TechnoGAUNTLET

@AndrwMol @StartsWithABang I think in GR, if you model an orbit using the Schwarzschild metric, only the central mass bends spacetime, not the "test particle". Whether that's a photon, or the Earth, its affect on spacetime is considered null.

Is it true that photons truly live forever? Remember my name, "PHOTON!" Perhaps the last of the particles that just might live forever. (I'm headed out on a digital break for a week, but I'll be back 8/22!) bigthink.com/starts-with-a-…

My latest video: youtube.com/watch?v=W_9QEs… Are quasars really going extinct?

@TAndersen_nSCIr @StartsWithABang So... basically misrepresenting the truth. It turns out precise observations of the Milky Way don't call for dark matter or MOND.

@TechnoGAUNTLET @StartsWithABang He’s using GR to sound smart. You get the same numbers with Newton.

Arguments against dark matter in the Bullet Cluster fall apart The Bullet Cluster is often cited as an empirical proof of dark matter. Its detractors assert otherwise, using two common arguments. Here's how those arguments stack up against reality. bigthink.com/starts-with-a-…

@StartsWithABang @TAndersen_nSCIr By "GR" you mean Newton, right?

@TAndersen_nSCIr I'll say it again more slowly for you. MOND and GR only make different predictions in the low acceleration regime. If you have greater masses, you reach that regime at greater distances. How is what you're proposing going to test MOND vs. GR for galaxy clusters?

@StartsWithABang Both the dark matter crowd and MOND minority are in denial about the GAIA results of a Keplerian decline in the Milky Way. That says basically everything you need to know about their objectivity.

@SeamusBlackley That's pretty optimistic. We saw "impossible early galaxies" way before JWST. Bigger telescopes don't mean people give up their long cherished beliefs. They just get more convoluted reasons for being dogmatic.

@SeamusBlackley How sure are you about that? Seems like our tool (JWST) tells us we don't actually understand the universe.

@skdh We know that "cosmic time" is (in the words of de Sitter) a "quasi-absolute" time. That seems like a problem for all FLRW-based models.

@skdh Is there a possibility that time simply was slower in the past, rather than the universe expanding? Seems like that would resolve "impossible early galaxy" problems and the like.

Physicists have found evidence that time ran slower in the past. In this video I explain how time-dilation is related to redshift, what that means for light from distant galaxies, and what happens to an observer who falls into a black hole. youtube.com/watch?v=RuSbqF…

youtube.com/watch?v=8SZGbn… Galaxy formation theories have never not been a problem. Maybe it's not their fault?

@DudeDarkmatter Doesn't the lack of dark matter in the Milky Way have any impact on any of this? arxiv.org/abs/2309.00048

@StartsWithABang Science takes something simple and direct, and builds it into esoteric, complex things. It also takes esoteric, complex things, and makes them simple and direct.

Is fundamental science a victim of its own success? Scientific revolutions always take a long time to occur. Blaming groupthink is a popular reason, but not really an accurate one. bigthink.com/starts-with-a-…

Edwin Hubble, first Big Bang skeptic? Sidelined by two world wars? Check out the story in my new video: youtu.be/2om52ZuevpQ

@worldviewdesign Just curious, are you saying there is a hard problem of consciousness, or it's not even a problem?

Magical thinking? "'How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp."

Does the latest data actually show metallicity evolution with redshift? Latest video. youtube.com/watch?v=RKso3R…

Measuring metallicity, a history

@briankeating de Sitter's paper addresses some of this. The problem really comes from g_tt being constant.

GR experts please help… from one of my undergraduates: “I was reading Einstein's 1917 paper on general relativity. It mentioned that infinitely far away from a mass, the spacetime becomes flat, as shown by the minkowski matrix. In an infinite universe with a constant mass density everywhere, if it is assumed that spacetime must become flat at infinity, Einstein raises some objections. He raised some problems with inertia and some statistical arguments that I don't understand. I'm including a picture here. I'm not sure if you've read the paper yourself, but if you have, could you please clarify what Einstein is trying to say here?” cc @martinmbauer @ericweinstein

arxiv.org/abs/2405.01473 Was there enough time for any of this to form?

arxiv.org/abs/2404.19010 They're probably not actually compact. In the big bang theory, there is an angular diameter turnaround at z=1.6. Anything farther than that should start to appear larger on the sky, rather than smaller as we would expect. That's probably not real.

Instead of space getting bigger... time getting faster would appear almost of the same: youtube.com/watch?v=lVoHmV…