I am plagued by questions of the universe - page 16
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
If it is in the air it is flying or soaring, but if it is standing even on one leg, I don't know how it flies.
More than half of the US population believes that it is the sun that revolves around the earth.
Perhaps they are no less right than everyone else.
Considering that the Sun, the Earth and the other planets and stars all move at great speed somewhere and at the same time in a spiral, it is quite difficult to argue that the Sun does not make its orbits around the Earth.
Such is the paradox. )))
Science in its progressive advancement will sooner or later break ALL the foundations of modern society with its achievements:
* FINANCE: with elementary particles, why not create "lots of gold" so that everyone can get their hands on it?!
* CONFIDENTIALITY: assuming there is a "global data bank" to which any computer could be connected, e.g., psychics, and to which any computer could be connected - there are no secrets.
*THERE'S NOT ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE: The "descendants" of 3D printers will create all the goods by necessity.
* THE STATEWORK OF THE STATE\of THE UNION: individual inexhaustible sources of energy.
*MORE LIVING: perennialism.
This is by no means a complete list of possible advances in science. Now imagine if science had already discovered more of that list! Those who are not interested in changing the existing paradigm, WHAT WILL THEY DO??? Are these people interested in "moving science backwards"? And how delusional is such a T.Z. at all? ;)
A large part of the population no longer wants to work. Someone has to maintain them.
Everyone can't be rich. Definitely not.
I don't deny it. It's all relative. Told you before.
If it is in the air it is flying or soaring, but if it is standing even on one leg, I don't know how it flies.
More than half of the US population believes it is the sun that revolves around the earth.
A large part of the population no longer wants to work. Someone has to serve them.
Everyone can't be rich. That's for sure.
A large part of the population no longer wants to work. Someone has to serve them.
Everyone can't be rich. That's for sure.
Do you know why you walk on the ground? Because we know that the Earth's gravitational force (g) = 9.8. If the Earth had no gravitational force, Newton would not have discovered his law and you would have gone straight into space. And on the moon, astronauts with a spacesuit that exceeds the mass of a man would bounce so much that even Earth's Olympic champions could not dream. And all because the gravitational force is less there. Because the moon has less mass than the Earth. And our Milky Way is also held up by the gravitational force created by the black hole at its centre. And the existence of a black hole in our galaxy is not my idea, it has been proven. You can imagine its mass.
After all, no one had ever suggested that the universe was expanding, on the contrary, it was thought to be shrinking. We had to add dark matter and dark energy. Dark not because they are black, but because it is unknown what they are made of. But they literally permeate us and are not captured by any sensors. All that is known is that matter has more mass than the material universe - making it expand, and energy - causing it to accelerate. And by the way, the computer model without the inclusion of dark matter mass and energy shows that the Milky Way could not exist - the galaxy would collapse.
If 2 seconds isn't enough time for you, you need to get to the edge of the black hole. But do not go over the edge, otherwise you will not be able to see anything: light cannot overcome the force of gravity and the time-space structure there will collapse, time stops. But at the edge, you might be able to see your children's children die a few times.
You are like in that scene with Markirosyan and Kharlamov. The correct question is not Where, but Where. Where has already happened!)). All I'm saying is that you can't deny the explosions in the universe, can you?
And about taxpayers' money, you have no idea what international projects such as hadron collider is involved in Russia. And some of them are quite applied in nature. And they all stem from similar research. Take even those studies related to quantum computers. Or the nuclear fusion energy reactor, a $17 billion project in South Africa. And what makes you so sure that people are 99% likely to accept the current "cosmogonic beliefs and physical concepts" as a three elephant model on a turtle? Because you've got it all twisted and in fact it's those who construct such theories that will regard your worldview as a model of the three elephants, but not the other way around.
Modern scientists have formed a view on the creation of the universe from equations without trying to understand their essence, as theoretical physicists usually do. Maybe those equations are correct, maybe not.
The BV was derived from the equations by Penrose and Hawking because it was convenient for these equations to have the origin of time and space. But the equations were not so correct and predicted a heavy Universe and also expanding with acceleration. Then the concept of dark matter and energy was introduced, which no one can find or even imagine what they are. And these corrective factors account for 95% of the universe. When I derive equations that poorly describe reality, my corrective factors are about 0.1-1%. Well the 95% corrective factor is excuse me, the model is a cakewalk. If the task was to explain the red shift, it could be done without introducing a model with 95% error, but simply assuming that space is filled with red matter rather than dark matter, shifting the spectrum of light to the red side.
BW has more questions than answers. Where did the conditions for the singularity to explode come from, who put them there, and why would it have exploded at all in a world without time? Where did the laws of physics themselves come from? Why are they like that and not different? And why do we extrapolate a model of the universe into the past and assume that the laws of physics have not changed?
Where did the laws of physics themselves come from? Why are they like that and not different?
anthropic principle
Modern scientists have formed a view of the creation of the universe from equations without trying to understand their essence, as theoretical physicists usually do. Maybe those equations are right, maybe not.
The BV was derived from the equations by Penrose and Hawking because it was convenient for these equations to have a origin of time and space. But the equations were not so correct and predicted a heavy Universe and also expanding with acceleration. Then the concept of dark matter and energy was introduced, which no one can find or even imagine what they are. And these corrective factors account for 95% of the universe. When I derive equations that poorly describe reality, my corrective factors are about 0.1-1%. Well the 95% corrective factor is excuse me, the model is a cakewalk. If the task was to explain the red shift, it could be done without introducing a model with 95% error, but simply assuming that space is filled with red matter, not dark matter, shifting the spectrum of light to the red side.
BW has more questions than answers. Where did the conditions for the singularity to explode come from, who put them there, and why would it have exploded at all in a world without time? Where did the laws of physics themselves come from? Why are they like that and not different? And why do we extrapolate the model of the universe into the past and assume that the laws of physics have not changed?
You write it all right, Vladimir. We need new theories. The old ones already make us laugh more than they explain.
You can laugh at the new ones too. But don't forget to "pick up the slack". I.e. we need normal brainstorming: accumulation of ideas + analysis + synthesis / combination. There are no other ways. Theories/models are not "derived from reality". They are invented. So it was and so it will be.
The method of step-by-step approximation is too fraught with getting stuck in local extremes. It is an unaffordable luxury for fundamental science. It can have very limited use - in fact it is acceptable only when it leads finally to simplifying transformations in final formulas and models. In other cases, the genetic algorithm rules. This needs to be understood very deeply and fundamentally. And stop avoiding "leftist" and "strange" models. One only needs to understand their place - as transitional steps to harmonious and truly universal models. Which, in turn, may also look "strange" - from the lack of experience.