Recent posts by DarkBaron on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The origin of sexism - are men better than women?

Across our globe, in nearly all countries, we come across one unavoidable, undeniable truth: the patriarchy runs rampant. China. Africa. Europe. The Middle East. America. You name it, and it’s probably a patriarchal society. Even the animal kingdom exhibits similar misogynistic behaviors.

We must ask ourselves not why, but how. How is it that independent human cultures have almost unanimously birthed a patriarchy? Why is it also prevalent in other species’ cultures?

Occam’s Razor forces us to come up with the simplest explanation, with the fewest assumptions made. Here, there is only one assumption: different continents (e.g. Africa, Europe, Asia) developed their cultures independently from one another, a fair assumption to make.

Thus begs the immediate question: why men? Why were men chosen by evolution to be the dominant sex? At the most fundamental level, we must look at mating behaviors. Statistician Howard Wainer provides the key.

Males, in most species, exhibit greater variation in behavior and intelligence, humans included. This means that the best humans must be men. The strongest and fastest will be hunters. The best healers will be men. The most charismatic will be men. Statistically, this is certain. Are there exceptions? Yes, but the exception to the norm does not define the norm. One woman in five hundred may exhibit exemplary skill, but she cannot compete with the best man. The Olympics must be split by sex to give women a fair shot. Sports are split to give women a fair shot.

Let’s be clear about what this statement means. If you take any random man and random woman from the streets and compare them, you may find they’re more average than you’d expect. However, because men have more variation, if you take the best woman and the best man, the best man will beat the best woman. Regrettably, because there is more variation, if you take the worst man, and the worst woman, the worst woman will be better than the worst man. What drives society forward though? The best. And that’s been driven by men.

Men and women are not equal.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can you induce homosexuality in a heterosexual by pavlovian triggers?

Aight, I’mma whip yo candy asses into some srs discussion since you guys just circlejerk all day.

The idea is simple. Every day Jon Doe, a typical Chrishun male, will watch porn at precisely 2:00 p.m. for exactly thirty minutes until he climaxes. Immediately prior, at 1:00 p.m. he will torrent and watch TNA, WWE, UFC, etc. Basically, an hour straight of males with their shirts off and touching each other and rolling around. Sexy.

Eventually, after three months of this, John Doe begins to find himself achieving erections near the end of his machismo orgy of testosterone at precisely 1:55 p.m. in anticipation of watching Samantha Ryan squeal. His brain begins to associate the closing acts, such as a pin where you hook your leg into the other dude’s leg, with his erection. After two more months, he may find himself touching his little (well, maybe big) package near the end of his WWE program in anticipation of watching Lexi Belle howl like a wildabeast.

Next Johnny boy knows, his brain is associating half-naked males with pleasure, and he begins to grow erections while at the beach and looking at a dude in a speedo. This causes him to experiment a little, maybe with some butt sex and become, at the very least, bisexual.

But if he can become bisexual, he can become homosexual by reversing the argument. He can associate females with emotional pain.

Let’s talk about THAT — can we turn these straight privileged people into glorious homosexuals? #LBGT

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ten commandments for an efficacious resolution to dissension

1) Thou shalt not profess spurious witticisms
2) Though shalt exercise concision
3) Thou shalt venerate thine compeers
4) Thou shalt fortify thine conviction with corroboration
5) Thou shalt construct punctilious theses
6) Thou shalt evince dubiety
7) Thou shalt concede thine delusions to veracity
8) Thou shalt promulgate thine acquiesced dissertations
9) Thou shalt eschew obfuscation and espouse elucidation
10) Thou shalt not contravene mine fiat

Achieve erudition.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ask an Atheist (AAA)

All of you who are actually participating in this thread should be ashamed in yourselves—atheists and theists alike. Nice to know SD has devolved to AMAs… religiously based ones, at that. Stay classy.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should Psychological Data really be Your Exclusive Property?

lol this place sucks as much as ever. Vika, you should know better. That image was based on survey responses—survey responses where people interpreted where they felt emotions. It’s not founded on neuroscience at all.

Good to know SD is as shitty as when I left it. Peace out, squares.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Practicing Math in the Classroom

As many of you know, I instruct courses in mathematics. I recognize that

1) most of you hate math here, so you are the perfect audience to ask
2) most who hate math don’t get much practice in it.

So I focus my instruction on practicing problem solving in math after providing a key formula. As the hipsters you are that despise math, I’ll sum my questions up as succinctly as possible.

1) You exist as you are. You find yourself in a math course, and you struggle to solve problems. What is something you would like to see from an instructor (in a problem solving session) that will help you to solve it? Do you prefer it if the instructor solves everything out mechanistically and then asks you to help him solve the next similar problem? Or do you prefer he start from scratch on the first one, and encourage participation on each step of the process?

2) You’re too shy to ask a question you’re struggling with. As someone who doesn’t read minds, we cannot anticipate your difficulties. How would you like your instructor to approach the problem, assuming he did anticipate your difficulties?

3) Do you prefer seeing alternative ways to solving a problem, or would you rather see one method used universally to every problem you see (I strongly advise against the latter).

These are the core questions, and feel free to bring up anything you would like to see or not see as well if you were in this scenario. All suggestions are welcome.

Note: I ask not because I struggle to teach—I ask because many of my students share your disdain toward math and are too shy to speak out toward their difficulties and what they want to see. I also instruct the derivations in lectures—this is a separate class which supplements the material taught. My presentation skills are already fine—this topic is poised in such a way to ask what you, in particular, seek when you struggle.

Of course, I won’t do exactly everything you say since Math needs to teach critical thinking, which many of you lack (waah waaah). So it stands to reason that some of your suggestions will not fall into line with what math teaches.

Is it notation that bothers you that you want to learn? Is it the inability to see step 1 to step 2? Of course everyone has different difficulties, but share your difficulties and what you think may help.

Format: First, address your difficulty in as much detail as you can, and then suggest any number of ways you feel this difficulty may be alleviated by a problem solving session and what your instructor can do to help.

I think this will benefit us all, since you will tackle your math phobia head on (if you actually care to provide a legitimate reply) and will help me to produce people that don’t cower in the fetus position when they hear fields of math.

Nota Bene: This is college level mathematics; try to seclude your answers to the realm of college. You may include others as I think many methods carry over, but not all will. If you can provide insight for calculus that would be lovely.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Marijuana a Gateway Drug?

Alcohol and tobacco are classified under hard drugs, and a lot harder than cannabis. Do you guys even try to research what you spew?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Marijuana a Gateway Drug?

Fact: A majority of persons who try marijuana are already intaking drugs such as alcohol or cigarettes.

Fact: a majority of persons who use marijuana previously were addicted to caffeine.

If a gateway drug exists, I can assure you, it isn’t fucking cannabis.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Math Debate; Pi or Tau?

Yeah I want to invite him to coffee, in an elevatorgate at 4 am, if you catch my drift.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Math Debate; Pi or Tau?

Ah, thanks that clears it up a lot. That’s your problem: you’re an engineer student. I don’t take anything away from engineer students who succeed, but there are a vast, vast majority of engineer students who struggle to get through the system with a 2.0 GPA in tact.

Engineering majors simply do not teach critical thinking that well. You’re taught to rely on calculators for graphing, and taking limits.

Their reading comprehension is also exceedingly poor, as shown by general GRE test statistics. I mean hell, your entire post consisted of two arguments:

1) no u
2) Repeating what you said to the debunking of the original statement.

Practice hard for the GRE, is all I can tell you. I also recommend spending twice as much time as you normally do on your assignments—if your academic performance is reflected at all by your arguments here, I really hope you dedicate yourself thoroughly.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Math Debate; Pi or Tau?

1) People in Numberphile are mathematicians. In fact one of the guys in the “Pi Vs Tau” debate is at Queen Mary College and is a mathematician. He is the guy talking in favor of Pi, as for the other guy i wasn’t able to find info on him.

This is not a mathematically sanctioned event—and if he was, indeed, a mathematician, it makes sense he said nobody cares about it. Anyway I said that no mathematician argues for Tau, so even if he is a mathematician, all this does is enforce my point. Thanks.

2) If you paid attention you would have noticed that the people arguing in favor of Tau argue in most cases that it will help the teaching process especially in trigonometry.

News articles are not acceptable sources for what is going on in the academic community. Why the hell do you people on this forum think these news articles account for anything? They’re nonexperts who, almost always, misinterpret what they report. For example—neutrinos faster than light? Nah. LHC going to blow up the universe? No… They are not acceptable sources.

I’ve gone to mathematics conferences aplenty, and I can tell you that their biggest concern isn’t some garbage like making the radians of a circle tautological, it’s how to teach long division in an intuitive way. Their problems stem from 3rd grade arithmetic, not advanced high school geometry.

3) Math and Physics don’t go hand to hand all the time. Physicists rarely know in dept mathematical definitions and much less proofs and the math they care about are the math they need for their physics, aka applied mathematics. Similarly mathematicians aren’t required to understand the physical applications of their mathematics. A mathematician doesn’t need to know that integrals are a method to compute for example the work of a force. Mathematicians are content with knowing that integrals are used for finding the surface under a curve.

And I suppose you’re an absolute authority on this topic, despite the fact I hold a B.S. degree in mathematics and a PhD in Physics. I’ve worked with professors in both the mathematics and physics department, and attended multiple conference in both subjects. Physicists must know definitions of a host of mathematical tools, like integrals, multiple integrals, abstract algebra, linear algebra, differential equations, partial differential equations, fourier transforms, fourier series expansions, etc. A physicist may not be as thorough in their definitions and proofs, but I can tell you that they are every bit as rigorous and well understood.

As far as saying mathematicians aren’t required to know that integrals are used for physical phenomena—that is just plain wrong. Every mathematics professor I’ve seen offers, when available, a physical correspondent to whatever they present or use. Hell, in basic Numerical Analysis textbooks, the wave equations is often presented as the heat equation, and it’s explained that it’s difficult to solve exactly. You are right that Mathematicians are content knowing that something like an integral is the area under the curve…. so are Physicists. We (both) just evaluate what curve we’re using. You have no idea what you’re talking about here.

4) Your sumbols case is pretty much meaningless since as you admited many symbols are used in many different cases. So having one extra meaning for Tau as being the constant 2 times pi doesn’t mean that any more extreme confusion will be created than it exists already.

… No I didn’t? Look, I’m sorry your reading comprehension is so poor, but I said there are, on occasions, a slight difference in a variable used, and that is only if it’s a very low level introduction course and the physical details are omitted to ensure maximal retention for a method, or if it’s an extremely abstract field with few physical correspondents known, and thus the mathematicians will among themselves alter the notation. I’ve already said that every single constant or variable is widely, widely agreed upon as a standard. No mathematician uses F for mass and H for force. Likewise, mathematicians also use Tau for time constants and tensors.

I’m not going to comment on the 2nd part of the use of Tau, because I’m not even going to humor this nonexistent debate. I don’t care what side you argue for—I don’t care if you prefer the taste of watermelons to cookies.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Math Debate; Pi or Tau?

No, no there are not mathematicians who argue it. I will contest this point till my death. The first video by ViHart is nice… until you realize she does not hold a degree in mathematics. She is not a mathematician, despite being the daughter of a mathematician.

Numberphile is not a mathematician either. He holds no degree in math.

While the videos may look nice and flashy and informative, they are not from experts who actually use this shit in research. This debate does not, never has, and never will exist in the mathematical community. You want to know what is being debated in the realm of mathematics? How to teach mathematics so that we don’t breed idiots who avoid math like it’s the plague.

Math and Physics do go hand-in-hand all the time. Professors of mathematics are well versed in Physics, and professors of Physics must, by definition, feel extremely comfortable with math and have a mastery of it. Now sure, you won’t find many physicists studying braid topology, or many mathematicians studying quantum field theory, but we do use universal symbols like Pi for pi, t for time, a for acceleration, Tau for time constants (like in Partial differential equations), etc. We don’t have two independent systems of symbols. Yes, sometimes it gets a little convoluted and we may change a variable for something simple like the wave equation (constant is k vs. c), but for certain things it is always the same variable, and most times you see the wave equation it is c, because it represents the speed of light in vacuo.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by jhco50:

John, I didn’t make any claims that guns are used all of the time to prevent corruption. You are really reading a lot into that post. In that case, those WW2 soldiers cleaned up their county using a right guaranteed by the Constitution. There is nothing between the lines. How does your charts show anything about states violence coordinating with firearms? It doesn’t have enough information to tell what is what.

Guys, the CDC link wouldn’t work for me. the Bureau of Statistics is for Homicide and makes no mention of firearms until the tables and then shows firearms violence dropping. The last one was quite interesting with the corruption table.

The CDC link is a pdf, so make sure your browser supports it. And you’re right, the BSJ does use it for general weapons, however the majority of homicides are perpetrated by firearms. so it isn’t a far cry to use the previous statistic for firearms.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by DarkBaron:

I agree with jhco, we need the 2nd amendment to have firearms in our possession. A 60% plurality of firearm deaths being suicide are a small price to pay for safety in our home. I’m even willing to take the additional 18% of firearm deaths being interpersonal between loved ones and 4% of accidents, just so I can feel safe against that 18% of criminally related firearm deaths.

Hmmmm. You know, 98.345% of all figures like this are made up on the spot.

The Center for Disease Control asserts 60% of firearm deaths are suicide on page 11. I recommend reading their method of investigation. The bureau of Justice Statistics says that half of all firearm homicide (36/2 = 18%) is interpersonal relationships, and that’s (extremely generously) assuming that every unreported homicide is the result of a stranger. Again, I urge you to read the method of investigation if you’re skeptical of the results.

I didn’t make this up, but simply because you can’t believe them doesn’t mean they’re infactual. In reality, that 18% of strangers criminally using firearms is likely much lower.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

I agree with jhco, we need the 2nd amendment to have firearms in our possession. A 60% plurality of firearm deaths being suicide are a small price to pay for safety in our home. I’m even willing to take the additional 18% of firearm deaths being interpersonal between loved ones and 4% of accidents, just so I can feel safe against that 18% of criminally related firearm deaths.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Criminally insane?

That is a point of contention, and one to be weary of. We could make it an alternative at first to detention until we iron out the kinks in society first—although we’d still need some way to persuade them to stick with it. We’d need to make sure it’s widely known that, although it is rehabilitative and progressive, it is not necessary pleasant or fun—it’s a lot of hard work. Maybe even laborious.

I reckon it would be analogous to drug rehabilitation centers. I’m not familiar with many people becoming drug addicts to attend rehab. In either case, things like this aren’t created by one person, I’d think. There’d need to be collaborators covering each other’s weaknesses in creating such a system.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Criminally insane?

You know, even though OP didn’t intend to hit on a big issue, he hit on a massive issue. People should be dubbed criminally insane for any crime in violation of very strict moral laws that we all seem to hold self evident (e.g. do not murder, do not torture people, etc.).

The reason why is that they are behaving in an unnatural way — there is some cognitive faculty they have that is failing to operate at normal efficiency. A killer is not inhuman, he is, in some sense, a defective human (defect in this context means a deviation from the norm, which in this context means simply how one ought to behave). Okay I know people on this forum are big on philosophy since they think it actually matters (it doesn’t), so I’ll clarify right now that you know what I mean by “ought to behave.”

It’s a great injustice in most countries to simply incarcerate these people. We do a number of things wrong here:

1) We isolate this person from any and all normal human interaction (absolutely necessary for and conducive to social and behaviour change).
2) We economically destroy his family by removing (in general) its primary provider. Many of these people have children.
3) We emotionally wreck his family. His children will often grow in fatherless, violent, unhealthy environments and are more prone to criminal behavior (it’s learned, not innate).
4) We economically rape the country by requiring we feed and house this man for sentences up to life.
5) We intellectually drive the country to bankruptcy. When/if this person gets out of jail after a while, he is completely unable to function in the world given how much it changed. He is more prone to committing crime again to be back in a place he understands—he is more prone to suicide, to escape he place he doesn’t understand.

We destroy everything about this person and the country of which he’s a member. But as OP demonstrates, we seek revenge, not rehabilitation. It’s inconceivable we can modify a criminal’s behavior so that he’s a normally functioning person in society. But as contempoary behaviorally psychology reveals, this is the case, and Norway has implemented it into their prison system.

Here’s how I believe a prison system ought to operate:

After you’re convicted of a crime, you’re sentenced to prison, wherein the following rules apply:

1) You’re in an exquisite hotel environment. Very nice beds, quality clothing, working shower units.
2) You have recreational activities readily available. You may play tennis with inmates, form bonds, communicate, or even smoke joints while playing video games with each other.
3) You’re taught life skills. We teach you to cook, to clean, to use modern technology. We help you out with fashion.
4) You’re given a very strong education in a host of subjects, focused on Psychology. We will train you to be an expert in your field, with the hopes that you will pursue research activities in the field of Psychology.
5) We confer extensive psychiatric evaluations, on a daily or bidaily (once every two days), and monitor your progress in change. We identify why you did what you did, and we figure out ways to rehabilitate you.
6) We train you for a job outside of prison. In your final year, we help you apply for jobs so that you may find an job immediately upon exiting.
7) We allow zero visitation. You may write to communicate with loved ones, but no visitation. This rule is bendable though, I may not stick to it.
8) We force you to do at least one recreational activity per day for at least two hours time. Tennis, communicating in a field, playing a video games, hitting the gym, etc. If you fail, we double your on hands assistance, more people helping you complete your tasks, more attention given to you, and we make your psychiatric meetings a higher frequency.
9) We force you to do at least one intellectual activity per day. Learning to use the Internet, training you in a new skill like differential equations, practice in research methods, reading scientific journals (none of this mystery novel crap), all geared as an independent study.
10) This takes as long as it needs to. It can be six months for a killing spree at an elementary school, or ten years for threatening to kill yourself.
11) Prison guards are unequipped with guns. They are not in uniform. They are casual, normal people who are trained psychiatrists/psychologists. We have time sheets on your door that you fill out, and are signed and confirmed by at least one guard. At any given moment, at least one guard must be in some vicinity, either engaging in or observing the recreational activity you are doing.

I guarantee you will see improved results. People often hate this idea because they don’t get revenge, but I feel these people who harbor these ill, malicious feelings be subjected to prison rules as well. Or extensive psychotherapy to analyse why they feel revenge ought to be extracted, and educated on its results.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Math Debate; Pi or Tau?

This “debate” doesn’t even exist. We use Pi, okay? No scientist gives a shit about these views that we need something more aesthetic. Pi is plenty aesthetic. Want to know what Tau is? Time constants, opacity, leptons, etc.

No mathematician argues that Tau should be used in place of Pi. I wish the media would stop polluting the minds of the public.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Nature of Time - {Metaphysics and Physics} As Matter is to Space :: as Entropy is to Time

This topic isn’t about education, so I don’t honestly care to read what you have to say on it.

Way to take the last sentence out of context. Liquids and gases both have the same property of atoms moving as do solids. Fluids aren’t as solid as solids because of, well, pressures. This is a different, CLASSICAL phenomenon, not quantum. I gave an analogy which, of course, has its limits, as all analogies do. It breaks down for fluids, in opposition to what you assert so confidently and erroneously. I gave an analogy because the actual mechanics are fuckhard to describe, and the analogy is fairly decent in the world of solids.

I meant exactly what I said: that they pretty much occupy all the space at once—NOT that that is why you can’t walk through walls. This is, again, an answer to how atoms can come to occupy a void. The real solution to why you can’t walk through walls involves Pauli’s Exclusion principle, which is more advanced than I wanted to cover for a basic question. As for why atoms can occupy all the space at once, it’s a direct consequence of the solution to Shrodinger’s Equation. Therefore it appears that, to occupy all the space, it must behave like a wave (think a ripple in a pond). I’m going to abstain from the more complicated things—I know you’ll just misinterpret it and I’d be doing a great injustice by enabling your proliferation of ignorance.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Nature of Time - {Metaphysics and Physics} As Matter is to Space :: as Entropy is to Time

I said George Musser is a hack. Yes, Verlinde did come up with the theory that gravity is entropy, and that is what Musser referenced—but simply because it’s a reference does not mean you understand it. You’re better off referencing the papers themselves, which, while interesting, aren’t widely accepted in the Physics community at the moment. They may be in the future, but as it stands, the hypothesis is speculative. But yeah if Verlinde asserts that dark matter doesn’t exist, he’s also a hack (do take note that a vast majority of his papers are on speculative things like entropic gravity, quantum gravity, string theory, and if he thinks dark matter doesn’t exist, that too).

The Wheeler Dewitt equation is again something that is speculative in nature at the moment, along with string theory and most ideas about quantum gravity. They just haven’t produced any convincing evidence for their views. But let’s give the benefit of the doubt and assume it is true, which it might be. Or at least something similar. We live in a timeless universe, which is fine. But time is still rigidly defined in our other aspects of Physics: Quantum Mechanics, classical Mechanics, General relativity, et al.

Think of it as something we already know. Mass-energy. Einstein demonstrated that they’re the same thing—all mass is just energy. The universe is composed of energy and space. Does mass exist? Well, apparently not (in the context that it’s just another name for energy and therefore superfluous and unnecessary), but it still has a stringent definition. Same thing with momentum. Momentum is also just energy. It’s probably more intuitive to think of it in these terms instead. They’re defined in used in certain ways for their utility. It’s a tool. Time is a human construct, a manifestation of spacetime (whatever that is—the thing that is curved by mass-energy, whatever that is). It’s proven indispensable though, and is very rigidly defined although given a slightly arbitrary value.

The other link on time is beating a dead horse, really badly (badly in that they’re hitting it hard, and very awkwardly). Special relativity is superseded by general relativity, and is shown to be only a localized solution to einstein’s field equations. The real space/metric used in GR is the Robertson-Walker metric, which makes heavy use of the Friedman equation. In GR, the Friedman equation is the holy equation analogous to Newton’s 2nd Law in classical mechanics—always start there. I’m not entirely convinced their “work” with the Minkowski metric is even plausible to dismiss time as independent of space. GR really strongly asserts that spacetime is a single unit. Massenergy tells spacetime how to curve, but spacetime tells massenergy how to move. Dissect time out of spacetime and we just get a holy mess out of the field equations.

In layman terms, the metric is just to say how the universe curves. On a piece of paper, three points create a triangle whose angles add to 180. On the outer rim of a doughnut, three points connect to form a triangle whose angles add to a number greater than 180. On the inner rim, they add to less than 180. These are flat, positive, and negatively curved metrics, respectively. Minkowski is a flat metric, very simple (saying that spacetime isn’t curved by massenergy). The robertson walker metric extends the notion to a curved spacetime. So when we look at a very small piece of spacetime, irrespective of its curvature, it will look flat, and we can use a minkowski metric.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Nature of Time - {Metaphysics and Physics} As Matter is to Space :: as Entropy is to Time

how does one account for the void within atoms? Mind Boggling.

Not really mind boggling. The Universe is a closed system. So the void between atoms, while unoccupied, may occasionally become occupied, since it’s part of the Universe, a closed system. It’s like how you feel a draft when your window is open in Winter. Clearly you have a stable thermal state of your room, but yet you feel a cold rush of energy leaving your room. How could this happen when we think of only your room? Ahah! The open window extends the system to allow a transferal of energy outside the room. Thus, within the void between atoms, we allow a possibility for an atom to occupy this void.

A real mind boggling idea is, if a vast majority of space in physical, concrete objects like humans and walls are empty space, then why can’t we walk through walls? It’s surprisingly not as complicated as you would think. Think of a ceiling fan, with three wings. When it’s off, you can put your hand inside the empty space. When it’s moving, its wings traject through a circle, seemingly occupying all the space at once, as you notice if you put your hand into it. But really, the objects occupy less than half of the circle configured by the fan! So when we say matter is mostly empty space, we’re saying if it were static (which it isn’t). Quantum mechanically, the atoms pretty much occupy all the space at once, via the wave particle duality of matter and other quantum physical phenomena.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Nature of Time - {Metaphysics and Physics} As Matter is to Space :: as Entropy is to Time

This topic, ladies and gentlemen, is the perfect example on how our scientific education fails to produce competent scientists.

Firstly, the convoluted hogwash provided by simeng.

there is no real physical definition of “space”, although it may be physically instantiated or exemplified.

This is a flatout lie. I understand you get your information from Wikipedia, but come on man. So we cannot give an Aristotelian genus/species definition of space… I’m going to cry. However, these stupid philosophical “definitions,” are just wastes of time. “But wait!” I hear you hark, “you haven’t defined space, hah!” Luckily, you did the hard work for me in your next paragraph, but it’s far from an “alternative.” It is space, you ninny.

For the sake of clarification and purpose of further discussion, entropy is defined as the tendency of an isolated system (i.e. where transfer of matter and energy between thermodynamic systems is physically impossible or negated) to dip towards disorder over an incremental interval of observational determination.

Clarity? Disorder is one of the ugliest words you could ever use to describe Entropy.

As for most concepts in Physics, the meaning of entropy in the context of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics is very different from its meaning as used by nonscientists.

(cf. Gould & Tobochnik, Statistical and Thermal Physics).

Most definitions of entropy rely in a change of entropy. It’s often worthless to speak of the “entropy” of a system, since entropy, as you mentioned, is linked with time. So it’s a function of change. The change in entropy is defined as the change in heat energy transferal per unit temperature of a system.

You conveniently neglect this for poetic freedom, which is why you should stick to writing and not science. You focus instead on the statistical view, where you can prescribe an entropy to a system, but here entropy doesn’t measure disorder. Every single state of a system is equally probable. However, some states are identical to each other due to the indistinguishable nature of atoms, so those states have compounded probability and we expect an equilibrium state to occur since it is most likely to occur. This has the maximum entropy, since each individual configuration of a system has an equivalent entropy (but the identical states are composite). How does this relate to disorder? If you can identify specific particles in specific locations, it must be in a damn near unique state. But if you can’t specify a distinct particle in a distinct location, its entropy is higher, since it’s likely a duplicate state. See why disorder is such an ugly term? If you really wanna get a hardon look into the Gibb’s Paradox (and likely misinterpret that too).

It would seem that time is an inherent property of entropy and time, as we muse about it, is nothing more than the reflection of entropy in a mirror.

It would seem that time is an inherent property of entropy and time

It would seem that time is an inherent property of time

Ya think? As far as a mirror… no, this is more poetic injustice.

I’ve done a little thinking on the topic

Please stop. I think I speak for everyone in my field when I say we are much better off without these public distortions of Physical tools.

And now for John’s link.

Their true venue is a ginormous abstract realm of possibilities—in the jargon, a “phase space” commensurate with their almost unimaginably rich repertoire of behaviors.

In scientific jargon, this means “we don’t know.” Nothing eye opening here, other than his fanciful use of language. If you can explain it in a convoluted, verbose manner, it obviously holds substance, right?
To account for anomalous motions within galaxies and larger systems, astronomers think our universe must be filled with some invisible material that outweighs ordinary matter by a factor of five to one.

Lovely! We’ve got the Ether again! Dark Matter is just the amount of mass leftover from our calculations. Besides, most authorities would tell you that even that description is misleading, and that dark matter is nothing more than transparent/invisible matter (i.e. unable to be detected readily.

When observational astronomers refer to dark matter, they usually mean any massive component of the universe which is too dim to be detected readily using current technology. Thus, stellar remnants such as white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes are sometimes referred to as dark matter, since an isolated stellar remnant is extremely faint and diffcult to detect. Substellar objects such as brown dwarfs are also referred to as dark matter, since brown dwarfs, too low in mass for nuclear fusion to occur in their cores, are very dim.
(cf. Ryden, Introduction to Cosmology)

Back to the blog though:

Consequently, some astronomers and physicists suspect there may be no dark matter after all.

Yeah, except they’re scientifically worthless hacks, kind of like this author. But maybe every single journal he’s ever submitted a paper to isn’t supported by this search engine, even though it’s designed by the school he pursued graduate studies in. Oddly, he doesn’t even seem to hold a PhD, despite being a Graduate Fellow of planetary sciences at Cornell (note: not Astrophysics/Cosmology). I haven’t been able to find any papers published by him anyway. If you can, and want to put my foot in my mouth, feel free. But good luck.

We don’t know what time is.

Except, in the world of Physics, time is very rigidly defined. Although time may dilate, it is defined to be an interval between two events. The only quibbles with time are philosophical, and mainly for aesthetic reasons. Poor philosophical crybabies kicking and screaming for a more ideal definition of time. Well, too bad. We use time in our calculations, not you. You don’t get to prescribe it for your own personal tastes, philosophers. Yes, we know what time is.

For anybody here who really wants to rub their chode, just look up the “unreality of time,” a philosophical investigation into the structure of time. circlejerk on how to define time (other than the cool time that’s useful in Physics).

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Nothing will happen. A memorial may be held, and we’ll mourn as a nation, but nothing will change. We lead the world in school massacres, and have for a while. We all will say something needs to change, but none of us will make any efforts other than saying change needs to happen, because we’re hypocritical pieces of shit. We don’t know what to do, so we discuss it while it’s socially relevant, pretending that what we do will effect change. It won’t. We won’t effect new laws or strive to better our community for any time longer than a week.

That’s the American way, and it’s pathetic. Our lives in the future will remain unaltered. Chalk another tragedy up for our death statistics! Maybe some day, in the distant future, our nation will learn that action is required for change, rather than incessantly bickering about irrelevant topics. We’re America. We’re special.

Every single person able to vote, including each and every one of you shares the blame for events like this. We find ourselves in complacence, not giving a shit about the affairs of America until socially relevant tragedies strike, and then drifting back to complacency when the social relevance dissipates, waiting for the next thing to harp on. You guys don’t give a true shit, and neither do I. What’s that? I’m wrong? You do give a shit? Okay, begin volunteering in your community to effect change, progressive change.

Here’s to waiting for the next tragic event with you social scavengers! Scavengers is a fantastic noun to use, because you harp all over this social stuff whenever someone dies.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / An argument arising on Facebook.

Nobody cares about this topic anymore. However, I was reviewing my old textbook in real analysis, and came across this gem (cf. Bartle and Sherbert, 4th Edition, pp. 175).

See! It does exist!


Topic: Serious Discussion / ad hominem: defined & refined as applicable to Kong SD

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator