Jeredin

Damn you….don’t you give me hope!

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations article I found that did a good job of helping to explain just how vast these cosmic structures may be.

Do not that this video seriously as to what it will likely look like. Keep in mind that as our sun grows into a red giant it would already be releasing extremely lethal solar flares. The inner planets being consumed by the sun would only come long, long after cooking them. Gravity would also be interesting at this point because the sun would have less mass. This video seems to take a lot of liberties as to how the physics of transitioning into a red giant would play out.

Modern titles are often awful but this article was not only decent but important for casuals who found it while checking other news. Honestly, these structures and both amazing and challenging. It’s unfortunate that it’s going to take time for some cosmologists to take them seriously. Instead they have their horse blinders focused on “dark” this and “black” that. These are not only in need of more attention from the community but it’s not hiding in the “dark.” Hell, we just find some great solutions for others “mysteries” by studying them…

You have to go out of your way to avoid national propaganda and put in even more effort to access other views. Half seems low but propaganda is a hell of a drug.

Just block them - that’s what I did. Works well on Lemmy.

As I’m also a non-professional, I’d like to use your your comment to add my experience with studying quantum mechanics:

From all my studies of both math and lab experiments, intuitively and likely in reality, matter at the quantum level is made of vibrations, oscillations and standing waves of “SpaceTime.” The amplitude, frequency, position, magnetic moment (spin/charge), temperature, pressure and other properties are what we measure and thus describe particles and emergent phenomena like phonons and other quasi-particles.

So this all seems simple enough, we have mathematical descriptions and tools to measure with, what’s this whole issue with “observation” and how how far do we need to take it?

My simple answer is: whenever you see “observer”, translate it to interaction. This can be anything, so long as it interacts with the quantum system being “observed.” But what does this really mean, why does it matter so much? Go back to our wave properties and understand that anything quantum that interacts with anything else quantum is actually introducing their own wave properties and thus, allowing quantum interactions. That is, it’s likely impossible to use something with quantum wave properties (which everything has) to precisely measure something else with quantum wave properties and not have some level of wave disruptions - in other words, we cannot have precise measurements because the closer your quantum measuring tool tries to measure another object’s quantum property, the more the interactions influence the results. The Copenhagen perspective, as I’ve come to orient my understanding, is a question of: does the math reflecting these wave interactions/measurements of them, only mathematically describe it, or do we take the math literally and call it reality?

There are those in both camps and especially as a non-professional, I join the camp that says it only mathematically describes reality. Keep in mind, relativity of all objects makes it so even the very conditions of the experiment can skew results; the quantum level is extremely sensitive to its wave environment and even in a vacuum, the zero-point energy field exists. Also, keep in mind that just because you can’t precisely measure a given property doesn’t mean that you can’t have very good measurements of most/all properties; it’s only a matter of how badly you need to precisely know any given property.

There’s obviously more nuance, but I think the key thing that I want to impart is not to take quantum mathematics to literally, but it’s the best description and predicting tool that we have for that level of physics.

For those interested in MOND, Stacy McGaugh is a great proponent and researched Dark Matter extensively before switching his research into MOND. Most who are interested in MOND are fine with research into both MOND and dark matter - if there is dark matter, it will likely explain what MOND currently calculates. I'd also like to share Pavel Kroupa's blog. Be warned: he is an unapologetic and a staunch opponent to Dark Matter, but I enjoy his energy and he's a very good public speaker for cosmology and MOND.

I dislike most titles on YouTube - they’re trash. But his videos in general are good and I read the paper because of it - and happy I did. Even near 90yo Kerr is sharp but intuitive, attempting to tightly marry his math to observations; as it should be.

It's the niche topics that need more activity. I love science - mostly space/physics - and it's mostly a ghost town. Once the unique corners grow their activity, it's going to be great.

Off topic, but this is the best Lemmy comment section I've ever read through: really diverse, mostly civil, super interesting and insightful.

I'm an old-school JRPGer and there are a few good reasons I love turn-based combat, but honestly, I love to watch combat like it's a show that I'm directing. I love that I can have time to think and pick actions, then just sit back and watch it play out. I didn't like Action Turn Based hybrids but it at least gave me a little time to think. There are so many RPGs now that have unnecessary, complicated combat with insane special effects on screen that when I do have a moment to watch combat, it's a blur of colors. I've been playing Paper Mario Origami King lately and while I do have a few grips, at least I get my turns before the enemy. Also, soundtrack for PMOK is insanely good.

All that said, I first JRPG was FF4 and my favorites are all NES/SNES Final Fantasy games; though I like 7 and 9 too.