Information icon.svg The 2018 RMF board election has started! We are electing 3 boardmembers for the 2018-2020 term.
Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

User talk:Nerd

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome, The BoNs!
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

This user likes a troll-free talk page. Revert away!


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Nerd!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

A quandary for you.[edit]

You have in the past mentioned that you have an advanced understanding of astrophysics yes? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie If I said something to that effect, I misspoke. I can only claim to have above-average knowledge of physics because I take collegiate courses. Having said that, if you have a question, ask away and I will try my best to answer it. Nerd (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Forgive me if I come of as ignorant. Is it theoretically possible that the Big Bang is the result of matter being ejected through a theoretical "exit" to a black hole from another universe? (similar to how black holes have been observed ejecting massive streams of radiation by astronomers) That is to say what if matter went in one end of a black hole, gathered together until it reached critical mass, then was ejected out (through the barrier of known reality) a second end of said black hole?
PS: Yes I am aware that this theory runs into the problem of infinite regress. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
No, the math does not work out for that. The hawking radiation streams from black holes come not from matter being ejected from a black hole, but virtual particle pairs forming on the edge of the event horizon, with one of the pair falling in and the other shooting out. This creates a "negative" energy space, not unlike an exciton, that is consumed by the black hole annihilating some of its mass, and (critically for physics working) conserving energy. These virtual particles, however, would not be a point of near infinite density, as our cosmic background radiation measurements suggest the big bang was, but a fairly uniform distribution of energy.
I know it's tempting to suggest a closed universe hypothesis, the infinite cycle of death and rebirth is appealing, but I don't think this particular conjecture aligns with the empirical data we've got. The 4d event horizon hologram hypothesis might be up your alley though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed when you said "The 4d event horizon hologram hypothesis might be up your alley" where you referring to this? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Will get back to you soon. Please stay tuned for the next episode of Justice League. Nerd (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie You seem to be of the impression that black holes are cosmic vacuum cleaners sucking up the matter around them till they are full. This is not at all the case; black holes can keep growing and growing. Under certain circumstances, black holes can eject matter into space. If by "massive streams of radiation" you mean the relativistic jets along the axis of rotation of a black hole, then those are not made of matter from inside the hole, as far as we know. Although the true nature of these jets remain a mystery, a number of hypotheses have been introduced to explain them. One of the most popular ones is the Blandford-Znajek processWikipedia's W.svg. The answer given above gives an interesting qualitative overview of Hawking radiation, a "good bedtime story," as a guest lecturer for my thermodynamics class said. However, the picture of particle pairs on the event horizon is not the best one. This PBS Space Time video explains it better. It is a matter of boundary conditions, Fourier analysis, and scattering. Nerd (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If you are thinking of the interior of a black hole as akin to a wormhole, this arises because of a coordinate change. The Schwarzschild solution has two singularities, r = R_{s}, where R_{s} is the radius of the hole, and  r = 0 . The former can be removed by changing your coordinate system. One way to do this is with the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinatesWikipedia's W.svg, which exhibits the wormhole-like property of a black hole. Nerd (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Then my (admittedly amateur) theory holds no weight. Well it was worth a shot anyway, and the basic logic behind it was sound, at least from a layman's perspective. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Never fear. Learning is a life-long process. Nerd (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Before I forget, a mathematics professor of mine, who took a course on general relativity as graduate student, told us that when we you study that subject, "Get ready to change coordinates!" He was showing us how to solve certain equations by substitution when he made that casual remark. Professors say the finest things. Smile! Nerd (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Could care less[edit]

I'm not going to edit war with you but "could care less" is perfectly valid idiomatic English, even if it is something of an Americanism.[1][2][3][4][5][6] --Gospatric (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You, too, Merriam-Webster?! No!!! But logically speaking, how could you possibly go lower than a (global) minimum? If you care about something, you can care less about it. If you don't care about something at all, how can you care less? Anyway, thank you for getting back to me. Nerd (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Nerd on this one. I hate "could care less". Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 13:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't like it much either because of how easy it is to assume it's the opposite of "couldn't care less" which actually means the same. Also try putting into Google! "I (or he, she, etc.) couldn't (also could) care less" - phrase of care - informal 'used to express complete indifference'. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 14:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
On the spectrum of caring a lot (MORE)<------>caring not at all (LESS), I can't go further than "caring not at all", i.e. I couldn't care less. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

State of Jefferson[edit]

FWIW, I used all caps in citing the sign because the sign was in all caps and I was putting it in quotes. If you're specifically quoting something you're supposed to do it verbatim, including spelling errors etc. (though you can modify with ellipses and brackets), so since they used all caps I did so too. I realize the rule's become a little flexible re. all caps, so maybe I didn't need to be a stickler about it. I just wanted to mention why I used all caps; I'm not a big fan of them myself. Peyre (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Add entries to the bottom[edit]

This is why I discourage others from making polls... —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 04:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor Sorry, mate! It said to not add a new option between existing ones, leaving me with two choices, the top or the bottom. I picked the top. Nerd (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk about something other than a flat Earth[edit]

Because there is a more interesting topic: the faking of the moon landings!-DiamondDisc1(talk) 05:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@DiamondDisc1 I'm afraid those were real. Even the Soviets, who were no fans of the imperialist capitalist potatoes and masters of propaganda, had nothing to say against it. Had they really been fake, the Russians would have gone screaming at the U.N. Headquarters in New York City by now. "We will bury you and your lies," they would say. On the other hand, have you seen this video? (I posted it on the Salon Bar also.) Nerd (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh no! Facts! I'm melting!-DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Em and en dashes[edit]

According to some stuff I read back whenever, em dashes should not have spaces (I think thin spaces are okay) and en dashes should have normal spaces, as well as being used in ranges.

So this — it's wrong. But this – that's fine. And, uh—this is too.

And this - well that's just horrible, so it's good you didn't do it. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 00:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, mate! Nerd (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
No problem, using a dash incorrectly is still many times more preferable than using a hyphen. *shudder* —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 01:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, you have one in your signature. Ha! Nerd (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)