entertaining lecture on evolving Big Bang ideas, "branes"

[viscount aero]

It's worth watching if you can make it through, as it becomes more and more far-fetched. See it as quasi-educational/updated entertainment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcxptIJS7kQ

description of the lecture:

"Watch video of the Seyfert Lecture featuring Dr. Paul J. Steinhardt, the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University.

Steinhardt, who is also on the faculty of both the Department of Physics and the Department of Astrophysical Sciences, spoke at Vanderbilt March 17, 2011. He is the author of over 200 refereed articles, six patents, and three technical books. In 2007, co-authored Endless Universe: The Big Bang and Beyond, a popular book on contemporary theories of cosmology.

This talk introduces an alternative to the standard big bang model that challenges conventional ideas about space, time and the evolution of the universe."

It is interesting (and not what I thought it would be at the outset) and kept watching it. But as it went farther along, it became more and more injected with pure fantasy, becoming nearly absolute in its level of faith-based points of view. It is somewhat like watching a lecture on Creationism. It does not challenge conventional ideas about space and time and the universe inasmuch as it adds more convention atop fantasy and pure speculation.

In short, there is no way they can possibly ascertain most of what he alleges, ie, "branes" that "collide," "M theory" (which is String Theory on steroids), and all that begins to unfold from that.

Enjoy the show.

[Sparky]

Over an hour!

Here is a 17 minute "brane" vid.
http://youtu.be/X1SVM5Nvb1I


I'll get to your link as soon as possible. thanks...

[303vegas]

Here is a 17 minute "brane" vid.
http://youtu.be/X1SVM5Nvb1I

They haven't got a 'brane to scratch their arse with. I think turok's statement about the elephant in the room is telling.

The thing that really gets me is the way that they constantly portray the universe as flat. very significant.

Does the m in 'm-theory' stand for 'made up as we went along?'

I also dislike the way that they try to shoehorn the physical universe into their maths. There are no initial observations, they just seem to base their ideas on existing theories and only consult reality once they've finished with the blackboards.

This nonsense is costing us taxpayers billions. They ought to go do something constructive like getting a job at mcdonalds.

[Sparky]

Did you catch the part where the two branes come together and transfer energy? Assuming they have previously come together and transferred energy, where does the energy differential come from the second time?

[Chai Wallah]

I come to terms with 'branes' by calling it - 'speculative intellectualism gone wild..'

It's not just that I don't understand, or comprehend any part of it - but that I really feel that they don't know what they are talking about themselves .. they are being dishonest in a quasi-intelligent, obscure mathematical way, that knows it can get away with it.
why - probably because colleagues ego's will not want to show their own lesser level of intellect by protesting about such nonsense.. & so this circular level of detached speculations spirals out of any form of control.. IMO



'Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive'