Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. it's like trying to measure a moving billiards ball by hitting it with another billiards ball. the act of measuring the position and velocity changes the position and velocity. trying to measure a subatomic particle with another particle is just like billiards balls in effect. you're imparting a sizable impact on the thing you're trying to measure.
    2
  2. we've had four consecutive cold years here in teh US where I live.
    2
  3. starting out to test and hopefully prove a theory, only to disprove your own idea, and then publish a paper to share what you learned and that it didn't work is Valuable. too bad others don't think so in the science community.
    2
  4. some people with life experiences are more helpful with issues than college graduates with no life experiences.
    2
  5. every single climate model overpredicts reality. the data doesn't support the climate model predictions.
    2
  6. 12:30 us so-called "climate change deniers" as you'd label us, are well acquainted with this graph and have been trying to get people to talk about it for Years. Also, it is a verified fact that CO2, as a result of this graph and factors you mention, has a logarithmic effect on rising temperatures. You should be well aware what a logarithmic effect does. Each time CO2 increases global temps by 1C, we have to have doubled the amount of CO2.
    2
  7. Free Will and Determinism are two sides of the same coin. Both exist simultaneously.
    2
  8. quantum mechanics is a misunderstanding, often due to inadequate perspective
    2
  9.  @MeppyMan  fair enough
    2
  10.  @MeppyMan  I'm not panicked about it either, but the willingness of the gov and corporations to disregard people's and industry concerns and refuse to systematically and scientifically address them with all the time they had is disturbing to me. As a professional pilot and mechanical engineer myself, they idea they haven't tested this properly to evaluate the impacts is unfathomable. We never send a product like this to market without testing emissions, interference, etc. People have had years to evaluate this and present hard evidence to address each concern. It's not hard to have setup a few 5G transmitters and receivers and do localized controlled experiments next to sample equipment and sensors to collect data and test the effects in a systematic way.
    2
  11. every single climate model so far has overestimated the rise in temps
    2
  12. in the cold of winter where I live, you lose 40% reduction in range. And I have coworkers who own Teslas, VWs, Ford Lightning, Toyota Priuses, other EVs, and they all see this reduction. So let's say if you had 240miles of range in summer, you'd only get 150mi in winter. It gets cold here. And where I live 150mi doesn't get you very far at all. And that is assuming you were charged to 100%. Most EV owners I know only charge to 80%-85% most of the time. So take another 15% of range off that, leaving you with only 128mi range. Then on top of that, you don't want to risk running out of battery and being stranded, so now you want say an extra 20mi buffer, leaving you with only 108mi of effective real world range. And none of that factors in things like heaters and window defrosters, so you don't freeze to death while driving, or pulling a load.
    2
  13. Still waiting for you to attempt a video on how NASA and NOAA alters recorded temps. Since they are both unwilling and unable to explain why and how they do it, then it's not scientific. If you look at net sea level changes and recorded temps you'll see that we are not experiencing runaway warming of any kind, and are actually cooler than it was in the 1930s and 1940s. Also, CO2 has a diminishing effect on temperatures, and methane has little to no effect due to our sun not emitting enough energy on that spectrum. sea level rise claims are a lie. CO2 as the sole driver is a lie. EV cars being better for the environment is a lie. reliance on wind and solar is a lie. etc.
    2
  14. who gets to decide who is a "hate" group?
    2
  15.  @viktorm3840  the lack of logic among college students today proves you wrong. I attended 6 government colleges in 2 states over teh years, and taught at one, and logic is seriously lacking. Few people even take a single philosophy class in college anymore.
    2
  16. oh, we know how bad it can get. And if you think your country is bad, take a look at the CCP, North Korea, etc.
    2
  17. what is better? Planting trees, or increasing CO2 to let plants grow back on their own? According to NASA, rising CO2 levels regreened the Earth more than all teh trees planted by humans combined, and far more than all the solar panels ever made. Higher CO2 also results in high crop yields.
    2
  18. If we can't terraform Mars, then we can't stop climate change on Earth neither.
    2
  19. Nuclear outside of Russia has killed pretty much no one, and newer designs are far less dangerous
    2
  20. if you can't make teh transistor smaller, you make the chip bigger.....
    1
  21.  @Damnnnnnnnnnnnnnn  mind explaining how you think that applies? Computers are not compost piles for one.
    1
  22. many others before him used thought experiments. Thought experiments is an instinctive reaction for inquisitive minds. all philosophers use thought experiments. philosophy is the basis of all science and the scientific method.
    1
  23.  @brucejensen3081  Oh, so you agree gravity does exist. Since gravity is merely an acceleration. And one cannot distinguish one acceleration from another. But explain how your flat disk explains the sun rising and setting each day, and how the earth remains in orbit around the sun. This should be fun to watch....
    1
  24.  @brucejensen3081  in circles around the sun? How does day/night work if we're on a flat disk?
    1
  25.  @brucejensen3081  and why does it move about the sky? and how does the moon orbit us? And why have we never seen the edge of the earth?
    1
  26. They did "discover" it. Go read a dictionary.
    1
  27. Building Harlequin's Moon is an interesting take on terraforming planets.
    1
  28. you wouldn't accelerate indefinitely unless in vacuum, as you'd hit terminal velocity instead.
    1
  29. a computer can be mechanical OR electronic, analog OR digital.
    1
  30. the science deniers are the ones who don't understand how CO2 work. it cannot result in runaway warming.
    1
  31. CO2 can only absorb certain frequencies, and only so much energy before splitting into Carbon and Oxygen.
    1
  32.  @mauijttewaal  I have heard the explanations of time dilation, and I'm not yet totally convinced. but I haven't yet sat down to do the math myself to see if some thoughts I have on the issue are valid or not.
    1
  33. theoretical physics makes far too many assumptions, and develops further ideas on those assumptions, and gets upset when anyone questions those assumptions. Nothing wrong with making assumptions, but do not get upset when others pursue different assumptions in parallel. And never declare unsubstantiated assumptions as truth, and any opposition as heretics. Not all do this, but far too many do.
    1
  34.  @cuthbertallgood7781  spoken like a person who knows nothing about nuance. You missed my point entirely...... "The idea that "photons do work stretching space" doesn't fit the data." ....and it's obvious you didn't even read what I wrote.... typical ignorant fool.
    1
  35. analog computers count too, including mechanical analog.
    1
  36. this has been well known for a LONG time. the fact we have to argue with "scientists" to convince them of what has been known .......
    1
  37.  @משה-ב1ט  and according to PhDs who study superconductors, variable power demands makes superconductors impractical. do more research.
    1
  38.  @משה-ב1ט  I didn't say "difficult to engineer". I MEANT IMPRACTCAL. AS a combat vet, who tested Numerous prototype weapons and systems in actual combat, it's IMPRACTICAL for combat to operate sensitive superconductors that cannot hold up in combat. conditions. Stay in your lane!
    1
  39.  @משה-ב1ט  Iron dome and such don't use superconductors, and both are based on technology older than me. Proven tech. you clearly are not a combat vet, or youd understand why superconductors wont hold up in combat on the types of nergy weapons i tested. How many eenergy weapons have you tested in actual combat? I've never said tech would never work, blah, blah, blah. you said that. you tried putting words in my mouth and are making false accusations. "In my experience, when a Yank "senior engineer" or whatever claims that a thing can't be done or won't work, that's pretty good indication in itself that the thing CAN be done and WILL work." then you don't know much about math nor physics. We're reaching the literal limits of the laws of physics now in many fields, including the one I work in. you are ignorant if you think there are no limits to technology. I bet you also think battery energy density will continue to increase forever too? "You keep forgetting that you've been a decade behind in the relevant technological areas since at least the turn of the century. " not even remotely true. Name one case example of this? wow, look at you going off ona tirade. Yes, DEI and crap is ruining colleges, but I'm not one of those morons, and we don't hire such people. we can't afford to in our industry. "We'll build the "impractical" system, then you'll buy the IP, slap a McDonnell logo on it, and pretend it's yours. That's how these things work." somebody is butt hurt and jealeous. Name an example fo this happening?
    1
  40.  @משה-ב1ט  "They said it wouldn't work, but we built it: Iron Dome." WHO said it wouldn't work? It's just a SAM system. nothing special. "As it happens, I AM a veteran. And if there's one thing I know is that war's face is everchanging. What was impractical yesterday becomes practical today. What is impractical today, may well be practical tomorrow. " that's not what I asked. I asked your combat experience, and combat experience using prototype weapons, specifically directed energy weapons. So, basically you answered indirecytl,. you have no such experience. "We know that superconducting cables would be very useful if we could make them work, so therefore we will eventually find a way." except that the cost vs gain is negative. the experts in teh field disagree with you and state clearly that the minimal gains would not be worth the cost and limitations imposed by a superconductor technology. And dealing with electronics cooling realities daily myself, I agree with them. Technology has limits. "Human genius is unlimited. " it is limited by the laws of physics and math. our IMAGINATION is infinite, our technological capabilities is Limited. "The ones who forget that end up buried, whether by the newfangled Maxim gun or by the newfangled airplane, or by the FPV drone, or by whatever comes next." False. Everyone dies and eventually regardless. Directed energy weapons are not a prerequisite for victory. clearly you know nothing about military history.
    1
  41.  @משה-ב1ט  "The point keeps sailing right over your head, I see. " Not at all. im grounded in reality, you're full of fantasy idealism about technology. " If everyone keeps listening to you, we know which one it will be. Luckily, not everyone listens to you." People who listen to me innovate far more and faster than people like you. "A Tamir interceptor missile costs $20,000 at its absolute cheapest. An Iron Beam shot costs $0.25. Meantime, a rusty generic grad rocket costs around a hundred bucks, while a Quassam hacked together out of household trash, free UNRWA-provided groceries and scavenged sewer pipe will set you back around $50." and none of it uses expensive superconductors that can't tollerate engery pulsing. "Directed energy weapons are ABSOLUTELY the key to victory." Wunderwaffen are not keys to victory, just ask Japan with their super battleships and supercarriers, and the Nazis with their myriad fo weapons that failed. You know literally nothing about warfare if you think wars are won and lost by such technology. Not one war in history so far has been won by such a weapon. Also, directed energy weapons are DEFENSIVE weapons. You cannot win a war on defense only.
    1
  42.  @משה-ב1ט  "An army cannot fight if it has no rear areas. Nor can it fight if logistics are impossible due to enemy bombardment. Nor can reserves be mobilized or units deployed if they are paralyzed by bombardment and locked into their defensive positions. Nor, frankly, is there any point in "winning" if your rear is annihilated in the process and all your civilians die anyway." When has this ever happened? Give a case example. What does looking at a map help? What does any f this have to do with superconductors and energy weapons? "This is just silly. Please stop embarrassing yourself. Your notions of warfare are shaped by having an ocean to hide behind and a continent-sized country to depend upon. Not everyone possesses such luxuries." Not even remotely correct, all teh wars I fought in were on land in other countries, many times land locked nations. Again, you know nothing. and you can't cite examples, andyou can't explain nor prove how superconductors would help, nor have you proven a energy weapon wonder weapon would be a war winner.
    1
  43.  @משה-ב1ט  you're name is scrambled jibberish to me. And where you are from proves nothign regarding superconductors and energy weapons. "Jeez, we're done here." you are "Thanks for invalidating your alleged credentials, by the way. No one with a real engineering degree could possibly be that dense." in what way? what was I dense about. I'm stating facts, and you dodge, deflect, obfuscate, and spread lies.
    1
  44.  @OzixiThrill  "First things first - You overreacted to a joke. As in... WAY overreacted." Did I? are you sure? What is your evidence? how do you define "WAY overreacted"? I don't care if it's a joke, if it's a terrible joke. "Another case of you missing the point. Tell me, where did your rations and ammo come from, during those conflicts? Did you forage your own food? Did you barter for your own ammo? Or was there, oh I don't know, a continent sized country defended by oceans that was supplying you?" Yes, I have devised tactics that specifically call for foraging supplies, to achieve a specific objective. sometimes that's what you have to do, and we did perform our own unsanctioned "logisitics" operations and missions at times. "Another case of you missing the point. " in what way. you never provide a valid counter argument, you just ask questions and expect me to make your case for you. how about stating a single fact that can be verified that supports ANYTHING you siad? "Now, I considered agreeing with the other guy about how you've been lying about your background, but then... You managed to lose in Afghanistan, despite occupying the place for a decade. And somehow, that performance sits in line with this level of understanding of warfare." and this is how I know you have no clue and are losing. you are quick to whip out the ad hominems and other logical fallacies. You can doubt my background, but you can't disprove it, but I can prove it. but, now that calls into question YOUR background and qualifications, if you try to discredit mine. So state what makes you think you have any clue what you are saying is true. What experience are you drawing upon? we didn't lose in Afghanistan. We won with EASE. my unit and the US military won every battle and had the country under total control with no real casualties for years. Our bumbling idiot of a president prematurely pulled us out before teh country was stable and ready to stand alone. we pulled out, bu choice, not due to military defeat. the fact you can't even figure that out discredits literally any other claims you make about miltiary matters.
    1
  45.  @OzixiThrill  "The quality of the joke is irrelevant. You took someone seriously who was obviously not making a serious statement." that's not for you to decide moron. it's my right to react to it however i like. stop being a communist dictator wannabe.
    1
  46.  @OzixiThrill  "The fact that, after that you ended up having an argument spanning days shows that you overreacted to the situation." says the guy who restarted the debate days later...............
    1
  47.  @OzixiThrill  "I'll spell it out for you - The guy made the point that US military doctrine relies on the mainland never being under threat. Which is relatively simple when most possible avenues of attack would need to come from the environment where camouflage of any sort is near impossible. Any operation you end up as part of will ALWAYS have the materiel support of the mainland. It's so ingrained in your doctrine that the very notion of fighting a defensive war or the notion of not having support from the continental USA is inconcievable to you to the point where, when someone points it out you're more confused than the average shell-shocked trooper. Which in hindsight is rather evident and I shouldn't take too great of an exception to you fumbling around the idea." partially true, but not entirely, and never what I claimed. you're terribly confused. sea power, learn what it is. it is not a guarantee.
    1
  48.  @OzixiThrill  "Ah, yet another person who can't tell the difference between an insult and an ad hominem. Or really, any fallacy in general. In case you're struggling to catch up, an ad hominem tries to discredit someone by asserting some negative trait or behaviour. Asserting that said negative trait translates to some argument not being valid (which is only a correct statement in some very nieche situations - Conflicts of interest and some cases of hypocrisy). An insult simply asserts said negative trait or behaviour putting any stakes in the discussion on it." execpt you had no actual argument, your entire comment hinged on baseless insults, and without those insults, there was no argument left, thus it's an ad hominem, as you have no other argument.
    1
  49.  @jackroutledge352  correct, but given that such a viable superconductor doesn't yet exist, and given their finicky nature to implement in reality, it is highly likely it will cost more than it saves to implement and maintain. I don't work in an industry that consumes a LOT of electricity and we focus not only what our product costs the customer, but also how much it costs our customer to operate it over the life of the product (and that can be tens to hundreds of millions in electrical costs). so decisions like this are part of my job. we are always looking for ways to reduce the TOTAL cost (purchase + operating costs) to the customer. Sometimes it's worth improving efficiency instead of reducing purchase cost, but other times it is not. If a new feature is far more efficient, but costs the customer more than it will save in operating costs, we will never implement it.
    1
  50. so the answer is nuclear energy? solves a lot of prblems.
    1