|
This dude smokes his weed 15 minutes early?
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2018 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
What are the best non-sexual episodes? I've got a bit of a road trip tomorrow and my passenger wants to listen to funny poo poo but not fetishes. I figured Dozerfleet is a good one; what else?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Pastafarianism is the ultimate evolution of an old hacky internet tactic that came from Usenet debates over evolution and religion in the 90s. Proto-Dawkins types thought it was the height of wit to talk about the Invisible Pink Unicorn or other similar mockeries of the idea of an omnipotent God. Pastafarians just took that and ran with it and somehow thought putting a colander on their head was a devastating satire of religious exemptions because they have absolutely no intellectual understanding of human spirituality whatsoever. Not really accurate. The Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented specifically as a way to fight creationism taught in schools. It was never meant to be a satire of Christianity or anything; it's just a ridiculous thing to highlight the ridiculousness of teaching non-science in the science classroom. It serves a similar function to Satanism. Neither is actually a religion and neither is supposed to be a direct commentary on religious beliefs the same way that the "invisible pink unicorn" rhetoric is.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Sitting Here posted:I was trawling Amazon for review lols and stumbled into the world of grounding/earthing products. Seems like the kind of thing someone might've made a doc about on, like, day one of the f plus, but I'm surprised there's not an episode about these folks. I crossposted this in the pseudoscience thread.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
ShellGame posted:A little Andrew Jackson anyone? More like Andrew Jacksoff
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2019 07:51
|
|
|
When I saw Solo in the theater, I was immediately loving baffled by the choice to bring back Darth Maul. It was so bizarre that they would revive the silliest and stupidest part of Star Wars canon: that the guy who was cut in half, who fell down a seemingly-bottomless shaft in a power plant, while working alone, somehow got rescued and survived. But as I was pondering that for the last few minutes of the movie, I realized, "wait, that's not even close to the dumbest thing in old Star Wars canon, because Luuke exists." And then when the credits rolled, I turned to my friend who was sitting next to me in the theater, and said "have you heard of Luuke?" which was an understandably baffling thing to say at that point in time. And as we sat through the credits I explained what the gently caress "Luuke" was, and why it was the stupidest thing in old Star Wars canon, then at the end she was like "okay but what the gently caress does that have to do with the movie we just watched??" That's my Luuke story, thanks for reading, and thanks, f-plus, for covering it, so that others may share my pain.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2020 07:11
|
|
|
Fuckin' LMAO if your favorite character isn't Willrow Hood, the guy who carries an ice cream maker during the evacuation of Cloud City in Empire Strikes Back.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
What really bothered me about that song was the missing "and." In the original song, it's a long list and the "and" comes at the last item, "and a partridge in a pear tree." But in this version, they've replaced "and" with "while," and in fact the last three lines are one big noun phrase, "three good tugs on the two nipple clamps while handcuffed to the pear tree," so grammatically the "and" should go before the "three." And since the song is so drat repetitive, I had many, many chances to notice this and be bothered by it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
When the onceler showed up, this episode suddenly made a lot more sense. In retrospect it seems obvious.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
Meowywitch posted:what the heck is skibidi toliet? lmao "madness combat" but in source filmmaker instead of flash.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2024 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
This episode was hard to listen to. Not Always Right gives me powerful fremdschämen for the people posting such obvious stdh so shamelessly. I mean, they're still funny, but also they make me want to die from cringe. Also I do not understand how Lemon could possibly have forgotten the Marvel story.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 05:42
|
|