5 ms·

It theoretically happens very slowly, so it probably does escape detection.

by cm127 10y ago

danbruc 10y ago
The universe is old, at least according to mainstream physics, even small changes would accumulate over billions of years and cubic lightyears. And we are good at measuring things, we famously measured the g-factor to a part in a trillion, detecting gravitational waves required detecting length changes on the order 1/1000th the diameter of a proton, 0.000000000000000001 meters. A quick search reveals that we know the energy density of the universe to better than half a percent. So what are the numbers? How much new matter is generated per unit time and volume according to the theory?
- cm127 10y ago
  I'm still researching this, but it's happening at a quantum level, so I expect it to be slow. But like you said, it will have an aggregate affect over time. Also, it sounds like you're interested. Why not read the book or watch the video lecture?
  - danbruc 10y ago
    I am not interested, I am absolutely sure that the theory is total nonsense. I just wanted to make you realize that, preferably by making you discover it yourself by hinting at problems, not by simply telling you that it is wrong.
    - cm127 10y ago
      You're pathetic. You're too lazy to think outside your echo chamber, so you completely disregard it BECAUSE YOU NEED GROUP THINK TO HAVE ANY OPINION. Again, I think you're the most pathetic type of person to exist: a person too lazy and afraid to think outside their own comfort zone. No? You're comfortable making scientific critiques with absolute no research? Then that is literally more pathetic.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Please be civil on HN. There's never a reason to insult and attack a user regardless of the discussion.
        cm127 10y ago
        Eh, I don't think it's unfair: this person is openly attacking me for giving attention to a form of untested science -- declaring it "crockpottery". I honestly feel proud of myself for how much I held back on this lazy person's pathetic logic: "doesn't line up with my beliefs? then it can't be true!" I'll happily edit my statement that can defend the scientific need to dismiss information with complete prejudice, but I doubt any such logic exists. Why do I have such confidence? Because people that dismiss information without thinking are pathetic.
      - sctb 10y ago
        As was pointed out, this comment is absolutely not up to the standards of civility that the guidelines ask for. They're actually independent of what you're replying to—we especially don't have permission to make bad threads worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It theoretically happens very slowly, so it probably does escape detection.

by cm127 10y ago

It theoretically happens very slowly, so it probably does escape detection.

The universe is old, at least according to mainstream physics, even small changes would accumulate over billions of years and cubic lightyears. And we are good at measuring things, we famously measured the g-factor to a part in a trillion, detecting gravitational waves required detecting length changes on the order 1/1000th the diameter of a proton, 0.000000000000000001 meters. A quick search reveals that we know the energy density of the universe to better than half a percent. So what are the numbers? How much new matter is generated per unit time and volume according to the theory?

cm127 10y ago
I'm still researching this, but it's happening at a quantum level, so I expect it to be slow. But like you said, it will have an aggregate affect over time. Also, it sounds like you're interested. Why not read the book or watch the video lecture?
- danbruc 10y ago
  I am not interested, I am absolutely sure that the theory is total nonsense. I just wanted to make you realize that, preferably by making you discover it yourself by hinting at problems, not by simply telling you that it is wrong.
  - cm127 10y ago
    You're pathetic. You're too lazy to think outside your echo chamber, so you completely disregard it BECAUSE YOU NEED GROUP THINK TO HAVE ANY OPINION. Again, I think you're the most pathetic type of person to exist: a person too lazy and afraid to think outside their own comfort zone. No? You're comfortable making scientific critiques with absolute no research? Then that is literally more pathetic.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Please be civil on HN. There's never a reason to insult and attack a user regardless of the discussion.
      - cm127 10y ago
        Eh, I don't think it's unfair: this person is openly attacking me for giving attention to a form of untested science -- declaring it "crockpottery". I honestly feel proud of myself for how much I held back on this lazy person's pathetic logic: "doesn't line up with my beliefs? then it can't be true!" I'll happily edit my statement that can defend the scientific need to dismiss information with complete prejudice, but I doubt any such logic exists. Why do I have such confidence? Because people that dismiss information without thinking are pathetic.
    - sctb 10y ago
      As was pointed out, this comment is absolutely not up to the standards of civility that the guidelines ask for. They're actually independent of what you're replying to—we especially don't have permission to make bad threads worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html