludicrous Big Bang event in it has my interest. Of all dumb theories, the BB one is the dumbest.
    2
  43. Measurement issues and interpretation issues should be investigated a lot more, before making crazy theories - like the BB theory.
    2
  44.  @calamusgladiofortior2814  - and no stupid HR department. Sounds good.
    2
  45. But it has yet to fire them all... Maybe very shortly it will. Cannot wait to see that big boy fly.
    2
  46. Well, hopefully there is so much resources in the solar system to be exploited that there will be no wars over it. On the other hand, the possibility for space-resource wars will be a boost to technology development. So for now, and the foreseeable future, I think we're good.
    2
  47. Yupp, that too. Only the geocentric world view has had more problems than the BB theory. Astronomers like to get it wrong, and keep at it for decades. Look forward to the day the BB theory packs up.
    1
  48.  @davidkelley5382  - well, as long as you remember that BB is just a hypothesis, then I'm happy with your openmindedness. (Inflation is btw introduced to explain observations based on the BB actually happening. Without BB no need for inflation. Note: science normally work in the opposite way).
    1
  49. I really really hope you don't have any kind of science background. If it is wet outside, and I tell you it must have been raining - cause its wet outside - therefore you must be pretty dumb not to accept that. Never mind the kid that was playing with water-hose 30 minutes ago...
    1
  50.  @bautibunge737  - well, if the universe itself is neither expanding or contracting - then it would be an infinite empty void. Now, we know it has stars and stuff in it, so those will need to be generated somehow. Since we're skipping BB, matter/energy will probably be created 'randomly' and continuously, matter also need to disappear (of course this is pure speculation - Nobel price to whoever figures out this mechanism, but some quantum fluctuation would be my guess). Also assume that light looses energy as it travels great distances, then you get red-shifted light from far away galaxies. Its funny how the CMB has the spectrum like black body radiation btw? I don't see why an infinite spacetime with limited light speed, limited light duration (stars only live that long), limited range of light (red-shifting/energy loss) and presence of dust needs to be much brighter than what we currently observe.
    1