User talk:Nerd

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome, The BoNs!
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>


Troll
This user likes a troll-free talk page. Revert away!




Welcome[edit]

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Nerd!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:


Venezuela[edit]

The stuff I put in about the socialism argument wasn't saying the argument itself is valid, just acknowledging that people like to make it to dismiss socialism as being inherently bad. FWIW I don't think the argument is that compelling. So I think it should be restored just to discuss that people on the right like to compare things they don't like to Venezuela. Jinx (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Physics pdf.[edit]

Twice now (possibly more but I have no indication of such) a BoN has requested that their... let's call it "idea" be posted on this site as a reputable model to physics and astrophysics. In both known instances they have linked to this pdf, which first goes into railing against existing theories (never a good sign, generally indicates crankery and woo-woo) then delves into what is either technobabble or physics technical knowledge that goes over my head. Would you be willing to take a look? (Warning, pdf creator denies Hawking Radiation. Warning, terminal stupid may be enclosed, read at own risk.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Physics pdf.[edit]

Twice now (possibly more but I have no indication of such) a BoN has requested that their... let's call it "idea" be posted on this site as a reputable model to physics and astrophysics. In both known instances they have linked to this pdf, which first goes into railing against existing theories (never a good sign, generally indicates crankery and woo-woo) then delves into what is either technobabble or physics technical knowledge that goes over my head. Would you be willing to take a look? (Warning, pdf creator denies Hawking Radiation. Warning, terminal stupid may be enclosed, read at own risk.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie A couple words on science in general before I give you the answer. (Patience, my friend!) Criticizing existing hypotheses, theories or models is not necessarily problematic. Indeed, a good way to understand them is to study their limitations.
With that out of the way, let's jump right into it by examining the five critical assumptions.
1. We do not know that the Universe is infinite. We do know, however, that the Universe is definitely not static. The statement that the Universe is "static overall even as it is dynamic within" is literally wrong. I thought by "tired light" they mean the cosmological redshift, but it turned out to be something else entirely. In any case, it fails to predict observed results.
2. Black holes do exist. We have evidence for many of them now. We are even trying to take photographs of them. Digging a little deeper into the paper reveals the author fundamentally misunderstands black holes. These are not cosmic vacuum cleaners. Their gravitational pull only becomes inescapable if you get too close. In fact, if you get far enough away, there is no need to invoke Einstein's field equations of general relativity; Newton's law of universal gravitation works just fine. Astronomical observations of the orbits of stars about the black hole at the center of the Milky Way reveal they are elliptical.
3. After Hawking discovered his eponymous mechanism for radiation emission in 1974, other people have approached the problem from different angles and derive the exact same answer. Hawking's original calculation considers quantum field theory and statistical mechanics in curved spacetime. A more recent paper from the 1990s did it using quantum tunneling. Therefore, we have very strong theoretical evidence for the existence of Hawking radiation. What we lack is empirical evidence. Hawking radiation is so weak it is a Herculean task to detect. In many cases, the Hawking radiation of a black hole is overshadowed by other things, such as X-rays by the accretion disk. However, I recently learned that someone detected the analog of Hawking radiation from acoustic black holes. It does not mean that Hawking radiation is real; it only means that we have some circumstantial evidence for its existence.
4. Anti-gravity has never been detected. Even flying objects obey the laws of gravity. Whoever wrote this has a fundamental misunderstanding of heat and therefore the kinetic theory of matter. Heat is the internal energy of the system, such as a gas inside a closed box, due to the random motion of particles making up that system. A related quantity, temperature, is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules of a system. We know neutron stars exist by astronomical observations. The supposed "anti-gravity" that prevents a neutron star from imploding is known as neutron degeneracy pressure. As the Pauli exclusion principle in action, it prevents any two neutrons from occupying the same quantum state.

5: Halton ArpWikipedia's W.svg was a respected astronomer and prominent critic of the standard Big Bang cosmology. I am not an expert and so cannot comment on his technical work. Nerd (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Your "tidy up" of Christchurch massacre[edit]

Any particular reason your are removing my comment about it only taking 6 days? It is a statement of fact after all, one commented on by many people around the world. — Unsigned, by: Aloysius the Gaul / talk / contribs

Was it a mosque or a church? Anyway, that was not in the article. I searched. If you want to include it, add another article. Nerd (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Christchurch is the name of the city the Mosque is in - a typo and nothing more. It is also my home town. — Unsigned, by: Aloysius the Gaul / talk / contribs
My condolences, good kiwi!
Anyway, you can put the "six-day" thing back with a source. Also, why undo the clarification? What on Earth does "sorts out its guns laws" mean? Nerd (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
How about this for the source: the article is from 21st, the massacre was 15th - 21-15 = 6!Aloysius the Gaul 04:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Since you want to use "basic arithmetic," it should be  21 - 15 = 6 , not 6! = 720. Accepted! (What the heck with US-centric comparisons these days! Each country is different, damn it!) Nerd (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
have you always been an argumentative jerk...lacking in basic comprehension of an English sentence? or is this just for me?Aloysius the Gaul 08:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Since you mentioned "basic arithmetic," it's fair game. Nerd (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)