Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1.  @Xeridanus  yes! They found signatures of the sound waves in the cmb. Somewhere around that time the universe got too sparse to conduct sound. The CMB has circles like the ripples in a pond.
    3
  2. I agree she goes too far with Occam. E.g., 4:20, she says the "engineered virus" idea is pseudoscience because a natural virus is simpler. That's philosophically wrong. That's not even Occam's Razor -- that's a hammer? Occam's Razor would have us generally prefer the theory that fits the most data with the fewest onerous assumptions. It's not a command, and it's not always the best guide to the truth. And she doesn't use it correctly here.
    3
  3.  @Astuga  She seemed to put the idea of viral engineering into a "pseudoscience" category. I don't agree with that. Maybe I don't quite understand what she's trying to say since she's not talking in her native language.
    3
  4. Also not a physicist, but attempts to say the universe is deterministic seem to be a big stretch, since quantum mechanics calculates probabilities, not certainties. I recall reading one physicist saying that if we have complete knowledge of the quantum state of a system, there is at least one measurement we can predict 100% and at least one that will be random.
    3
  5. Not a chance, look how many years they sold hydgrogenated oils. They will accept voluntary measures such as donating more to congress.
    3
  6. yeah CCC is interesting, testable, totally wacky, and could be true...
    2
  7. we need random sample studies so we actually know the prevalence
    2
  8. If we put up floating hot dogs then we can mitigate the effect.
    2
  9.  @francishunt562  The conjecture would be "it's all strings" and the theory would be all the math that results from that proposal.
    2
  10.  @kerwinbrown4180  Ok sure, for a paradigm. Scientists don't like to say "our whole deal here is off base." They love to say "We don't know X but I thought of a way to find out."
    2
  11.  @ThomasKundera  agree, science does not use proof. it uses evidence. Absolutist thinking is an obstacle.
    2
  12. @QED To be honest this was a confusing and intellectually weak presentation. She's usually very good.
    2
  13.  @harmonicpsyche8313  Yeah I was also convinced by Carroll that Many Worlds is plain QM without additives. I don't know if it solves the Measurement problem because I still don't understand what's the problem. We get up, eat breakfast, measure quanta... no problemo!
    2
  14. Carroll argues that Many Worlds is simply quantum mechanics, and Copenhagen and others add something else.
    2
  15. the evidence is the flatness and smoothness inflation may not be the explanation... but if not, those observations do need some other way to happen
    2
  16. anything that causes movement can cause heat
    2
  17. They don't say that?
    1
  18. except that nobody believes the classic BBT anymore, even physicists
    1
  19. true lol
    1
  20. Agree on "visible universe." Disagree on "theory" -- a theory is a theory if it is a testable set of hypotheses to explain nature. String theory is testable.
    1
  21. for sure, dogs have emotions. the tail is proof
    1
  22. has the discovery of a particle never been useful?
    1
  23.  @Guarrdian1984  Well I do agree the question of the origin may be beyond science. On the other hand, curiosity is a natural human condition that has made our modern lifestyles possible. It's very useful in the long run. It's also risky and expensive, but are we robots? Should we just maximize industrial output and forget about sports, art, music, and other things that don't increase production... ?
    1
  24. why do you think they insist on that? I have heard many other theories from them.
    1
  25. yes the first one is testable, the second is not. "God made the universe as it is" would be not testable (but could be true). "We live in a perfect simulation" is also probably not testable.
    1
  26. The cosmic microwave radiation suggests there were intelligent designers in the early universe and gives us some hints about their diet.
    1
  27. If I am not mistaken they are identical, and can be derived from each other.
    1
  28. They can be any distance, if they share the same inertial motion.
    1
  29. That's why we never hear from Art Linkletter any more. But seriously that's a faxinating abstract. Does the gravity affect the outgoing hawking radiation? I for one always thought the info came out in the hawking radiation because why not. They say the no hair theorem is not a theorem.
    1
  30.  @drsatan9617  No it is true. Gravity is stronger at the local scale. Actually expansion has no "strength" per se, but one can easily see that its effect is very small. To see this is true, can you calculate the dark-energy expansion between two objects that are 1 AU apart?
    1
  31. It does not assume that. But those things do make the effect unlikely to grow large in any given instance of flapping.
    1
  32.  @Halen9595  You need to have the right theory among the set of ideas you are testing, as well as to test in ways that make them each falsibiable.
    1
  33.  @Mosern1977  Olbers' universe would show a wide range of frequencies, because stars emit over a broad range. CMB shows a narrow range that matches the H emission line.
    1
  34. Try putting the earth-moon distance into the Hubble equation. What is the speed you find?
    1
  35. yup, could be! Headline from 2090: "Copy of Chicago Discovered in an Electron in Denmark"
    1
  36.  @wopmf4345FxFDxdGaa20  i suppose radio transmission in general would be the radical
    1
  37.  @wopmf4345FxFDxdGaa20  Hmmm, i'd say no, artificial light is probably a bigger change for sure. Starting with fire! Fire good. When og first make fire ouch! Hand go hot. Then Og wife angry. Where tree, Og? Tree go hot. Og, where tiger fur? Tiger fur go hot. So fire bad bad say. Then Og make fire place. Now fire good. In conclusion fire good.
    1
  38. Neutrinos and gravitational waves could go back further perhaps?
    1
  39. Science is limited to objective facts and mechanistic explanations. That is a small (but valuable) part of the world of knowledge!
    1
  40. @Cancer McAids A fantastic concept! But... if I'm a BBrain, the most likely future is that everything dissolves away over the next nanosecond. I'm waiting to see if that happened...
    1
  41. akaike information criterion
    1
  42. what does that word "force" mean exactly. then we can see if gravity is one or not
    1
  43.  @calebvanderwolf1777  Yeah we don't need to define force unless we are debating if gravity is a force. Otherwise we can just calculate. Gravity is a vector, so at every point in spacetime there is a pointer that tells which direction it would attract an object, and a number that tells how strong it attracts. Around Earth, these arrows all point towards the center of the planet, which defines "down" in our region of spacetime. If you put two objects out in deep space, they will attract. They would both feel "down" as the direction towards the other object.
    1
  44.  @calebvanderwolf1777  You say it's not a force. I didn't say that. If it's a problem that it's not a force, lets call it a force. I define force as something that can cause a change in motion. Gravity can do that. If two objects are out in space, they attract, because they feel a force, and the force is due to the curvature of spacetime in between them.
    1
  45.  @calebvanderwolf1777  Great question, and far beyond my brain! Have you seen ScienceClic video on General Relativity? It's got animations and it also seems high level. Let me know if you have a quantum leap and can explain it to me...
    1
  46. it dates from ~ 300,000 years after the bang. (the bang may or may not be the origin)
    1
  47. The equivalent of "looking" is a randomized survey. Has any nation done this? It seems that the world has forgotten a math just when it needs one.
    1
  48. We can test for the inflaton, but not for God, since He obviously made the universe as it is, not as it isn't. if He exists.
    1
  49. that puts the question of origin back in time but doesn't resolve how or why or what got it going
    1
  50. proof is for whiskey. science uses evidence. evidence tends to affirm the hypothesis of AGW
    1