mr_mitm

37 ms·

901.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
We can literally see into the past 13 billion years ago by building space crafts that collect microwave radiation, because we aren't as primitive as you may want us to believe.
902.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Thank you. It's good to know I'm not the only one who feels disrespected from people on the sidelines who clearly never opened a cosmology textbook. It's one thing to ask curious questions, but "why don't you just d
903.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
> “as far as we can possibly tell from the data we have” Isn't that self evident in all cases? In cosmology, the implicit assumptions are the Corpernican principle and that GR is correct. That is covered in introductory texts, but u
904.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Dark energy is a constant in the standard model (equivalent to the cosmological constant) and all observations I'm aware of besides the Hubble tension are consistent with it being constant. But nothing stops you from going beyond the s
905.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
The true reason we have made little progress in the past 20 or so years (and a 20 year slouch is historically nothing unusual) is that pretty much all data we collected in that time frame confirmed the standard model. It's the one big
906.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
That notion is ridiculous. Finding something radically new is every scientist's dream. Look at how Einstein is perceived, who arguably found one of the most radically new theories. Nobody thought he looked stupid or lost tenure. No one
907.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Dark energy may be the energy of vacuum itself, that's why it's constant. And no, energy conservation does not apply in this case. There is a good blog article on precisely this question by Sean Carroll: https://www.pr
908.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Yes, the "drifting" component you speak of is called the peculiar velocity. It's responsible for the "finger of god" effect if we don't account for it (galaxies appear to be aligned along the line of sight of t
909.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Almost all claims any serious scientist makes concern the observable universe. Also, these are very smart people. You'd be surprised what we can work out with a few very reasonable assumptions and the observations we made. The dismissi
910.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Either we live in an unusually under dense region of the universe or our models are wrong ("new physics").
911.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
I can only speak for me, but I come here for the hacker news part, not the ycombinator part.
912.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
I love your approach and your attitude. VC funding seems to poison everything it touches eventually.
913.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Those are measurements, not parameters. Just like the exact baryonic matter distribution is not a parameter of GR. You have an initial matter distribution, which is a random sample of a probability distribution (that is a part of the model)
914.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
> that our observations are incomplete and our models are wrong. I'd say that's a given regardless of the DM mystery. It's consensus that QM and GR are incompatible and that we need a new theory out of which both of these
915.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Yes, the cuspy halo problem wouldn't be a problem at all if you were to simply adjust the infinite parameters that you suggest that DM has. The fact that there are statistical discrepancies proves my point that no one is adjusting a hu
916.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
LCDM has six parameters, only a few of them are related to the DM distribution. Is that a lot to you or what specifically are you referring to?
917.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
> DM lets you add a new parameter (the DM density) at each point in space. That's effectively an infinite number of parameters, whereas MOND has very few. No one is doing that, though. What cosmologists do is parameterize the stati
918.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
I wouldn't have to prove you wrong. If your stance is that Mercury's perihelion shift is explained by DM, then I'll counter that GR explains that, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, black holes, the CMB, the helium a
919.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
That doesn't make any sense at all unless they simultaneously believe that DM is actually the right answer.
920.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
They prefer it because it fits the data best. The biggest piece of evidence for DM is the BAO patterns in the CMB. Forget all the other numerous mountains of evidence, that is the biggest one. MOND has no good explanation for this without i
921.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
No need to be patronizing. Pointing out that an argument is not a good one doesn't necessarily mean one holds the opposite view. Just because people though once that situation A was the case while it was actually situation B, and now i
922.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
You could always mount an sshfs
923.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
And you can sideload apps. If you put Kodi in it, it's just one click to avoid all the ads.
924.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Just press `1` and you can commit single lines.
925.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Some people (like me) primarily consume YT content on their TV. I also set up a pihole with the intent of blocking YT ads on my TV, but pihole is useless for that. Instead, it broke after a few weeks and had to be rebooted. So, sure, if you
926.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
To a point, sure. Lead would be better. Some joke that this is the reason why Klingons have these thick foreheads.
927.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
The "big deal" is just seeing it demonstrated this quickly. TPM-Sniffing is an old hat [1], but I always thought it would take at least hours of painstaking fiddling with a soldering iron. I find this video impressive and eye open
928.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Interesting, I always though Acrobat was the reference implementation of PDF.
929.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
All observable quantities are eigenvalues of some operator, which are real numbers but discrete. How can they contain infinite amount of information?
930.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
> Planck constant would like to have a word with you. Do you want to flesh this out? Are you suggesting that because phase space is quantized, position space must be quantized as well?

More ›