this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
486 points (95.0% liked)

Science Memes

20202 readers
998 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Paragone@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago

I've been insisting this for years:

it eradicates the bullshit of hyperinflation being required to smooth the CMB,

it explains why gravity's sooo weak, compared with the contained-within-this-3d-space forces, like electromagnitism,

it explains why there exist galaxies of dark-matter which don't have any conventional-matter,

it explains why there exist galaxies of conventional-matter which don't have any dark-matter.

The gravity's diffusing through MANY 3D-spaces, not just ours.

the other forces are contained-within-this-3D-space.

Therefore OUR gravity is "dark matter" in other 3D-spaces, too.

The smoothing-of-the-CMB is simple: instead of 1x 3D-space having hyperinflation, there are thousands of 3D-spaces ( or zillions: whatever the math says matches ), & EACH of them inflated at speed-of-light or less, not at zillions-of-times-c.

The painting-method called "glazing" is essentially the same idea:

da Vince used many many thin layers of paint, to make ultra-smooth tones..

the many-many-many-3D-spaces all "underlying" each-other smoothes-out the gravity among them all, so local-lumpiness simply isn't a significant part of the equation, as it would appear.


Part of this is on the E = speed-of-gravity * mass * speed-of-light, though, so it's arithmetically identical to the conventional E=mc^2 rendition,

but would gravity & light both be traveling at the same mps speed through say a 100km of quartz?

XOR would the refractive-index be different for gravity & light?

That structural difference is what the speed-of-gravity * mass * speed-of-light variant was trying to show.

_ /\ _