The tone of your messages come off as a bit confrontational, that’s probably the reason sorry!

Anyway, like many other situations before, there is probably no single fix to dark matter.

There’s probably a huge swath of cold hydrogen that still goes undetected that would explain part of the small scale stuff (bullet cluster and such), and then some quantum gravity or modified gravity to explain the very low range stuff.

Also, there are papers out there about how large scale simulations assume smooth distribution of matter, but then when computing with the actual distribution of matter, the some dark matter phenomenons tend to disappear.

Anyhow, exiting stuff to get new physics to learn about!

How do you explain the mounting evidences of double images and observing the same event twice (or more) with exactly the expected delay by grav lensing?

Anyhow, no new physics ever went against the old math, it always just adds corrective terms. Any new mathematics will need to be able to make the same predictions as GR in the limited cases of whatever this new limit will be (small distance or something?)

The old saying that “Einstein proved Newton was wrong” is a gross misunderstanding. A nevessary base principle for GR to be accepter was that it reduces to Newtonian mechanics at low speeds.

What is your definition of “detected”? If only direct interaction using the EM field is required, then we have never detected anything…

There are lots of gravitational lensing images of dark matter, we can even see some structures in its shape and distribution.

Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

While there may be a part of it being “different gravity”, dark matter cannot 100% be explained by modified gravity of any kind.

Why do we know this? Well there are observable galaxies that survived collisions and have been stripped of their dark matter, and the reverse is also true (galaxy-sized dark matter blobs without baryonic matter in it).

I can refer you to this wonderful PBS Spacetime video about it: https://youtu.be/5t0jaE--l0Y

You can’t leave us hanging! Where can I watch it? 🐡🐧

Oh! That’s nice to know about mining, making it safer for workers! But there’s still the environmental impact… A few years ago, I was talking with a mine engineer who seemed proud to say that they had to move a lake to mine. He claimed that simply shop-vaccuming fishes from one place to the other was good enough…

This is bad popular science. Look at PBS Spacetime for a better way if doing it.

The only thing to keep in mind is that although particles are dimensionless (as far as we know), the do not exist without context. Spin relates to how a particle is linked to the rest of the world.

One way of seeing it is that spin can be represented by a “rotational polarisation” of the surrounding cloud of virtual particles.

It’s clean regarding chemical waste.

I’ve helped build nuclear waste caskets, nothing is perfect but the amount of attention put into making it safe is incredible! The layers (and quality) of stainless steel welds would put your average steel bridge to shame…

But fission will always be limited (as in non-renewable). If everything was powered by nuclear, I’m sure we’d see even more awefull mining operations. Also, fusion should in theory be much better, if the thermodynamics of it end up working.

There is the famous “belt trick”, plus this PBS Spacetime really explains it well!

https://youtu.be/pWlk1gLkF2Y

All macroscopic examples of spinor involve an object attached to the exterior world. Electrons having spin 1/2 therefore imply that they don’t exist “by themselves” and are embedded in a larger field.

I’m not sure whether that would be the electron field of the electromagnetic field, or maybe all of the fields?

This was written by every megafauna we drove to extinction

Move it deep underground, congtats you just invented geothermal 😁

Not to be confised with your mémé

Very on-topic SMBC today: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/mary

There are multiple types of color blindness, most of the time they affect the production of a specific cone inthe eye. Deuteranomaly is the red-detection cone being affected, and causes issues distinguishing red/green colors, but also blue/purple. It’s a “hardware” issue caused by less or lack of detection.

I’ve heard of “software” version of colorblindness, but it doesn’t seem to be as documented as others. I have a younger sibling that seemed to have “copied” my deuteranomaly despite being able to pass the “hardware” tests…

The exact neurons in the eye and the brain being triggeres are the same for detection of color, but where the “qualia” differs is to which external interpretation they are linked to. If we were able to isolate the souvenirs/associations that come from specific colors, I’m sure in general people would see the same colors.

Just like touching something hot triggers the same neurons as touching capsaicin, it creates a signal to the brain. What happens inside the brain depends on the life experience of each, but the initial signal is the same, and it can be proven with fMRI.

Off course, if we want to define a “qualia” as “the thing that can’t be proven by science”, then off course it won’t be provable using science. What is it, though?

If they’re fully color blind, how could they be shown colors? That would be a bad control group.

Instead, when doing fMRI stuff, they usually create a “baseline” by showing their subjects random stuff to see how the brain fires up. For example, they could show greyscale images of grass, sun, blood, etc., then see how it differs from seeing contextless colors (ie: a uniform green screen)

They did researchers with fMRI that showed that the same colors activated brains of viewers the same way, giving as much weight as possible to the idea that people perceive colors the same way.

They can sell it as premium footage at a later date!

My understanding was that it was a risky moment, they didn’t want to risk showing astronautes dying… But that doesn’t make sense since the same logic applies to most of the launch!

Yeah! When’s the last time you did something for the first time?