5 ms·

It took many years before Einstein's ToR was confirmed by pictures of light bending around our sun during an eclipse. Paul Dirac predicted antiparticles purely

It took many years before Einstein's ToR was confirmed by pictures of light bending around our sun during an eclipse. Paul Dirac predicted antiparticles purely by mathematical intuition. It wasn't until later that the theory proved true, and he was recognized to be the genius that he was. First comes the theory, then experiments are devised. Then physics gets updated. I merely suggest these things, not because I have the math to understand how it would affect GR or QED, or even what experiments would be needed to verify them, but merely to plant the seeds of how things work to stimulate those who can do those things to think about what their ramifications might be. That no one understands how these things can even be known, much less that they are true, is already known by me, but the truth is never beholden to the naysayers. I'm not a Boltzmann who was (sadly) bullied into suicide by the fools of his era. I don't really care if anyone believes what I say. I say these things because I love you all and maybe a few people will be stimulated to contemplate other avenues that may explain the as yet inexplicable. And, really, y'all are out of ideas as to what or where dark matter or energy are anyway, so there is nothing for anyone to lose. Put another way, Einstein knew what would happen to light that passed close to the sun (even though his calculations were off), but the naysayers were irrelevant, right? They, too, thought they already knew it all.

tekla 1y ago
Holy shit, wow so untrue. Special Relativity was accepted almost immediately (within 10 years) by the scientific community since it was so powerful and useful and correct when the community tested it. General relativity took a longer time to be generally accepted since the sensitivity of the tests were mediocre for the time, but strong evidence of its correctness was already coming about within 25 years. The problem being it was hard to figure out which model was correct due to lack of accurate tests Saying that the community rejected these theories is just ignorance.
- MrMcCall 1y ago
  > within 10 years > within 25 years That is "many years" in my view. > so untrue So you're saying his ideas were immediately accepted? I guess that's why he was still working at the patent office for fourish years after his Miracle Year? And I guess this is like all the other cases where new scientific theories were immediately accepted, of which you can name precisely zero, I imagine?
  - mnky9800n 1y ago
    It’s very few years in physics. Einstein was lucky to see so many outcomes and impacts of his work. Maxwell, Boltzmann, Meitner, noether, and plenty of other physicists didn’t really get to see the impact of their work. But like some things that Einstein predicted, like a BE condensate, were not verified until long after he died.
mnky9800n 1y ago
I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m saying that you aren’t saying anything to agree or disagree with from the standpoint of physics. Your position offers no predictions, offers no implications, and offers no way to be measured in any way. From the standpoint of physics it doesn’t exist. That doesn’t make it wrong or right nor does it make anyone replying you wrong or right about any of it. You simply have not crossed the threshold for physics to have a say. You are free to believe all of this. If you want physics to care you need to demonstrate how your beliefs predict system dynamics. How can your beliefs explain observations and do those explanations make sense in the context of everything else we know? All of the people you cite who were “free thinkers” expressed their ideas in the context of the current understanding of physics whether they were special relativity or information theory. They did this by offering predictions such as how general relativity predicts you can see a star that is currently behind the sun during an eclipse if you draw a line from the earth observer to the star or how quantum mechanics predicted the existence of semiconductors or how chaos theory explains why two systems with similar initial conditions could exponentially grow apart from each other. If you could offer such predictions from your ideas than they would “stimulate” physicists to think about them. But without such predictions your ideas simply are just your thoughts about how things work. They may be interesting to some people, but if you want to think about them as physics, you need to provide a prediction.
- MrMcCall 1y ago
  > Your position offers no predictions, offers no implications, and offers no way to be measured in any way. That's fair, but I didn't say that I could offer any of that. All I offered was an explanation of the situation, specifically with respect to why only 1/6th of the mass of the universe can be accounted for, yet has been calculated rather accurately by measuring the inertial forces of distant galaxies. > They may be interesting to some people, but if you want to think about them as physics, you need to provide a prediction. I'm sorry, but I don't need to do anything, and I couldn't even if I wanted to as it's way out of my area of expertise. I'm merely explaining the situation. It's up to actual physicists to figure out how this situation can be testable, if indeed it can be. I'm also not putting any responsibility on anyone else. I shared these ideas with people who have no clue whatsoever where all this dark matter is. The universe itself provided this clue to y'all. I don't care if anyone believes it or tries to utilize it at all. The reality is that with all major advancements in science, someone comes up with a "crazy" idea -- Boltzmann, Gaileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Newton -- and then theories are constructed around it, experiments are devised, and then the theories and experiments are iterated until the details are hammered out. If I was a physicist, I would know that no one on Earth has a single clue where all this dark matter is, so maybe I would take a random "crazy" idea and stir it around in my head and see if it could be helpful, see if it could be used to tweak an equation or dynamical system description or something. That's the extent of my thinking about this, and is the fullness of my purpose in my sharing this with y'all. That no one (or very, very few people) in science understands that this informatic universe can be queried directly means that I had no hopes of anything coming of this. I offered a gift and if no one is interested, I really don't care; I made a good intention, and tried to explain the situation as best I could. That is all I am capable of doing in this realm, so I'm at peace with the entire situation. No one here could possibly disappoint me because I expected nothing. Peace be with you. I wish you the best of luck, success and happiness in your endeavors. I didn't mean to cause anyone here any consternation, but presenting ideas -- if one is honest about reality -- cannot possibly cause anything like that, any more than Boltzmann caused Lord Kelvin and his cohort to be a bunch of brutal bullies. The truth is the truth, and that is all that really matters, and we are all each free to go our own way, and treat others however we see fit. I hope I have treated you well; please forgive me if I have spoken harshly here, I didn't mean to. My always welcoming new ideas means that I tend to share what I have learned without hesitation. Most people are too provincial to be open-minded enough to listen to foreign ideas with grace and either politely ignore them, or, better yet, see if they can be used to expand their worldview, in whatever dimension, pun appreciated.
anon84873628 1y ago
>I merely suggest these things, not because I have the math to understand how it would affect GR or QED, or even what experiments would be needed to verify them, but merely to plant the seeds of how things work to stimulate those who can do those things to think about what their ramifications might be. You think physicists don't smoke weed and dream up random ideas? Or formally study eastern religions? The fact that they are trained physicist is why they don't conceive of the universe (and dark energy specifically) the way you do, and probably never will. >And, really, y'all are out of ideas as to what or where dark matter or energy are anyway, so there is nothing for anyone to lose. This is an example of your condescension. There are so many assumptions implicit in your statements that it's offensive to the audience. Its like the difference between a person raving in the street that everyone is free to ignore. Versus that same person deliberately entering a physics conference shouting the same things, then claiming they're only there to help.

tekla 1y ago

Holy shit, wow so untrue. Special Relativity was accepted almost immediately (within 10 years) by the scientific community since it was so powerful and useful and correct when the community tested it. General relativity took a longer time to be generally accepted since the sensitivity of the tests were mediocre for the time, but strong evidence of its correctness was already coming about within 25 years. The problem being it was hard to figure out which model was correct due to lack of accurate tests Saying that the community rejected these theories is just ignorance.

MrMcCall 1y ago
> within 10 years > within 25 years That is "many years" in my view. > so untrue So you're saying his ideas were immediately accepted? I guess that's why he was still working at the patent office for fourish years after his Miracle Year? And I guess this is like all the other cases where new scientific theories were immediately accepted, of which you can name precisely zero, I imagine?
- mnky9800n 1y ago
  It’s very few years in physics. Einstein was lucky to see so many outcomes and impacts of his work. Maxwell, Boltzmann, Meitner, noether, and plenty of other physicists didn’t really get to see the impact of their work. But like some things that Einstein predicted, like a BE condensate, were not verified until long after he died.

mnky9800n 1y ago

I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m saying that you aren’t saying anything to agree or disagree with from the standpoint of physics. Your position offers no predictions, offers no implications, and offers no way to be measured in any way. From the standpoint of physics it doesn’t exist. That doesn’t make it wrong or right nor does it make anyone replying you wrong or right about any of it. You simply have not crossed the threshold for physics to have a say. You are free to believe all of this. If you want physics to care you need to demonstrate how your beliefs predict system dynamics. How can your beliefs explain observations and do those explanations make sense in the context of everything else we know? All of the people you cite who were “free thinkers” expressed their ideas in the context of the current understanding of physics whether they were special relativity or information theory. They did this by offering predictions such as how general relativity predicts you can see a star that is currently behind the sun during an eclipse if you draw a line from the earth observer to the star or how quantum mechanics predicted the existence of semiconductors or how chaos theory explains why two systems with similar initial conditions could exponentially grow apart from each other. If you could offer such predictions from your ideas than they would “stimulate” physicists to think about them. But without such predictions your ideas simply are just your thoughts about how things work. They may be interesting to some people, but if you want to think about them as physics, you need to provide a prediction.

MrMcCall 1y ago
> Your position offers no predictions, offers no implications, and offers no way to be measured in any way. That's fair, but I didn't say that I could offer any of that. All I offered was an explanation of the situation, specifically with respect to why only 1/6th of the mass of the universe can be accounted for, yet has been calculated rather accurately by measuring the inertial forces of distant galaxies. > They may be interesting to some people, but if you want to think about them as physics, you need to provide a prediction. I'm sorry, but I don't need to do anything, and I couldn't even if I wanted to as it's way out of my area of expertise. I'm merely explaining the situation. It's up to actual physicists to figure out how this situation can be testable, if indeed it can be. I'm also not putting any responsibility on anyone else. I shared these ideas with people who have no clue whatsoever where all this dark matter is. The universe itself provided this clue to y'all. I don't care if anyone believes it or tries to utilize it at all. The reality is that with all major advancements in science, someone comes up with a "crazy" idea -- Boltzmann, Gaileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Newton -- and then theories are constructed around it, experiments are devised, and then the theories and experiments are iterated until the details are hammered out. If I was a physicist, I would know that no one on Earth has a single clue where all this dark matter is, so maybe I would take a random "crazy" idea and stir it around in my head and see if it could be helpful, see if it could be used to tweak an equation or dynamical system description or something. That's the extent of my thinking about this, and is the fullness of my purpose in my sharing this with y'all. That no one (or very, very few people) in science understands that this informatic universe can be queried directly means that I had no hopes of anything coming of this. I offered a gift and if no one is interested, I really don't care; I made a good intention, and tried to explain the situation as best I could. That is all I am capable of doing in this realm, so I'm at peace with the entire situation. No one here could possibly disappoint me because I expected nothing. Peace be with you. I wish you the best of luck, success and happiness in your endeavors. I didn't mean to cause anyone here any consternation, but presenting ideas -- if one is honest about reality -- cannot possibly cause anything like that, any more than Boltzmann caused Lord Kelvin and his cohort to be a bunch of brutal bullies. The truth is the truth, and that is all that really matters, and we are all each free to go our own way, and treat others however we see fit. I hope I have treated you well; please forgive me if I have spoken harshly here, I didn't mean to. My always welcoming new ideas means that I tend to share what I have learned without hesitation. Most people are too provincial to be open-minded enough to listen to foreign ideas with grace and either politely ignore them, or, better yet, see if they can be used to expand their worldview, in whatever dimension, pun appreciated.

anon84873628 1y ago

>I merely suggest these things, not because I have the math to understand how it would affect GR or QED, or even what experiments would be needed to verify them, but merely to plant the seeds of how things work to stimulate those who can do those things to think about what their ramifications might be. You think physicists don't smoke weed and dream up random ideas? Or formally study eastern religions? The fact that they are trained physicist is why they don't conceive of the universe (and dark energy specifically) the way you do, and probably never will. >And, really, y'all are out of ideas as to what or where dark matter or energy are anyway, so there is nothing for anyone to lose. This is an example of your condescension. There are so many assumptions implicit in your statements that it's offensive to the audience. Its like the difference between a person raving in the street that everyone is free to ignore. Versus that same person deliberately entering a physics conference shouting the same things, then claiming they're only there to help.