4 ms·
It's from the Model G theory in Subquantum Kinetics, -- and it seems more believable than a finite amount of matter being made from a single blast of energy bil
by cm127 10y ago
It's from the Model G theory in Subquantum Kinetics, -- and it seems more believable than a finite amount of matter being made from a single blast of energy billions of years ago.
- danbruc 10y agoBut physics is not about believing, it's about describing reality. And when we look at our universe, we are not seeing new matter being created. If the theory actually says that new matter is created while the the universe expands and the amount is not so small that it may have escaped detection, then the theory is wrong. And not because somebody believes or says something but because the theory does not match reality.
- cm127 10y agoIt theoretically happens very slowly, so it probably does escape detection.
- danbruc 10y agoThe universe is old, at least according to mainstream physics, even small changes would accumulate over billions of years and cubic lightyears. And we are good at measuring things, we famously measured the g-factor to a part in a trillion, detecting gravitational waves required detecting length changes on the order 1/1000th the diameter of a proton, 0.000000000000000001 meters. A quick search reveals that we know the energy density of the universe to better than half a percent. So what are the numbers? How much new matter is generated per unit time and volume according to the theory?
- cm127 10y agoI'm still researching this, but it's happening at a quantum level, so I expect it to be slow. But like you said, it will have an aggregate affect over time. Also, it sounds like you're interested. Why not read the book or watch the video lecture?
- danbruc 10y agoI am not interested, I am absolutely sure that the theory is total nonsense. I just wanted to make you realize that, preferably by making you discover it yourself by hinting at problems, not by simply telling you that it is wrong.
- cm127 10y agoYou're pathetic. You're too lazy to think outside your echo chamber, so you completely disregard it BECAUSE YOU NEED GROUP THINK TO HAVE ANY OPINION. Again, I think you're the most pathetic type of person to exist: a person too lazy and afraid to think outside their own comfort zone. No? You're comfortable making scientific critiques with absolute no research? Then that is literally more pathetic.
- grzm 10y agoPlease be civil on HN. There's never a reason to insult and attack a user regardless of the discussion.
- cm127 10y agoEh, I don't think it's unfair: this person is openly attacking me for giving attention to a form of untested science -- declaring it "crockpottery". I honestly feel proud of myself for how much I held back on this lazy person's pathetic logic: "doesn't line up with my beliefs? then it can't be true!" I'll happily edit my statement that can defend the scientific need to dismiss information with complete prejudice, but I doubt any such logic exists. Why do I have such confidence? Because people that dismiss information without thinking are pathetic.
- sctb 10y agoAs was pointed out, this comment is absolutely not up to the standards of civility that the guidelines ask for. They're actually independent of what you're replying to—we especially don't have permission to make bad threads worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html