[account deactivated]
toyotathon have you heard of mihsc? it's an alternate theory of gravitation whose veracity i'm totally unfit to judge (it's often lumped in as pseudoscience because of some overlap with the em-drive stuff and crackpot zero-point energy types online) but thats cool to think about at least, basically it throws out the idea that "inertia" is just some axiomatic property of the physical world and instead says that any acceleration creates an information horizon opposite the direction of its acceleration which emits radiation analogous to Hawking radiation from a black hole and here it gets complicated but it leads to a "hubble-scale casimir effect" which in my opinion is a delight to consider. the universe self-similar at every scale, as above so below etc. this is a better explanation but unfortunately the guy is not an excellent writer or maybe these things are poorly conveyed through language so you have to read around his stuff a bit to get an idea of what he means. it also implies some goofy shit like future logical impossibilities surrounding information horizons on cosmic scales determining the nature of the present on the smallest scale, which to me is cool and not at all a sign that it's fake and dumb. i would be interested to know what you think as somebody who's more science-literate than me.

whether or not it's true the guy who came up with it also writes some pretty good critiques of mainstream physics that make lysenkoism look heroic in comparison (well actually it was anyway), about how exactly the anomaly in that graph is the only proof we have of dark matter like literally the only proof, it's never been shown to exist empirically in any other way. and that as a theoretical concept it really is just an amorphous thing that can fill in any conceptual gap or fit any curve and that's been sustained as a theory only because massive amounts of academic and financial resources have been poured into it. as a level 10 dialectician and 8-dan philosopher of science this strikes me as true and it's also very satisfying to know that there is a profound rot in capitalist science, though I swear this doesn't affect my judgement at all,
so the implication is that inertia is different at very very low accelerations, like you might find at the edges of a galaxy for example. the theoretical predictions fit that curve at the left side pretty well without any arbitrary factors https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.7007.pdf

Edited by neckwattle ()

[account deactivated]
speaking of infinite military money

At this point afaict theres basically nothing new to say about dark matter. Most studies that have direct experimental/observational relevance are basically ruling out sectors of parameter space. People study the theory because its possible to make practical advances in terms of understanding the formalism in the hopes of finding some helpful structure to nicely fit all of the inconsistent observations and physical principles.
To expand a bit: its not like some hush-hush thing that "dark matter" is really a catch all term for an anomaly that doesnt fit with currently understood and well motivated physical models. Theres a whole zoo of alternative models like MOND and friends that have been proposed and can fit various phenomena variously well but theyre even harder to support than dark matter, which has the virtue of being potentially observable on earth if you look hard enough and can potentially be understood in terms of processes that are already confirmed to govern most observable phenomena. The real paradox is that experimental particle physics is really just yielding nothing at all that can help understand various anomalies relative to the simplest model for large scale phenomena that mostly works, which is GR.
a while back i came up with a theory about intelligent antimatter and only just now im reading that some asshole called stephen hawkwing already had that idea, fuck!
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
im spending all my spare time doing a 40 hour online course about understanding special relativity - fake nerds got nothing on me *i fall backwards in my chair and a pile of books topples onto me*
tbh i would recommend checking out the very beginning of landau and lifschitz's "classical theory of fields" which is a review of special relativity. its pretty clear and thorough without being misleading.
thanks; ive also signed up to do a night class in astronomy, i will learn everything
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
i've been studying measure theory out of bauer's book lately. it's oretty cool, dunno if i have much else to report tho
Measure theory is cool because its basically exactly the same as probability
ive been teaching physics like a nerd
[account deactivated]
all of this is very cool but im especially fond of all teh stuff backing up my amorphous conviction taht dark matter is fake garbage. if you Didn't say or imply this then don't tell me!
[account deactivated]
I think ive posted about this before but even in the standard astrophysics dogma "dark matter" is just a compact way of describing a relatively large set of anomalies. There happen to be a large number of measurements that, taken individually, diverge from what you would expect given standard GR and taking astronomical measurements at face value, and that happen to fit very nicely if there is just some distribution of extra mass that doesnt do very much. It doesn't explain every anomaly and no one knows what it could be constituted of even if it's the real explanation, but it's a simpler explanation than all the other ones floating around and is more consistent with present measurements. Other answers at the moment are quite a bit worse. Its not conclusive, but in order to get a better answer more actual work needs to be done, as with anything else

chickeon posted:

all of this is very cool but im especially fond of all teh stuff backing up my amorphous conviction taht dark matter is fake garbage. if you Didn't say or imply this then don't tell me!

all matter is fake, and even worse, its stupid as shit

Real smart guys: We made a calculating error when analyzing the universe what do we do?
Other real smart guys: let's make something up to cover our asses.

tears posted:

all matter is fake, and even worse, its stupid as shit

our materialist science will be antirealist or it will be bullshit

100 trillion neutrinos passing through my body every second and these fuckers still cant make a decent video game
[account deactivated]

toyotathon posted:

if you believe imperialism is reproduced by core domination of advanced labors: how do i ensure whitey won't get his mitts on the new kinematic theory, how do i translate + publish it in chinese/african/s.american journals, & hide it from the great satan? the multi-body version can allow the prediction of motion of every piston, axle, nut and bolt in a car, vs. blanding's theory which can make only simple lab equipment. how do i turn this into a weapon against babylon, and aim it at its heart, the monopolization of advanced labors? please respect that i spent years on this labor: serious responses only.

I don’t know much about mathematics or how much crucial info is in your post but if there is, I’d recommend moving it to the pdf forum so it isn’t indexed by google and therefore discoverable by query searches made by research offices in western engineering firms/universities if you’re thinking about those things

uh, everybody publishes in english these days, even remote chinese/african mathematicians just publish in english on the arxiv. i'll be real, even if you have a revolutionary paper, only like 2 people are gonna read it unless people know who you are. and even if you have some name recognition, maybe 4-5 will glance through it.
[account deactivated]
Thats not very surprising, constraint satisfaction problems in mechanics go back to Maxwell (the electromagnetism guy) so i expect it to be a fairly mature field. It looks like that was found around the same time maxwell was around, just from chebyshev being associated with it. They're actually having a minor resurgence in popularity because theyre one of the few ways to constrain motion in systems that dont have nice energy-conservation or thermal dynamics
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]

toyot posted:

imo the circle should just be 1°. the angle should be on the closed-open interval [0, 1), mod 1, instead of mod 2pi or mod 360.

tau (= 2pi) will be the circle constant of the people's revolution

[account deactivated]

toyot posted:

toyot posted:

imo the circle should just be 1°. the angle should be on the closed-open interval [0, 1), mod 1, instead of mod 2pi or mod 360. half a circle would be 1/2 a degree, quarter circle would be 1/4 degree etc. easy base unit to convert into 360 degrees and radians. [0, 1) is consistent w/ the normal parametric real function interval. the ratio of period to amplitude for the sine function would be 1:1 instead of 1:2pi or 1:360. the degree symbol is even a circle, 1° means 1 circle. just imo.

i feel like this would solve a lot of problems in the world, i want to just put it out there again as a suggestion. 1 is a better numerator for circle divisions than three hundred and sixty degrees. what's 90 small degrees of a circle, it's 1/4 of a circle. babylon mind amerika

some people do this, it depends on what your application is. if all you care about is dividing up the period of some process thats a fine thing to do but in other applications it will leave you with conversion factors proportional to pi floating around

edit, some examples: if you're interested in, say, how a general oscillator adjusts its phase in response to a perturbation at different points in the period, denoting the full period as the interval [0,1) is standard (see here). on the other hand, if you need to take derivatives of a linear (aka sinusoidal) oscillator you will end up with factors of pi floating around since if you parametrize the phase phi by the interval [0,1) your sines will look like sin(2*pi*phi) so when you take derivatives the factor of 2*pi gets added.

Edited by c_man ()

[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]