I would like to launch a new Science speculation debate. One really serious … who’s stronger : Goku or Saitama ?
Depends who the writer at the time is.
1 Like
Valid but really boring answer 
3 Likes
Goku is stronger. Saitama uses better deodorant.
there’s a thread for this 
TLDR: 99.9% probably bunk 00.1% possibly not bunk. (It’s a distant outsider.)
Wait till someone has spent money on sending one into space to prove if it’s bunk or not before even thinking about getting exited.
(And discuss over in that thread as people tend to get a little tetchy with it.)
2 Likes
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/proposed-theory-of-emergent-gravity-to.html
the article on ArXiv
Slightly meta post but I’d argue that this is more of general science discussion rather than speculation. This thread was created with the em drive in mind which is most probably error whereas emergent gravity is a legitimately posted scholarly article.
Now we wait for it to be disproved.
1 Like
I didn’t remember a thread where to post it, instead of here. But I agree… maybe we could just speculate on this new theory to legitimate my post ? 
I am personally glad to see some serious work in this direction. Dark Matter … I do not like the use of such artifices to justify behaviors not foreseen by our equations … and I love the idea Einstein didn’t see Everything, it’s exciting
And the EM Drive has its own thread (I created it)
For what I could gather so far, it is legitimate the way that Steady State was legitimate a few decades ago: sure, it could be that way, but there is very strong evidence for Dark Matter and not much to seriously dent it so far.
It’s not a paper disputing the existence of dark matter but a paper trying to explain what causes the effects of dark matter. So far WIMPs aren’t looking too promising because we haven’t detected any.
No. it’s a paper trying to explain what causes the observations, without the need of dark matter, assuming that some of the most elegant but forcibly admitted current known laws of physics could be “incomplete”, not to say wrong.
On page 42
Again, dark matters looks like an artifice to me, and I’m glad some scientists try to find a more elegant way to describe our universe. I violently caricature, but currently it’s like “look at my theory : it explains 99,9999% of the observations we make, and it predicts a lot of phenomena never observed yet (but that will be observed later), if I multiply this parameter by 6…”
Einstein was the most incredible and unreachable mind of humanity and his theory is incredibly elegant, and his understanding of the universe is largely too far for me. But he didn’t find the theory of Everything. His theory is incomplete, in the same way as quantum mechanics is according to his own words.
That opens a wonderful door for the future of science, to think that we’re not able to explain every phenomena with our current theories, even if that doesn’t prove we’re right or wrong about dark matter…
I made science speculation for this here. For things not proven or at least not popularly accepted.
And on a side note: just assume everything about nature “we” believe in is wrong. We shouldn’t let our beliefs become fossils. “we” have been murderously wrong before.
1 Like
We are saying the same thing. Dark matter is just the name we give to the causes of the effects seen. Why are you disagreeing ?
We never stopped trying to figure out what causes the effects of anomalous gravitation pull and this is another theory that will be tested. Most things you hear in popular science are just analogies to explain the concepts. Call it whatever you want the effect is still there.
Dark matter is just what we call that thing that causes the anomalous gravity that we see the effects of. The effects surely exist despite whatever name you want to call it. The investigation has been happening for decades and will continue for decades because there will always be somewhere deeper to ask questions.
You shouldn’t prop people, science, or anything on a pedestal. Moderation is the key to success. Science is a very useful investigation tool and there are notable people who’ve used it with great results, but romantasizing it takes away from what actually happens: creating a theory, making claims, and trying to break those theories.
There’s nothing wrong with fudge factors. If I multiple by the wrong answer by some factor and it gives me the right answer every time and in every instance, what’s the issue? For example, if I multiply the diameter of a circle and a fudge factor I get the circumference of the circle every time. That will never be wrong, so what’s wrong with it? I’m merely playing devil’s advocate, but what’s wrong with big G? Maybe it’s just another of nature’s constants. For reference big G is is the gravitational constant and little g is usually 9.81 m/s^2.
Not everything we know is wrong. There are certain aspects of physics that we know for a fact. We have derived E&M it’s a done deal. Maxwell put it together in the late 19th century and is described very elegantly by 4 equations. Relativity was hidden inside Maxwell’s equations and led Einstein to realize that there is a speed limit on the universe and time is what has to give. Feynman reconciled it with QM in the 50s. Nothing will ever move faster than C through space-time. I’m being as specific as possible so that doesn’t include the process of wormholes or warpdrives that are loopholes around moving through space-time.
I didn’t say that.
Just assume it is wrong. It makes correcting things easier.
Study State Universe. There is no life on other planets. There is the Milky Way and a few quasars and that is all the universe.
Science doesn’t make laws any more as they keep being overturned. The oldest law is from Plato, it states : Anything that is extended is made up of smaller things. If String Theory is adopted it will end Plato’s law
As far as we know with our current understanding.
1 Like
You take all of it too literally. Back in the day that’s just what you called it because it was custom. Obviously, what we know and our customs have changed today. It makes no difference to call it a law or theory other than the semantics people will argue.
Newton’s law works because here on Earth they work with a small degree of error in practical cases. Relativity is the next step, and like Newton’s laws, it works with an even smaller degree of error in most cases.
Then you either misunderstand what I’m saying or do not understand relativity. If you study relativity one of the axioms is that the maximum speed of moving through a medium is the speed of light. There have been a lot of experiments testing relativity and relativity’s predictions have been correctly observed. I specified that c is the maximum speed for moving through space-time you won’t get faster than that while moving through a medium.
That’s why I mentioned something like wormholes or warp, because that’s the only way you can create a loophole to get to point A to B faster than light because you’re not actual moving through space-time, just taking a shorter path outside of spacetime. Since speed is distance/time changing the distance will change your speed. For example, in space-time the distance traveled might be 5 light years and you do it in 1 year that’s faster than light, but taking a wormhole route might only be half a light year, so you actually never moved faster than light along your path. That’s the only way you could ‘move’ faster than light, but you’re not actually moving through space-time faster than c. I hope this makes sense.
…Light traveling through a vacuum and some more things and also things that travel faster than light can’t deliver information. Einstein never said said nothing can travel faster then light. How long before Einstein is treated like Newton?
Don’t be arrogant with what humans know. There is so much more to know and so much we have wrong.
Getting treated like Newton isn’t all bad…
3 Likes
I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say.
This is wrong. That is a basic axiom you have to accept to get anywhere in relativity. The finite value of c and its consequences have been challenged and observed by humanity for over a century at this point. I’m not being arrogant or saying that we know everything, I’m just stating what we have observed and that we’ve never measured anything traveling faster than c in our universe in over 13.8 billion years. I’m personally not holding my breath.
It’s difficult to talk about it without talking about it with math. If you’re really interested in trying to figure out what more we could be wrong about I encourage you to research more about relativity so that you understand it better. In fact, the basic geometric derivation(using trains or cars and a light clock) of the lorentz transform can really help the fundamental understanding as well and I would start there.
1 Like