Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 08:51:51 UTC No. 16629660

>>16629651
Ok, so what causes it to be zero?

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:46:24 UTC No. 16629692

>Physicists point out the cosmological constant problem with the vacuum energy.
>Cosmologists spend two decades exploring hundreds of alternatives models in theory and simulations.
>Astronomers build dozens of experiments to measure the equation of state of dark energy, to see if it is consistent with a cosmological constant.
Yes, who could of possibly forseen this?

>Dark Matter
At least try to pretend you know what you're talking about.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:06:24 UTC No. 16631426

>>16629651
This guy desperately needs a better camera and mic

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:20:13 UTC No. 16631433

>>16629651
The cosmological constant is Dark Energy you cunt knuckle.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 06:15:35 UTC No. 16631528

>>16631426
The audio quality adds to the charm.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:54:43 UTC No. 16632070

>>16629651
Dark matter is easy to explain with either MACHOs or WIMPs and you don't need any exotic physics for it. Many textbooks outright claim it's MACHOs and tell you not to worry about it.
Dark energy is problematic because nothing else can explain the observations the way it can. MOND is stupid and ad hoc, inhomogenous comosology like timescales only explain a small subset of observational data like supernovae red shift and some models of inhomogeneous cosmologies are untestable.
Physicists aren't dumb. They aren't happy with dark energy but it's the best explanation as of now. It's quite clever actually to account for things you don't know yet but assume will reveal themselves in the future which history has proven to be often the case.
Out of the new alternatives to dark energy I've seen the aforementioned timescapes sound the most plausible but even it is most likely wrong.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:03:40 UTC No. 16632082

>>16632070
Tired light + plasma cosmology beats the Lambda-CDM model. Occam’s razor says some slight tweaks to tired light theory to fit the data, alongside intergalactic electromagnetic interactions that decrease linearly with distance as opposed to gravity’s exponential drop off, without any dark variables, is a much stronger and more logically coherent framework than the current method of relegating >95% of the mass-energy of the universe to “unknowns”

Anonymous at Tue, 1 Apr 2025 02:53:48 UTC No. 16634539

>hello wonderful person
This pisses me off for some reason

Anonymous at Tue, 1 Apr 2025 02:59:07 UTC No. 16634542

>>16629651
youtube is not the place for scientific discourse
it's a place to be entertained by stupid people with more viewship than is healthy for a society

Anonymous at Tue, 1 Apr 2025 03:14:34 UTC No. 16634550

>>16632082
>Tired light
I've been thinking about this recently, this is the first time seeing it put to words, yes it seems like a better theory.
Big bang expansion theory was probably coasting on the Boyle's law era of physics.

Anonymous at Tue, 1 Apr 2025 03:20:09 UTC No. 16634553

>>16632082
Another self-inflicted victim of Occam's razor

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 04:34:48 UTC No. 16634739

>>16632070
>MACHO
>WIMP
Holy fuck, astrophysicists are all a bunch of quirky dorks

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 06:41:11 UTC No. 16634806

>>16632082
>Tired light + plasma cosmology beats the Lambda-CDM model. Occam’s razor says some slight tweaks to tired light theory to fit the data,
Yeah, nope. This is just nonsense. Plasma cosmology as defined by Alfven was an expanding cosmology where the universe was driven to expand by matter anti-matter annihilation. If you replace the expansion with tired light, there is nothing left. It's not plasma cosmology. PC could not even fit the observations of the universe in the 80s, much less today. There is a reason it is literally dead as a topic of research. It offers no quantative fit for most of the things LCDM can match, (galaxy clusters, large scale structure, the light element abundances, gravitational lensing...). Plasma cosmology did not predict a Cosmic Microwave Background, like the hot big bang did. Alfven's post hoc guess that it was Galactic emission was ruled out by COBE and the imprints of galaxy clusters. Note that CDM correctly predicted the detailed fluctuations of the CMB, something no alternative model can do.

Secondly tired light has been tested and ruled out many times. Firstly there are zero known processes which could cause redshift, all known processes either scatter the light in angle or have wavelength dependence. Which is not observed. The nail in the coffin is that with redshift there is cosmic time dilation, measured in supernovae and quasars. There is no tweaking this. It fails a simple empirical test.

https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Occam's Razor does not tell you any of this, this is just your personal bias. At best Occam's Razor says of two models of equal explanatory power, the simpler one (fewer assumptions) is preferable. Well we have seen that PC and LCDM are not of equal explanatory power, LCDM is far more predictive. It's not simpler either, as it contains two large assumptions (tired light effect, half anti-matter), the same number as LCDM. And as I said, tired light has already been rejected.

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 06:51:36 UTC No. 16634811

>>16634539
Self hatred

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 08:53:23 UTC No. 16634838

>>16634739
making up a catchy abbreviation is a core part of getting funding in PhD programs

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 09:09:36 UTC No. 16634841

>>16632082
>modified tired-light theory

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:46:47 UTC No. 16634897

>>16629651
i'm not your bro ivan

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 11:13:03 UTC No. 16634911

Even if your fake scientists add additional invisible matter, you're only compounding the problem of where did all the angular momentum come from.

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 12:03:31 UTC No. 16634957

>>16629651
Okay but where is my cool scifi warpdrive then?

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:03:36 UTC No. 16634984

>>16634957
It is right in front of, but the minimum pre-requisite is to solve A or B - the answer is A btw.

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:51:58 UTC No. 16635034

>>16629660
Zero of what?

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:52:19 UTC No. 16635035

>>16634984
Rrreee if such a platform with a hole would fall on the cube the cube should be ejected upwards.