pdonis

46 ms·

601.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Einstein excelled in school. hotdogscout correctly clarified that I meant university, not grade school. Sorry for the ambiguity on my part.
602.
by pdonis 2y ago
I see. In a strict sense, yes, published books like Surely You're Joking and its sequel, The Feynman Lectures, QED, etc. weren't "written" by Feynman himself. But the statement "never wrote a book", without a l
603.
by pdonis 2y ago
I'd put Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Pauli, and Dirac ahead of Feynman. I'm not so sure about the others; not that they weren't world class physicists, but so was Feynman.
604.
by pdonis 2y ago
I shouldn't have to watch several hours of video to see what the basis is for such an outlandish-sounding claim.
605.
by pdonis 2y ago
> you don't see this stuff around (say) Hawking or Einstein Yes, you do--it's just that the mythbuilding builds on different aspects of their personalities. Mythbuilding around Einstein made him out to be the physics outsider
606.
by pdonis 2y ago
> to be honest, he's probably not in the top 10 physicists of the 20th century Who would you put in the top 10 ahead of him?
607.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Narrator Of what? Where are you getting this from?
608.
by pdonis 2y ago
You included in your argument at least one bad thing that, as I pointed out, is not only not stopped by government regulation, it's explicitly permitted by it. The fact that there was a bad thing that happened before government regulat
609.
by pdonis 2y ago
You don't need to fact check the torrent of information you describe. You can just ignore it. None of it is worth the time and effort to fact check anyway. You don't need any of that information to make the decisions you need to m
610.
by pdonis 2y ago
I don't know any "free speech absolutists" who argue that fraud should be legal. Misrepresentation of a product or service you're selling is fraud. We already have laws against that.
611.
by pdonis 2y ago
> I like having food hygiene standards - it means I don't have to worry about chalk in my bread, arsenic in my sweets, or antibiotics in my beef. And yet somehow humanity survived for tens or hundreds of thousands of years without
612.
by pdonis 2y ago
It seems to me that the Reason article is using a definition of "property" that's different (and more general) from the legal definition that's being relied on in this case. A better term for what property appears to mea
613.
by pdonis 2y ago
> It's easy enough to imagine as an unattached rope so pulling at one spot affects the whole rope Not instantly; the force you apply at one point still has to be transmitted through the rope. And if the rope is unattached and not
614.
by pdonis 2y ago
> it's not really just "mass", it's "characteristic mass of stationary minimal possible wrinkle in a given field" If you are referring to the claim in the article that goes along with the equation E = m c^
615.
by pdonis 2y ago
Kinematic viscosity, though, is an emergent property just as stiffness is. See my response to kridsdale1 upthread. In the unit analysis that is most natural to quantum field theory, it's mass.
616.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Do you also object quarks and gluons having "color" charge? No, because no physicist tries to argue that "color" is an appropriate term because of some physical interpretation that involves actual physical propert
617.
by pdonis 2y ago
> I think stiffness is an ok term if your aim is to maintain a field centric mode of thinking. "Stiffness" to me isn't a field term or a particle term; it's a condensed matter term. In other words, it's a name
618.
by pdonis 2y ago
We say the "aether" as it was originally conceptualized in the 19th century doesn't exist for the same reason we say that Russell's teapot or Carl Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage doesn't exist: we have a
619.
by pdonis 2y ago
> The term that corresponds to "stiffness" normally just gets called "mass", since that is how it shows up in experiments. Then why not just call it "mass"? That's what it is. How is the notion of &qu
620.
by pdonis 2y ago
> the KG equation is very very wrong! How so? It's the standard equation for a scalar (spin zero) field.
621.
by pdonis 2y ago
> If the quantity appears in equations, I find it hard to believe that it was never given a name. It does have a name: mass! What I'm skeptical of is that this "stiffness" is somehow logically or conceptually prior to ma
622.
by pdonis 2y ago
> a NEARLY closed timelike curve, which arrives from the past, coils around itself one or more times - like a coil, indeed - allowing causal interaction between the different spires (i.e. one can interact with its future self/selve
623.
by pdonis 2y ago
> There’s a meme going around about abortion or whatever that says that it’s fine if you’re religious and you want to limit yourself, but your religion shouldn’t limit me It's interesting that you bring this up, because I know qui
624.
by pdonis 2y ago
> "How seriously we take a thing" and "how good a job are we are doing." Conceptually, yes, these two things are separate. However, that does not mean these two things are independent of each other. As you note, we
625.
by pdonis 2y ago
> It's still better than it was before it started, though. Is it? To hear wokeness advocates talk, things have gotten worse.
626.
by pdonis 2y ago
I'm not so sure. See my response to triceratops.
627.
by pdonis 2y ago
How do we take murder or robbery seriously? We say we do that by making and enforcing laws against murder and robbery. But do we actually do what we say? How many innocent people get convicted of murder because of our desire to "ta
628.
by pdonis 2y ago
> what motivates many people who are attracted to wokeness is an earnest desire to do good things While I agree that this is true, I think the point pg makes in his article could be extended to a general rule that, if you find your ear
629.
by pdonis 2y ago
> wokeness, as he defines it, is often tightly coupled with good things, like sexual harassment being taken more seriously. I'm not sure that's true. Wokeness doesn't focus on actual harassment; it focuses on accusations
630.
by pdonis 2y ago
I don't think what I said is irrelevant. A calculator is a reliable tool. When used properly it can be helpful. The same would apply to more sophisticated tools that are available now with computers to help with math, such as tools tha

More ›