You must log in or # to comment.
cool theory, Probably impossible to test let alone prove. but fun theory anyways.
Would it be OK if I pat myself in the back because I wondered if that was a possibility when I learned about dark matter? I’m not a physicist, but I was thinking about parallel dimensions fiction and asked that question.
quick, get the xkcd
imho gravitons are the key to interstellar travel. we need to find a way to aggregate and harness them
All we need to do is reverse the impulsors and route weapons systems into the storage matrix.
the moment i see this guy appear on screen i know ive fucked up
Quick! Get the Flexseal.
holy shit, underrated comment. got me good m8
As long as we do not know what Dark Matter or Dark Energy is, any hypothesis is valid. Scientific method is to err above towards the truth.
any hypothesis is valid
I suspect dark matter is actually just the gravitational pull of OPs mother slipping in from a parallel dimension.
A hypothesis is only valid if it has any basis in reality AND a way to falsify it.
You can’t just say “it’s cause god got bored” that’s not valid.
You can say “it’s another dimension leaking, here’s something we can check and if we observe this, then it’s not true.”
Just throwing out random ideas isn’t a hypothesis, it’s fiction.
My first question was how do you falsify this?
This guy is mostly famous from poor quality history channel scifi bullshit “documentaries”.
He’s literally just the Ancient Aliens guy but with a PhD
The “chicken attack” guy is a physicist?
/c/pseudoscience_memes
You do know that he’s heavily published professor of theoretical physics, right?
Or did you not understand the words and throw shade at a physicist simply because you don’t know much about theoreticial physics?
Jordan Peterson is also a published professor. The bar isn’t that high.
So isn’t Steven Pinker. Doesn’t mean academics can’t be idiots.
He is a really interesting case. He is a real, actual, published theoretical physicist. But his popular science persona made him a bit weird. For example, in this video, alongside Roger Penrose and Sabine Hossenfelder, he looks like a sci-fi hype-man.
Yeah, I remember him on Art Bell back in the 90s and early 2000s. He’s never shied away from trying to inject real science into the pseudoscience crowd. Just because he’s willing to be brave enough to keep a discussion grounded in reality doesn’t mean other guests invited to some event he didn’t organize necessarily color his character. It’s the risk of being a science communicator - you want to communicate real science to people that normally don’t want to hear about it.
To be fair to a counterpoint, string theory hasn’t panned out mathematically as he probably expected, so he has a bit more time to get into all sorts of things these days. I’m more so surprised he hasn’t retired yet.
brave enough to keep a discussion grounded in reality
But that’s just it, he doesn’t keep the discussion grounded in reality. He speaks on things that are vastly out of his purview and says shit that is blatantly false because he thinks he’s an expert on everything just because at one time he did real theoretical physics. Even with physics, he says things for a “general audience” that are so dumbed-down as to be insulting, but worse, grossly inaccurate, leading people to have their misconceptions further ingrained rather than doing what a science communicator should do and clarify misconceptions.
string theory hasn’t panned out mathematically
The math pans out fine. The problem is that it can pan out in virtually an infinite number of different ways that may or may not be valid descriptions of the universe, and nothing but the math can get panned out wrt string theory, at least with current tech or tech that is conceivably feasible.
Sabine Hossenfelder isn’t really a good foil for someone that likes to portray that they are an expert on topics that are actually outside their expertise. Here’s a good video on why she is more similar to him than you would think: Youtube.
From my perspective, her takes on anything outside of undergrad physics are pretty shit, so forgive me if I don’t see having her involved as a good thing.
Yeah. I stopped watching her long ago. But I really like Penrose, so I watched that video for him.
Michio Kaku is first a futurist and second an entertainer and third a physicist. He hasn’t published any research since the 90s from what I can tell, and all of his work back in the day was around string theory, which is more or less discarded today because it’s not falsifiable. Clearly he needed a lot of mathematical skill to competently study and discover new string theory concepts, but since the 90s he’s mostly been a science entertainer and a crank babbling about quantum computers, longevity, superintelligence, parallel dimensions, and extraterrestrials, all of which are distinctly not his domain of expertise and most of which are unfalsifiable.
Michio Kaku’s job is to go on TV and go on podcasts and talk about science fiction as if it were real to credulous hosts. If he wanted to be taken seriously as a physicist he’d stop stepping out of his lane to use his reputation to whitewash the Saudis.
Can you explain hour falsifiability is a metric for theoretical physics?
Can you also explain how Evolution is falsifiable?
theoretical physics is is a lot of pseudo science.
most of it is pure mathematics.
it’s only science strictly, when it’s hypothesis are verified by experimental evidence.
there are still particles in the standard model that are purely theoretical.
So… Math is pseudoscience?
yes. it’s not a science anymore than painting is.
you can certainly make mathematical models and paint pictures of theoretical concepts though.
science is the method of empirical verification. math is about as empirical as metaphysics is.
mathematician, physicist, and theoretical physicist arguing about what is “real”
there can only be one!
i can do you one better. i was in philosophy.
nothing more fun that the bitterness of various academics getting pissy about whose work is ‘most essential’ or ‘primary’ or ‘pure’ or ‘foundational’.
best thing i did in life was leave academia and it’s pissing contests of legitimacy. or worse, how much money they could bring it by wooing the donors. funny how a lot of academic pretension just boils down to who can get the most money.
Wanna hear my theory about dark matter being ghosts?
I hear you should do cocaine about those.
What’s a parallel dimension?
He maybe means a parallel universe. Or a higher order dimension like in string theory. This guy is a string theorist so probably the latter.
String theory was all the craze, at a time.
String theory makes more sense if you take some LSD I think.
If you can place a dimension that is orthogonal between two dimensions, then those two dimensions are parallel. /j
To be fair, this is the level of physics where if they discover things right out of fantasy book (teleportation, mind reading, transmutation etc) I wouldn’t be even surprised.
How many of these physicists do you reckon have shared a cup of tea with Cthulu?
There are a few that have had tea with Cthulu. Not many, but a few. Physics at this level is sometimes about taking a good hit from a pipe and going, “What if” and “What might happen if”
Then they let real mathematicians and engineers figure it out to see if they hit on a lucky guess, Oh and Grad students. Can’t forget the all important Grad students.
I hope he used the word “leaking” in the “paper” he submits.
I’ve been insisting this for years:
it eradicates the bullshit of hyperinflation being required to smooth the CMB,
it explains why gravity’s sooo weak, compared with the contained-within-this-3d-space forces, like electromagnitism,
it explains why there exist galaxies of dark-matter which don’t have any conventional-matter,
it explains why there exist galaxies of conventional-matter which don’t have any dark-matter.
The gravity’s diffusing through MANY 3D-spaces, not just ours.
the other forces are contained-within-this-3D-space.
Therefore OUR gravity is “dark matter” in other 3D-spaces, too.
The smoothing-of-the-CMB is simple: instead of 1x 3D-space having hyperinflation, there are thousands of 3D-spaces ( or zillions: whatever the math says matches ), & EACH of them inflated at speed-of-light or less, not at zillions-of-times-c.
The painting-method called “glazing” is essentially the same idea:
da Vince used many many thin layers of paint, to make ultra-smooth tones…
the many-many-many-3D-spaces all “underlying” each-other smoothes-out the gravity among them all, so local-lumpiness simply isn’t a significant part of the equation, as it would appear.
Part of this is on the E = speed-of-gravity * mass * speed-of-light, though, so it’s arithmetically identical to the conventional E=mc^2 rendition,
but would gravity & light both be traveling at the same mps speed through say a 100km of quartz?
XOR would the refractive-index be different for gravity & light?
That structural difference is what the speed-of-gravity * mass * speed-of-light variant was trying to show.
_ /\ _
27% of the matter in the universe isn’t a leak, it’s a deluge. With that much gravitational force, seems like the other dimension would be pulling part of our universe into theirs.
Correction: 27% of all the everything (“total mass-energy content”), not just the matter. Dark matter actually “outweighs” (so to speak) normal matter by a factor of 5 or so.
Correction: 27% of everything will be owned by Rupert Murdoch. Whatever he says goes.
![References: [1] out of his ass](https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/7d954d56-4739-4230-b641-f7a2ed05fa5c.jpeg){kind=link}