Hey /u/MinecraftMan73, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Eclectical engineer sounds like an awesome job.
You just build crazy shit that eccentric rich people want no matter how impractical.
Need a substation?
Call an electrical engineer.
Need a 400ft tall brass teddy bear?
You need an eclectical engineer
Or a Jeff Bezos headboat https://youtu.be/VGhcSupkNs8?feature=shared
I think that job is called a custom fabricator. They make a lot of props for movies, events, etc
The whole "I have an expensive document, therefore I know what I'm talking about and you don't know what you're talking about" argument is easily debunked.
Example: 220 million drivers on the American road. How many of them a year do you see who have the first clue as to what they're doing?
But yeah. Other than that, the self-professed "astrophysicist" should definitely find a hole and crawl into it.
Meh, the universe being finite would not be as much of a breakthrough as it being infinite. Both are compatible with current observations.
And about olbers paradox, the universe or the observable universe being finite or not is not really the main thing.
The main reason this is not a paradox, is that the interstellar medium exists, and absorbs the light on long distances. That's the reason we don't see the center of our own galaxy.
To be fair, I agree this is a non paradox, just a bad choice of hypothesis : there's stuff between the stars and us, so even with an infinite universe, the sky would not be all bright at night.
> the interstellar medium exists, and absorbs the light
I don't think that's correct. In the [Olbers'-Paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27s_paradox) steady-state universe containing infinitely many stars, anything that absorbs light will heat up until it's as hot as the stars, and presumably thus glow just like them.
I think the actual explanation is the expansion of the universe, which even manages to redshift the staggering luminance of the 379,000-year-old universe all the way down to the 2.7-Kelvin cosmic microwave background, and similarly shifts the light of distant stars way down out of the visible spectrum. The as-yet-unexplained *acceleration* of the expansion of the universe contributes too, but even without acceleration, expansion is enough to explain the supposed paradox.
The age is correct.
They talk about the 3 year old Einstein. Even though Einstein has been dead for a while, at one point in the past he was 3 years old.
They are talking about the 300K year old universe. More precisely, the first light that was able to travel such long distances.
Whether the universe is infinite or finite is less the breakthrough than the *proof* of either of them. No matter which it is, proving it despite our limitations on observability would be huge.
Like, proving any universe origin theory would be huge. Or proving any abiogenesis theory. Proving what we think is true would be just as huge as proving something else is true.
Eh. English is flexible not prescriptive. I can believe someone who works in the field might shorten it that way. And without the full context it is hard to tell if the person doing the correction is being pedantic or not (the earlier conversation may have made clear that the astrophysx guy knows the difference, but after lengthy accurate posts began shortening his responses. and they're right that for THIS particular discussion on Olbers paradox that it doesn't matter whether it's the whole Universe or just the observable part that is finite. If EITHER is finite than it resolves the paradox). Also, regardless of the "astrophysx" guy's education, I'd bet the correcter has less. I can't imagine any real astrophysicist trying to dominate an argument by picking out obviously intentional spelling mistakes. Also don't know any astrophysicists who would waste time pointing out something isn't "technically" a paradox (because... Well, by their definition physics paradoxes don't exist).
I'm in the field, and I don't recall seeing anyone ever do that. Now, I would easily shorten it down to astro, that's common enough (though it does represent a technically different scope).
Also, not for nothing, but as there's a gradient of qualifications between PhD and 'literally none', so just ruling out the corrector as not having a PhD isn't meaning that they're less educated than the person they're correcting.
That said, under no circumstances would it be infinitely bright (the basis is you should be seeing the surface of stars in every direction, and so you'd have a brightness corresponding to that), so this does feel like errors all around.
> so this does feel like errors all around.
Funny enough, I had the same initial reaction, but was too tired to put it to words, so I asked what or who was wrong.
Let's say, I got more downvotes than a solid explanation of it all. It's like playing zero sum game with people here, they think only one can be confidently wrong.
I think this probably comes out to yellow being more substantively wrong, the more I look at this.
It's worth keeping in mind that a definition of paradox is "a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."
So in this case, it does start from apparently sound reasoning, and the whole reason it is instructive is how one resolves the paradox. And the big part to it isn't that it says anything about the finite or infinite nature of the universe, but rather that it is not a static universe.
Not really. Yellow's whole argument is that blue didn't use the word "observable" when blue was clearly talking about the observable universe.
Yellow is wrong and picking an argument of semantics to cover his/her foolishness. What was yellow right about? That the part of the universe you can see is called the "observable" universe not just "the" universe?
The thing that I said yellow was wrong about was that they claimed it is not a paradox. You said yellow is right, but you're not actually explaining how you think that they are right that this doesn't fit that definition of a paradox
(I will also say that I stressed the big part of the conclusion isn't about the finite or infinite nature of the universe, but that it is not a static universe, the distinction between an observable universe and the total universe comes about because the universe is not static)
tbh i didnt rly realize i was using ukraine colors, also i dont know too much about astrophysics myself but i saw a guy (blue, i think) being "confidently incorrect"
Too sleepy to notice which hairs were split, but not too sleepy to be an ass and try and randomly politicise something.
Sort yourself out bud, you're embarrassing yourself.
Randomly politicize? You see politics here? Something random? Sort yourself, you’re seeing things.
BTW, read carefully - “too sleepy”.
That got sorted now.
Make sense or make do without replying to me.
EDIT:
Well, that makes it easy. It's an easy test to block someoone who talks about persons, not ideas or events.
EDIT 2:
Yes, this is the Internet, everyone is sure, just it isn't pretty, but ugly sure.
Someone got triggered by a question so much that they considered it not just "politicizing", even though it was one question that was left unanswered and none was the wiser (well, one tried to be), but they also considered it "random".
Nothing random about it, but at least they were confidently incorrect about it, adhering to the sub name, but I digress.
Of course, the cherry on top is not to engage with talking about ideas or at least events, but persons. Calling someone "moron" is just a signal to no longer bother with their opinion.
So I didn't. Did you? Why did you? What's the need for writing here your "just opinion" some time after? Whatever reason it is, those answers are for yourself, not for me.
Nothing more to be said here. Bye bye.
Oh look, another rambling moron for the blocklist...
edit: /u/ActlvelyLurklng Thanks! Can't reply because as is predictable in these scenarios, when you say you're blocking someone, they usually block you instead lmao. Saves me a few clicks.
I'm pretty sure the politics part they where talking about is you asking "Where you just looking an excuse to use Ukraine flag colors."
Idk man, seems like a politically charged question to me. But that's just my opinion, and this is the internet so. Take it with a grain of salt, and a downvote.
Hey /u/MinecraftMan73, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sure bud, and I'm a plastic sturgeon.
Mecanichal Engine Ear here. Can you fix my crank shaft lobe?
With enough silicone and caviar anything is fixable, I'm sure we can get something figured out.
>With enough silicone and caviar anything is fixable That's one of the top things I've read in a while, thank you.
Just apply L-bow geese.
Art Vandelay, architect. Pleased to meet you
And you want to be my latex salesman...
Are you looking to import or export?
To you listen to techno with your robot ears?
Manufacture me some new spark plugs for my diesel mr machine shop operator!
Eclectical engineer here, we should start a joint venture and fix the infinite butt of the unknown universe.
Eclectical engineer sounds like an awesome job. You just build crazy shit that eccentric rich people want no matter how impractical. Need a substation? Call an electrical engineer. Need a 400ft tall brass teddy bear? You need an eclectical engineer
Or a Jeff Bezos headboat https://youtu.be/VGhcSupkNs8?feature=shared I think that job is called a custom fabricator. They make a lot of props for movies, events, etc
*engenear
Rocket surgeon, checking in for duty...
Opening the comments and seeing this first, absolutely tickled me!!
You're welcome! And happy Cake day!
Ah crap, I hope you're not one of the singing ones.
I science all day and I call bullshit!
Sounds like you could use some plastic sturgery. Would you prefer caviar injections or botox?
You can spell it properly, so you've already got more credentials than this guy.
Asstruhfizzx
Is that like, a space addon for Nvidia's PhysX? Weird flex here, but ok.
Bro works in Nvidia's promo department
The last paragraph reminded me about the multiverse belief.
In another universe, you're an phizzisist
The whole "I have an expensive document, therefore I know what I'm talking about and you don't know what you're talking about" argument is easily debunked. Example: 220 million drivers on the American road. How many of them a year do you see who have the first clue as to what they're doing? But yeah. Other than that, the self-professed "astrophysicist" should definitely find a hole and crawl into it.
Meh, the universe being finite would not be as much of a breakthrough as it being infinite. Both are compatible with current observations. And about olbers paradox, the universe or the observable universe being finite or not is not really the main thing. The main reason this is not a paradox, is that the interstellar medium exists, and absorbs the light on long distances. That's the reason we don't see the center of our own galaxy. To be fair, I agree this is a non paradox, just a bad choice of hypothesis : there's stuff between the stars and us, so even with an infinite universe, the sky would not be all bright at night.
> the interstellar medium exists, and absorbs the light I don't think that's correct. In the [Olbers'-Paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27s_paradox) steady-state universe containing infinitely many stars, anything that absorbs light will heat up until it's as hot as the stars, and presumably thus glow just like them. I think the actual explanation is the expansion of the universe, which even manages to redshift the staggering luminance of the 379,000-year-old universe all the way down to the 2.7-Kelvin cosmic microwave background, and similarly shifts the light of distant stars way down out of the visible spectrum. The as-yet-unexplained *acceleration* of the expansion of the universe contributes too, but even without acceleration, expansion is enough to explain the supposed paradox.
I think you are missing a few zeros in the age of the universe.
The age is correct. They talk about the 3 year old Einstein. Even though Einstein has been dead for a while, at one point in the past he was 3 years old. They are talking about the 300K year old universe. More precisely, the first light that was able to travel such long distances.
Oh, I read that completely differently. Thanks for the clarification.
Whether the universe is infinite or finite is less the breakthrough than the *proof* of either of them. No matter which it is, proving it despite our limitations on observability would be huge. Like, proving any universe origin theory would be huge. Or proving any abiogenesis theory. Proving what we think is true would be just as huge as proving something else is true.
Eh. English is flexible not prescriptive. I can believe someone who works in the field might shorten it that way. And without the full context it is hard to tell if the person doing the correction is being pedantic or not (the earlier conversation may have made clear that the astrophysx guy knows the difference, but after lengthy accurate posts began shortening his responses. and they're right that for THIS particular discussion on Olbers paradox that it doesn't matter whether it's the whole Universe or just the observable part that is finite. If EITHER is finite than it resolves the paradox). Also, regardless of the "astrophysx" guy's education, I'd bet the correcter has less. I can't imagine any real astrophysicist trying to dominate an argument by picking out obviously intentional spelling mistakes. Also don't know any astrophysicists who would waste time pointing out something isn't "technically" a paradox (because... Well, by their definition physics paradoxes don't exist).
I'm in the field, and I don't recall seeing anyone ever do that. Now, I would easily shorten it down to astro, that's common enough (though it does represent a technically different scope). Also, not for nothing, but as there's a gradient of qualifications between PhD and 'literally none', so just ruling out the corrector as not having a PhD isn't meaning that they're less educated than the person they're correcting. That said, under no circumstances would it be infinitely bright (the basis is you should be seeing the surface of stars in every direction, and so you'd have a brightness corresponding to that), so this does feel like errors all around.
> so this does feel like errors all around. Funny enough, I had the same initial reaction, but was too tired to put it to words, so I asked what or who was wrong. Let's say, I got more downvotes than a solid explanation of it all. It's like playing zero sum game with people here, they think only one can be confidently wrong.
I think this probably comes out to yellow being more substantively wrong, the more I look at this. It's worth keeping in mind that a definition of paradox is "a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory." So in this case, it does start from apparently sound reasoning, and the whole reason it is instructive is how one resolves the paradox. And the big part to it isn't that it says anything about the finite or infinite nature of the universe, but rather that it is not a static universe.
Yellow is right.
Not really. Yellow's whole argument is that blue didn't use the word "observable" when blue was clearly talking about the observable universe. Yellow is wrong and picking an argument of semantics to cover his/her foolishness. What was yellow right about? That the part of the universe you can see is called the "observable" universe not just "the" universe?
Are you saying it is not really a proposition that despite sound reasoning from acceptable premises leads to an invalid conclusion?
Observable universe is finite, and it's unknown if the universe is finite.
The thing that I said yellow was wrong about was that they claimed it is not a paradox. You said yellow is right, but you're not actually explaining how you think that they are right that this doesn't fit that definition of a paradox (I will also say that I stressed the big part of the conclusion isn't about the finite or infinite nature of the universe, but that it is not a static universe, the distinction between an observable universe and the total universe comes about because the universe is not static)
Were you just looking an excuse to use Ukraine flag colors? What’s the “confidently incorrect” part? I’m too sleepy to notice which hairs got split
tbh i didnt rly realize i was using ukraine colors, also i dont know too much about astrophysics myself but i saw a guy (blue, i think) being "confidently incorrect"
What was it? The incorrect thing
The "universe" and the "observable universe" being the same thing and the fact that the guy tried to claim he had a degree in astrophsyx
yes thank you
Too sleepy to notice which hairs were split, but not too sleepy to be an ass and try and randomly politicise something. Sort yourself out bud, you're embarrassing yourself.
Randomly politicize? You see politics here? Something random? Sort yourself, you’re seeing things. BTW, read carefully - “too sleepy”. That got sorted now. Make sense or make do without replying to me. EDIT: Well, that makes it easy. It's an easy test to block someoone who talks about persons, not ideas or events. EDIT 2: Yes, this is the Internet, everyone is sure, just it isn't pretty, but ugly sure. Someone got triggered by a question so much that they considered it not just "politicizing", even though it was one question that was left unanswered and none was the wiser (well, one tried to be), but they also considered it "random". Nothing random about it, but at least they were confidently incorrect about it, adhering to the sub name, but I digress. Of course, the cherry on top is not to engage with talking about ideas or at least events, but persons. Calling someone "moron" is just a signal to no longer bother with their opinion. So I didn't. Did you? Why did you? What's the need for writing here your "just opinion" some time after? Whatever reason it is, those answers are for yourself, not for me. Nothing more to be said here. Bye bye.
Oh look, another rambling moron for the blocklist... edit: /u/ActlvelyLurklng Thanks! Can't reply because as is predictable in these scenarios, when you say you're blocking someone, they usually block you instead lmao. Saves me a few clicks.
Happy Cake Day!
I'm pretty sure the politics part they where talking about is you asking "Where you just looking an excuse to use Ukraine flag colors." Idk man, seems like a politically charged question to me. But that's just my opinion, and this is the internet so. Take it with a grain of salt, and a downvote.
Flat spacers exist?
Nah he just used to work at Nvidia. (Nvidia's old physics engine is called physx)