Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 10:41:10 +0300
Organization: Tidorum Ltd
Lines: 157
Message-ID: <lmet8mFmne6U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <86jzf4829c.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vcpojl$2ads5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vct3av$2tic0$17@dont-email.me> <vctb0s$32gol$1@dont-email.me>
 <vctbo2$32cko$3@dont-email.me> <vcv711$3b4hf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vcvji5$3co45$7@dont-email.me> <20240925104320.00007791@yahoo.com>
 <vdaakm$1facd$4@dont-email.me> <vdacqq$1jf40$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdd6tv$23gqs$1@dont-email.me> <vdd8d6$23nsh$1@dont-email.me>
 <ee430ac27c829d5514d5652aa2c6fad6@www.novabbs.org>
 <vdevtm$2c7jg$1@dont-email.me> <vdg6fs$2ko7g$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdh5q8$2pnkp$2@dont-email.me>
 <40853b34aae592d6cd8a19f017e3f7eb@www.novabbs.org>
 <lm2vj6Frf3oU1@mid.individual.net> <vdi0t5$2u3af$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdkp1g$3ed1r$6@dont-email.me> <vdkt00$3in73$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdl4ok$3jhjh$6@dont-email.me> <vdlk9g$3kq50$4@dont-email.me>
 <vdmq7e$3re5q$2@dont-email.me> <vdobe8$5cna$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdpad7$agqd$1@dont-email.me> <vdqvmf$mv5f$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdru7f$resc$1@dont-email.me> <vds087$rp06$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net NMb+U7GDFfGHXHaITWwLGwZC0VVpOEG/QjvemXp/vMbu4lBhrL
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0Y4rvs58OG9j+/nhveesvugTueY= sha256:0mchHki6Nu9WmoT406lpqCiOXCQikiSOxOSmezT5APQ=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vds087$rp06$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8629

On 2024-10-05 21:24, Brett wrote:
> Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 04/10/2024 19:59, Brett wrote:
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>> On 03/10/2024 21:10, Brett wrote:
>>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/10/2024 05:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C.	
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or
>>>>>>>> sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also note that the two guys who won the Nobel Prize for the development
>>>>>>> of MRI - the /real/ inventors of the MRI machine - are both long dead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But this particular crank is mad enough and influential enough to have a
>>>>>>> page on Rational Wiki, which is never a good sign.  (It seems he did
>>>>>>> work on improving MRI technology before he went bananas.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One day I will be on rational wiki. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Watch his videos and try to debunk what he says.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good luck with that. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are more productive uses of my time which won't rot my brain as
>>>>> quickly, such as watching the grass grow.
>>>>>
>>>>> A bit challenge with the kind of shite that people like this produce is
>>>>> that it is often unfalsifiable.  They invoke magic, much like religions
>>>>> do, and then any kind of disproof or debunking is washed away by magic.
>>>>> When you make up some nonsense that has no basis in reality or no
>>>>> evidence, you can just keep adding more nonsense no matter what anyone
>>>>> else says.
>>>>>
>>>>> So when nutjobs like that guy tell you the sun is powered by pixies
>>>>> riding tricycles really fast, he can easily invent more rubbish to
>>>>> explain away any evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a term for this - what these cranks churn out is "not even
>>>>> wrong".  (You can look that up on Rational Wiki too.)
>>>>>
>>>>> And while the claims of this kind of conspiracy theory cannot be
>>>>> falsified, there is also no evidence for them.  Claims made without
>>>>> evidence can be dismissed without evidence - there is no need to debunk
>>>>> them.  The correct reaction is to laugh if they are funny, then move on
>>>>> and forget them.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are all human, and sometimes we get fooled by an idea that sounds
>>>>> right.  But you should be embarrassed at believing such a wide range of
>>>>> idiocy and then promoting it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A gas cannot emit the spectrum we see from the sun, liquid metallic
>>>> hydrogen can.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You do realise that the sun is primarily plasma, rather than gas?  And
>>> that scientists - /real/ scientists - can heat up gases until they are
>>> plasma and look at the spectrum, in actual experiments in labs?  Has
>>> your hero tested a ball of liquid metallic hydrogen in his lab?
>>>
>>>> Gases do not show the pond ripples from impacts that we see from the sun
>>>> surface.
>>>>
>>>> And a long list of other basic facts Pierre-Marie_Robitaille goes over in
>>>> his Sky Scholar videos.
>>>>
>>>> Stellar science is a bad joke, such basic mistakes should have been
>>>> corrected 100 years ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You think one crackpot with no relevant education and no resources can
>>> figure all this out in a couple of years, where tens of thousands of
>>> scientists have failed over a hundred years?  Do you /really/ think that
>>> is more likely than supposing that he doesn't understand what he is
>>> talking about?
>>>
>>> In real science, lab experiments, observation of reality (such as the
>>> sun in this case), simulations, models, and hypotheses all go hand in
>>> hand in collaboration between many scientists and experts in different
>>> fields in order to push scientific knowledge further.
>>>
>>> "Maverick" genius scientists who figure out the "real" answer on their
>>> own don't exist outside the entertainment industry.
>>
>>
>> So science ended 100 years ago and we should close our eyes and ears and
>> say not anything that would counter our sacred flawless scientists of old.
>>
>> Stop being a religious zealot and watch the videos.
>>
>> If he is a crackpot you should be bright enough to figure it out and prove
>> it for the world to see. Crackpots cannot survive scientific rigor. A five
>> minute search crushes such fools with ease, I have done this a dozen times.
>>
> 
> Here is what Sabine Hossenfelder thinks of modern physics, and she
> makes money promoting physics to people on YouTube.
> 
> https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=USc2fHsaWTJMSDSt

The issues Hossenfelder discusses in that video are at the rugged 
frontiers of theoretical physics: whether or not Loop Quantum Gravity 
predicts that the speed of light depends on the frequency of the light, 
and whether or not it makes sense to work on mathematical models of 
reality, like string theory, that so far do not make testable predictions.

It is natural that there are disagreements and even quarrels among 
physicists in such areas. The current methods for funding physics 
research may be contributing to such problems. And it is frustrating 
that no major, easily explainable advances have been made for quite a while.

But I strongly doubt that Hossenfelder thinks the Sun consists of liquid 
metallic hydrogen.


> The comments are funny. ;)


After a quick sampling it seems most comments are just praising 
Hossenfelder's aggressive style and ranting in this video, not talking 
about the physics.

I wonder if Hossenfelder is in danger of becoming the DJ Trump of 
physics, perhaps soon calling for draining the academic swamp, and 
attracting a following of similarly disappointed and frustrated seekers 
for simple solutions.


> My translation is that modern physics is a bullshit engine of unprovable
> gibberish like string theory.


Don't equate "modern physics" like string theory with all of physics.

And YouTube videos making money does not mean that the videos present 
the truth... counter-examples are legion.