Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch > #108617 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-09-13 20:51 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-09-18 17:00 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 427 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch
Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-13 20:51 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-13 23:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-14 07:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-15 00:06 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-14 22:49 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-15 11:22 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-16 23:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-17 10:57 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-17 19:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 00:50 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-15 00:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-15 03:51 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-17 23:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-17 23:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 00:44 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 00:57 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 01:27 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 13:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 14:37 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:50 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 19:00 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-18 19:01 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 18:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 08:52 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 08:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-20 11:21 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:32 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 14:54 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 22:11 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 01:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 18:43 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-21 01:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 19:28 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 19:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2024-09-21 14:15 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:26 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2024-09-21 14:16 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 16:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:24 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 02:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 21:12 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-21 13:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:26 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-21 20:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-21 18:49 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 20:58 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-22 07:44 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 15:37 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 12:55 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 21:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-22 20:53 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 01:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-23 10:53 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-23 21:39 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture BGB-Alt <bohannonindustriesllc@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:00 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 14:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-30 03:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-30 05:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 11:49 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-30 17:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 11:46 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 20:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 14:35 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 21:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:19 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 22:32 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:46 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:47 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 00:26 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 19:48 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 03:03 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 20:07 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:51 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-24 07:50 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 11:56 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-24 14:14 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2024-09-24 15:45 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 00:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-10-02 17:58 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-10-03 10:25 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 12:49 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-24 11:45 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-10-12 08:27 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-23 11:33 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:25 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:29 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 23:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 02:57 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 02:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 10:34 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 19:44 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:43 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 18:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 12:37 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-23 16:30 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 19:04 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 22:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 00:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 04:27 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-19 14:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:01 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-19 09:26 +0200
Perception of lag (Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?) jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-19 09:00 +0100
Re: Perception of lag (Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?) mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 11:10 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-19 12:54 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 09:14 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-20 09:55 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:33 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 13:19 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:46 +0000
Local (predictive?) echoing (was: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-20 10:57 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:16 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-20 21:06 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 20:17 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-21 15:39 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 22:58 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-21 22:42 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 17:29 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 22:06 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 12:46 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-22 02:34 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:09 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 20:06 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:37 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 00:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 04:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 06:52 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 02:13 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 02:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:16 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 12:18 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 12:12 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-20 21:06 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 23:50 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 17:09 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 16:58 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-23 15:06 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 21:10 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 00:34 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-23 21:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 11:44 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-24 14:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 17:50 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 22:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 11:51 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:36 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 02:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 03:41 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 15:21 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 18:26 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 22:57 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 20:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-29 23:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-18 05:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 06:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-18 20:09 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:47 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-19 10:44 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 08:43 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-19 16:25 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-19 19:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-19 19:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 00:15 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-20 05:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 09:37 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-20 11:18 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 15:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 19:10 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 11:56 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 11:44 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-24 08:14 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-24 10:56 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-20 14:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-22 02:29 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 18:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:06 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 03:17 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 20:30 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 20:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 20:33 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:00 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 10:36 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 13:51 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 10:12 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 07:48 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-28 17:41 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2024-09-28 13:16 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 19:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-30 13:23 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:22 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 19:24 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-28 21:50 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 13:59 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 14:15 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:55 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 10:43 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-27 18:43 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-27 23:00 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 02:47 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 10:07 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 18:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 23:15 +0300
Re: physics is hard, was Intel exceptionally John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-28 21:16 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 21:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-28 17:46 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 19:01 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 14:08 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 02:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 04:04 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 14:13 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 14:11 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 18:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-29 22:09 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 04:01 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-30 16:35 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 20:13 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-30 03:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 04:11 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-30 05:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 19:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-01 02:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 03:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-01 08:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 10:48 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 08:57 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-10-01 15:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 18:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 20:56 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 21:11 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-02 08:50 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-10-01 22:07 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 21:09 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-02 09:20 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-02 21:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-03 10:02 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-10-07 12:59 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-08 09:23 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-12 07:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-01 23:33 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 00:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-03 01:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 03:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-03 10:23 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-03 19:10 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-04 11:10 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-04 17:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-05 11:08 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-05 17:49 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-05 18:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-10-06 10:41 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-06 12:47 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-06 23:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-10-07 00:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-07 01:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-07 11:32 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-08 09:17 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-06 20:59 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-06 12:07 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-06 01:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-06 22:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-10-07 09:29 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-07 12:45 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2024-10-07 19:01 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-07 06:37 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-03 19:10 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 00:36 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-01 02:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-20 00:43 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 17:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-21 20:30 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 03:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 16:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-28 02:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 02:44 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 10:28 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-28 07:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 11:48 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 12:58 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 14:26 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 14:39 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 05:44 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-23 19:12 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 10:43 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-23 21:13 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 15:53 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:01 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-22 06:10 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 18:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 10:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-23 13:59 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:56 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-23 14:24 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 12:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-23 19:08 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:00 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-24 08:17 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-24 17:28 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 18:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 12:14 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 05:56 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 18:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:50 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 00:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:49 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 11:35 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-19 12:59 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 16:15 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 20:12 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 20:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 21:35 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:43 +0000
Re: quanta vs AI, not Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-20 00:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 20:53 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-20 01:08 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 22:07 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 15:33 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:22 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:43 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 23:55 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 17:13 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 01:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 21:01 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 13:26 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 01:28 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 21:02 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-22 12:41 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 13:40 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 12:12 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Josh Vanderhoof <x@y.z> - 2024-09-20 19:08 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-21 10:40 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 17:08 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 20:15 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 02:54 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 00:42 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-18 02:41 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 06:45 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-18 20:37 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 01:19 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2024-09-19 08:20 -1000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 19:01 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:47 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 11:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 14:50 +0300
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 15:35 +0300
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 15:33 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:44 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 01:01 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-20 05:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:36 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-21 12:19 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 10:24 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-23 12:42 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 12:32 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-23 16:35 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2024-09-24 03:34 +0100
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 03:05 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-24 10:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 17:17 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 20:28 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:15 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 14:11 -0700
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 12:17 -0700
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:33 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-24 17:38 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 18:02 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:16 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:38 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-25 18:23 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 21:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-25 19:57 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:12 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2024-11-04 09:43 +0100
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-04 15:51 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 14:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-09-20 09:44 -0700
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 17:29 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-09-20 12:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-18 10:41 +0200
Re: Microsoft financials, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-18 20:41 +0000
Re: Microsoft financials, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:43 +0000
Re: Microsoft financials, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:18 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 20:57 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:27 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-09-17 21:57 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 06:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-18 16:28 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 17:00 +0000
Page 14 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 22 Next page →
| From | Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-03 01:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdkt00$3in73$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109390 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: > >> Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: > > Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery? He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun, the sun is not a gas as taught in school. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnU8XK0C8oTC-slk-xRn91pm05DT4XrVj&si=E7ZdtvUX4FHPkI70 His YouTube play lists will keep you busy for a few days. You will quickly realize that what passes for stellar science is a load of bovine excess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-03 03:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdl4ok$3jhjh$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109393 |
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >> >>> Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: >> >> Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery? > > He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ... And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C. In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-03 10:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdlk9g$3kq50$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109394 |
On 03/10/2024 05:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>> >>>> Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: >>> >>> Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery? >> >> He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ... > > And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C. > > In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or > sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence. Indeed. Also note that the two guys who won the Nobel Prize for the development of MRI - the /real/ inventors of the MRI machine - are both long dead. But this particular crank is mad enough and influential enough to have a page on Rational Wiki, which is never a good sign. (It seems he did work on improving MRI technology before he went bananas.) <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-03 19:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdmq7e$3re5q$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109401 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 03/10/2024 05:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >> >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: >>>> >>>> Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery? >>> >>> He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ... >> >> And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C. >> >> In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or >> sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence. > > Indeed. > > Also note that the two guys who won the Nobel Prize for the development > of MRI - the /real/ inventors of the MRI machine - are both long dead. > > But this particular crank is mad enough and influential enough to have a > page on Rational Wiki, which is never a good sign. (It seems he did > work on improving MRI technology before he went bananas.) > > <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille> One day I will be on rational wiki. ;) Watch his videos and try to debunk what he says. Good luck with that. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-04 11:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdobe8$5cna$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109409 |
On 03/10/2024 21:10, Brett wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 03/10/2024 05:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>> >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: >>>>> >>>>> Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery? >>>> >>>> He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ... >>> >>> And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C. >>> >>> In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or >>> sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence. >> >> Indeed. >> >> Also note that the two guys who won the Nobel Prize for the development >> of MRI - the /real/ inventors of the MRI machine - are both long dead. >> >> But this particular crank is mad enough and influential enough to have a >> page on Rational Wiki, which is never a good sign. (It seems he did >> work on improving MRI technology before he went bananas.) >> >> <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille> > > One day I will be on rational wiki. ;) > > Watch his videos and try to debunk what he says. > > Good luck with that. ;) > There are more productive uses of my time which won't rot my brain as quickly, such as watching the grass grow. A bit challenge with the kind of shite that people like this produce is that it is often unfalsifiable. They invoke magic, much like religions do, and then any kind of disproof or debunking is washed away by magic. When you make up some nonsense that has no basis in reality or no evidence, you can just keep adding more nonsense no matter what anyone else says. So when nutjobs like that guy tell you the sun is powered by pixies riding tricycles really fast, he can easily invent more rubbish to explain away any evidence. There's a term for this - what these cranks churn out is "not even wrong". (You can look that up on Rational Wiki too.) And while the claims of this kind of conspiracy theory cannot be falsified, there is also no evidence for them. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - there is no need to debunk them. The correct reaction is to laugh if they are funny, then move on and forget them. We are all human, and sometimes we get fooled by an idea that sounds right. But you should be embarrassed at believing such a wide range of idiocy and then promoting it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-04 17:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdpad7$agqd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109427 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 03/10/2024 21:10, Brett wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> On 03/10/2024 05:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery? >>>>> >>>>> He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ... >>>> >>>> And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C. >>>> >>>> In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or >>>> sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence. >>> >>> Indeed. >>> >>> Also note that the two guys who won the Nobel Prize for the development >>> of MRI - the /real/ inventors of the MRI machine - are both long dead. >>> >>> But this particular crank is mad enough and influential enough to have a >>> page on Rational Wiki, which is never a good sign. (It seems he did >>> work on improving MRI technology before he went bananas.) >>> >>> <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille> >> >> One day I will be on rational wiki. ;) >> >> Watch his videos and try to debunk what he says. >> >> Good luck with that. ;) >> > > There are more productive uses of my time which won't rot my brain as > quickly, such as watching the grass grow. > > A bit challenge with the kind of shite that people like this produce is > that it is often unfalsifiable. They invoke magic, much like religions > do, and then any kind of disproof or debunking is washed away by magic. > When you make up some nonsense that has no basis in reality or no > evidence, you can just keep adding more nonsense no matter what anyone > else says. > > So when nutjobs like that guy tell you the sun is powered by pixies > riding tricycles really fast, he can easily invent more rubbish to > explain away any evidence. > > There's a term for this - what these cranks churn out is "not even > wrong". (You can look that up on Rational Wiki too.) > > And while the claims of this kind of conspiracy theory cannot be > falsified, there is also no evidence for them. Claims made without > evidence can be dismissed without evidence - there is no need to debunk > them. The correct reaction is to laugh if they are funny, then move on > and forget them. > > We are all human, and sometimes we get fooled by an idea that sounds > right. But you should be embarrassed at believing such a wide range of > idiocy and then promoting it. A gas cannot emit the spectrum we see from the sun, liquid metallic hydrogen can. Gases do not show the pond ripples from impacts that we see from the sun surface. And a long list of other basic facts Pierre-Marie_Robitaille goes over in his Sky Scholar videos. Stellar science is a bad joke, such basic mistakes should have been corrected 100 years ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-05 11:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdqvmf$mv5f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109433 |
On 04/10/2024 19:59, Brett wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 03/10/2024 21:10, Brett wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>> On 03/10/2024 05:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery? >>>>>> >>>>>> He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ... >>>>> >>>>> And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C. >>>>> >>>>> In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or >>>>> sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence. >>>> >>>> Indeed. >>>> >>>> Also note that the two guys who won the Nobel Prize for the development >>>> of MRI - the /real/ inventors of the MRI machine - are both long dead. >>>> >>>> But this particular crank is mad enough and influential enough to have a >>>> page on Rational Wiki, which is never a good sign. (It seems he did >>>> work on improving MRI technology before he went bananas.) >>>> >>>> <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille> >>> >>> One day I will be on rational wiki. ;) >>> >>> Watch his videos and try to debunk what he says. >>> >>> Good luck with that. ;) >>> >> >> There are more productive uses of my time which won't rot my brain as >> quickly, such as watching the grass grow. >> >> A bit challenge with the kind of shite that people like this produce is >> that it is often unfalsifiable. They invoke magic, much like religions >> do, and then any kind of disproof or debunking is washed away by magic. >> When you make up some nonsense that has no basis in reality or no >> evidence, you can just keep adding more nonsense no matter what anyone >> else says. >> >> So when nutjobs like that guy tell you the sun is powered by pixies >> riding tricycles really fast, he can easily invent more rubbish to >> explain away any evidence. >> >> There's a term for this - what these cranks churn out is "not even >> wrong". (You can look that up on Rational Wiki too.) >> >> And while the claims of this kind of conspiracy theory cannot be >> falsified, there is also no evidence for them. Claims made without >> evidence can be dismissed without evidence - there is no need to debunk >> them. The correct reaction is to laugh if they are funny, then move on >> and forget them. >> >> We are all human, and sometimes we get fooled by an idea that sounds >> right. But you should be embarrassed at believing such a wide range of >> idiocy and then promoting it. > > > A gas cannot emit the spectrum we see from the sun, liquid metallic > hydrogen can. > You do realise that the sun is primarily plasma, rather than gas? And that scientists - /real/ scientists - can heat up gases until they are plasma and look at the spectrum, in actual experiments in labs? Has your hero tested a ball of liquid metallic hydrogen in his lab? > Gases do not show the pond ripples from impacts that we see from the sun > surface. > > And a long list of other basic facts Pierre-Marie_Robitaille goes over in > his Sky Scholar videos. > > Stellar science is a bad joke, such basic mistakes should have been > corrected 100 years ago. > You think one crackpot with no relevant education and no resources can figure all this out in a couple of years, where tens of thousands of scientists have failed over a hundred years? Do you /really/ think that is more likely than supposing that he doesn't understand what he is talking about? In real science, lab experiments, observation of reality (such as the sun in this case), simulations, models, and hypotheses all go hand in hand in collaboration between many scientists and experts in different fields in order to push scientific knowledge further. "Maverick" genius scientists who figure out the "real" answer on their own don't exist outside the entertainment industry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-05 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdru7f$resc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109454 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 04/10/2024 19:59, Brett wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> On 03/10/2024 21:10, Brett wrote: >>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>> On 03/10/2024 05:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ... >>>>>> >>>>>> And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C. >>>>>> >>>>>> In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or >>>>>> sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed. >>>>> >>>>> Also note that the two guys who won the Nobel Prize for the development >>>>> of MRI - the /real/ inventors of the MRI machine - are both long dead. >>>>> >>>>> But this particular crank is mad enough and influential enough to have a >>>>> page on Rational Wiki, which is never a good sign. (It seems he did >>>>> work on improving MRI technology before he went bananas.) >>>>> >>>>> <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille> >>>> >>>> One day I will be on rational wiki. ;) >>>> >>>> Watch his videos and try to debunk what he says. >>>> >>>> Good luck with that. ;) >>>> >>> >>> There are more productive uses of my time which won't rot my brain as >>> quickly, such as watching the grass grow. >>> >>> A bit challenge with the kind of shite that people like this produce is >>> that it is often unfalsifiable. They invoke magic, much like religions >>> do, and then any kind of disproof or debunking is washed away by magic. >>> When you make up some nonsense that has no basis in reality or no >>> evidence, you can just keep adding more nonsense no matter what anyone >>> else says. >>> >>> So when nutjobs like that guy tell you the sun is powered by pixies >>> riding tricycles really fast, he can easily invent more rubbish to >>> explain away any evidence. >>> >>> There's a term for this - what these cranks churn out is "not even >>> wrong". (You can look that up on Rational Wiki too.) >>> >>> And while the claims of this kind of conspiracy theory cannot be >>> falsified, there is also no evidence for them. Claims made without >>> evidence can be dismissed without evidence - there is no need to debunk >>> them. The correct reaction is to laugh if they are funny, then move on >>> and forget them. >>> >>> We are all human, and sometimes we get fooled by an idea that sounds >>> right. But you should be embarrassed at believing such a wide range of >>> idiocy and then promoting it. >> >> >> A gas cannot emit the spectrum we see from the sun, liquid metallic >> hydrogen can. >> > > You do realise that the sun is primarily plasma, rather than gas? And > that scientists - /real/ scientists - can heat up gases until they are > plasma and look at the spectrum, in actual experiments in labs? Has > your hero tested a ball of liquid metallic hydrogen in his lab? > >> Gases do not show the pond ripples from impacts that we see from the sun >> surface. >> >> And a long list of other basic facts Pierre-Marie_Robitaille goes over in >> his Sky Scholar videos. >> >> Stellar science is a bad joke, such basic mistakes should have been >> corrected 100 years ago. >> > > You think one crackpot with no relevant education and no resources can > figure all this out in a couple of years, where tens of thousands of > scientists have failed over a hundred years? Do you /really/ think that > is more likely than supposing that he doesn't understand what he is > talking about? > > In real science, lab experiments, observation of reality (such as the > sun in this case), simulations, models, and hypotheses all go hand in > hand in collaboration between many scientists and experts in different > fields in order to push scientific knowledge further. > > "Maverick" genius scientists who figure out the "real" answer on their > own don't exist outside the entertainment industry. So science ended 100 years ago and we should close our eyes and ears and say not anything that would counter our sacred flawless scientists of old. Stop being a religious zealot and watch the videos. If he is a crackpot you should be bright enough to figure it out and prove it for the world to see. Crackpots cannot survive scientific rigor. A five minute search crushes such fools with ease, I have done this a dozen times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-05 18:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vds087$rp06$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109459 |
Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 04/10/2024 19:59, Brett wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>> On 03/10/2024 21:10, Brett wrote: >>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>>> On 03/10/2024 05:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or >>>>>>> sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also note that the two guys who won the Nobel Prize for the development >>>>>> of MRI - the /real/ inventors of the MRI machine - are both long dead. >>>>>> >>>>>> But this particular crank is mad enough and influential enough to have a >>>>>> page on Rational Wiki, which is never a good sign. (It seems he did >>>>>> work on improving MRI technology before he went bananas.) >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille> >>>>> >>>>> One day I will be on rational wiki. ;) >>>>> >>>>> Watch his videos and try to debunk what he says. >>>>> >>>>> Good luck with that. ;) >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are more productive uses of my time which won't rot my brain as >>>> quickly, such as watching the grass grow. >>>> >>>> A bit challenge with the kind of shite that people like this produce is >>>> that it is often unfalsifiable. They invoke magic, much like religions >>>> do, and then any kind of disproof or debunking is washed away by magic. >>>> When you make up some nonsense that has no basis in reality or no >>>> evidence, you can just keep adding more nonsense no matter what anyone >>>> else says. >>>> >>>> So when nutjobs like that guy tell you the sun is powered by pixies >>>> riding tricycles really fast, he can easily invent more rubbish to >>>> explain away any evidence. >>>> >>>> There's a term for this - what these cranks churn out is "not even >>>> wrong". (You can look that up on Rational Wiki too.) >>>> >>>> And while the claims of this kind of conspiracy theory cannot be >>>> falsified, there is also no evidence for them. Claims made without >>>> evidence can be dismissed without evidence - there is no need to debunk >>>> them. The correct reaction is to laugh if they are funny, then move on >>>> and forget them. >>>> >>>> We are all human, and sometimes we get fooled by an idea that sounds >>>> right. But you should be embarrassed at believing such a wide range of >>>> idiocy and then promoting it. >>> >>> >>> A gas cannot emit the spectrum we see from the sun, liquid metallic >>> hydrogen can. >>> >> >> You do realise that the sun is primarily plasma, rather than gas? And >> that scientists - /real/ scientists - can heat up gases until they are >> plasma and look at the spectrum, in actual experiments in labs? Has >> your hero tested a ball of liquid metallic hydrogen in his lab? >> >>> Gases do not show the pond ripples from impacts that we see from the sun >>> surface. >>> >>> And a long list of other basic facts Pierre-Marie_Robitaille goes over in >>> his Sky Scholar videos. >>> >>> Stellar science is a bad joke, such basic mistakes should have been >>> corrected 100 years ago. >>> >> >> You think one crackpot with no relevant education and no resources can >> figure all this out in a couple of years, where tens of thousands of >> scientists have failed over a hundred years? Do you /really/ think that >> is more likely than supposing that he doesn't understand what he is >> talking about? >> >> In real science, lab experiments, observation of reality (such as the >> sun in this case), simulations, models, and hypotheses all go hand in >> hand in collaboration between many scientists and experts in different >> fields in order to push scientific knowledge further. >> >> "Maverick" genius scientists who figure out the "real" answer on their >> own don't exist outside the entertainment industry. > > > So science ended 100 years ago and we should close our eyes and ears and > say not anything that would counter our sacred flawless scientists of old. > > Stop being a religious zealot and watch the videos. > > If he is a crackpot you should be bright enough to figure it out and prove > it for the world to see. Crackpots cannot survive scientific rigor. A five > minute search crushes such fools with ease, I have done this a dozen times. > Here is what Sabine Hossenfelder thinks of modern physics, and she makes money promoting physics to people on YouTube. https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=USc2fHsaWTJMSDSt The comments are funny. ;) My translation is that modern physics is a bullshit engine of unprovable gibberish like string theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-06 10:41 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <lmet8mFmne6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109465 |
On 2024-10-05 21:24, Brett wrote: > Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> On 04/10/2024 19:59, Brett wrote: >>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>> On 03/10/2024 21:10, Brett wrote: >>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/10/2024 05:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or >>>>>>>> sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also note that the two guys who won the Nobel Prize for the development >>>>>>> of MRI - the /real/ inventors of the MRI machine - are both long dead. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But this particular crank is mad enough and influential enough to have a >>>>>>> page on Rational Wiki, which is never a good sign. (It seems he did >>>>>>> work on improving MRI technology before he went bananas.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille> >>>>>> >>>>>> One day I will be on rational wiki. ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> Watch his videos and try to debunk what he says. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good luck with that. ;) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are more productive uses of my time which won't rot my brain as >>>>> quickly, such as watching the grass grow. >>>>> >>>>> A bit challenge with the kind of shite that people like this produce is >>>>> that it is often unfalsifiable. They invoke magic, much like religions >>>>> do, and then any kind of disproof or debunking is washed away by magic. >>>>> When you make up some nonsense that has no basis in reality or no >>>>> evidence, you can just keep adding more nonsense no matter what anyone >>>>> else says. >>>>> >>>>> So when nutjobs like that guy tell you the sun is powered by pixies >>>>> riding tricycles really fast, he can easily invent more rubbish to >>>>> explain away any evidence. >>>>> >>>>> There's a term for this - what these cranks churn out is "not even >>>>> wrong". (You can look that up on Rational Wiki too.) >>>>> >>>>> And while the claims of this kind of conspiracy theory cannot be >>>>> falsified, there is also no evidence for them. Claims made without >>>>> evidence can be dismissed without evidence - there is no need to debunk >>>>> them. The correct reaction is to laugh if they are funny, then move on >>>>> and forget them. >>>>> >>>>> We are all human, and sometimes we get fooled by an idea that sounds >>>>> right. But you should be embarrassed at believing such a wide range of >>>>> idiocy and then promoting it. >>>> >>>> >>>> A gas cannot emit the spectrum we see from the sun, liquid metallic >>>> hydrogen can. >>>> >>> >>> You do realise that the sun is primarily plasma, rather than gas? And >>> that scientists - /real/ scientists - can heat up gases until they are >>> plasma and look at the spectrum, in actual experiments in labs? Has >>> your hero tested a ball of liquid metallic hydrogen in his lab? >>> >>>> Gases do not show the pond ripples from impacts that we see from the sun >>>> surface. >>>> >>>> And a long list of other basic facts Pierre-Marie_Robitaille goes over in >>>> his Sky Scholar videos. >>>> >>>> Stellar science is a bad joke, such basic mistakes should have been >>>> corrected 100 years ago. >>>> >>> >>> You think one crackpot with no relevant education and no resources can >>> figure all this out in a couple of years, where tens of thousands of >>> scientists have failed over a hundred years? Do you /really/ think that >>> is more likely than supposing that he doesn't understand what he is >>> talking about? >>> >>> In real science, lab experiments, observation of reality (such as the >>> sun in this case), simulations, models, and hypotheses all go hand in >>> hand in collaboration between many scientists and experts in different >>> fields in order to push scientific knowledge further. >>> >>> "Maverick" genius scientists who figure out the "real" answer on their >>> own don't exist outside the entertainment industry. >> >> >> So science ended 100 years ago and we should close our eyes and ears and >> say not anything that would counter our sacred flawless scientists of old. >> >> Stop being a religious zealot and watch the videos. >> >> If he is a crackpot you should be bright enough to figure it out and prove >> it for the world to see. Crackpots cannot survive scientific rigor. A five >> minute search crushes such fools with ease, I have done this a dozen times. >> > > Here is what Sabine Hossenfelder thinks of modern physics, and she > makes money promoting physics to people on YouTube. > > https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=USc2fHsaWTJMSDSt The issues Hossenfelder discusses in that video are at the rugged frontiers of theoretical physics: whether or not Loop Quantum Gravity predicts that the speed of light depends on the frequency of the light, and whether or not it makes sense to work on mathematical models of reality, like string theory, that so far do not make testable predictions. It is natural that there are disagreements and even quarrels among physicists in such areas. The current methods for funding physics research may be contributing to such problems. And it is frustrating that no major, easily explainable advances have been made for quite a while. But I strongly doubt that Hossenfelder thinks the Sun consists of liquid metallic hydrogen. > The comments are funny. ;) After a quick sampling it seems most comments are just praising Hossenfelder's aggressive style and ranting in this video, not talking about the physics. I wonder if Hossenfelder is in danger of becoming the DJ Trump of physics, perhaps soon calling for draining the academic swamp, and attracting a following of similarly disappointed and frustrated seekers for simple solutions. > My translation is that modern physics is a bullshit engine of unprovable > gibberish like string theory. Don't equate "modern physics" like string theory with all of physics. And YouTube videos making money does not mean that the videos present the truth... counter-examples are legion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-06 12:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdtprc$16lu8$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109465 |
On 05/10/2024 20:24, Brett wrote: > Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> On 04/10/2024 19:59, Brett wrote: >>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>> On 03/10/2024 21:10, Brett wrote: >>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/10/2024 05:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or >>>>>>>> sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also note that the two guys who won the Nobel Prize for the development >>>>>>> of MRI - the /real/ inventors of the MRI machine - are both long dead. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But this particular crank is mad enough and influential enough to have a >>>>>>> page on Rational Wiki, which is never a good sign. (It seems he did >>>>>>> work on improving MRI technology before he went bananas.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille> >>>>>> >>>>>> One day I will be on rational wiki. ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> Watch his videos and try to debunk what he says. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good luck with that. ;) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are more productive uses of my time which won't rot my brain as >>>>> quickly, such as watching the grass grow. >>>>> >>>>> A bit challenge with the kind of shite that people like this produce is >>>>> that it is often unfalsifiable. They invoke magic, much like religions >>>>> do, and then any kind of disproof or debunking is washed away by magic. >>>>> When you make up some nonsense that has no basis in reality or no >>>>> evidence, you can just keep adding more nonsense no matter what anyone >>>>> else says. >>>>> >>>>> So when nutjobs like that guy tell you the sun is powered by pixies >>>>> riding tricycles really fast, he can easily invent more rubbish to >>>>> explain away any evidence. >>>>> >>>>> There's a term for this - what these cranks churn out is "not even >>>>> wrong". (You can look that up on Rational Wiki too.) >>>>> >>>>> And while the claims of this kind of conspiracy theory cannot be >>>>> falsified, there is also no evidence for them. Claims made without >>>>> evidence can be dismissed without evidence - there is no need to debunk >>>>> them. The correct reaction is to laugh if they are funny, then move on >>>>> and forget them. >>>>> >>>>> We are all human, and sometimes we get fooled by an idea that sounds >>>>> right. But you should be embarrassed at believing such a wide range of >>>>> idiocy and then promoting it. >>>> >>>> >>>> A gas cannot emit the spectrum we see from the sun, liquid metallic >>>> hydrogen can. >>>> >>> >>> You do realise that the sun is primarily plasma, rather than gas? And >>> that scientists - /real/ scientists - can heat up gases until they are >>> plasma and look at the spectrum, in actual experiments in labs? Has >>> your hero tested a ball of liquid metallic hydrogen in his lab? >>> >>>> Gases do not show the pond ripples from impacts that we see from the sun >>>> surface. >>>> >>>> And a long list of other basic facts Pierre-Marie_Robitaille goes over in >>>> his Sky Scholar videos. >>>> >>>> Stellar science is a bad joke, such basic mistakes should have been >>>> corrected 100 years ago. >>>> >>> >>> You think one crackpot with no relevant education and no resources can >>> figure all this out in a couple of years, where tens of thousands of >>> scientists have failed over a hundred years? Do you /really/ think that >>> is more likely than supposing that he doesn't understand what he is >>> talking about? >>> >>> In real science, lab experiments, observation of reality (such as the >>> sun in this case), simulations, models, and hypotheses all go hand in >>> hand in collaboration between many scientists and experts in different >>> fields in order to push scientific knowledge further. >>> >>> "Maverick" genius scientists who figure out the "real" answer on their >>> own don't exist outside the entertainment industry. >> >> >> So science ended 100 years ago and we should close our eyes and ears and >> say not anything that would counter our sacred flawless scientists of old. >> >> Stop being a religious zealot and watch the videos. >> >> If he is a crackpot you should be bright enough to figure it out and prove >> it for the world to see. Crackpots cannot survive scientific rigor. A five >> minute search crushes such fools with ease, I have done this a dozen times. >> > > Here is what Sabine Hossenfelder thinks of modern physics, and she makes > money promoting physics to people on YouTube. > > https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=USc2fHsaWTJMSDSt > Sabine Hossenfelder is quite a good commentator, and I've seen many of her videos before. Her points here are not new or contentious - there is quite a support in scientific communities for her argument here. We have arguably reached a point in the science of cosmology and fundamental physics where traditional scientific progress is unavoidably minimal. Basically, we cannot build big enough experiments to provide corroborating or falsifying evidence for current hypothetical models that could explain quantum mechanics (known to be an extraordinarily good model on small scales) and relativity (known to work well on large scales, and with many aspects confirmed in laboratory experiments). If gravity works like a quantum field mediated by a "graviton" boson, we'd need a particle accelerator the size of the orbit of Jupiter to find it. If we want to use a particle accelerator to look for evidence of string theory (/not/ a scientific theory, despite the name), the size would be commensurate with the Milky Way. Then there is the limit to the human mind. This stuff requires such a depth of knowledge and study that by the time anyone has learned enough of the current ideas and existing data and evidence to be able to push the boundaries, they are already well past their creative prime. Does that mean we (meaning the scientific community) should stop trying? No, of course not. But we should try to stop going round in circles. The emphasis should be on finding ways to split the problems up, so that more people can work on simpler parts, and perhaps making more use of AI to handle the details. There should also, IMHO, be more focus on testability of ideas, and less on mathematical philosophy. It also means that new sources of experimental data are important - that's why projects like the James Webb telescope are so vital. Does it mean that /all/ of physics research is going nowhere? No, of course not - it is only in a few certain areas that have somewhat stagnated, and where some of the ideas stretch credulity. Cosmology may be suffering, but studies of the nanoscopic world, materials, unusual matter phases, and countless other branches of physics are all progressing solidly. And does it mean that we can replace existing accurate (but not quite perfect) models with complete bollocks that doesn't fit the evidence and has no justification from reality? For most people, that would be a rhetorical question - but for your benefit, the answer is no. > The comments are funny. ;) > > My translation is that modern physics is a bullshit engine of unprovable > gibberish like string theory. > Your translation is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-06 23:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <95f39b635da10c847f08be71581e3165@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #109486 |
On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 10:47:08 +0000, David Brown wrote: > On 05/10/2024 20:24, Brett wrote: >> Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Here is what Sabine Hossenfelder thinks of modern physics, and she makes >> money promoting physics to people on YouTube. >> >> https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=USc2fHsaWTJMSDSt >> > > Sabine Hossenfelder is quite a good commentator, and I've seen many of > her videos before. Her points here are not new or contentious - there > is quite a support in scientific communities for her argument here. We > have arguably reached a point in the science of cosmology and > fundamental physics where traditional scientific progress is unavoidably > minimal. Basically, we cannot build big enough experiments to provide > corroborating or falsifying evidence for current hypothetical models Based on the success of Webb--we can, we just don't have access to enough money to allow for building and shipping such a device up into space. Optics-check, structure-check, rocket-check, where to put it- check, telemetry and command-check. > that could explain quantum mechanics (known to be an extraordinarily > good model on small scales) and relativity (known to work well on large > scales, and with many aspects confirmed in laboratory experiments). If > gravity works like a quantum field mediated by a "graviton" boson, we'd > need a particle accelerator the size of the orbit of Jupiter to find it. I heard closer to Saturn, but you forgot that it would take 5% of the sun's energy to power it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-07 00:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <T4GMO.5508$Aty4.829@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #109499 |
mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes: >On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 10:47:08 +0000, David Brown wrote: > >> On 05/10/2024 20:24, Brett wrote: >>> Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Here is what Sabine Hossenfelder thinks of modern physics, and she makes >>> money promoting physics to people on YouTube. >>> >>> https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=USc2fHsaWTJMSDSt >>> >> >> Sabine Hossenfelder is quite a good commentator, and I've seen many of >> her videos before. Her points here are not new or contentious - there >> is quite a support in scientific communities for her argument here. We >> have arguably reached a point in the science of cosmology and >> fundamental physics where traditional scientific progress is unavoidably >> minimal. Basically, we cannot build big enough experiments to provide >> corroborating or falsifying evidence for current hypothetical models > >Based on the success of Webb--we can, we just don't have access to >enough money to allow for building and shipping such a device up into >space. Optics-check, structure-check, rocket-check, where to put it- >check, telemetry and command-check. An article in this week's Aviation Week and Space Technology noted that the starship will be able to boost a payload that masses thirty times the Webb for less cost than the Webb launch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-07 01:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c139608808c220d3b36717a131924999@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #109506 |
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 0:39:15 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote: > mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes: >>On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 10:47:08 +0000, David Brown wrote: >> >>> On 05/10/2024 20:24, Brett wrote: >>>> Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>> Here is what Sabine Hossenfelder thinks of modern physics, and she makes >>>> money promoting physics to people on YouTube. >>>> >>>> https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=USc2fHsaWTJMSDSt >>>> >>> >>> Sabine Hossenfelder is quite a good commentator, and I've seen many of >>> her videos before. Her points here are not new or contentious - there >>> is quite a support in scientific communities for her argument here. We >>> have arguably reached a point in the science of cosmology and >>> fundamental physics where traditional scientific progress is unavoidably >>> minimal. Basically, we cannot build big enough experiments to provide >>> corroborating or falsifying evidence for current hypothetical models >> >>Based on the success of Webb--we can, we just don't have access to >>enough money to allow for building and shipping such a device up into >>space. Optics-check, structure-check, rocket-check, where to put it- >>check, telemetry and command-check. > > An article in this week's Aviation Week and Space Technology noted > that the starship will be able to boost a payload that masses > thirty times the Webb for less cost than the Webb launch. I was counting on Starship in the above. I was only complaining about the "can't" part. Every piece of engineering is go--as long as someone will pay for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-07 11:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ve09s1$1l0aq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109507 |
On 07/10/2024 03:34, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 0:39:15 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes: >>> On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 10:47:08 +0000, David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> On 05/10/2024 20:24, Brett wrote: >>>>> Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Here is what Sabine Hossenfelder thinks of modern physics, and she >>>>> makes >>>>> money promoting physics to people on YouTube. >>>>> >>>>> https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=USc2fHsaWTJMSDSt >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sabine Hossenfelder is quite a good commentator, and I've seen many of >>>> her videos before. Her points here are not new or contentious - there >>>> is quite a support in scientific communities for her argument here. We >>>> have arguably reached a point in the science of cosmology and >>>> fundamental physics where traditional scientific progress is >>>> unavoidably >>>> minimal. Basically, we cannot build big enough experiments to provide >>>> corroborating or falsifying evidence for current hypothetical models >>> >>> Based on the success of Webb--we can, we just don't have access to >>> enough money to allow for building and shipping such a device up into >>> space. Optics-check, structure-check, rocket-check, where to put it- >>> check, telemetry and command-check. >> >> An article in this week's Aviation Week and Space Technology noted >> that the starship will be able to boost a payload that masses >> thirty times the Webb for less cost than the Webb launch. > > I was counting on Starship in the above. > I was only complaining about the "can't" part. > Every piece of engineering is go--as long as someone will pay for it. No, the engineering is not remotely close to "go" for these things (the ridiculously large particle accelerators), even if there were an unlimited supply of money. There are, however, many other types of devices and experiments that would be useful for physics research which /are/ possible from the engineering viewpoint, but lack the funding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-07 17:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4763cd8f0ba170ea2c0f35730a0aaf40@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #109519 |
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 9:32:49 +0000, David Brown wrote: > On 07/10/2024 03:34, MitchAlsup1 wrote: >>>>> Sabine Hossenfelder is quite a good commentator, and I've seen many of >>>>> her videos before. Her points here are not new or contentious - there >>>>> is quite a support in scientific communities for her argument here. We >>>>> have arguably reached a point in the science of cosmology and >>>>> fundamental physics where traditional scientific progress is >>>>> unavoidably >>>>> minimal. Basically, we cannot build big enough experiments to provide >>>>> corroborating or falsifying evidence for current hypothetical models >>>> >>>> Based on the success of Webb--we can, we just don't have access to >>>> enough money to allow for building and shipping such a device up into >>>> space. Optics-check, structure-check, rocket-check, where to put it- >>>> check, telemetry and command-check. >>> >>> An article in this week's Aviation Week and Space Technology noted >>> that the starship will be able to boost a payload that masses >>> thirty times the Webb for less cost than the Webb launch. >> >> I was counting on Starship in the above. >> I was only complaining about the "can't" part. >> Every piece of engineering is go--as long as someone will pay for it. > > No, the engineering is not remotely close to "go" for these things (the > ridiculously large particle accelerators), even if there were an > unlimited supply of money. We have all the technology we need to build a 2× Webb and to launch it into space, or we will by the time it can be built. > There are, however, many other types of devices and experiments that > would be useful for physics research which /are/ possible from the > engineering viewpoint, but lack the funding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-08 09:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ve2ma6$23l45$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109531 |
On 07/10/2024 19:14, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 9:32:49 +0000, David Brown wrote: > >> On 07/10/2024 03:34, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > >>>>>> Sabine Hossenfelder is quite a good commentator, and I've seen >>>>>> many of >>>>>> her videos before. Her points here are not new or contentious - >>>>>> there >>>>>> is quite a support in scientific communities for her argument >>>>>> here. We >>>>>> have arguably reached a point in the science of cosmology and >>>>>> fundamental physics where traditional scientific progress is >>>>>> unavoidably >>>>>> minimal. Basically, we cannot build big enough experiments to >>>>>> provide >>>>>> corroborating or falsifying evidence for current hypothetical models >>>>> >>>>> Based on the success of Webb--we can, we just don't have access to >>>>> enough money to allow for building and shipping such a device up into >>>>> space. Optics-check, structure-check, rocket-check, where to put it- >>>>> check, telemetry and command-check. >>>> >>>> An article in this week's Aviation Week and Space Technology noted >>>> that the starship will be able to boost a payload that masses >>>> thirty times the Webb for less cost than the Webb launch. >>> >>> I was counting on Starship in the above. >>> I was only complaining about the "can't" part. >>> Every piece of engineering is go--as long as someone will pay for it. >> >> No, the engineering is not remotely close to "go" for these things (the >> ridiculously large particle accelerators), even if there were an >> unlimited supply of money. > > We have all the technology we need to build a 2× Webb and to launch > it into space, or we will by the time it can be built. > Sure. And given how much new and exciting results we've got from the current James Webb (and the Hubble before it), we can look forward to getting even more from the next generation of space telescopes that can perhaps help push cosmology further and answer big questions such as the nature of dark matter. But it won't get us any closer to disproving or corroborating string theory, loop quantum gravity, gravitons, or any other current conjectures for a "theory of everything". It won't even help providing justification for conjectures such as dark energy and inflation, though it might provide more data that fits the maths. (That is, it might not disprove these conjectures, but it won't help explaining what they are or why they, allegedly, exist - it could be something else entirely that gives the same measurable results.) For experimental evidence for or against current theories of everything, the engineering is as much an issue as the cost. Money is not the only hinder to making a particle accelerator at the orbit of Jupiter (or Saturn, if that is what's needed).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-06 20:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86ttdozhoq.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #109499 |
mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes: >> [a particle accelerator to find quantum gravitons would need to >> be the size of the orbit of Jupiter] > > I heard closer to Saturn, but you forgot that it would take 5% of > the sun's energy to power it. That's great! We could just turn on the big accelerator every so often and counteract the effects of global warming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-06 12:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdtngk$16lu8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109459 |
On 05/10/2024 19:49, Brett wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 04/10/2024 19:59, Brett wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>> On 03/10/2024 21:10, Brett wrote: >>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>>> On 03/10/2024 05:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or >>>>>>> sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also note that the two guys who won the Nobel Prize for the development >>>>>> of MRI - the /real/ inventors of the MRI machine - are both long dead. >>>>>> >>>>>> But this particular crank is mad enough and influential enough to have a >>>>>> page on Rational Wiki, which is never a good sign. (It seems he did >>>>>> work on improving MRI technology before he went bananas.) >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille> >>>>> >>>>> One day I will be on rational wiki. ;) >>>>> >>>>> Watch his videos and try to debunk what he says. >>>>> >>>>> Good luck with that. ;) >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are more productive uses of my time which won't rot my brain as >>>> quickly, such as watching the grass grow. >>>> >>>> A bit challenge with the kind of shite that people like this produce is >>>> that it is often unfalsifiable. They invoke magic, much like religions >>>> do, and then any kind of disproof or debunking is washed away by magic. >>>> When you make up some nonsense that has no basis in reality or no >>>> evidence, you can just keep adding more nonsense no matter what anyone >>>> else says. >>>> >>>> So when nutjobs like that guy tell you the sun is powered by pixies >>>> riding tricycles really fast, he can easily invent more rubbish to >>>> explain away any evidence. >>>> >>>> There's a term for this - what these cranks churn out is "not even >>>> wrong". (You can look that up on Rational Wiki too.) >>>> >>>> And while the claims of this kind of conspiracy theory cannot be >>>> falsified, there is also no evidence for them. Claims made without >>>> evidence can be dismissed without evidence - there is no need to debunk >>>> them. The correct reaction is to laugh if they are funny, then move on >>>> and forget them. >>>> >>>> We are all human, and sometimes we get fooled by an idea that sounds >>>> right. But you should be embarrassed at believing such a wide range of >>>> idiocy and then promoting it. >>> >>> >>> A gas cannot emit the spectrum we see from the sun, liquid metallic >>> hydrogen can. >>> >> >> You do realise that the sun is primarily plasma, rather than gas? And >> that scientists - /real/ scientists - can heat up gases until they are >> plasma and look at the spectrum, in actual experiments in labs? Has >> your hero tested a ball of liquid metallic hydrogen in his lab? >> >>> Gases do not show the pond ripples from impacts that we see from the sun >>> surface. >>> >>> And a long list of other basic facts Pierre-Marie_Robitaille goes over in >>> his Sky Scholar videos. >>> >>> Stellar science is a bad joke, such basic mistakes should have been >>> corrected 100 years ago. >>> >> >> You think one crackpot with no relevant education and no resources can >> figure all this out in a couple of years, where tens of thousands of >> scientists have failed over a hundred years? Do you /really/ think that >> is more likely than supposing that he doesn't understand what he is >> talking about? >> >> In real science, lab experiments, observation of reality (such as the >> sun in this case), simulations, models, and hypotheses all go hand in >> hand in collaboration between many scientists and experts in different >> fields in order to push scientific knowledge further. >> >> "Maverick" genius scientists who figure out the "real" answer on their >> own don't exist outside the entertainment industry. > > > So science ended 100 years ago and we should close our eyes and ears and > say not anything that would counter our sacred flawless scientists of old. No, that's not /remotely/ what I wrote. New science builds on previous science - mostly refining it, and only very occasionally throwing out old stuff entirely or coming up with something entirely new. > > Stop being a religious zealot and watch the videos. > I have read enough about the people behind them - there is no need to waste time watching them. > If he is a crackpot you should be bright enough to figure it out and prove > it for the world to see. Crackpots cannot survive scientific rigor. A five > minute search crushes such fools with ease, I have done this a dozen times. Again, did you read anything that I wrote?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-06 01:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdso54$ukl1$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109433 |
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 17:59:03 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: > A gas cannot emit the spectrum we see from the sun, liquid metallic > hydrogen can. The spectrum of the Sun is primarily the continuous emissive one of a “black body” at a surface temperature of 6500K or thereabouts. Superimposed on that are absorption lines corresponding to a range of elements, representing cooler substances in the surrounding “photosphere”, I think it’s called. Which of these lines do you think is characteristic of this mythical “liquid metallic hydrogen” of yours? Fun fact: originally it was thought that those lines in the spectra of the Sun and other stars were characteristic of the entire makeup of the bodies concerned. In other words, they were full of elements much like those that make up the Earth and other planetary bodies. A young doctorate student named Cecilia Payne, after some careful study, came to the remarkable conclusion that stars were mostly hydrogen and helium, and these spectral lines were due, in effect, to relatively small amounts of contaminants in among that bulk of hydrogen and helium. > Gases do not show the pond ripples from impacts that we see from the sun > surface. What “impacts on the sun surface”?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch
csiph-web