Comments by "Dr Gamma D" (@DrDeuteron) on "Kyle Hill" channel.

  1. and it would hella radioactive. Like the piece he is holding would have around 10^40 neutrons in it, with 11m 1/2 life: 10^24 Watts of beta decay. Not to mention the neutrons themselves
    58
  2. It will converge on a single word, like Malcovich
    45
  3. there are some protons and electrons left in there.
    27
  4. don't forget to boycott electricity.
    16
  5. You don’t seem to know anything about the LHC
    10
  6.  @nocare  Have you solved the Schrodinger equation for the Coulomb hydrogen atom? (it's college level QM). It only includes electricity. The ground state is a perfectly spherical orbital. I mean perfect. Now solve the bound state for a proton moving at 0.99c and an electron moving at 0.99c. There is electricity, and magnetism, as moving charges are currents. The ground state is not spherical. It's ellipsoidal: the orbital is flattened in the direction of motion. Lorentz contraction is real, atoms are flattened.
    8
  7.  @StephenGillie  most ppl don’t know what happens at the LHC, so I’d hardly call that ad hominem. The Higgs is all about gauge theory and spontaneous symmetry breaking, and Einstein was not a fan of that. He wanted a geometric field theory of everything al la Kaluza Klein, and that’s just not happening.
    6
  8. Imagine if they had social media at the time, with their out of touch corporate twitter account
    5
  9. I’d say it’s hybrid, the matrix algebra is linear, but the response to the sum of the sums is not
    4
  10. Bro: you did The Hoff dirty (0:04).🤣
    4
  11.  @nin2494  the barn doesn't look like it shrunk. It is shrunk.
    4
  12. No we don’t.
    4
  13.  @StephenGillie  the only reason it smashes protons is because you can put them in a high energy ring. They'd prefer electrons, but they don't work at that energy. LHC smashes quarks, that just happens to b in protons. They are not studying proton structure, that was HERA at DESY.
    4
  14. I disagree with sagans retort that such claims require such evidence. A lot of physics revolutions had rather mundane evidence.
    3
  15. Hanford is contaminated with gravitational waves.
    3
  16. musical taste is indeed relative.
    3
  17. no. the PEP is derived from the spin-statistics theorem (or so I am told). The SST is derived from (anti)commutators of field operators for (fermions) bosons being zero outside the light cone, so...you could say the finite speed of information (aka: casualty) is the cause of the PEP.
    3
  18. The problem is twofold: One, the speed of light 💡 is fast. Mass of a paper clip times its square is 20 kilotons of TNT 🧨 , or a fat man. Two, Avogadro’s number is just so darn big.
    3
  19. Once it decides very very is a better modifier than very, well have very very very very very ….. very verbose output
    2
  20. See "Born Rigidity". Such a material that cannot break, breaks realtivity. (Hence: there is no such material).
    2
  21. this is a good question. The answer depends on how you stop the ladder (it's actually better to do the train/tunnel versions here because trains have brakes). If the engineer sends a brake signal to the back of the train (at c), the front stops and the back continues to pile in and its destroyed. If you preprogram the (infinity powered) brakes to engage all at once (in the tunnel frame), then the train stops fitting in the tunnel....now it's not moving and has to un-Lorentz contract: that stress blows it up. Meanwhile the ladder frame sees the front stop before the back, and the train is compressed as the back piles in. You call also put the preprogrammed stop signal to be simultaneous on the train. The then tunnel frame sees the back brakes come on first and the train is stretched out and ripped apart (the back never makes it to the tunnel). For further investigation, see "Born Rigidity": infinitely rigid object violate relativity, and various relativistic strains must exist.
    2
  22. I think ppl felt the same way about printing: we just can’t have commoners reading
    2
  23. Chandrasekhar disagrees.
    2
  24. those LANL guys knew what they were dealing with. If the blue glow is from neutrons, you're done. Gamma's you have a shot. Betas: not too bad, alphas: fuggeddaboutit.
    2
  25.  @the_retag  I suppose "fuggetaboutit" is ambiguous.
    2
  26. Kyle is a good narrator…I think it’s the hair.
    2
  27.  @sorrenblitz805  not true. Electron LINACs can make a lot of ozone, so when you shut the beam off and wait 15m for the oxygen-15 to decay (2m 1/2 life), and then go in: it smells, but is safe.
    2
  28.  @logicplague  you can't see my reply? I used the "d" word for fermionic matter that has its fermi-sea filled up (kT notwithstanding).
    2
  29. Hmmm..kind of like the president
    2
  30. 1/4 lbs of Cs-137 is 4 moles, and Avogadro's number is really huge: 2.4e24 atoms, 1.7e15 decaying each second, emitting over 100 watts, and with radiation: macroscopic numbers kill you
    2
  31. your emotional appeal for fact based discussion was good.
    2
  32. pretty sure the strongest material in the universe is your hair product.
    2
  33. Stop...you'll get it banned!!!
    1
  34. This is unfair. Neutrons see Kyle's golden main and say, "oh heyal no, I'm going back to the U236."
    1
  35. but there is no t_1. The leading and trailing spaceships have different elapsed times at fixed t. Meaning the premiss of your entire argument is flawed.
    1
  36.  @massimilianodellaguzzo8571  If the changing speeds are simultaneously equal (at different positions, same time) in the Earth's frame, then in any moving frame, the velocities are never equal. The rope breaks in ALL frames.
    1
  37. one long ship is not constrained to have uniform acceleration in the Earth's reference frame. The two ships in this paradox are, by definition.
    1
  38. Isn’t this Oblers paradox with bullets instead of E X B?
    1
  39. that explanation violates basic relativity. There is no drag from motion. If there were, you could define an absolute rest frame (the one with no drag). No matter how fast you go, space-time looks the same.
    1
  40. The question is: would you prefer the faculty of Harvard or the first 4000 names in the Boston phone book to curate for you?
    1
  41.  @stranger6822  It's a William F Buckley, Jr. quote.
    1
  42. but the ships are not in the same comoving reference frame, so everything concluded based on that is false.
    1
  43.  @dpsamu2000  well, atoms (nuclei actually) do Lorentz contract into flattened-disks with time-dilated internals in an accelerator.
    1
  44. That is called a "failure to abstract". No relation to "Terrell Rotations"?
    1
  45. well, people "test" the theory of relativity. Not sure they're trying to disprove it...unless they are crackpots.
    1
  46. you left something out: we make steam [to make high pressure fluid to make high speed flow] to turn turbines.
    1
  47. the statement that "ship 2 perfectly matches the speed of the 1st" violates relativity. So you are guaranteed to get the wrong description.
    1
  48. it's called "Superluminal Motion" (wrt to jets). It is indeed an illusion, as the time difference between observing matter at two points is less then the actual time (in the Earth's frame) between the light signals being sent...basically b/c of the finite speed of light. Wikipedia derives it.
    1
  49. In a thought experiment, one does not take measurements by observing light-speed limited signals. In order to assign coordinates to an event, one choses a frame-of-reference, which then splits spacetime into 3D space filled with imaginary synchronized unbiased clocks, the time of any event is then assigned the reading on the clock with the same position. If find it quit irritating when I find people complaining about the limitations of visual observations in a thought experiment.
    1
  50. This is a video about Special Relativity. There is no need to go outside of SR just to cause problems.
    1