Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 18:24:07 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <vds087$rp06$1@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2024 20:24:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a429f90581d1c54bf07e0f3c6aa2c720";
	logging-data="910342"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/PyarjlOMUdBwnvSwLGBBo"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:V2JCCjNEZxKOTIIvCv8J515KQtQ=
	sha1:EfbT7iH5FHU7h19pCNNo+BGZUps=
Bytes: 7335

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 comments are funny. ;)

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