Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.checkmate > #230496 > unrolled thread

Re: By definition, geniuses are rare.

Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: By definition, geniuses are rare. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-27 05:16 -0500
    Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-27 06:33 -0800
      Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 06:08 -0500
        Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-28 09:51 -0800
        Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-28 06:37 -0800
          Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 07:44 -0700
          Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 09:48 -0500
            99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-28 07:39 -0800
              Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 12:00 -0500
                Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 10:03 -0700
                  Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:37 -0500
                Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:36 -0500
              Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:35 -0500
                The graviton, string theory, and bullshit worlds. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-29 06:19 -0800
                  Re: The graviton, string theory, and bullshit worlds. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 10:21 -0500
                    We don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-29 08:31 -0800
                      Re: We don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 06:11 -0500
                        Kensi's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-30 05:09 -0800
                          Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 11:29 -0500
                            Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-30 21:00 +0000
                              Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 07:27 -0500
                            Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-30 13:46 -0800
                              Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-11-30 16:41 -0600
                              Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 07:28 -0500
                                Kensi is the KoOky one. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-12-01 06:28 -0800
                                  Re: Kensi is the KoOky one. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 09:33 -0500
                                    See ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-12-01 06:48 -0800
                                      Re: See ? ! kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 09:55 -0500
                                        I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-12-01 07:04 -0800
                                          Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:27 -0500
                                          Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 12:13 -0500
                                            Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-02 02:09 +0000
                                              Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-01 22:18 -0800
                                                Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-02 09:31 -0500
                                                  Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. % <%@%> - 2018-12-02 07:35 -0700
                                                    Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-02 14:47 -0800
                                        Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 08:51 -0700
                                          Re: See ? ! kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:27 -0500
                                            Re: See ? ! "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-01 11:47 -0500
                                              Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 10:48 -0700
                                            Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:43 -0700
                                              Re: See ? ! Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-02 02:10 +0000
                                                Re: See ? ! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-03 07:17 -0600
                                                  Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-03 08:05 -0700
                                          Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 10:48 -0700
                                            Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:44 -0700
                                              Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 12:49 -0700
                                                Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:54 -0700
                                                  Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 13:02 -0700
                                                    Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:10 -0700
                                                      Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:22 -0700
                                                        Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 18:43 -0700
                                    Re: Kensi is the KoOky one. Bob Robertson <bobrobertsontsy66@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 21:52 -0600
                                  Re: Kensi is the KoOky one. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 12:09 -0500
                                Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 08:51 -0700
                                Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-12-01 11:48 -0600
                          Re: Kensi's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 12:28 -0500
            Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-28 15:23 -0800
              Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-11-28 12:33 -0600
              Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-11-28 15:54 -0500
                Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-28 18:51 -0800
                  Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-11-28 13:54 -0800
                    Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 14:57 -0700
                    Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-28 20:26 -0600
        Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-29 06:45 +0000
          Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-29 05:17 -0800
          Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-11-29 09:43 +0000
            Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:49 -0500
              Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 09:08 -0700
                Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-11-29 17:40 +0000
                Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-29 16:15 -0600
            Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 09:08 -0700
              Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-29 16:17 -0600
                Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-11-29 17:22 -0500
                Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-30 07:46 +0000
                  Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-30 00:55 -0700
                    Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-11-30 09:49 +0000
                      Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-30 08:50 -0700
                      Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-30 09:59 -0600
          Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:49 -0500
            Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-29 20:08 +0000
              Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 13:19 -0700
            Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 12:09 -0800
              Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 12:48 -0800
              Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 18:48 -0700

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#230496 — Re: By definition, geniuses are rare.

On 11/25/2018 11:12 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Kensi replied:
>>> the Lambda in " Lambda, Cold Dark Matter ".
>>
>> Nobody expects it to actually be a fundamental constant, though.
> 
> Lambda is mainstream, 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2, negative pressure.

But nobody expects it to actually be a fundamental constant rather than 
a quantum field of some sort.

>> Most likely the cause is some Higgs-like field giving
>> the vacuum -> a positive energy density.
> 
> "a positive energy density" ?  it's negative pressure.

Which is what you get if the vacuum has a net positive energy density, 
something you would have already known had you ever received an *actual* 
education in particle physics.

[rest deleted unread as it's the babblings of a poorly-educated lunatic]

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#230510 — Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude.

Kensi replied:
> > Lambda is mainstream, 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2, negative pressure.
> 
> But nobody expects it to actually be a fundamental constant
> rather than a quantum field of some sort.

Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude.

WikiPedia:

  The cosmological constant Λ is the simplest possible explanation
  for dark energy, and is used in the current standard
  model of cosmology known as the ΛCDM model.

> > it's negative pressure.
> 
> Which is what you get if the vacuum has a net positive energy density.

It's entropy, plain and simple.

Either that, or there's zillions of Hoover vacuums out there.

  Gravity is residual exergy, entropy is killing it off, eventually 
  leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy,
  but none of the eXergy ( as Lord Kelvin predicted, 1852 ).  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#230761 — Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude.

On 11/27/2018 9:33 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Kensi replied:
>>> Lambda is mainstream, 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2, negative pressure.
>>
>> But nobody expects it to actually be a fundamental constant
>> rather than a quantum field of some sort.
> 
> Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude.
> 
> WikiPedia:
> 
>    The cosmological constant Λ is the simplest possible explanation
>    for dark energy, and is used in the current standard
>    model of cosmology known as the ΛCDM model.
> 
>>> it's negative pressure.
>>
>> Which is what you get if the vacuum has a net positive energy density.
> 
> It's entropy, plain and simple.
> 
> Either that, or there's zillions of Hoover vacuums out there.
> 
>    Gravity is residual exergy, entropy is killing it off, eventually
>    leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy,
>    but none of the eXergy ( as Lord Kelvin predicted, 1852 ).

Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
Now you're just repeating yourself.

Ko0kiness level: SSCG(3).

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#230769 — Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude.

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by 
Checkmate!  In article <ptlsvj$nke$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...


.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)Now you're just repeating yourself.
.?'´¯)
.?'´¯)Ko0kiness level: SSCG(3).
.?'´¯)

How childish.  Your ko0kiness level is off the scale!

-- 
Checkmate ® 
Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller           
Copyright © 2018 
all rights reserved

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017

"There are many here among us, 
who feel that life is but a joke."

"I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as 
kensi."    -Nadegda  
Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#230791 — Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?

Kensi replied:
> > Gravity is residual exergy, entropy is killing it off, eventually
> > leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy,
> > but none of the eXergy ( as Lord Kelvin predicted, 1852 ).
> 
> Now you're just repeating yourself.
> Now you're just repeating yourself.
> Ko0kiness level: SSCG(3).

Unlike you, I don't have to repeat myself;
nor do I have to _ dismiss entropy, 
and the cosmological constant, as you do.

WikiPedia:

  If the cosmological constant is positive, 
  as appears to be the case in recent observations,
  the temperature will asymptote to a non-zero positive value,
  and the universe will approach a state of maximum entropy.  
 
Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?

Gravity is residual exergy, entropy is killing it off.

The cosmological constant is Einstein's greatest achievement, not a blunder.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#230796 — Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?

On 2018-11-28 7:37 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Kensi replied:
>>> Gravity is residual exergy, entropy is killing it off, eventually
>>> leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy,
>>> but none of the eXergy ( as Lord Kelvin predicted, 1852 ).
>>
>> Now you're just repeating yourself.
>> Now you're just repeating yourself.
>> Ko0kiness level: SSCG(3).
> 
> Unlike you, I don't have to repeat myself;
> nor do I have to _ dismiss entropy,
> and the cosmological constant, as you do.
> 
> WikiPedia:
> 
>    If the cosmological constant is positive,
>    as appears to be the case in recent observations,
>    the temperature will asymptote to a non-zero positive value,
>    and the universe will approach a state of maximum entropy.
>   
> Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?
> 
> Gravity is residual exergy, entropy is killing it off.
> 
> The cosmological constant is Einstein's greatest achievement, not a blunder.
> 
you said this already

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#230799 — Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?

On 11/28/2018 9:37 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> The cosmological constant is Einstein's greatest achievement, not a blunder.

It has no explanatory value! It's just a fudge factor! A real 
achievement would be understanding the causing quantum field!

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#230812 — 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein.

Kensi replied:
> > Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?
> > The cosmological constant is Einstein's greatest achievement,
> > not a blunder.
> 
> It has no explanatory value!  It's just a fudge factor! 
> A real achievement would be understanding the causing quantum field!

"Entropy and the cosmological constant" explains the uniform, 
isotropic, expotentially expanding Universe that we observe.

No need for your wild imaginations, like the graviton,
string theory, and the bullshit worlds you love to hide in.

99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#230854 — Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein.

On 11/28/2018 10:39 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Kensi replied:
>>> Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?
>>> The cosmological constant is Einstein's greatest achievement,
>>> not a blunder.
>>
>> It has no explanatory value!  It's just a fudge factor!
>> A real achievement would be understanding the causing quantum field!
> 
> "Entropy and the cosmological constant" explains the uniform,
> isotropic, expotentially expanding Universe that we observe.

Total bullshit. Big Bang is biggest mistake of all physics.

> No need for your wild imaginations, like the graviton,
> string theory, and the bullshit worlds you love to hide in.

This is true, R0lf.

> 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein.

99% of all scientists have yet to catch up to Maxwell.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#230855 — Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein.

On 2018-11-28 10:00 AM, benj wrote:
> On 11/28/2018 10:39 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>> Kensi replied:
>>>> Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?
>>>> The cosmological constant is Einstein's greatest achievement,
>>>> not a blunder.
>>>
>>> It has no explanatory value!  It's just a fudge factor!
>>> A real achievement would be understanding the causing quantum field!
>>
>> "Entropy and the cosmological constant" explains the uniform,
>> isotropic, expotentially expanding Universe that we observe.
> 
> Total bullshit. Big Bang is biggest mistake of all physics.
> 
>> No need for your wild imaginations, like the graviton,
>> string theory, and the bullshit worlds you love to hide in.
> 
> This is true, R0lf.
> 
>> 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein.
> 
> 99% of all scientists have yet to catch up to Maxwell.
> 
> 
nobody has caught up to me , yay

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231187 — Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein.

On 11/28/2018 12:03 PM, % wrote:
> On 2018-11-28 10:00 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 11/28/2018 10:39 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>> 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein.
>>
>> 99% of all scientists have yet to catch up to Maxwell.
>
> nobody has caught up to me , yay

That's because we all started out already *past* you, ko0ky.

*snicker*

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231186 — Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein.

On 11/28/2018 12:00 PM, benj wrote:
> On 11/28/2018 10:39 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>> Kensi replied:
>>>> Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?
>>>> The cosmological constant is Einstein's greatest achievement,
>>>> not a blunder.
>>>
>>> It has no explanatory value!  It's just a fudge factor!
>>> A real achievement would be understanding the causing quantum field!
>>
>> "Entropy and the cosmological constant" explains the uniform,
>> isotropic, expotentially expanding Universe that we observe.
> 
> Total bullshit. Big Bang is biggest mistake of all physics.

*starts popcorn*

Do tell?

*snicker*

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231185 — Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein.

On 11/28/2018 10:39 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Kensi replied:
>>> Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?
>>> The cosmological constant is Einstein's greatest achievement,
>>> not a blunder.
>>
>> It has no explanatory value!  It's just a fudge factor!
>> A real achievement would be understanding the causing quantum field!
> 
> "Entropy and the cosmological constant" explains the uniform,
> isotropic, expotentially expanding Universe that we observe.

No, not really. "Dark energy" could, if we knew more about what exactly 
it is. I hope the LHC will shed some light on dark energy, and also on 
dark matter, sometime soon.

> No need for your wild imaginations, like the graviton,
> string theory, and the bullshit worlds you love to hide in.
> 
> 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein.

Don't be ridiculous. We've surpassed him, decades ago, in a very many 
ways (though especially in the realm of quantum physics).

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231213 — The graviton, string theory, and bullshit worlds.

Kensi replied:
> > "Entropy and the cosmological constant" explains the uniform,
> > isotropic, expotentially expanding Universe that we observe.
> 
> No, not really.

Yes, really.  WikiPedia: <<

  If the cosmological constant is positive, 
  -- as appears to be the case in recent observations --,
  the temperature will asymptote to a non-zero positive value,
  and the universe will approach a state of maximum entropy.  >>

Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?
Gravity is residual exergy, entropy is killing it off.

> "Dark energy" could, if we knew more about what exactly it is. 

" The cosmological constant Λ is the simplest possible explanation
  for dark energy, and is used in the current standard
  model of cosmology known as the ΛCDM model. " -- WikiPedia

> I hope the LHC will shed some light on dark energy, 

Good luck, they're only off by 120 orders of magnitude.

No need for such wild imaginations, like 
the graviton, string theory, and bullshit worlds.

  Choose your cult:

    SuperDeterminism ( Spinoza, Einstein and Me ):

      Sure, our ignorance ( not the cat's "randomness" ) is real, 
      -- we don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive;
      but "Local Realism" (causality) doesn't need our recognition.

      qBism uses an AgreedUpon (SI) standard to reduced the wavefunction 
      to AgreedUpon probabilities upon which one might (subjectively) bet.

      One might (subjectively) bet that entanglement is a real phenomenon,
      "knowing" |Up> in one location will be |Down> in another;
      no faster than light anything; no bullshit worlds.

      YouTube.COM/watch?v=LQvCTZgNRNw
      YouTube.COM/watch?v=95fKJF5frtE

    MultiVerse ( Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene and ComicCon ):
       Before EachAndEvery NanoChange, a universe duplicates itself;
       because ComicCon SciFi pays better than real science.
 
> > Many of today's scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein.
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.  We've surpassed him, decades ago, 
> in a very many ways ( especially quantum physics ).

No, you're way _ behind him.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231231 — Re: The graviton, string theory, and bullshit worlds.

On 11/29/2018 9:19 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> " The cosmological constant Λ is the simplest possible explanation
>    for dark energy, and is used in the current standard

It's not an "explanation" at all. It's a fudge factor.

>        qBism

Solipsistic nonsense. See:

Bacciagaluppi, Guido (2014-01-01). "A Critic Looks at QBism". In 
Galavotti, Maria Carla; Dieks, Dennis; Gonzalez, Wenceslao J.; Hartmann, 
Stephan; Uebel, Thomas; Weber, Marcel. New Directions in the Philosophy 
of Science. The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective. 
Springer International Publishing. pp. 403–416.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231291 — We don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive.

Kensi replied:
> > qBism
> 
> Solipsistic nonsense.

qBism is a combination of AgreedUpon (SI) probabilities and 
"Shut up and calculate"; as such, it's far more economical 
and effective than hiding in bullshit worlds, as you do.

"Plato.Stanford.EDU": <<

  Pragmatists agree with QBists that quantum theory 
  should not be thought to offer a description or 
  representation of physical reality: in particular, to 
  ascribe a quantum state is not to describe physical reality.  >>

It's our _ ignorance ( not the cat's "randomness" ) that is real, 
-- we don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive.

"Shut up and calculate" and the cosmological constant are mainstream.

> > " The cosmological constant Λ is the simplest possible explanation
> >    for dark energy, and is used in the current standard
> 
> It's not an "explanation" at all. It's a fudge factor.

You should edit the WikiPedia entry, then,
as if being 120 orders of magnitude off were better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231652 — Re: We don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive.

On 11/29/2018 11:31 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Kensi replied:
>>> qBism
>>
>> Solipsistic nonsense.
> 
> qBism is a combination of AgreedUpon (SI) probabilities and
> "Shut up and calculate"; as such, it's far more economical
> and effective than hiding in bullshit worlds, as you do.

Get real. It's one of those interpretations that says there's something 
magical about blobs of carbon atoms if they happen to be arranged in a 
manner sufficiently resembling brains.

A quick run-down makes it clear that the only *rational* choices are 
MWI, Relational, Cosmological (if they can figure out how that can 
produce wave interference, that is), and *maybe*, as dark horse 
candidates *at best*, the nonlocal hidden variable ones like Transactional.

> "Shut up and calculate" and the cosmological constant are mainstream.

So was geocentrism, once.

>>> " The cosmological constant Λ is the simplest possible explanation
>>>     for dark energy, and is used in the current standard
>>
>> It's not an "explanation" at all. It's a fudge factor.
> 
> You should edit the WikiPedia entry, then,
> as if being 120 orders of magnitude off were better.

Where are you getting that from? You keep harping on it, kO0k, without 
actually explaining WTF you're burbling about.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231662 — Kensi's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions.

Kensi replied:
> > "Shut up and calculate" and the cosmological constant are mainstream.
> 
> So was geocentrism, once.

You're making useless, unfalsifiable assumptions ( bullshit worlds ), 
and you're straying far from accepted science ( Lambda, CDM ). 

> > You should edit the WikiPedia entry, then,
> > as if being 120 orders of magnitude off were better.
> 
> Where are you getting that from? You keep harping on it, kO0k,
> without actually explaining WTF you're burbling about.

From " Dark Energy and the Preposterous Universe "
by Sean M. Carroll, Enrico Fermi Institute
( YouTube.COM/user/seancarroll/videos ):

  ...the potential energy of the Higgs field...
  ...the condensate of quark bilinears...
  ...zero-point vacuum fluctuations...
  This is the famous 120-orders-of-magnitude discrepancy 
  that makes the cosmological constant problem such a glaring embarrassment.

WikiPedia: <<

  If the cosmological constant is positive, 
  -- as appears to be the case in recent observations --,
  the temperature will asymptote to a non-zero positive value,
  and the universe will approach a state of maximum entropy.  >>

Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?
Gravity is residual exergy, entropy ( negative pressure ) is killing it off.

> > qBism is a combination of AgreedUpon (SI) probabilities and
> > "Shut up and calculate"; as such, it's far more economical
> > and effective than hiding in bullshit worlds, as you do.
> 
> Get real. It's one of those interpretations that says there's something 
> magical about blobs of carbon atoms if they happen to be arranged in a 
> manner sufficiently resembling brains.

"magical blobs" ? ! Where did you hear that, Twitter ?

    Maximal consumption has been programmed into us ( by nature ).
    Ways to do it:

      1. Live Fast ( consume more now ), Die Fast.
      2. Live Slow, Die Later ( consume longer ).
      3. Sacrifice yourself for the tribe, so they can consume more, longer.

    Either way, the (PreProgrammed) objective is the same: consume.
    We ( you, me, and the stars ) consume what we can, given our options.

"Shut up and calculate" works best because it doesn't conjure up bullshit worlds
nor bullshit SuperPositions.  Our ignorance ( not the cat's "randomness" )
is _ REAL; we don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive.

> A quick run-down makes it clear that the only *rational* choices are 
> MWI, Relational, Cosmological (if they can figure out how that can 
> produce wave interference, that is), and *maybe*, as dark horse 
> candidates *at best*, the nonlocal hidden variable ones like Transactional.

The Copenhagen Interpretation was right; and it still is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231742 — Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions.

On 11/30/2018 8:09 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Kensi replied:
>>> "Shut up and calculate" and the cosmological constant are mainstream.
>>
>> So was geocentrism, once.
> 
> You're making useless, unfalsifiable assumptions ( bullshit worlds ),
> and you're straying far from accepted science ( Lambda, CDM ).

If so, then I'm in distinguished company. Everett, Wheeler, Hawking, 
Deutsch, DeWitt, Tipler, Albrecht, Zurek, Polley, Sebens, Carroll, 
Vaidman, Lockwood, Tegmark ...

!>>> You should edit the WikiPedia entry, then,
!>>> as if being 120 orders of magnitude off were better.
!>>
!>> Where are you getting that from? You keep harping on it, kO0k,
!>> without actually explaining WTF you're burbling about.
!>
!>  From " Dark Energy and the Preposterous Universe "
!> by Sean M. Carroll, Enrico Fermi Institute
!> ( YouTube.COM/user/seancarroll/videos ):
!>
!>    ...the potential energy of the Higgs field...
!>    ...the condensate of quark bilinears...
!>    ...zero-point vacuum fluctuations...
!>    This is the famous 120-orders-of-magnitude discrepancy
!>    that makes the cosmological constant problem such a glaring 
embarrassment.
!>
!> WikiPedia: <<
!>
!>    If the cosmological constant is positive,
!>    -- as appears to be the case in recent observations --,
!>    the temperature will asymptote to a non-zero positive value,
!>    and the universe will approach a state of maximum entropy.  >>
!>
!> Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?
!> Gravity is residual exergy, entropy ( negative pressure ) is killing 
it off.
!>
!>>> qBism is a combination of AgreedUpon (SI) probabilities and
!>>> "Shut up and calculate"; as such, it's far more economical
!>>> and effective than hiding in bullshit worlds, as you do.
!>>
!>> Get real. It's one of those interpretations that says there's something
!>> magical about blobs of carbon atoms if they happen to be arranged in a
!>> manner sufficiently resembling brains.
!>
!> "magical blobs" ? ! Where did you hear that, Twitter ?
!>
!>      Maximal consumption has been programmed into us ( by nature ).
!>      Ways to do it:
!>
!>        1. Live Fast ( consume more now ), Die Fast.
!>        2. Live Slow, Die Later ( consume longer ).
!>        3. Sacrifice yourself for the tribe, so they can consume more, 
longer.
!>
!>      Either way, the (PreProgrammed) objective is the same: consume.
!>      We ( you, me, and the stars ) consume what we can, given our 
options.
!>
!> "Shut up and calculate" works best because it doesn't conjure up 
bullshit worlds
!> nor bullshit SuperPositions.  Our ignorance ( not the cat's 
"randomness" )
!> is _ REAL; we don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive.
!>
!>> A quick run-down makes it clear that the only *rational* choices are
!>> MWI, Relational, Cosmological (if they can figure out how that can
!>> produce wave interference, that is), and *maybe*, as dark horse
!>> candidates *at best*, the nonlocal hidden variable ones like 
Transactional.
!>
!> The Copenhagen Interpretation was right; and it still is.

KoOkiness l3v3l: Rayo's number.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231823 — Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions.

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:29:31 -0500, kensi wrote:

> On 11/30/2018 8:09 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>> Kensi replied:
>>>> "Shut up and calculate" and the cosmological constant are mainstream.
>>>
>>> So was geocentrism, once.
>> 
>> You're making useless, unfalsifiable assumptions ( bullshit worlds ),
>> and you're straying far from accepted science ( Lambda, CDM ).
> 
> If so, then I'm in distinguished company. Everett, Wheeler, Hawking,
> Deutsch, DeWitt, Tipler, Albrecht, Zurek, Polley, Sebens, Carroll,
> Vaidman, Lockwood, Tegmark ...

I don't know who most of those are (Hawking I recognize and you've 
mentioned Tegmark before in connection with some multiverse thingy) but 
I've a feeling Relf just got massively SPNAKed.

<snicker>

> !>>> You should edit the WikiPedia entry, then,
> !>>> as if being 120 orders of magnitude off were better.
> !>>
> !>> Where are you getting that from? You keep harping on it, kO0k,
> !>> without actually explaining WTF you're burbling about.
> !>
> !>  From " Dark Energy and the Preposterous Universe "
> !> by Sean M. Carroll, Enrico Fermi Institute !> (
> YouTube.COM/user/seancarroll/videos ):
> !>
> !>    ...the potential energy of the Higgs field...
> !>    ...the condensate of quark bilinears...
> !>    ...zero-point vacuum fluctuations...
> !>    This is the famous 120-orders-of-magnitude discrepancy !>    that
> makes the cosmological constant problem such a glaring embarrassment.
> !>
> !> WikiPedia: <<
> !>
> !>    If the cosmological constant is positive,
> !>    -- as appears to be the case in recent observations --,
> !>    the temperature will asymptote to a non-zero positive value,
> !>    and the universe will approach a state of maximum entropy.  >>
> !>
> !> Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?
> !> Gravity is residual exergy, entropy ( negative pressure ) is killing
> it off.
> !>
> !>>> qBism is a combination of AgreedUpon (SI) probabilities and !>>>
> "Shut up and calculate"; as such, it's far more economical !>>> and
> effective than hiding in bullshit worlds, as you do.
> !>>
> !>> Get real. It's one of those interpretations that says there's
> something !>> magical about blobs of carbon atoms if they happen to be
> arranged in a !>> manner sufficiently resembling brains.
> !>
> !> "magical blobs" ? ! Where did you hear that, Twitter ?
> !>
> !>      Maximal consumption has been programmed into us ( by nature ).
> !>      Ways to do it:
> !>
> !>        1. Live Fast ( consume more now ), Die Fast.
> !>        2. Live Slow, Die Later ( consume longer ).
> !>        3. Sacrifice yourself for the tribe, so they can consume more,
> longer.
> !>
> !>      Either way, the (PreProgrammed) objective is the same: consume.
> !>      We ( you, me, and the stars ) consume what we can, given our
> options.
> !>
> !> "Shut up and calculate" works best because it doesn't conjure up
> bullshit worlds !> nor bullshit SuperPositions.  Our ignorance ( not the
> cat's "randomness" )
> !> is _ REAL; we don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive.
> !>
> !>> A quick run-down makes it clear that the only *rational* choices are
> !>> MWI, Relational, Cosmological (if they can figure out how that can
> !>> produce wave interference, that is), and *maybe*, as dark horse !>>
> candidates *at best*, the nonlocal hidden variable ones like
> Transactional.
> !>
> !> The Copenhagen Interpretation was right; and it still is.
> 
> KoOkiness l3v3l: Rayo's number.

I'm not even going to ask. I'm instead going to presume this is a likely 
typo of "R'Lyeh's number" and leave it at that. :)

-- 
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with 
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate

csiph-web