Scientific Science
-
@HardwareGeek Dark chocolate fudge factors...
-
@dkf said in Scientific Science:
@HardwareGeek Dark chocolate fudge factors...
And there's a bug in the compiler, too!
-
@Gribnit said in Scientific Science:
@dkf said in Scientific Science:
@HardwareGeek Dark chocolate fudge factors...
And there's a bug in the compiler, too!
Also, everything is done with
-ffast-math
and quantum fluctuations are just uninitialized memory.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@jinpa said in Scientific Science:
dark matter and dark energy are just fudges.
Moar darker.
-
@topspin said in Scientific Science:
Also, everything is done with -ffast-math
Won't fudge break fast?
-
@Carnage said in Scientific Science:
Moar darker.
If the universe was made mostly of salmiak, that would explain a lot.
Actual salmiak fudge:
-
@jinpa said in Scientific Science:
@Carnage said in Scientific Science:
Moar darker.
If the universe was made mostly of salmiak, that would explain a lot.
Such a place is too beautiful for the likes of we - it cannot be the case.
-
@Carnage said in Scientific Science:
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@jinpa said in Scientific Science:
dark matter and dark energy are just fudges.
Moar darker.
Nope you eat it thread is
-
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@Carnage said in Scientific Science:
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@jinpa said in Scientific Science:
dark matter and dark energy are just fudges.
Moar darker.
Nope you eat it thread is
Only 2kg @200g per day is just enough to sustain me for 2 weeks. I wonder if they also sell bigger containers
-
@robo2 said in Scientific Science:
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@Carnage said in Scientific Science:
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@jinpa said in Scientific Science:
dark matter and dark energy are just fudges.
Moar darker.
Nope you eat it thread is
Only 2kg @200g per day is just enough to sustain me for 2 weeks. I wonder if they also sell bigger containers
200g is nearly half a pound of fudge... (I'm not judging. At all. )
-
@Gribnit said in Scientific Science:
@robo2 said in Scientific Science:
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@Carnage said in Scientific Science:
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@jinpa said in Scientific Science:
dark matter and dark energy are just fudges.
Moar darker.
Nope you eat it thread is
Only 2kg @200g per day is just enough to sustain me for 2 weeks. I wonder if they also sell bigger containers
200g is nearly half a pound of fudge... (I'm not judging. At all. )
I fail to grasp how a unit conversion would be a judgement, but yeah, it's about half a pound for the non-metric folks.
-
@Carnage said in Scientific Science:
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@jinpa said in Scientific Science:
dark matter and dark energy are just fudges.
Moar darker.
Why have I never seen this here in NL.
-
@PleegWat said in Scientific Science:
@Carnage said in Scientific Science:
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@jinpa said in Scientific Science:
dark matter and dark energy are just fudges.
Moar darker.
Why have I never seen this here in NL.
Dunno if they send to the rest of europe, but these make their own decent quality stuff:
Sweet: https://lakritsroten.se/lakritsroten-fudge-sotlakrits/
Salty: https://lakritsroten.se/gammelstads-saltlakritsfudge/Or the one in the image here: https://www.partykungen.se/lakritsfudge-losvikt-i-burk-70049.html
And I think this is a webshop for Swedes living in !Sweden: https://swedishfoodshop.com/losviktsgodis-lakritsfudge
-
@PleegWat said in Scientific Science:
Why have I never seen this here in NL.
It's sold as coal everywhere else
-
@loopback0 said in Scientific Science:
@PleegWat said in Scientific Science:
Why have I never seen this here in NL.
It's sold as coal everywhere else
Not necessarily.
-
@Carnage Bookmarked for future reference. Thanks!
-
Well, did the Big Bang happen?
-
Just like the question why women pluck off their eyebrows and then paint them back on.
I have a lot of complaints about her videos, but this was a great troll.
-
@cvi While she's right about the problems with the alternative theories, IMHO she paints a way too rosy picture of the standard model. The reason why there's new ideas being proposed all the time is that there's some things that still don't quite work out or require uncomfortable assumptions with ΛCDM. Apart from the whole dark matter / dark energy wart, the elephant in the room that has been suspiciously missing from all the discussions here is inflation (no, not that one). All of these make the claim that this is "the simplest possible" explanation somewhat strenuous to my ears.
The problem with the alternatives is of course that they tend to either require even more hand-waving or directly contradict observations. Still doesn't mean the scientific method has reached its conclusion on cosmology like she would like to make us believe.
-
@ixvedeusi also, while I think she has a good point about "we don't know" and that you could come up with arbitrarily complicated theories, she comes off a bit too much like we should stop searching for alternative theories until we have new data to guide them. If the alternative theories are any good, they can point us to where to look for new data to distinguish between the different theories.
-
@topspin said in Scientific Science:
too much like we should stop searching for alternative theories until we have new data to guide them.
The Science is settled!
-
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@topspin said in Scientific Science:
too much like we should stop searching for alternative theories until we have new data to guide them.
The Science is settled!
Sometimes it pretty much is and it's more fruitful to apply your skills in other areas rather than tilting at windmills.
-
@Rhywden said in Scientific Science:
it's more fruitful to apply your skills in other areas rather than tilting at windmills.
Tilting at windmills is the classic unsolved problem, OTOF.
-
@topspin said in Scientific Science:
I have a lot of complaints about her videos, but this was a great troll.
I've only seen a few (three? four?). Pretty much watched this one due to recalling the discussion here. It seems like she tends to take a strong position. Probably keeps the video more focused and shorter.
-
@cvi her titles and thumbnails get too close to clickbait. Which is YouTube’s fault for making you do that to be successful, but blame is not a conserved quantity.
But yes, after she’s presented the facts (and she’s doing a good job of actually looking into those) she gives her own conclusions a bit too strongly for my taste.
-
@topspin said in Scientific Science:
But yes, after she’s presented the facts (and she’s doing a good job of actually looking into those) she gives her own conclusions a bit too strongly for my taste.
The one thing that physicists are pretty sure of right now is that we haven't got the final word on Physics worked out yet. We have two supremely accurate theories, and they're grossly incompatible with each other.
-
@dkf well there's string theory...
-
@Gribnit said in Scientific Science:
@dkf well there's string theory...
A brave little theory, and actually quite coherent for a system of five or seven dimensions--if only we lived in one.
Academician Prokhor Zakharov, Now We Are Alone
-
Can't see Sabine Hossenfelder mentioned without noting that she's my favorite singing physicist.
-
@dkf said in Scientific Science:
@Gribnit said in Scientific Science:
@dkf well there's string theory...
A brave little theory, and actually quite coherent for a system of five or seven dimensions--if only we lived in one.
Academician Prokhor Zakharov, Now We Are AloneThe best quote from TBBT (at least for me):
Sheldon: Why would you do that? You're a string theorist as well.
Barry Kripke: Incorrect. I'm a string pragmatist. I say I'm going to prove something that can not be proved. I apply for grant money and then I spend it on liquor and broads.
-
@dkf said in Scientific Science:
@topspin said in Scientific Science:
But yes, after she’s presented the facts (and she’s doing a good job of actually looking into those) she gives her own conclusions a bit too strongly for my taste.
The one thing that physicists are pretty sure of right now is that we haven't got the final word on Physics worked out yet. We have two supremely accurate theories, and they're grossly incompatible with each other.
"Now, we’ve basically got it all worked out, except for small stuff, big stuff, hot stuff, cold stuff, fast stuff, heavy stuff, dark stuff, turbulence, and the concept of time"
-
@LaoC damn turbulence.
-
-
@Gribnit said in Scientific Science:
@topspin said in Scientific Science:
@LaoC damn turbulence.
It's turbulent, is the problem.
Ain't nobody got a concept of time for this!
-
@Gribnit said in Scientific Science:
@topspin said in Scientific Science:
@LaoC damn turbulence.
It's turbulent, is the problem.
“Will no one rid me of that turbulent priest?”
-
@topspin said in Scientific Science:
damn turbulence.
A big advance was made a few years ago when someone ran a video of turbulence backwards and saw a completely different set of attractors, i.e., there are anti-attractors, which are mathematically like attractors but with the opposite sign so they repulse material instead of attracting it. Now the interesting thing isn't that they exist at all, but rather that they have a different (but approximately equivalent) pattern to the attractors.
It doesn't make turbulence (or any other non-linearity) more tractable, but it does make it easier to figure out what's going on.
-
@dkf impossible, all processes are reversible
-
-
@LaoC said in Scientific Science:
@dkf said in Scientific Science:
@topspin said in Scientific Science:
But yes, after she’s presented the facts (and she’s doing a good job of actually looking into those) she gives her own conclusions a bit too strongly for my taste.
The one thing that physicists are pretty sure of right now is that we haven't got the final word on Physics worked out yet. We have two supremely accurate theories, and they're grossly incompatible with each other.
"Now, we’ve basically got it all worked out, except for small stuff, big stuff, hot stuff, cold stuff, fast stuff, heavy stuff, dark stuff, turbulence, and the concept of time"
Lord Kelvin infamously noted that, at the beginning of the 20th century, everything about physics was already understood except for two minor "clouds:" the ultraviolet catastrophe and the absence of evidence for ether wind.
Discovering the reasons behind these minor little annoyances led us to quantum physics and special relativity, respectively.
-
@Mason_Wheeler … and the whole dark matter and dark energy things looks quite a lot like ether did.
-
@Bulb said in Scientific Science:
@Mason_Wheeler … and the whole dark matter and dark energy things looks quite a lot like ether did.
"There is nothing more helpless and irresponsible than a physicist in the depths of a dark matter binge" –Neil DeGrasse Thompson
-
@Bulb said in Scientific Science:
the whole dark matter and dark energy things looks quite a lot like ether did
Regard them as explicit placeholders for "stuff that behaves like this at the cosmological level" but which we haven't figured out yet.
-
@dkf said in Scientific Science:
@Bulb said in Scientific Science:
the whole dark matter and dark energy things looks quite a lot like ether did
Regard them as explicit placeholders for "stuff that behaves like this at the cosmological level" but which we haven't figured out yet.
Quintessence seems kinda sorta halfway there.
-
@Carnage said in Scientific Science:
Quintessence seems kinda sorta halfway there.
Filed under: unproven candidate for dark energy.
-
@Carnage said in Scientific Science:
Quintessence seems kinda sorta halfway there.
wikipedia says:
The name comes from quinta essentia (fifth element). So called in Latin starting from the Middle Ages, this was the element added by Aristotle to the other four ancient classical elements because he thought it was the essence of the celestial world. Aristotle called this element aether […]
-
@Bulb said in Scientific Science:
@Carnage said in Scientific Science:
Quintessence seems kinda sorta halfway there.
wikipedia says:
The name comes from quinta essentia (fifth element). So called in Latin starting from the Middle Ages, this was the element added by Aristotle to the other four ancient classical elements because he thought it was the essence of the celestial world. Aristotle called this element aether […]
That sounds a whole lot like: people complain that we named this stuff-we-don't-know-what-it-is dark energy, because that sounds made up, so instead we use the name quintessence, which is what they used to call stuff stuff-they-don't-know in ancient times.
-
@topspin And I think it pretty much is that, too. Well, it is a particular description of what the stuff-we-don't-know behaves like.
But what I meant is that, since we don't know what it is, it is quite likely it will be something completely different from anything we've seen so far, just like the (luminiferous) aether turned out.
-
@Bulb phlogiston denier, I see.
-
@topspin said in Scientific Science:
quintessence
This is handy for chopping off a D&D character's head without killing them.
-
@topspin Somebody needed a cool marketable name and aether was already taken.