Gravity and Light lectures

S

stankeylegjones

Honored Member
Messages
933
So, I somehow stumbled upon these lectures of relativity, given Frederic Schuller in 2015. They are freaking great lectures...I've watched about half of them so far. If anyone has watched them, or does, please let me know because I'd like to discuss them.

Here's lecture 1:

 
Light gets "tired" over space-time and red shifts itself. Some of the red shift is artifact and is now unreliable for dating the universe. We have no idea when (and if) the Big Bang was now - maybe 26B years ago. We're back to square 1.
 
Duke Mu said:
Light gets "tired" over space-time and red shifts itself. Some of the red shift is artifact and is now unreliable for dating the universe. We have no idea when (and if) the Big Bang was now - maybe 26B years ago. We're back to square 1.
Click to expand...
I haven't watched the video yet, but "tired light" has been proposed since the 1920s and has never gained traction in the main stream cosmologies since the Big Bang, and definitely since the 1990s when the universal expansion was shown to be accelerating. There are a multitude of confirmations of universal expansion rate. Is there something new here?
 
Duke Mu said:
Light gets "tired" over space-time and red shifts itself. Some of the red shift is artifact and is now unreliable for dating the universe. We have no idea when (and if) the Big Bang was now - maybe 26B years ago. We're back to square 1.
Click to expand...
We nicknamed our compliance guy at work, big bang, because he believes every change is traceable to the beginning of time.
 
Bumping this for superrific. Lecture 22 might be interesting for you, considering the novel you're writing. In particular, the last part where Frederic talks about the maximally extended Schwarzschild solution (Eistein-Rosen bridges/warm holes).
 
stankeylegjones said:
Bumping this for superrific. Lecture 22 might be interesting for you, considering the novel you're writing. In particular, the last part where Frederic talks about the maximally extended Schwarzschild solution (Eistein-Rosen bridges/warm holes).
Click to expand...
I appreciate it. I've watched some snippets but it's really time consuming for me because I've forgotten a lot of math. So I have to really concentrate even on the terminology -- for instance, what is topology in math again? I looked it up and I remember (though I never did a lot of topology that I remember). But it just takes time. I need a weekend without my kids to really focus on it.
 
superrific said:
I appreciate it. I've watched some snippets but it's really time consuming for me because I've forgotten a lot of math. So I have to really concentrate even on the terminology -- for instance, what is topology in math again? I looked it up and I remember (though I never did a lot of topology that I remember). But it just takes time. I need a weekend without my kids to really focus on it.
Click to expand...
I completely understand. There are a lot of mathematical concepts assumed understood, even before he starts with the definitions. If you do find the time, let me know what think or questions that arise.

(Roughly speaking, a topology on a set is a collection of subsets satisfying a list of properties. It allows for one to generalize the notion (rather properly define the notion) of continuity.)
 
It really amazed me how quickly I forgot math. I'm used to having a terrific memory, so it was shocking to me when I found I had mostly forgotten integration only ten years out of school. I could only do polynomials and logs. Part of it, I think, is the notation. That's easy as hell to forget, because notation is almost by definition not intuitive. It's a set of rules imposed for standardization that you basically just have to remember. I mean, there are reasons for some of it, but remembering what mu-sub-n means of what epsilon is doing in this particular equation -- it's not easy, I found.
 
superrific said:
It really amazed me how quickly I forgot math. I'm used to having a terrific memory, so it was shocking to me when I found I had mostly forgotten integration only ten years out of school. I could only do polynomials and logs. Part of it, I think, is the notation. That's easy as hell to forget, because notation is almost by definition not intuitive. It's a set of rules imposed for standardization that you basically just have to remember. I mean, there are reasons for some of it, but remembering what mu-sub-n means of what epsilon is doing in this particular equation -- it's not easy, I found.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, do you/did you speak another language?
 
superrific said:
Not fluently. I know some French and some German and some programming languages.
Click to expand...
I ask because I'm wondering if you forgot/forget languages as quickly. (I'm in the camp that believes mathematics is/can be used as a language for disciplines which require precision languages.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top