Comments by "MC116" (@angelmendez-rivera351) on "Angela Collier " channel.

How did a guy like Loeb ever get such a position? Because these positions are ultimately meaningless, and do not speak to how good a person's work is, nor does it speak to how smart or credible a person is. Many of us have been saying this for years: that academia is something of a scam, and is riddled with many fundamental problems, while not much effort has been done to solve those problems. Academic titles generally do not mean much. I say all of this as a person who actually is studying physics at a graduate-level with the intention of joining academia and publishing papers.
5
@MrFroggypapa If the turtle is made up of pudding, should we eat it?
3
@marcfischer114 On a serious note, I would say the answer to your question is "yes."
1
@stupidas9466 Giraffes are bicorns, a variant of unicorns. They have a genetic mutation that essentially made it so their one corn was split into two.
1
The idea being used around 35:58 of the video is incorrect. While S = 0, this does not mean that dS/dE = 0 at all. It is entirely mundane for functions to satisfy, for example, f(0) = 0, but f'(0) ≠ 0 (as an example, let f(x) = x). Also, the definition of entrope being used here is not correct when talking about quantum systems anyway. This definition only works if you assume atoms are non-quantum. The definition of entropy in quantum mechanics is related to the trace of the density operator.
1
@drdca8263 One gets S = 0, not for dS/dE, so Dr. Collier-Castro's claim is still incorrect.
1
@Kalamatee Your statement is incorrect. We have observed dark matter. We do not know what this dark matter is comprised of. The reason it is called "dark matter" is because it is does not interact with the electromagnetic field at all.
1
@Kalamatee Also, your statement regarding the definition of a 'theory' is incorrect as well.
1
@trickvro A hypothesis is not a proposed theory. A theory and a hypothesis are fundamentally different kinds of statements, and they are not even in the same category. A theory is an entire collection of postulates, which are related to each other by rules of logical and mathematical deduction, such that the consequences of the postulates are testable, and they must account for already known scientific facts. A hypothesis is merely a single proposed testable postulate, which need not account for anything else or be accounted for by anything else.
1
@nevetstrevel4711 The word you are looking for is 'hypothesis.' Also, there is much more evidence for dark matter than our observations of galaxy rotations.
1
@ianhiggs No, your explanation is incorrect. There is no such a thing as "hypothesis status" or "theory status." There is no ranking system going on. Hypotheses and theories are completely different kinds of things. Also, if it is untestable, then it is not a hypothesis. In such a case, it is merely speculation.
1
@derp195 I think we should have a small minority of scientists working to prove zany ideas, because occasionally, they're right. This is laden with misunderstanding about the scientific method. The scientific method does not prove ideas. It disproves ideas. What we call a scientific fact is merely a statement which has been tested as many times as we could test it, and has yet to be disproved. A scientific hypothesis is never proven correct. We merely fail to disprove it. Working on zany ideas? The scientific community is already filled with this. The entire M.O.N.D. community is an example of this. String theory and loop quantum gravity are other examples. In cosmology and astrophysics, there is this new hypothesis being researched that there is no dark energy, and that the observations of the accelerated expansion of the universe can be accounted for by the cosmic super voids we know to exist. Zany ideas are being investigated, and crackpot theorists, and the public in general, are refusing to acknowledge this, because it runs contrary to their preferred narrative that the scientific community is allegedly dogmatic in its conclusions.
1
@Ezekiel_Allium You're describing Luis Álvarez in a nutshell lol.
1
@derp195 Crackpots aren't harmless. They may have no direct effect on the scientific community itself, but they affect the public, the audience of laypeople, rather severely.
1
@UFOCyril The claim that we are seeing UFOs in our sky is unfalsifiable. Until you propose a scientific test for your claims, there is nothing to investigate.
1
@codyluna7065 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ I find it extremely pretentious of humans and the greater scientific community at large to scoff at Avi and others like him who have kept alive the possibility of macroscopic intelligent alien life in science in general... You were obviously not paying attention to the video. No one in the scientific community is laughing at the possibility of aliens. Nobody has said that it is impossible that aliens exist. What we are scoffing at is the act of presenting a claim as being scientifically factual, when there is actually no scientific evidence to support the claim. ...what all you self-proclaimed "science nerds" are missing... We do not proclaim ourselves "science nerds." ...is the very real concerted effort led by the U.S. intelligence agencies to discredit any U.F.O. sighting for fear it would spark mass hysteria... The U.S.A. intelligence agencies have no power over the international scientific community. Crackpots like yourself have a tendency to forget this, but there are many other sovereign states in the world besides the U.S.A. U.F.O. sighting claims have no falsifiability criteria, and therefore, there is nothing you can investigate with these claims. Do you have any falsifiability criteria you want to propose, so we can start investigating these claims scientifically? Because I would love to. The "it can't possibly be aliens because only crazy people see little green men" narrative embraced almost in whole by the scientific community... The scientific community has no such narrative. There are no science textbooks saying this, nor are there any published papers saying this. ...wasn't an invention of science or reasoned skepticism... I agree, because there are no scientists making the claim you just said we make. ...but a very documented effect of a counter intelligence program deployed on Americans to ignore and discount any unexplained aerial they might witness. There are 8 E9 humans on Earth. Of those, only less than 400 million live in the U.S.A. This means 7.6 E9 of humans do not live and have nothing to do with the U.S.A. This is 95% of the entire world's population. What you are talking about is irrelevant when it comes to 95% of the world's population.
1