Comments by "LoneTech" (@0LoneTech) on "Professor Dave Explains" channel.

I must admit, I burst out laughing at his "the molecules in my mind are fighting against moving toward life" (15:25). So he's backing his opinion up with not just ascribing agency to prebiotic molecules, but a goal of not becoming life, and that's his excuse for claiming they wouldn't do it. With this view of molecules as cartoon characters, I'm reminded of much better media like "Il était une fois... la Vie".
28
@kaim0d0 When asking about things that only exist in your mind, you might want to use more than one word to describe them. You see, others operate in a different context known as reality.
10
@kaim0d0 Your entire statement is filled with prejudice, including reality rejection. The core of it attempts to proscribe both what measurements show and how an observer would react. And that's not what happens in reality with either of those; your theory of mind appears to be crumbling along with your mental model of reality.
10
Technically, that's not how perspective works. With synthetic holography (e.g. 4d light field displays) we actually can produce objects that approximate this visual behaviour, but only for a crudely limited set of viewpoints and with low resolution. Of course flerf knowledge of holography is based on scooby doo and star wars, so they'll claim there's a nefarious "they" faking the moon... but never explain why this magic ("sufficiently advanced technology") has never been applied to anything that matters.
8
@MingusDew_Bebop Learning a technical field is a good example of intellectualism. You may be exposed to some toxic stereotyping if you want to contrast them.
6
I expect gyroscopes for such launches need to have their fibers potted to handle the vibrations. Do they use specific compounds with lower indices of refraction to maintain the fiber's reflectivity? In hindsight, probably a silly question. Those fibers should probably be sleeved, so only the inner sleeve would need optical properties, or a layer of lacquer like on coil wire. And such sleeved fibers are commonplace. But that's how questions tend to work; you try to compare the unfamiliar to the familiar.
5
@stuartgray5877 If you're talking about rotation fluctuations, there certainly are such papers. here are some likely reasons the denialist won't submit any though: 1) can't find it himself, and prefers belligerence over admitting even that; 2) knows the fluctuations are out of scale (e.g. only show in long term measurement after subtracting the main signal); 3) merely suspects point 2 because conspiracy nutters tend to be wrong, and prefers belligerence over finding out; 4) just wants to waste everyone's time (making them a troll) All these options are a-hole moves, obviously. But can you find any better? Real fluctuations exist, inevitably caused by tidal forces but occasionally seismic events. There are some classic unrealistic expectations of science here. It's like expecting to learn all about the seasons from looking at a thermometer for a minute.
4
@KyleHerrera106 "Composite images compiled using data from a myriad sensors"? If those sensors were light sensors aimed slightly differently, that would be a ten kilopixel photograph. Real world example: the Game Boy Camera with 128x128 uses about 1.6 myriad photosites. We get better quality with more readings, more precise sensors, and just plain more sensors. The device you're reading this on probably has megapixels, not mere kilopixels. It gets a bit more fun when you mix in more dimensions. A typical photograph only uses three wavelength filters and two angular dimensions, but I have one that mixes in two translation dimensions too. Some go to the full six for pose and one for time. Video footage typically mixes up the vertical angular dimension with time because of rolling shutters, in addition to the temporal dimension separating frames. There's so much fun stuff to learn, make and use!
4
@stuartgray5877 Conspiracy theorists are self-driven. This is why one of the rules of flerf is that their sources contradict their claims when they do provide references; they either don't understand or ignore how. E.g. a simulation model using a stationary reference frame documents that only because it differs from reality, but flerfs insist it means the opposite. Usually they go for some key word and ignore all context.
4
As observed by both Douglas Adams and Albert Einstein, yes. The universe has an astonishing capacity for idiots.
4
Pemdas isn't evidence, it's an acronym for a poor mnemonic for an introduction to the order of algebraic operations. Oddly enough it's also abused as a dogmatic bludgeon.
4
Going off on a tangent, there's an element of the film Erik the Viking that feels somewhat related to flat earthers. Much of the film involves mythical adventures reaching places like Valhalla, but there's this one crew member who's a Christian and doesn't believe in that stuff, including the edge of the world. He mostly can't tell what all the fuss is about.
4
@Nature_Consciousness Actual philosophers like the concept of ideas and knowledge, including their transfer, and will be more interested in discussing a particular idea - including explaining it in simple terms - than trying to boggle people with an avalanche of phrases out of context. This is naturally only a heuristic, but a case as extreme as yours makes the distinction pretty obvious. Obligatory XKCD reference: 451.
3
Much as the phrase "double standards" is easy to reach for here, that's not what most of them have. They have fixity; there's no preset threshold for them to hear an argument, they already stopped listening at the first indication they didn't already agree.
3
@HerrMau Terry Pratchett was indeed great, but I'd suggest reading some Douglas Adams and Yahtzee Croshaw.
2
If I may supply a tangent, Steve Mould made some lovely observations on semirigid chains under the influence of gravity.
2
I think I prefer technobabble over pseudophilosophy.
2
54:11 Yes, light can cool things. Not the large scale disorganized light that we see by, though; it has to be precisely coordinated to counter the existing kinetic energy. Laser cooling is fancy stuff. Admittedly I have only vague ideas of how it works, but I'd compare it to acoustic levitation.
2
@aprofessionalateverything7585 Sure sounds unreal. Who would marry a two year old?
2
... conforming to that force is the definition of level.
2
@GetMoGaming He did, it's one of those kooky ideas the "scientists" spout, while everyone else uses working magic.
2
They all are.
2
Gamergate is an interesting case of a conflict around a real world conspiracy, where you can tell people are trying to recruit you if they insist it had two sides.
1
There's nothing odd about separating someone for disrupting class. I once knew a guy who'd consistently ask the same question at least three times before ever pausing to check if anyone heard him, let alone answered. Sweet guy, but a tad tedious to explain things to.
1
Going on about IQ is a sure sign someone really doesn't bother with interesting thoughts. There was a time dad tried "IQ tests" for amusements, but he grew bored with them being so repetitively constructed; in particular, many were written by someone with a fixation on letters in words, to the exclusion of their actual meaning.
1
Not "still". They're each freshly indoctrinated and most of them picked this position because it is wrong. It's more important to them to be opposed than right or sensible.
1
You mean as in XKCD 882?
1
Ad nauseam. Literally.
1
Calmly? Many of them outright prefer frenzies.
1
That may be an indicator he's not using books for reading. For instance, some people think the purpose of books is to be piled up or maybe posed on shelves, to resemble a professor's office. Borrowing books at the library doesn't serve this purpose because it requires many books, preferably big ones, and maybe they should be a bit worn too.
1
In a case of words having multiple meanings, conjugates occur in mathematics. The complex conjugate is flipping the sign of the imaginary part of a complex number. And we do use complex numbers to make wave related calculation, e.g. in the Fourier transform. As usual, however, just because a conspiracy kook parrots a real word doesn't mean they have a clue how it's used. XKCDs: 26 849
1
Number 198 is a bit of a clue.
1
We've measured it. There is a difference; everything including water weighs nearly 1% less at the equator than at either pole, and it causes the Earth to be 0.3% flattened. This is a major factor in how local gravity (as in the sum of forces that causes things to fall, not specifically the effect of mass) varies between places on Earth.
1
XKCD 1115
1
@awkwardukulele6077 Almost. It's the word a particularly unthinking set of religious science deniers use to attempt to bring science down to their level, after having recognized their level is not respectable. They very much want to sound anti-science, but want you to see actual science as a niche cult, in contrast to theirs which is supposed to be better because it's entrenched. There's a mirroring set that instead attempt to pretend their dogmas are science, producing pseudoscience, e.g. "Christian science". Some don't have an established dogma nor want to recognize their beliefs are a cult, and a few of those use the word too, for the same purpose but with less irony. In all cases, it's a great way to point out they'd rather be calling silly and inaccurate names than producing coherent arguments or evidence.
1
... either way, they are flexible. As you can see when a train passes.
1
Much as the phrase "double standards" is easy to reach for here, that's not what most of them have. They have fixity; there's no preset threshold for them to hear an argument, they already stopped listening at the first indication they didn't already agree.
1
There's also that little inverse square law, and red shift, and what appears to be finite time. In simple terms, it's dark because no matter how many lights there are they're not that tightly packed.
1