There is nothing to question about Newton or Einstein. Einsten is still "theoretically" right/valid and Newton is still "mechanically" right/valid, never the less, we appreciate that Einstein classical predictions helps us understand more about classical mechanics deeper than from where Newton stopped from which(Einsten theoretical predictions) we can dig deeper into more details of classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and complex mechanics. That is the difference which many philosophers fail to recognise. The problem comes in when Newton is tried to be enforced theoretically (absolutism) where the whole project has always been falling down to it's own waight till today, because relativity works pretty well on both classical(telescopic)and quantum (microscopic) scale, which is not true with absolutism. Academically; as philosophers, we need to differentiate between mechanics and theory which is differentiated pretty well with mathematicians and scientist. And that's why mathematicians and scientists are still appreciating Newton and Einstein in their respective capacity of achievements. But philosophers are still struggling to understand them and appreciate the difference between their work and and achievements and how to recognise them and their achievements with out contradictions. To make it simpler, the quantum scale as it works till date obeys the uncertainty principle inform of quantum mechanics, and that's why Schrodinger's equations work pretty well there. classical and classical scale as it works till date obeys the variation principle inform of classical mechanics, that's why Einstein field equations work pretty well there. Complex scale as it works till date obeys the equivalence principle inform of complex mechanics, that's why P=NP equations work pretty well there. Yes, Einstein formulated the special equivalence principle/special relativity for electromagnetic symmetry(which works pretty well till date)from which he based on to postulate the general equivalence principle/general relativity for gravitational symmetry (which also works pretty well with some few modifications on its cosmological limits where it has some interpretational shortcomings) from which we came to understand how the complex equivalence principle/P=NP works for electromagnetic gravitation symmetry (complex relativity/relative complexity). Quantum mechanics demonstrates that, the limits of a physical Action is electromagnetic. And classical mechanics demonstrates that the limits of a physical field is gravitational. Brrrrrrrrrrr....What is that? Does it mean that we can never detect gravity on a quantum scale? complex mechanics predicts that the limits of both a physical field and physical Action is electromagnetic gravitation...systematically; any physical field and action can be predicted through electromagnetic gravitation segmentations inform of electromagnetic gravitation system, electromagnetic gravitation field and electromagnetic gravitation action; where the action reduces to a field and the field is reversed systematically. Such that; the general contravariance of a field is hamiltonian for both classical and quantum bodies. and the general covariance of a field is langragian for both classical and quantum bodies. in this case, we are playing with electromagnetic gravitation for all classical and quantum bodies. We had already seen (systematically)how this action reduces to a field, And we have already seen how the limits of a physical Action are electromagnetic on quantum scale. What about electromagnetic gravitation Action? The bifurcation of a physical Action is chaotic for both classical and quantum bodies........and the!!!! Am scared or research is still underway. Where is the disagreement between mathematicians and scientists? The disagreement is just midiocricy disagreement based on one's failure to reach the level of understanding that physical principles are proved throuh mathematical principles as Einstein and Schrodinger did with variation and uncertainty principles respectively. And mathematical principles are verified through physical principles as P=NP is currently doing it well. Why calculus there if not absolutism, why differential geometry here if not that, why system topology there if not this, etc, etc? Find the physical principle behind the mechanical field which applies that mathematical discipline and you will answer your self in more detail than any one else can ever bother to tell you cause they are too busy digging deeper.
The notice on the screen refers to Professor McGaugh as "professor of anatomy". It should of course read " professor of ASTRONOMY ".
What is the meaning behind the extreme close-ups of the (mostly) aged audience members?
The people falling asleep, you mean? lol
Them showing the people sleeping in the audience is quite hilarious 😂 I really enjoyed the conference myself though
Hubble never said the universe was expanding. He just provided the data.
There is nothing to question about Newton or Einstein. Einsten is still "theoretically" right/valid and Newton is still "mechanically" right/valid, never the less, we appreciate that Einstein classical predictions helps us understand more about classical mechanics deeper than from where Newton stopped from which(Einsten theoretical predictions) we can dig deeper into more details of classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and complex mechanics. That is the difference which many philosophers fail to recognise. The problem comes in when Newton is tried to be enforced theoretically (absolutism) where the whole project has always been falling down to it's own waight till today, because relativity works pretty well on both classical(telescopic)and quantum (microscopic) scale, which is not true with absolutism. Academically; as philosophers, we need to differentiate between mechanics and theory which is differentiated pretty well with mathematicians and scientist. And that's why mathematicians and scientists are still appreciating Newton and Einstein in their respective capacity of achievements. But philosophers are still struggling to understand them and appreciate the difference between their work and and achievements and how to recognise them and their achievements with out contradictions. To make it simpler, the quantum scale as it works till date obeys the uncertainty principle inform of quantum mechanics, and that's why Schrodinger's equations work pretty well there. classical and classical scale as it works till date obeys the variation principle inform of classical mechanics, that's why Einstein field equations work pretty well there. Complex scale as it works till date obeys the equivalence principle inform of complex mechanics, that's why P=NP equations work pretty well there. Yes, Einstein formulated the special equivalence principle/special relativity for electromagnetic symmetry(which works pretty well till date)from which he based on to postulate the general equivalence principle/general relativity for gravitational symmetry (which also works pretty well with some few modifications on its cosmological limits where it has some interpretational shortcomings) from which we came to understand how the complex equivalence principle/P=NP works for electromagnetic gravitation symmetry (complex relativity/relative complexity). Quantum mechanics demonstrates that, the limits of a physical Action is electromagnetic. And classical mechanics demonstrates that the limits of a physical field is gravitational. Brrrrrrrrrrr....What is that? Does it mean that we can never detect gravity on a quantum scale? complex mechanics predicts that the limits of both a physical field and physical Action is electromagnetic gravitation...systematically; any physical field and action can be predicted through electromagnetic gravitation segmentations inform of electromagnetic gravitation system, electromagnetic gravitation field and electromagnetic gravitation action; where the action reduces to a field and the field is reversed systematically. Such that; the general contravariance of a field is hamiltonian for both classical and quantum bodies. and the general covariance of a field is langragian for both classical and quantum bodies. in this case, we are playing with electromagnetic gravitation for all classical and quantum bodies. We had already seen (systematically)how this action reduces to a field, And we have already seen how the limits of a physical Action are electromagnetic on quantum scale. What about electromagnetic gravitation Action? The bifurcation of a physical Action is chaotic for both classical and quantum bodies........and the!!!! Am scared or research is still underway. Where is the disagreement between mathematicians and scientists? The disagreement is just midiocricy disagreement based on one's failure to reach the level of understanding that physical principles are proved throuh mathematical principles as Einstein and Schrodinger did with variation and uncertainty principles respectively. And mathematical principles are verified through physical principles as P=NP is currently doing it well. Why calculus there if not absolutism, why differential geometry here if not that, why system topology there if not this, etc, etc? Find the physical principle behind the mechanical field which applies that mathematical discipline and you will answer your self in more detail than any one else can ever bother to tell you cause they are too busy digging deeper.
The speaker is interesting. People siting in chairs listening is not.
"... do we have the right equations?" Google "milgrom kroupa".