Comment Re:"Women" have done no such thing (Score 1) 349
From what I understand she just so happens to be suing someone else for exactly the amount of money they're in the hole for...
From what I understand she just so happens to be suing someone else for exactly the amount of money they're in the hole for...
All those "that hold women's salaries back compared to men" like arithmetic and counting. Goddamn math is part of the patriarchy.
What even is an "anti-feminist"? Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali an anti-feminist? Is Karen DeCrow? What about Amanda Marcotte? Or Lindy West? The first two are diametrically opposed to the latter two, they're almost complete opposites. If you support Karen DeCrow and Ayaan Hirsi Ali you by definition vehemently oppose Amanda Marcotte and Lindy West.
"Anti-feminist" is a meaningless term, it's even more meaningless than McCarthy's use of "communist". It's impossible to NOT be an "anti-feminist" because of how absurdly over-broad it is.
The problem is their utter domination of academia and the media, and incredibly active base of zealots, gives them a profoundly disproportionate ability to control the narrative and wield political and social influence. It's easy to punch far above your weight when you can print off dozens of article saying whatever you want, woozle wikipedia into rewriting the truth to suit your politics, and then dump some screaming violent protestors on people that know they can even get away with assaults and other crimes. I still remember one video of a university protest where an SJW ran up to someone, started screaming accusing him of touching her breast to set him up (both of his hands were out in front of him in the air), and then shoved him off a ~5 foot ledge.
Could you imagine the media response if anyone did that to feminists?
Well, sure. I have tested General Relativity, and would love to have found a case where it was not "good enough." But, that is different from an internal contradiction, which as far as we know GR doesn't have.
There have been several theories built on that assumption, most prominently one called MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics), but more recently one that builds on relativity rather than Newtonian gravity/dynamics.
But none of these theories (hypotheses?) have gained much acceptance from the physics community, as far as I know.
Yes, and one reason is that they find it hard to model these kinds of galaxy cluster observations in MOND / TeVeS without assuming there is also some dark matter or some other non-MOND effect involved. Now, that could be (and MOND proponents will point out that standard CMD also has its problems, e.g., with the core/cusp problem, and we don't throw out CDM every time such a problem is encountered), but it certainly takes some of the shine off of the theory.
What objects are moving away from us faster than light and how was this determined?
None. That poster was overly enthusiastic.
I don't have the article in the mail yet, but I'm guessing that's new. At the very least, Weakly Interacting is now Really Weakly Interacting.
Here you go.
From my perspective, it hardly changes a thing (it lowers the cross section / mass constraint a little, but not even an order of magnitude). But, then, I'm not a WIMP guy.
Math proofs are meaningless without physical observations to back them up.
Fully agree. And, as it happens, General Relativity has a massive amount of physical observation backing it up, and no physical observations contradicting* it.
* If you believe in MOND / TeVeS, then the dark matter observations contradict GR. Let's just say that there is not yet consensus around that view.
Like a demolition charge, it's utility is pretty limited, but when the right (or wrong, depending on perspective) situation comes up, there's no substitute....
That the thing about dark matter... it has a perfectly reasonable explanation (WIMPs). It's not that weird of a "thing".
I dunno. Usually when a theory requires more and more unseen entities over time it's a sign that it's time to replace the theory. We know General Relativity is incomplete, both because it doesn't take into account quantum effects and because it has internal contradictions - specifically, it assumes a continuous spacetime geometry but predicts non-continuous points (black hole singularities).
That is not thought to be an internal contradiction of General Relativity, as, even though GR does have singularities, thanks to event horizons and cosmological censorship, there are no known cases where you can use these singularities to derive multiple different estimates of the same observational quantity (which is what having an inconsistent physical model means). I don't believe that there are any mathematical proofs of this, but I suspect you would have to come up with a counter-example if you wanted to convince people GR was self-contradictary.
Yeah, but that is widely considered not to be good enough.
Dark energy is just the latest name for the Cosmological Constant
You know, I'm as happy as anyone else that physicists have been able to do so much with their models, but what kind of navel-gazing mathurbation is this?
Dark energy is an observed physical phenomenon.
The cosmological constant is a term in an equation. It's a very good equation, mind you, but a lot of very good equations have later turned out to be wrong or good for only a special class of phenomena. Equations can predict, but they don't prove anything. It's also worth noting that the cosmological constant was supposed to predict a force that would hold the universe together. Dark energy is a force that is tearing the universe apart. Someone clever pointed out that hey, that works if you just flip the sign of the cosmological constant but I'm not sure I'd call that a win.
This is physics. Everything is a term in an equation.
The cosmological constant is the only free parameter in Einstein's equations. The. Only. One. And, it fits exactly all of the available data. Unless and until that changes, there is no good reason to believe to believe that we do not live in a de Sitter space.
That's exactly backwards.
The WIMP miracle is over; unless the LHC finds success with its Hail Mary pass, interest in WMPs will inevitably decline, and people will look (are looking) at other explanations for Dark Matter.
Dark Energy, on the other hand, is just a cosmological constant. Nothing mysterious (from a General Relativistic standpoint) about it at all.
No. This really applies _to_ WIMPs. It doesn't apply to condensed dark matter, or to axions.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
