ameancow
@ameancow@lemmy.world
- Comment on Space is beautiful 23 hours ago:
I tried to point this out and everyone got grumpy. It must be nice being so attractive.
- Comment on Space is beautiful 1 day ago:
Google maps is one of the only applications that has literally made cry. The other is excel for entirely different reasons.
- Comment on Space is beautiful 1 day ago:
Exactly, you can go on Google Earth right now and view the past.
- Comment on Space is beautiful 1 day ago:
But that’s boring, doing it with light is way better.
I get that it seems cooler, but you would be looking at recordings with gathered light either way.
- Comment on Space is beautiful 1 day ago:
… But still! the idea that it’s at least hypothetically possible to actually see our own past is very exciting!
We… we have tools for seeing our past. We have extensive records of imagery from as far back as we have orbital satellites. You can go on Google Earth right now and look at older maps.
I mean, I get why it would be cool to see a reflection from the past, but literally every reflection you see is from the past. At a certain distance from your reflective or distorting surface, you’re going to need major image processing to make out a clear image of the planet, so again, at that point it’s far easier to just look at recorded images or videos.
There is a much cooler idea though that you can exploit from this principle: you can use a star or other dense object in space to work like a light-lens, we could build this now but it would be a very expensive and long-term project, because we would need to send a series probes out past the distance that Voyager 1 has already traveled over 40 years. We would also need to know ahead of time what our target is so we place the probes in the right place, placing the sun between the probes and the target at just the right distance.
If you take the distorted light from around the edges of the Sun and reconstruct it, you can theoretically see details of continents and other surface features of Earth-sized planets in entire other solar systems, which would be fantastic.
- Comment on Space is beautiful 1 day ago:
Alternatively, and slightly cheaper, put a satellite into orbit and just record everything on the ground it looks at, hang onto recordings for 10 years.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 1 day ago:
Yup. The number times we’ve seen shared credit for discoveries and shared nobel prizes simply because two teams were doing the same but unconnected work is amazing, and it points how there is a cutting edge that will be in the same place no matter how you get there.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
Holy shit, my god, your moderation history is a disaster area, no surprise. I am blocking you and your annoying banner spam.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
As with so many things about biological chemistry, the reality is so much more complicated than “MOAR TESTOSTERONE MEAN MORE MAN” and having any kind of hormonal imbalance is far more likely to fuck with your entire internal health system and have opposite effects than the typical Andrew Tate follower could imagine.
Also, I got the Styro Pyro reference, I know he’s a bit of an odd fellow but I wonder if “intense obsession with death rays” is more a product of innate oddness or has anything to do with crazy high testosterone. Maybe we have an as-of-yet undiscovered “laser hormone” waiting to be studied.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
Here is the entire premise boiled-down:
“It’s totally natural and normal to have an upper-class telling you what to do and lording over you, in fact class division is the most normal thing in the world because lobsters do stuff that looks kind of like it, if it bothers you, you’re just not testosteroning hard enough.”
- Comment on One photograph. Two daughters. Three Nobel Prizes. 2 days ago:
The Curie family was an amazing story of pioneering science and true scientific effort to change the world. To say the Curie family made sacrifices would be an understatement.
I think about that every time I see some charlatan or delusional nutter with no math or science background trying to get recognized on the Joe Rogan show for having some pothead idea that keeps getting rejected from mainstream science channels.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
I’m not a lawyer and neither are the mods I assume, I just know what kind of obnoxious things people don’t like to see so I’m trying to help you not end up feeling worse.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
You just did!
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
99% of the time when someone is ranting and raving about “mainstream physics rejecting them and driving them away” it’s because that person is an absolute nutter with more ego than brains.
I am not at all involved in physics in an academic level, but I have spent a lot of time on academic message boards and forums, people really want to help each other and contribute to our collective understanding of the world. The only people who get driven off are people who don’t share this collaborative attitude and think their own ideas are so special and amazing that everyone else is just jealous of them.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
People love to repeat this as a way to self-validate feelings of being rejected or less educated than people who put in the commitment and time and energy to learning actual science.
Everyone rather be Rick Sanchez than Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar because it seems more fun.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
Also, people seem to have this idea that you’re going to come up with an idea or model of physics or an invention and you’re just going to get a knock on the door from people in white coats with a briefcase of cash based on the pure beauty of your stoner idea about the shape of the universe or something.
You are literally more likely to win the lottery.
Bruh, you gotta work in life, even being smart you still have to work. You have to not only have your ideas, but you have to do the work to test your models, to prove your ideas and connect those ideas to other working systems. If you develop a new idea, it has to fit into existing science, and that combination becomes a “model” and then you have to prove your model works and that nature behaves as it predicts. This can take a lifetime, it involves not only being active and social and navigating your field, you cannot do it alone, especially as someone who hasn’t spent their life making connections and navigating the academic world.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
Nothing kills my motivation more than discovering something new in math and then finding out some dead guy beat me to the punch by several centuries lol
This is literally the heart of science and physics, it’s how every single great mind has made advancements and gotten recognized, by building on the works of those who came before them and finding new ways to connect and test models. If you’re “discovering” things that other people have before, that means you’re on the right track, now you just need to put the work in validating and verifying your model or expanding on the models that others have developed.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
Slow down there, we can’t ALL get cabinet positions in the current US presidential administration.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
Also, something that doesn’t get nearly enough attention is how every great scientist who has changed the world with their ideas… were usually working off the foundational ideas and experimental data of people who came before them. Einstein polished his theories from the work of others, who also worked off the ideas of those who came before them.
A lot of Americans in particular have this individualist idea about science because that’s the way the stories have been presented, “lone geniuses fighting the world.”
You simply don’t make advancements in science by yourself. Newton, famous isolationist, also worked from and with the work of others even when locked away inventing new kinds of physics and math.
Everyone thinks their stoner ideas about how the universe works are going to make them rich and famous, even though largely most great minds have lived and died normal lives, or even suffered penniless and unrecognized until well after their deaths.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
being obnoxious and off topic
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
You will not learn everything about science that you need to criticize your own theories without navigating existing systems and channels. It’s a part of the process. Yes, start in a community college, get to know everyone there, learn all you can from every source you can, use the internet to research but also be social and reach out.
Join math and physics forums, talk to people who know more than you, and every time someone knocks you on your ass, you reevaluate your ideas and sharpen them and present them again until people start seeing something and you will gain some level of support in academics and professors if your idea has merit.
Making breakthroughs in physics is a lot of work. It’s not just pure ideas and theories, a lot of people with great ideas died poor and unknown. Like everything in life, success comes from navigating the hard paths that require socializing, reaching out to strangers, not being discouraged easily, and staying humble and passionate about the ideas, not the recognition.
This is how every great physicist has done it. This is a system that has evolved both as a natural product of having to weigh all new ideas carefully against known, tested ideas, and from centuries of physics and math work that have picked off a lot of the “low hanging fruit.” IE: you’re not as likely to discover something as simultaneously obvious and relatively easy to test as say, electromagnetic theory. But even in that case, it took the idea guy, Michael Faraday, befriending someone who knew more about math, James Clerk Maxwell for Faraday’s ideas to be taken seriously.
A lot of people think science is “good enough” on its own because they digest too many surface-level stories about science and great minds without being exposed to the lifetime of work those people had to do to have their ideas explored in enough rigor to be accepted as part of our understanding of the universe.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
Trying to get yourself banned here too is only going to make you feel worse.
- Comment on We gotta be more encouraging 2 days ago:
“I have theories” is great, everyone should have theories and ideas.
But if you can’t connect them to understood, known physics and systems that have been demonstrated over and over again for centuries, you’re not really contributing anything.
“I have ideas for a really cool race car shape. I don’t know anything about formula 1, I just have this neat idea. Why won’t professional teams who demonstrate their efforts daily take my design seriously?”
Go to school, educate yourself with online courses, read every possible criticism or attack on theory, be your own worst critic and THEN if it survives knowledge and critique, you have a chance of being seen and noticed. This isn’t about “encouragement” or “making someone feel better” and it’s certainly not a plot by Big Science to keep the little man down, this is just how the process works and why you have phones and video games and soda dispensers.
- Comment on Did it really used to be common for guys to go to a bar every night like in Cheers or The Simpsons? 3 days ago:
The divide between cultures and populations becomes highly apparent on sites like this, which attract a very select group.
- Comment on 3 days ago:
Yes, yes YES we know, atomic fission doesn’t work that way. This isn’t reddit, people in Lemmy can like, read and stuff.
- Comment on Why did Thanos, with the power of all the infinity stones, never think to try doubling the amount of resources in the world? 5 days ago:
Much like how they dumbed-down the original story for The Matrix, they decided that a romance with Death wouldn’t sell as many action figures I suppose. Gotta keep dem stories 2-dimensional.
- Comment on Oh no my harvest is too bountiful 5 days ago:
Like furries but they got a thing for reptiles instead of mammals.
- Comment on Another WSJ banger about why the poors aren't doing more 5 days ago:
They had a guy in the article that owes 200k in student loans!
Everything else can be argued when it comes to growth/wages, but by far the single most crippling issue we have in the US is massive debt to survive, and once you’re in debt, you often never get out.
We had a term for this in the middle-ages.
History repeats over and over.
- Comment on Another WSJ banger about why the poors aren't doing more 5 days ago:
I’ve been laid off four times in my adult life.
I had a mortgage, I couldn’t keep it. See above.
- Comment on i enjoy using drugs and that will never change 6 days ago:
A large percentage of “I need this drug/drink to function” people eventually face some measure of change in their lives that force them to start learning how to manage themselves without outside chemicals or medication.
It may be you, it may not be. The point is, don’t get set-in on “policy” because you may want to change your life. It does get old after a while.