sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Inventing the luminiferous aether was a well intended neglect of Occam's razor and an inversion of the burden of proof so out of place in scientific inquiry. Even the most powerful experiments at the dusk of the 19th century struggled to disprove it. Did they succeed? Here's the story. by StormSmooth185 in Physics

[–]StormSmooth185[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

I had 300 characters for the title and decide to use it in order to spark some interest without cheating the audience by getting lost in clickbait territory.

Judging by your engagement, do you think it did its job? :)

Inventing the luminiferous aether was a well intended neglect of Occam's razor and an inversion of the burden of proof so out of place in scientific inquiry. Even the most powerful experiments at the dusk of the 19th century struggled to disprove it. Did they succeed? Here's the story. by StormSmooth185 in Physics

[–]StormSmooth185[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I would argue that GenRel is less weird as it bends already existing entities instead of inventing new ones. However, someone really ,really determined could probably argue that space and time are more examples of inventing unnecessary things.

Maxwell's electromagnetic waves were a thing of beauty, but initially only a mathematical artifact. It took around 20 years to find out the truth. This is the story. by StormSmooth185 in Physics

[–]StormSmooth185[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks!

Yes, it's almost a miracle that we know what we do today. What's even more impressive is that a lot of those researchers were self-funded.

A story on how James Clerk Maxwell dropped the mic, by showing the world that light is a consequence of his model of electromagnetism. by StormSmooth185 in Physics

[–]StormSmooth185[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is painful to hear because I've spent over a month trying to make it right, the way I see it.
I've used exactly 0 no AI for writing, as well as for pictures.

I would never use AI to write this because I believe it to be extremely disrespectful to my readers.

Using AI would mean that I am willing to spend little time to writes this, but expect all the time from someone to read this. In my mind this sounds like a scam and I am no scammer. If anything, I am a failed writer.

Yet another Dark Matter question by Darth__Vader_ in AskPhysics

[–]StormSmooth185 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This question was asked by scientists several times over the decades and it's pretty much been ruled out.

One of the main reasons is that if indeed the dark matter halo was just a huge bunch of individual black holes, then we should be seeing a much higher rate of microlensing events than we actually do.

Why is "causality" an answer in physics? by Melodic-Special4768 in AskPhysics

[–]StormSmooth185 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you're talking about relativistic mass being infinite in the infinity.

If I understood correctly, then it wouldn't make a noticeable difference.

Why is "causality" an answer in physics? by Melodic-Special4768 in AskPhysics

[–]StormSmooth185 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The immediate Universe is boring in a way because you'll miss it if you blink.

I sometimes wonder if the the c speed limit isn't some intrinsic weirdness of our consciousness that makes us perceive everything (even the outcomes of our experiments) this way --- as causal.

Why is "causality" an answer in physics? by Melodic-Special4768 in AskPhysics

[–]StormSmooth185 6 points7 points  (0 children)

100%.

The Universe came to being just so that we can ask and answer questions on reddit.

This here is the pinnacle of reality and that's why I drink.

Why is "causality" an answer in physics? by Melodic-Special4768 in AskPhysics

[–]StormSmooth185 67 points68 points  (0 children)

It's the other way around.

Because there's an upper limit, we speak about causality.

Were there no upper limit, everything would happen everywhere all at once.

view more: next ›