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

  1.  @swirvinbirds1971  - I point out there doesn't exist any observational evidence to support a direct red-shift -> doppler effect (velocity) conversion for galactic redshifts. And when it comes to 'believe in something you can not provide the physics for' - I think astronomers wins that context hands down. Here is a small sample of an ever increasing list: Big Bang, Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy.
    1
  2.  @swirvinbirds1971  - and unless you connect red-shift with doppler effect and velocity, you don't get a Big Bang. Hubble correctly identified an observed relationship between distance and redshift. Linear may/may not be correct. But the cause of redshift was not identified, and attributing it to Doppler effect is an assumption. This assumption leads to an expanding universe, Big Bang, Dark Energy, Inflation all of which are 'magic' events. If the cause is of galactic redshift is something else (which it very well might be, since we don't have any proof it is caused by doppler effect) - then the need for all of these 'magic' events goes away.
    1
  3.  @swirvinbirds1971  - I'm just stating the facts. Fact is that Galactic Redshift = Doppler effect (aka velocity) is an unconfirmed assumption. This assumption leads to bucket-loads of theoretical and observational problems and issues. So yes - our best understanding of the universe - what thousands of astronomers have spent the last 70 years on - is based on an unconfirmed assumption! Please point to where I'm wrong.
    1
  4.  @ChadDidNothingWrong  - we can indeed measure redshifting, and we can see that Doppler effect causes it here on earth. However, this doesn't mean that there for example couldn't be a way for light to lose energy when traveling millions of light-years through "empty" space. When light loses energy it becomes redshifted. If this is the case, then the universe isn't expanding, all our distance and velocity measurements are wrong - and much of 70+ years of astronomy must be discarded. But there isn't any experiment out there that can prove my hypothesis wrong, which is pretty bad for a hard-science field.
    1
  5. @ReligionlessFAITH - that was a great analogy, and one that I've never heard before. Would it work out in 3D space, or does it require a 4D 'waterfall'? What astronomers observer (redshift) and the interpretation (expanding universe, Big Bang) are two very different things. There might be a lot of other explanations fitting better than the current interpretation.
    1
  6.  @mr.h4267  - Doppler effect exist and all far away galaxies are redshifted. Does that mean that this galactic redshift is caused by Doppler effect (alone)? I'm pointing out that this relationship is not proven, it is a hypothesis. In fact astronomers think it is caused by the space itself expanding, not by intrinsic velocity of the galaxies. I can say it is caused by unobtanium in intergalactic space, and me and the astronomers have about the same evidence for our claims - namely 0.
    1
  7.  @mr.h4267  - that's nice of it. Relevance?
    1
  8.  @Iluvme-c5d  - well, 'Dark Matter' is another topic, and of course it works, because it is a 'fudge factor'. You can sprinkle as much or as little of it as you like on a galaxy and it will work the way you want. It's just a hack, and until the underlying cause is found, I will treat it as a 'hack'. I'm fine with the Big Bang being a working hypothesis for now. But until we can actually collaborate any of the "magic" with real physics or direct measurements, it should stay that way. People walk around thinking it is a "fact".
    1
  9.  @Iluvme-c5d  - well, that is of course a very good question. The universe could have been created without it having to be a 'bang' were everything just came into existence at once. I'm much more inclined to believe 'spacetime' itself has been around forever, but matter is being created and destroyed all the time by some (random?) quantum mechanical process. Our brains are not really designed for answering these types of questions though.
    1
  10.  @Justwantahover  - sorry to burst your bubble. But BB theory and theory of evolution isn't related at all. I'm definitely not a creationist. Those people are just religious nutcases.
    1
  11. God did it, still not falsified.
    1
  12. We have maths, and machines. Even if we cannot every comprehend a forth spatial dimension, we would be able to infer it's existence and calculate how things would react should it be there.
    1
  13. I'm an individual person, not sure about the rest of the 170000
    1
  14. S O S - you can predict something that will be (or can be) observed in the future. Like the weather forecast.
    1
  15. The real solution is probably a lot simpler. We are just missing some pieces of the puzzle, and have other pieces wrong throwing us off.
    1
  16. yusted1 - like if we go to mars, and stumble upon an ancient base with dinosaurs-astronauts. Turns out, that after 150.000.000 years of grazing, they got their act together and spent 10.000 years inventing space flight. Pity it was all destroyed by a huge asteroid. Guess that would be similarly surprising.
    1
  17. I'm just glad there will be a human on the moon again in the 2020s, and that it has been founded. And if China gets there, that's cool as well. I'm all for space based pissing contests.
    1
  18. Dark Matter is needed to save the BB theory. Without the BB theory as a backdrop, no need for Dark Matter.
    1
  19. How about powering your EV from solar panels at home directly?
    1
  20. Tried reading it - but it wasn't in English, and it contained a lot of unsubstantiated claims and bad formatting.
    1
  21. Reuben Yancey - fun fact is that the Roman number system doesn't allow for advanced math, stopping their progress. Aliens might say: your alphabet is blocking your understanding of the universe.
    1
  22. My guess would be that the aliens will tell us that we got the Big Bang theory wrong. And that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong too.
    1
  23. Seems particles can instantaneously come into existence - so I think that's probably how it works. The universe is created one atom at a time.
    1
  24. Or the CMB has nothing to do with this stuff at all.
    1
  25. Magic, like the rest of the theory. Btw - you also assume something has to be created from something.
    1
  26. But more importantly, I guess the treatment worked wonders for hysteria?
    1
  27. E=mc2 F=ma Pretty simple really. Most of the correct formulas in physics seem simple. String theory with 11 dimensions are therefore probably wrong - the real solution will most likely be extremely elegant.
    1
  28. Well, unlike faster-than-light travel, curing aging is probably possible. But that would of course have massive societal consequences.
    1
  29. I've fixed the potential invasion of my house by pink elefants. I've used some very expensive pink elefant powder, and sprayed it around my house. Thanks to this powder, I've never seen any pink elefants in or around my house. So the powder works wonders. The seller of the anti pink elefants powder has warned me of stop using his product, because it could cause the pink elefants to show up in the future. And that would be very very bad. Thankfully I can still afford the powder, as I don't want to experience any future attack by pink elefants.
    1
  30. Well, it would be great if I could charge my electric car in 3 minutes. But damn, that charging cable would need to be massive.
    1
  31. Hooknosed Jack - Can you please elaborate on exactly how we know that galaxies are racing away from us? I'll help you out: The only thing we can detect is that light is red-shifted. That in it self might be caused by movement, but it might not (or it could have multiple components to, not all related to relative speed). There is no (to my knowledge) collaborating ways to measure the relative speed of things millions of light-years away (closer stars we can use triangulation) - so it's all based on interpretation of redshift. If it doesn't work exactly like we think, then the entire BB theory falls and a lot of 'mysteries' dies with it too.
    1
  32. Yes, I know the theory behind the Doppler effect. Same as we know why it rains, and when someone sees its wet outside, therefore it must have rained. (Never mind the guy with the garden hose). Rain explains the wet ground perfectly - therefore it must have rained - is not necessarily true. As I'm pretty sure BB didn't happen, it follows that the universe has galaxies waaay older than 13 billion years. So I'll be happy to reconsider, if it turns out that we don't find anything older than 13.8 billion years (assuming the telescopes are good enough). And I hope the astronomic community would seriously reconsider their pet theory if they find 14,15,16,....30+ billion (whatever the telescopes are capable of detecting) year old galaxies.
    1
  33. No wonder, as Iceland is the Norwegian backup area. It's important to have a contingency plan when living next to the crazy Swedes.
    1
  34. On the expansion of space - we don't even know if space is expanding. It is a hypothesis based on redshift (as explained by Joe). But it has never been experimentally verified. And we have no known physics explaining how this expansion should work (hence 'Dark Energy') - which again has not been measured. So the concept of an expanding universe can easily go away as fast as it was invented.
    1
  35. Well, being famous for burning down the city hall might not be the exact same experience than Joe has.
    1
  36. We don't have a way - YET. In any case, we would first need to find interesting planets, before anyone would consider going there.
    1
  37. Funny Frog analogy, I liked it.
    1
  38. So woman is some high altitude test pilot in eastern Europe perhaps? Or totally fake. I'd go with fake for now.
    1
  39. In 100 years we will have fusion in 30 years in the future:)
    1
  40.  @corvusnecro8881  - 550 pr. hour, day, month or year?
    1
  41.  @corvusnecro8881  - darn, hopefully other stuff is cheaper. Is EV a better deal then?
    1
  42. God started it, and Harry Potter adjusted it. Let me write a paper on how Harry's magic worked. I'll make up the physics as I go along. If any new discoveries arrive, I'll update my paper afterwards. Yeah - science!
    1
  43. Computers only calculate based on the assumptions given to them. So if the assumptions are wrong, the results will be wrong. Computers cannot prove anything.
    1
  44. That irks me too. BB theory is presented like it is on the same level as Theory of Gravity. While it actually has extremely limited observational evidence for it, and quite a lot against it. It's an hypothesis, and dodgy one at that.
    1
  45. Of course we will.
    1
  46. The Anthropic principle.
    1
  47. What's wrong with 100 meter tall Pyramids? Those last!
    1
  48. Don't apply logic on the BB theory or it will collapse. BB follows Magic (TM) physics rules, and doesn't need stupid limitations like preservation of energy, speed of light, entropy etc.
    1
  49.  @talltroll7092  - black hole analogue, what is that? Personally I think Black Holes exist, but again, we've only got circumstantial evidence for them currently.
    1
  50. Which one? We've got hundreds to choose from.
    1