Is he right?

Is he right?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Chinese
    No.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >some literal who has an opinion
      "Big Bang Theory" was disproven already. Frick off.

      At least put "sage" in the options when you respond to this drivel.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >some literal who has an opinion
        It's a well-known author of novels:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Lin
        >At least put "sage" in the options when you respond to this drivel.
        You didn't do it yourself and demand it from others? That's rich.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You didn't do it yourself and demand it from others? That's rich.
          I clearly did.

          >"Big Bang Theory" was disproven already
          When lmao?

          >When lmao?
          Oh, don't worry. Researchers "researchers took a more careful look at the data" and turns out, nah, we were wrong.
          https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-didnt-break-big-bang-explained
          Too bad they never "take a more careful look at the data" from the beginning though! 🙂

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >this one moronic pop-sci article goes against this other moronic pop-sci article

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is a senseless response that doesn't allow for converging discussion between my clear anti-Science perspective with his Science-worship persective.
            Think of it as a form of catholicism. The pop-sci article is similar to the oped interpretations of the bible and the dissertations and such are Pope sitting in his chair making declarations.
            Frankly, in my operations outside of pop-sci, all I can do is offer a clear, and obvious, statement about the takeaway when the telescope clearly brought it further into doubt the big bang theory. However, without a peer-reviewed paper being explicit the matter, all we can do is argue over the interpretation. In this case, it will be pop-sci bullshit opinions written by a journalist against me, an actual academia who isn't willing to give his creds over.
            That is to say, if we want to engage in these discussions, we have to play by the rules of the game, if only a little. In this case, it's pop-sci bullshit with no real basis or science backing.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It's a well-known author of novels:
          lmfao

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Lin
          "Well known" is a bit of an overstatement, he's a mid hippy wannabe who writes stupid and whiny books. Anyways even if he was a good writer/poet why would anyone give a shit about his opinions on physics?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >"Big Bang Theory" was disproven already
        When lmao?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The theory relies on dark matter being real but it was proven not to exist

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're an idiot, dark matter is an observable phenomenon, and is still widely accepted by physicists.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            should we tell him?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No let him keep going it's funnier that way

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >widely ACCEPTED

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Chuds kept mentioning it so journalists all agreed it's a racist theory which means the science is settled.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Law of the conservation of energy; the universe couldn't have a beginning with that law in place.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you are such a fricking Black person. the big bang theory does not suggest that the universe and energy just popped into existence. the big bang is just the extremely quick expansion of space.

          • 4 weeks ago
            I ignore women

            >the big bang is just the extremely quick expansion of space.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He's right. The Big Bang has never, ever posited ex nihilo; that is a purely religious view of the universe, i.e. God's creation of the universe from nothing.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fpbp, too many eastern dicksuckers around here these days. Reminder these soulless bugs will never do anything worthwhile for humanity.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >moron on x.com has idiotic opinions
    Thank you for reposting these riveting insights.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's crazy that Tao Lin is known as "some literal who" from Twitter. What happened to this place?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He's on my shelf right now and he's still a literal who. What next, are you going to give any attention to Mira Gonz's opinions?

  4. 4 weeks ago
    I ignore women

    gish galloping yappersville population: 1

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tao is possibly the most autistic man alive

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Right about what?

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does he also believe the Earth is flat and there is a firmament above us, because I do.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yes, he's right. he doesn't believe in those things.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How do you know? Believes are mental states which are inaccessible to outside observers.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        he must know

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I appreciate that Tao is willing to share his opinions, even if they make him vulnerable to criticism. I don't really buy his whole dustification theory about the twin towers though. Something like that requires such a tight-knit group of people who are willing to commit atrocities without spilling the beans, I just don't think it's possible as humans are too fallible.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    sage

    Sage and report all twitter threads

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did anyone buy Trip or Leaving Society? What did you think about them?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Leave Society
      >modern medicine is FRICKED
      >so anyway I did some kratom and jacked off yesterday

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I JUST BELIEVE IN ME

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Me and Yoko

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    obviously not. i would be surprised if he could explain in detail what these theories he doesn't believe in actually say about reality and operate them to make predictions about the world. i would be even more suprised if he could identify concrete ways he expected them to fail that are not already common knowledge (such as relativity's incompatibility with quantum mechanics). i assign about as close to zero probability as i ever get to him being able to make better predictions than those theories in places where those theories fail.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >le predictions
      That's stupid, because if you believe in the theory of relativity, you cannot believe Newton's laws of motion are true, as they presuppose an empty space. Yet you can predict stuff with Newton's theory, but it's wrong: same can be true for relativity.

      The solution to all of the problems of modern physics is really obvious and it's staring everyone right in the face. Nobody will ever do anything about it though. Frick Giordano Bruno.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >That's stupid, because if you believe in the theory of relativity, you cannot believe Newton's laws of motion are true, as they presuppose an empty space. Yet you can predict stuff with Newton's theory, but it's wrong: same can be true for relativity.
        yes, correct. all models are wrong, some are useful.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >yes, correct. all models are wrong, some are useful.
          the extent of usefulness can only be known once the extent of what is actually true is known. If you stick with usefulness, well, mud huts were useful, dogs' activities are useful: there was more knowledge to be gained, though.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If you stick with usefulness, well, mud huts were useful, dogs' activities are useful: there was more knowledge to be gained, though.
            i'm not sure what point this is making. yes, mud huts were useful, and then brick houses were more useful, because they kept being useful in situations where mud huts failed. if we keep going eventually we'll find theories that make better predictions about reality within the regions that we currently have trouble with, and that'll be a genuine advance.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The point is that without advance in knowledge about the existence of certain properties of the universe those properties cannot become manipulable or useful. If you know more, there's more you can use, therefore use does not define knowledge.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Newton's laws predict things accurately because locally on the manifold we don't observe the curvature of space-time so everything seems flat and Euclid's parallel postulate holds. Newton's laws are a subset/special case of the theory of relativity. Another example of IQfy poster arrogantly commenting on something he doesn't understand.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Newton's laws predict things accurately because locally on the manifold we don't observe the curvature of space-time so everything seems flat and Euclid's parallel postulate hold
          Yes, but that's not what Newton's theory says, does it? Newton's theory would have never happened without the concept of empty space, and its concepts like force and momentum are predicated on the stability of the empty space. Relativity upsets that foundation and yes interprets the applicability of the formulas through itself but nevertheless, even its consequences like wormholes contradict Newtonian laws of motion.

          As an aside, it is moronic to think space can curve because its curvature presumes another space to which it can curve. Einstein's theory is moronic.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's spacetime that curves you ignorant fruity art homosexual, that's a completely different thing. Are you morons this stupid about science? At least scientists and mathematicians read, you homosexuals get a panic attack when presented with an equation.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's spacetime that curves you ignorant fruity art homosexual, that's a completely different thing.
            Spacetime is just three dimensions of space plus time, so it represents all of space which supposedly curves somewhere, so again: if spacetime describes all of space, where does it curve, moron? Clearly, not all of space can be contained in this "spacetime".

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            moron take. Read more. Stop posting. You're a homosexual

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lool it's always great when a piece of shit pseud like you gets exposed and shown the stupidity of their whole worldview

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao keep reaching, homosexual

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you're mad that I moved past everything you believe and am better than you

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't care about anything you have said so far, actually, so try harder with your incessant homosexualry

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >, actually,
            lmao nice protective laughter

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't even know what the frick you're taking about so it should be me who's laughing but I just can't give two flying tin fricks about you or your insipid drivel, you feckless b***h. Try harder

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >b***h frick b***h b***h frick
            what an NPC breakdown looks like

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Crying this hard in IQfy, of all places
            Reaching hard

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lool it's always great when a piece of shit pseud like you gets exposed and shown the stupidity of their whole worldview

            >if a paper is 2d how does it curve???
            man

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Paper is not 2D, you piece of shit: it has a thickness and so moves in space. Moreover, spacetime does not just contain one object in space, like paper, moron, but rather it contains all of 3D space. Non-euclidean mathematics is false because the idealized 2D surface inside the paper really does not curve but rather changes the properties of the lines. You're a moron for falling these scams.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao you are a moron, do you know this? Have you not heard of no volume 2-d surfaces like mobius strips and 4-d structures like klein bottles. Your concept of curvature assumes some change in volume-contraction and expansion, which might not be necessarily accurate. This is topology not geometry.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Mobius strip does not curve anywhere in the second dimension and the only change effected in the second dimensions is that the drawn line is different. What's more, it is dimensionally ambiguous, as is every other mathematical object: the depth part of it is completely fake and can be replaced with a 2D space between the circles, so it does not achieve anything unique.

            All structures are non-dimensional. Klein Bottle is equally a 2D and 3D object, as is shown by the fact that it can be drawn as mere lines on a 2D surface.

            You're a dumb piece of shit pseud that should stop reading forever.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, you can phenomenologically prove the non-reality of every dimensional concept and mfs still end up with extreme reification of dimensions in the form of spacetime. Just proves what pathetic fricks you guys are.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That does not mean you can measure volume or determine whether the curvature of spacetime is spilling over into more unavailable space you ignorant homosexual. The purpose of those examples was to show that your moronic concept of unavailable spacetime doesn't hold. In topology, you can stretch a structure or curve it without assuming its change in volume or surface area.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >In topology, you can stretch a structure or curve it without assuming its change in volume or surface area.
            Yes, but these are OBJECTS IN SPACE, not the actual fabric of the 3D space itself, which is what allows these objects to manipulated in the first place, you worthless c**t.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Again, what stretches isn't space but spacetime, the whole fabric of reality, there are no objects in spacetime, only events, those events either slow or quicken from a certain initial frame of reference, this is not geometry anymore, how many times do you need to hear this you low iq homosexual?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >spacetime, the whole fabric of reality
            Which contains the whole of 3D space, you moron. It is immaterial to what I said whether there are objects in spacetime, as spacetime itself is treated as an object, whose curvatures actually explain time dilation etc. in the models.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So basically: 3D space is part of an object that curves: it may contain events, but it ITSELF curves, but to where can it curve, since all of space was supposed to be just a part of it! MORON.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So what if it does, just because you think we can't talk about it physically changing why are we talking about the universe as an object verbally? Why are we allowed to do it verbally, treating the universe as an object and subject of conversation?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >just because you think we can't talk about it physically changing why are we talking about the universe as an object verbally?
            The answer is clear: its fundamental nature is non-spatial, so it is not beset by the paradoxes of spatial properties.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            lmao, so the universe is neither spacetime, nor space? So we are only left with time.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, that's a 100% fact and even time is doubtful because it leads to incoherencies.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it might as well contain no logic if that's your contention, which eventually becomes self refuting, also facts are observable, as are the predictions of relativity, at this point i don't even think anything else you say will be coherent since you are mixing epistemic terminologies like facts with metaphysical mumbo jumbo

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it might as well contain no logic if that's your contention, which eventually becomes self refuting
            Every spatial object is incoherent and contradictory, so there world must be something else than spatial. This is something that is observable: that is, a simple phenomenological study shows the cracks in the space idea.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How is it incoherent?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Any depth might be interpreted as flat and any flatness can be interpreted as in depth, even folding et al. can be explained by a disappearance of the paper below, and at any rate folding can be reproduced on a 2D surface, as videos show. Any angle can be interpreted in two ways even if depth is assumed. Any movement might be interpreted as being of any length but with correspondent increase in the size of the object. Any corresponding tactile sensations might be related to these alternate visualizations. So, there can't be any true interpretation of any spatial information, and there are no spatial objects, since these alternate interpretations have different properties.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you are talking a verbal representation of geometry and coming to the conclusion that the verbal representation is incoherent, what does that have to do with geometry? If a circle is a line that intersects itself, does that mean that the verbal representation is incoherent or that the geometry is incoherent?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No I'm talking about actual experience

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, i asked you about geometry, now you are moving goal posts?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He doesn't know

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You do know that if you apply GR to like a ball falling the equations simplify to just be Newtonian physics, pretty much, right? It only matters for big masses and things going really, really fast

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Those are like minimum requirements for a person to be worth talking to

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      believing or not believing?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >believing or not believing?
        not believing

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          respect

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What's wrong with black holes? There's lots of evidence.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes
      He could have also mentioned space expansion (red shift), but the list is pretty solid

      respect

      Frens

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Belief is irrelevant. Even this moron would end up using the best model if he had some actual reason to model the thing.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's the best way to learn Physics and Astronomy? I'm interested but have no idea where to start.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Unironocally learn calculus first if you haven't yet, and work your way through a college introductory textbook like Giancoli or Serway and israeliteett. You don't need calculus at that level, but if you work through that you'll know a lot in a simplified way, and that may be all you're interested in.
      If you want to keep on going then it would be Griffith's electrodynamics and Linear Algebra. Then you can do Quantum Mechanics and differential equations. From there you can branch out into what interests you.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Watch youtube videos

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Correct on all points. Imagine unironically believing in:
    >renormalization (called by Feynman 'hocus pocus' and 'not mathematically legitimate')
    >uncertainty principle
    >curved space
    >virtual particles
    >symmetry breaking
    >borrowing from the vacuum
    >backwards causality
    >entanglement
    >dark matter / dark energy
    >pushing quark flavor and color
    >etc
    lol!

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Twitter screencap posters need to be permabanned

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Read it in book form then

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.

    The Elites got Tesla, the slaves got Eisenstein.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    LITERALLY none of that information is relevant in your life

    So in a sense I do not even care if anything on that list is false or right, only neurotic boring people get emotionally involved in that trash

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Every time you use GPS, you're using satellites running on Einsteins theory. They use time difference between when your signal is sent out from your phone and is received on the satellites (you need at least 4 to know your location) to calculate where you are, and their clock speeds are adjusted to account for time dilation.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He's completely right
    >t. Humanities major with a PhD in Asian literature during the middle ages

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't believe in the theory that the universe is not powered by attention whoring

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who was that one chick in Alt-Lit who ultimately quit writing and literally became a hooker? It wasn't Mira, it was somebody else.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ya mom

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    in the first one he is saying time is one variable while space is a rich variable

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He's correct, but he forgot:
    >Nukes are real.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nope

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are his novels any good?

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the sun is a giant lightbulb
    quality thread

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    jannies do your fricking jobs

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No but he is based. Fricking israelite science ruined the world

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He’s probably been reading about scalar waves

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    /thread

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This thread has literally 0 to do with literature. I’m not sure this board even has jannies.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The author of the quote is a novelist. So the connection to literature is not "literally 0". Learn to think, man.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh ok, didn’t realize tweets counted as literature these days.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No one likes a pedant. That's why you're currently posting on IQfy instead of getting ready to go out on a Friday night.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He's 100%. There is no reason to believe the "oh my science!!" people

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You mean "no reason other than proof"? That's stupid. Stop posting

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Does 'sage' still work? Seems like the thread was bumped after your post.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, sage still works

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I agree, that's why it's just a theory. Just like evolution.

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As a scientist you all deserve the rope.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why, that's not very objective of you

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Scientifically speaking you all objectively deserve the rope.

        Yes
        He could have also mentioned space expansion (red shift), but the list is pretty solid

        [...]
        Frens

        Look at this creature pretending he has any clue what he's talking about or is capable of putting together any thought on any subject. This is the best of you homosexuals.
        >I don't hecking "believe" in red shift
        Too braindead to even mean anything.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why are you existentially threatened by people merely disagreeing? Is the state of modern science an unassailable dogma?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Oh I believe in red shift but I don't believe that it's linked to "space" expanding

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The prescence of carbon in the early univese debunks the big band alone

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wow! What an original and controversial thinker! He's going so against the grain here!

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the theory that stars are powered from within by explosions (they seem to be powered from outside by electricity)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Almost every poster here agreed with him so far. Also, he doesn't believe in black holes. And he believes in some aether. And Einstein is wrong. IQfy agrees.

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >no-effort twittercap threads have made their way to IQfy
    >get 100+ replies
    i don't even read books i just lurk IQfy because it was one of the last boards with majority humans on it... IQfy is dead

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > i don't even read books i just lurk IQfy because
      It’s your fault, too. I at least had a period many years back, when shifting from late adolescence to young adulthood, where I read obsessively and voraciously for years, especially trying to school myself in as many of the classics as I could, so I could feel like I could converse intelligently about the Western canon. I gradually became less and less of a reader of so many novels (admittedly also at least partially because Internet use fried my attention-span, I plead guilty), and have switched those books I now read largely to nonfiction and philosophy, but at least that period I had of devoted reading for years still lets me sometimes shitpost semi-intelligently about various works and understand the allusions to various authors.

      Do something like this even if in a simpler and shorter way, pick up even an easier but well-regarded book, novel, or classic that’s on high school syllabi, make a thread or two about it, share your own insights. Be the change you want to be instead of just always waiting around for others to shovel information and entertainment and intellectual stimulation and provocation into you as a passive consumer. And don’t get so stuck up on IQfy dick-measuring about how hard and difficult and long and complex and experimental and canonical and ground-breaking the work is, even a thread about Salinger’s or Hemingway’s best works could contribute something better than most threads.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why'd you switch to non-fiction?

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The universe is recursive consciousness sealed within a nonpoint we call "God"

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He discusses some of his ideas on science in this talk from earlier this month:
    https://www.youtube.com/live/meeSgLd8eLA

    Personal highlight is when he trails off, stares intently at something behind the camera for a few moments, and then says, 'Sorry, I thought I saw Lex Fridman.'

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *