|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Really annoyed that the 17 new posts in the F+ thread aren't an intactivist meltdown. Serious blue balls here. Thought of this post when I saw a bunch of new posts in the ballpit thread for the episode.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Jestery posted:*burst in to thread , panting* lol I bought a pack of Virgil's today
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
Johnny Ryan's is a local company for me, and I usually go for their birch beer cause I like Birch Beer better. But I gave the root beer a try. It's pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
Relistening to this one and “MY NAME’S RON YOU EVER HAVE BARQS ROOT BEER THAT poo poo’S THE BEST” is such a fantastic intro.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 04:20
|
|
|
Seriously. I love RON
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
Another grabbed from the cursed images thread Inzombiac posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 12:01
|
|
|
It has to be good; it's QUALITY CHEKD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
change my name posted:Gosh dang it, looked in the hopper and I see I've been scooped on putting together a doc on the Supernanny fan wiki Damnit I was gonna do that one
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2021 10:19
|
|
|
http://thefpl.us/episode/343
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheFPlus/status/1352852250931167232?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 06:36
|
|
|
That list of Chris Cantelmo accomplishments was peak "weird flex, but okay". Also, after seeing that SuperNanny tweet, I am on pins and needles waiting for that episode to drop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 05:31
|
|
|
This episode was good but needed Victor, there was a ton of hilarity to be had with how wrong this guy was about biochem. And I was annoyed no one was familiar enough with thermo to get a dunk in on the second law kookery- whenever the second law of thermo comes up in online nutjobbery the kooks always forget about the “closed system” part and earth is not a closed system, it’s constantly getting energy from the sun. Since they just went over this guy’s weird sun obsession I was hoping for a good dunk about it. E:also the welding thing, arc welding puts out a ton of UV. Slag bad but the UV and light is absolutely why the glass is so dark on a face shield. Ugly In The Morning fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Jan 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 11:43
|
|
|
lets loving go lads
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 11:47
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:This episode was good but needed Victor, there was a ton of hilarity to be had with how wrong this guy was about biochem. And I was annoyed no one was familiar enough with thermo to get a dunk in on the second law kookery- whenever the second law of thermo comes up in online nutjobbery the kooks always forget about the “closed system” part and earth is not a closed system, it’s constantly getting energy from the sun. Since they just went over this guy’s weird sun obsession I was hoping for a good dunk about it. Like I just posted over on Ballpit, one of my favorite kinds of Internet Crazy Person is guys like this who got degrees from good schools (possibly even in relevant subjects) decades ago and have decided this makes them eternal geniuses at every topic forever. Even intelligent, sensible working scientists have to continually update their knowledge bases as their field advances, and generally know little or nothing about fields outside their own, because if your career is in biochemistry you're not going to have a lot of time to devote to physics or whatever; a guy who got his degree in Biochem 30 years ago and has spent the subsequent decades riding mountain bikes and doing psychedelics isn't going to know anything about anything. (I am going to hazard a guess that Chris Cantelmo hasn't worked in the biosciences for a while, if ever.) I'll admit: I really want this dude to actually be the mega-athlete he claims to be. "Chris Cantelmo is a tedious would-be cult leader, but he loving shreds on a bike!" would be hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 12:05
|
|
|
Momma always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun But momma That's where the fun* is *DMT
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
So this episode had a whole bunch of bad science in it. The biochemistry stuff is certainly bad but my area of expertise is physics, and I feel like maybe to a layperson the gibberish he spouts might be somewhat indistinguishable from what you might get from Stephen Hawking or Michio Kaku. Modern physics is loving crazy, so I'm here to disentangle the real craziness from Chris Cantelmo's wrong craziness. Gravity Is Not A Separate Force - Silly Physicists!!!! quote:Since the days of Newton physicists have discussed gravity as if it were some miraculous, action-at-a-distance force field. This sentence is the one that mostly inspired me to make this post. If there's a field, there's no "action at a distance!" That's the whole point of fields, and the whole reason why Einstein was okay with gravity and electromagnetism, which are conveyed by fields, but not the "spooky action at a distance" of entanglement (which is where that phrase comes from). Also, Einstein was wrong about that last part anyway. For example: the Earth creates a gravitational field. That gravitational field propagates through space. Then that gravitational field reaches the Moon and exerts a force on it. Hence, the Earth pulls on the Moon, but not through "action at a distance" - through a mediator that travels through the intervening space, called a "field." In this sense, fields and action at a distance are two opposite, mutually-exclusive ways of talking about forces, which is why it rankled me so much to hear Cantelmo describe them as the same thing. quote:Gravity is just electromagnetism played out over extremely long distances (relative to the size of an atom). However, the idea that there might be some obscure relationship between gravity and the other forces is not completely insane. It is, however, speculative physics. Many physicists believe that, in interactions of sufficiently high energy (much, much higher than any energy achieved in particle accelerators), all four of the fundamental forces will "unite" and act the same. We already know for sure that this happens with the electromagnetic force and weak nuclear force, and we have several unproven theoretical frameworks to explain how it might incorporate the strong nuclear force as well, at energies barely beyond what we have studied so far. But to "unite" with gravity will require those insanely high energies that we can never probe with particle accelerators. So there's some vague basis for what he is saying here - but "gravity is electromagnetism but farther" is very much not how that works. quote:Physicists who are obsessed with the notion of "symmetry" should have realized that protons do not remain discrete in the nucleus of an atom. Two protons merge into a perfect sphere of charge +2; three protons merge into a perfect sphere of charge +3, and so on. If this were not the case the nucleus would lack symmetry and mother nature doesn't like this. Here, Cantelmo is making a mistake that many people make in thinking about quantum mechanics. At the scale of atoms and their nuclei, things do not behave as objects that have shapes. To understand what's going on on that tiny scale, you have to abandon all of the intuition about how stuff moves that you've built up since you were a baby. What does have shapes is probability distributions. Take, for example, a helium-4 nucleus that has 2 protons and 2 neutrons. According to Cantelmo, these "merge" into a sphere. This has a tiny grain of truth in it, because in fact, all four of those particles have a spherically symmetric probability distribution (in the ground state, anyway). They're all in the same sphere. However, this does not mean that they are "merged" together. That doesn't make any sense. And in more complex nuclei, there are often non-spherical distributions. In any instant, if you were able to measure the positions of all four, they would be randomly distributed based on those spherical distributions - but they won't be "a sphere" because four points does not make a sphere (or any extended shape). And we know they are not "merged" together into a single object because we can shoot high velocity electrons, say, at helium, and occasionally one of them will hit one of the protons or neutrons and we can analyze the resulting collision. This is what a particle accelerator does, and decades of particle accelerator experiments have shown that nuclei are made up of discrete parts. You can't just ignore that because *gestures vaguely* "symmetry". (note: here I am simplifying - protons and neutrons are not point-like particles, they are composed of quarks. but the point stands.) Also, no idea how this part is supposed to relate to the rest of his post. Einstein Was Wrong (as mentioned above, he was wrong about action at a distance. but that's not what this post is about!) quote:It isn’t E=mc2. It is E=mc3. This doesn't make any sense. The units don't work out. Energy is measured in units of mass times speed squared, or alternately, mass times distance times acceleration. In SI (standard metric) units, that's 1 Joule = 1 kilogram * meter^2 / second^2. For example, kinetic energy is one half times mass times speed squared. Gravitational potential energy (in constant gravity) is mass times height times g (acceleration due to gravity). mc^3 has units of mass times speed cubed, which doesn't make any physical sense. It'd be like asking "how big is this fish tank" and someone going "30 feet^4." what the heck are you talking about, volume is measured in units of length cubed. what the hell is a foot^4??? quote:This is because the speed of light becomes the radial length in the expanding circle created as matter pours itself into light. Using something like a speed as the radius of a "sphere" isn't as crazy as you might think. Physicists all the time work in "phase spaces" where we imagine some parameter, such as velocity/speed, as a dimension so that we can use geometry on it. It's pretty normal to do quantum mechanics calculations in a seven-dimensional phase space where there are three dimensions of actual space, one of time, and three of velocity, and in various contexts you might calculate the volume of a sphere in that space in order to, say, count how many possible quantum states there are below a certain energy. Unfortunately, Cantelmo is doing something similar with no justification in a weird context and getting a result that makes no sense. quote:No more nuclear testing required to calculate yields. Edward Teller, the last true nuclear genius, would approve. Contrary to popular belief, the yield of a nuclear bomb doesn't actually have anything directly to do with E=mc^2. A nuclear bomb works by releasing some of the binding energy of the strong and electromagnetic forces between protons and neutrons in atoms' nuclei. The difference in binding energy between the reactants and the products gives you the yield as kinetic energy (heat). However, this binding energy is essentially impossible to measure as energy, and the physics of the first half of the 20th century could not predict it, either. But it is possible to measure it indirectly as a discrepancy in the masses of the nuclei involved, because in accordance with E = mc^2, the inertial mass of any object is directly related to the energy content of that object. In other words, energy is mass, and mass is energy, so by measuring one, you also measure the other. So physicists, thinking about how the Hence, people talk about an atomic bomb "converting mass into energy." No, it's just converting one form of energy (nuclear binding energy) that we can easily detect as mass into another form (kinetic energy) that we cannot (but it's still a type of mass/energy). Anyway this is a bit of a subtle point but my main point is that Cantelmo bringing up nuclear bombs in this context is something that seems to make sense to a layperson who's read about nuclear bombs but doesn't make sense to a physicist. Furthermore, physicists no longer use the letter "m" to mean inertial mass, like Einstein did when he wrote that equation in 1905. In modern notation, "E=mc^2" is an incorrect, or at least incomplete, equation. Physicists use "m" to mean "rest mass," aka the inertial mass an object would have if it wasn't moving (relative to the observer). So E=mc^2 is accurate for an object that isn't moving. A much more useful equation is E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 (where p is momentum), which shows that an object's energy (and thus inertial mass) depends not only on its rest mass but also its movement. So a modern physicist wouldn't use E=mc^2 as if it was a fundamental equation. The Second Law of Thermodynamics Only Works in Time Reversal and A Final Clarification On The Second Law of Thermodynamics quote:If time is running backwards and what we call the future is really the past. It’s the only way that entropy increases because the world is gaining in complexity not losing complexity quote:Since there is a god and the universe is certainly getting less random and less disorganized, the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect as formulated. I cannot explain how loving insane this is. It's completely bonkers. First of all, complexity has nothing to do with entropy. In the second post on the subject he mentions disorganization, which is closer, but still off. Entropy is not something that can be explained in a single word like that. So first, a short primer on entropy. Entropy is a property that macrostates have, a macrostate being a collection of macroscopic quantities such as temperature and pressure. A single atom doesn't have an entropy, nor temperature or pressure - these are emergent properties that emerge as the result of hundreds, millions, bazillions of particles interacting. Entropy is a measurement of how many microstates (detailed states including the positions and momentums of every microscopic particle) can produce a given macrostate. For example, consider the air in your room. It has a volume, a temperature, a pressure. Those quantities depend on what's going on on a microscopic level - the way the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen are bouncing around. But if one of those molecules happens to zig instead of zag, that's not going to change those macroscopic quantities. There are a huge, unfathomably large number of ways those molecules could be flying around that all produce the same volume, temperature, and pressure - the same macrostate. Entropy is essentially a measure of that number of ways. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy tends to increase because, simply, the more ways there are for a macrostate to be, the more likely that macrostate is. If you choose a microstate at random, the one that it's most likely to be is the one with maximum entropy, by definition. Entropy can be thought of as how "well mixed" or "disordered" a system is. If you put a drop of food coloring into a glass of water, initially it will be all bunched up, but over time, it will spread out evenly. This is because there are many more ways for it to be spread evenly than for it to be bunched up. No matter how long you wait, the food coloring will never spontaneously bunch up into a drop again - it will remain spread out. This is the Second Law in action. Time only flows one way. Our perception of time is also affected by the Second Law. In order to form memories, our brains must take orderly, concentrated energy from our food, and distribute it as spread-out heat. In so doing, they increase the entropy of the universe. So, we can only remember the past and not the future because that's the direction of memory-forming that the Second Law allows. What's bizarre about Cantelmo's rantings on the subject is that what he says seems to be indistinguishable with a swapping of the definitions of "past" and "future." He says we remember the future, and that the universe is getting less disorganized. Does he mean that January 24, 2021 has less entropy than January 23, 2021? If so, that's flat-out wrong and easily disprovable. But the part about remembering the future sort of leads me to believe that what he actually means is that the 23rd has less entropy than the 24th, but also the 23rd is in the "future." In which case this is identical to the proper, true understanding of entropy and the Second Law, except with those two words switched. And when he says the world is getting less disordered, he seems to mean that the "future" that we remember and has lower date numbers (what a sane person calls the "past") has less entropy the further "forward" (back) in time you go, which is true. loving insane. The Earth Used To Be a Sun. A star. I don't think they read this one on the podcast but I saw it on the website and it's too insane not to talk about. quote:Cosmologists rightly observe that we are made of stardust. Uhhh, no. Earth doesn't have enough mass to be a star, and it never has. If it was that massive, how did it lose enough mass? How did it cool down enough to become the Earth we know now? quote:But when the earth was a star (sun) the current sun was just a run of gas around earth much like a very distant ring of Saturn. The rings of planets like Saturn are only semi-stable, and then only because of the influence of gravity from moons of similar or larger mass than the rings themselves. In the absence of other influences of comparable size, a ring will collapse into one or more orbiting moons. So if the Sun was a ring of the Earth, and is way more massive than anything else in the Solar System, then there would be nothing making it form a ring and it would just collapse into a ball. There is no way for it to ever form a ring in the first place. Bodies like planets were once rings around the Sun, but coalesced over time. Saturn's rings will do the same, someday - they are temporary phenomena, lasting only a few short tens or hundreds of millions of years, and only lasting that long because of the influence of Saturn's other moons. I can understand where a crazy person who reads about physics might go off the deep end thinking about entropy and poo poo, but this one is inexplicable. Where the heck did he get the idea that Earth used to be a star? It makes no sense to me. In conclusion There's more but I think that is a good place to stop. Chris Cantelmo has two things: a high-school-level understanding of mathematics, and a bunch of books and/or tv programs about physics (for laypeople). He is not the first, nor will he be the last, person to take those two things and slam together some nonsense that he thinks is profound. But you absolutely will not upend all of physics without first understanding the status quo. People who upended physics, like Einstein, didn't do it by being some fringe person outside the "system," they did it by learning physics as it was known at the time and then extending it in sane ways. I think that sometimes people like Cantelmo get the impression that because he had crazy hair and novel ideas, Einstein was some kinda weirdo who came from nowhere, and that they could do the same by being a weirdo outside the "system." But Einstein was well-educated in classical physics before he could begin to ponder the things that led to his major discoveries; he was not some weird fringe person. If Cantelmo were to read actual textbooks, and maybe take a bunch of university courses on physics, he would find out why his ideas were insane and wrong. But they're not based on nothing. I think that there have been a lot of popularizers of physics that have really dropped the ball on explaining complicated physics to laypeople, and that people like Cantelmo are the result. In modern times, they are always there at the fringe of physics. University professors of physics will often receive unsolicited emails from these sorts of people, and national physics conferences will get attendees who try to distribute crazy nonsense. I still have some of those materials that I saved from conferences I've been to, much of which is even more insane than Chris Cantelmo. Still fuckin confused about "earth was a star" though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
After further reflection I believe you'll find that E=MC Hawking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
I like how he solved matter/antimatter asymmetry (i.e., why antimatter is really rare, a massive unsolved question in particle physics) in a one-line aside while he was talking about Feynman diagrams. I was ready for another I AM THE GODDESS OF SALVIA episode but it turned out it was mucoo guy but for fighting sharks
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
I'm so glad that the internet continues to churn out Alex Chius.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
Yes but have you ever done physics...on deeeeee emmmm teeeee
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
Oof the dude committed suicide. I guess the lesson is taking DMT at every waking hour is not effective self-medication
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
El Burbo posted:Oof the dude committed suicide. I guess the lesson is taking DMT at every waking hour is not effective self-medication Just read how he did it.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Um, did he die before or after the episode dropped?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Um, did he die before or after the episode dropped? October 2019.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Um, did he die before or after the episode dropped? It was in 2019
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
change my name posted:It was in 2019 It didn't seem to be an easily-found piece of information. I had to google the guy's name + dead and it wasn't even the top response (a post about it was the 3rd or 4th result).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
El Burbo posted:Oof the dude committed suicide. I guess the lesson is taking DMT at every waking hour is not effective self-medication I did a non-insignificant amount of regular dosing of DMT for about a year some time ago I'm fairly certain it has had permanent effect on me in some subtle but profound ways, but W/E I hold down my dream job and can look back on it as an, on the whole, positive experience; get the message put down the phone etc etc Reading about how frequently cantelmo used DMT and how high his doses were then listening to this podcast had me near permanent    emotional state for the entire duration
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:Like I just posted over on Ballpit, one of my favorite kinds of Internet Crazy Person is guys like this who got degrees from good schools (possibly even in relevant subjects) decades ago and have decided this makes them eternal geniuses at every topic forever. Even intelligent, sensible working scientists have to continually update their knowledge bases as their field advances, and generally know little or nothing about fields outside their own, because if your career is in biochemistry you're not going to have a lot of time to devote to physics or whatever; a guy who got his degree in Biochem 30 years ago and has spent the subsequent decades riding mountain bikes and doing psychedelics isn't going to know anything about anything. (I am going to hazard a guess that Chris Cantelmo hasn't worked in the biosciences for a while, if ever.) A question I had, given some of his "accomplishments" covered in the episode: Did Chris Cantelmo actually go to Yale?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
X-Ray Pecs posted:A question I had, given some of his "accomplishments" covered in the episode: Did Chris Cantelmo actually go to Yale? I would consider it more likely than not that he did undergrad there (apparently Yale makes you mail in a paper form to verify if someone matriculated there, and I don't need to know that badly). The difference in the benefit that your average undergraduate gets in a school like Yale vs any other college comes almost entirely through the connections those students make during their time in Yale, rather than the quality of the education itself. A buddy of mine who got a math degree from Harvard put it this way: When you go to a normal college you meet people and make friends. If you're interested in pursuing a particular career like being an architect, someone you meet studying architecture may have a parent who is an architect who can help you get your foot in the door somewhere. With Harvard (or Yale) the same kind of thing happens, but you're running into people whose dads are senators or presidents. (Of course, once you get into graduate programs the equations change quite a bit and getting into a good program vs a bad program can have a massive impact on what you learn and can accomplish. But if Chris Cantelmo had actually gotten a Masters or PhD there is absolutely no way he wouldn't have put that fact in every single sentence he wrote.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
X-Ray Pecs posted:A question I had, given some of his "accomplishments" covered in the episode: Did Chris Cantelmo actually go to Yale? No freaking idea! I think it's plausible that he actually did, since I've definitely known people who got prestigious college degrees and then acted like this exact kind of dumbass, but obviously he could be lying. I guess only the sharks he fought will ever know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
X-Ray Pecs posted:A question I had, given some of his "accomplishments" covered in the episode: Did Chris Cantelmo actually go to Yale? I have a science degree from Columbia and lol yes, I don't doubt it for a second. The Ivy Leagues are not lacking for crazy people
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
There is an entire Type of Guy who goes to school for one particular specific area of study, learns that, and then assumes they're a genius about everything else because they know a lot about geomorphology so of COURSE they can confirm that human DNA has Pleadean star-seed genes in there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
Extra Credit reads you a story. Well. A little bit of many stories.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
New F+ on the site from one of my favorite Lou Reads episodes. Cockrub warriors RULE! Also, Lemon has a new game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
These aren't gently caress fights, they're fight fucks completely different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 23:54
|
|
|
Twink vs. muscle monster is just a Baki episode
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2021 23:57
|
|
|
I’m so happy they got back to nutbusting, the original episode is one of my all-time favorites.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
Some really prime examples of "okay, I came, time to wrap this poo poo up" writing in this episode! I'm also still imagining the nut-vs-nut fight, which I can only picture as fifteen minutes of sad, moist little slaps until everyone involved decides it's probably easier to just jack off normally. This may be my new mental definition of the word "slapfight."
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
fapfight
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
your turn
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2021 03:13
|
|
