/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23485732]

Is he right?

[Anonymous No.23485748]

>>23485732
>Chinese
No.

[Anonymous No.23485752]

>>23485732
>some literal who has an opinion
"Big Bang Theory" was disproven already. Fuck off.
>>23485748
At least put "sage" in the options when you respond to this drivel.

[Anonymous No.23485756]

>>23485752
>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.

[Anonymous No.23485774]

>>23485752
>"Big Bang Theory" was disproven already
When lmao?

[Anonymous No.23485783]

>>23485732
>retard on x.com has idiotic opinions
Thank you for reposting these riveting insights.

[Anonymous No.23485789]

>>23485732
It's crazy that Tao Lin is known as "some literal who" from Twitter. What happened to this place?

[I ignore women No.23485793]

>>23485732
gish galloping yappersville population: 1

[Anonymous No.23485796]

>>23485789
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?

[Anonymous No.23485800]

Tao is possibly the most autistic man alive

[Anonymous No.23485812]

>>23485774
The theory relies on dark matter being real but it was proven not to exist

[Anonymous No.23485813]

>>23485732
Right about what?

[Anonymous No.23485830]

>>23485812
You're an idiot, dark matter is an observable phenomenon, and is still widely accepted by physicists.

[Anonymous No.23485831]

>>23485830
should we tell him?

[Anonymous No.23485837]

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

[Anonymous No.23485857]

>>23485732
yes, he's right. he doesn't believe in those things.

[Anonymous No.23485872]

>>23485857
How do you know? Believes are mental states which are inaccessible to outside observers.

[Anonymous No.23485878]

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.

[Anonymous No.23485880]

>>23485774
Chuds kept mentioning it so journalists all agreed it's a racist theory which means the science is settled.

[sage No.23485884]

>>23485732
Sage and report all twitter threads

[Anonymous No.23485885]

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

[Anonymous No.23485887]

>>23485831
No let him keep going it's funnier that way

[Anonymous No.23485909]

>>23485872
he must know

[Anonymous No.23485915]

>>23485830
>widely ACCEPTED

[Anonymous No.23485927]

>>23485732
I JUST BELIEVE IN ME

[Anonymous No.23485931]

>>23485880
Based. Chuds btfo'd by science yet again.

[Anonymous No.23485935]

>>23485927
Me and Yoko

[Anonymous No.23485939]

>>23485732
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.

[Anonymous No.23485940]

>>23485732
Those are like minimum requirements for a person to be worth talking to

[Anonymous No.23485945]

>>23485940
believing or not believing?

[Anonymous No.23485953]

>>23485756
>You didn't do it yourself and demand it from others? That's rich.
I clearly did.
>>23485774
>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! :)

[Anonymous No.23485955]

>>23485939
>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. Fuck Giordano Bruno.

[Anonymous No.23485958]

>>23485955
>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.

[Anonymous No.23485959]

>>23485945
>believing or not believing?
not believing

[Anonymous No.23485961]

>>23485959
respect

[Anonymous No.23485968]

>>23485958
>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.

[Anonymous No.23485980]

>>23485959
What's wrong with black holes? There's lots of evidence.

[Anonymous No.23485981]

>>23485756
>It's a well-known author of novels:
lmfao

[Anonymous No.23485985]

>>23485968
>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.

[Anonymous No.23485989]

>>23485953
>this one retarded pop-sci article goes against this other retarded pop-sci article

[Anonymous No.23486026]

>>23485732
Belief is irrelevant. Even this retard would end up using the best model if he had some actual reason to model the thing.

[Anonymous No.23486063]

>>23485885
Leave Society
>modern medicine is FUCKED
>so anyway I did some kratom and jacked off yesterday

[Anonymous No.23486142]

>>23485955
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 /lit/ poster arrogantly commenting on something he doesn't understand.

[Anonymous No.23486179]

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

[Anonymous No.23486355]

>>23486179
Unironocally learn calculus first if you haven't yet, and work your way through a college introductory textbook like Giancoli or Serway and Jewett. 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.

[Anonymous No.23486363]

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!

[Anonymous No.23486366]

>>23485774
Law of the conservation of energy; the universe couldn't have a beginning with that law in place.

[Anonymous No.23486373]

>>23485748
fpbp, too many eastern dicksuckers around here these days. Reminder these soulless bugs will never do anything worthwhile for humanity.

[Anonymous No.23487014]

>>23485985
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.

[Anonymous No.23487029]

>>23486142
>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 retarded to think space can curve because its curvature presumes another space to which it can curve. Einstein's theory is retarded.

[Anonymous No.23487034]

Twitter screencap posters need to be permabanned

[Anonymous No.23487038]

Yes.

The Elites got Tesla, the slaves got Eisenstein.

[Anonymous No.23487045]

>>23487034
Read it in book form then

[Anonymous No.23487057]

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

[Anonymous No.23487066]

>>23485732
>I don't believe.... just because

[Anonymous No.23487070]

>>23485732
He's completely right
>t. Humanities major with a PhD in Asian literature during the middle ages

[Anonymous No.23487077]

>>23485732
I don't believe in the theory that the universe is not powered by attention whoring

[Anonymous No.23487114]

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.

[Anonymous No.23487313]

>>23487114
Ya mom

[Anonymous No.23487325]

>>23485732
in the first one he is saying time is one variable while space is a rich variable

[Anonymous No.23487326]

>>23485732
He's correct, but he forgot:
>Nukes are real.

[Anonymous No.23487340]

>>23486366
you are such a fucking nigger. 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.

[I ignore women No.23487547]

>>23487340
>the big bang is just the extremely quick expansion of space.

[Anonymous No.23487617]

>>23485732
Nope

[Anonymous No.23487691]

>>23485732
Are his novels any good?

[Anonymous No.23487702]

>>23487547
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.

[Anonymous No.23487740]

>>23487029
It's spacetime that curves you ignorant fruity art faggot, that's a completely different thing. Are you retards this stupid about science? At least scientists and mathematicians read, you faggots get a panic attack when presented with an equation.

[Anonymous No.23488036]

>>23487740
>It's spacetime that curves you ignorant fruity art faggot, 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, retard? Clearly, not all of space can be contained in this "spacetime".

[Anonymous No.23488043]

>the sun is a giant lightbulb
quality thread

[Anonymous No.23488128]

>>23488036
Retard take. Read more. Stop posting. You're a faggot

[Anonymous No.23488196]

>>23488128
Lool it's always great when a piece of shit pseud like you gets exposed and shown the stupidity of their whole worldview

[Anonymous No.23488219]

>>23488036
>>23488196
>if a paper is 2d how does it curve???
man

[Anonymous No.23488287]

>>23485756
>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?

[Anonymous No.23488298]

>>23485830

[Anonymous No.23488311]

>>23488036
Lmao you are a retard, 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.

[Anonymous No.23488318]

>>23485732
jannies do your fucking jobs

[Anonymous No.23488373]

>>23488219
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, retard, 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 retard for falling these scams.

[Anonymous No.23488386]

>>23488311
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.

[Anonymous No.23488392]

>>23488386
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 fucks you guys are.

[Anonymous No.23488393]

>>23488196
Lmao keep reaching, faggot

[Anonymous No.23488397]

No but he is based. Fucking Jew science ruined the world

[Anonymous No.23488398]

>>23488393
you're mad that I moved past everything you believe and am better than you

[Anonymous No.23488422]

>>23488386
That does not mean you can measure volume or determine whether the curvature of spacetime is spilling over into more unavailable space you ignorant faggot. The purpose of those examples was to show that your retarded 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.

[Anonymous No.23488428]

>>23488422
>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 cunt.

[Anonymous No.23488453]

>>23488428
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 faggot?

[Anonymous No.23488462]

>>23488453
>spacetime, the whole fabric of reality
Which contains the whole of 3D space, you retard. 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.

[Anonymous No.23488469]

>>23488462
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.

[Anonymous No.23488471]

>>23488398
I don't care about anything you have said so far, actually, so try harder with your incessant faggotry

[Anonymous No.23488474]

>>23488471
>, actually,
lmao nice protective laughter

[Anonymous No.23488476]

>>23488462
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?

[Anonymous No.23488482]

>>23488474
You don't even know what the fuck you're taking about so it should be me who's laughing but I just can't give two flying tin fucks about you or your insipid drivel, you feckless bitch. Try harder

[Anonymous No.23488483]

>>23488476
>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.

[Anonymous No.23488484]

>>23488476
He doesn't know

[Anonymous No.23488486]

>>23488483
Lmao again, he doesn't know

[Anonymous No.23488488]

>>23488482
>bitch fuck bitch bitch fuck
what an npc breakdown looks like

[Anonymous No.23488490]

>>23488488
>Crying this hard in 4chan, of all places
Reaching hard

[Anonymous No.23488491]

>>23488483
lmao, so the universe is neither spacetime, nor space? So we are only left with time.

[Anonymous No.23488497]

>>23488491
Yeah, that's a 100% fact and even time is doubtful because it leads to incoherencies.

[Anonymous No.23488522]

>>23488497
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

[Anonymous No.23488551]

>>23488522
>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.

[Anonymous No.23488556]

>>23488551
How is it incoherent?

[Anonymous No.23488575]

>>23488556
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.

[Anonymous No.23488585]

>>23488575
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?

[Anonymous No.23488608]

>>23488585
No I'm talking about actual experience

[Anonymous No.23488659]

>>23488608
no, i asked you about geometry, now you are moving goal posts?

[Anonymous No.23488661]

>>23485732
He’s probably been reading about scalar waves

[Anonymous No.23488665]

>>23486179
Watch youtube videos

[Anonymous No.23488668]

/thread

[Anonymous No.23488714]

>>23488668
Lol

[Anonymous No.23488788]

>>23485989
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.

[Anonymous No.23488870]

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

[Anonymous No.23488883]

>>23488870
The author of the quote is a novelist. So the connection to literature is not "literally 0". Learn to think, man.

[Anonymous No.23488928]

>>23488883
Oh ok, didn’t realize tweets counted as literature these days.

[Anonymous No.23488941]

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

[Anonymous No.23488952]

>>23488941
You mean "no reason other than proof"? That's stupid. Stop posting

[sage No.23488974]

He is wrong for posting on twitter and so are you and I did not read that
sage

[Anonymous No.23488979]

>>23488974
Does 'sage' still work? Seems like the thread was bumped after your post.

[Anonymous No.23489214]

>>23488979
Yes, sage still works

[Anonymous No.23489247]

>>23488870
No one likes a pedant. That's why you're currently posting on /lit/ instead of getting ready to go out on a Friday night.

[Anonymous No.23489771]

>>23485732
I agree, that's why it's just a theory. Just like evolution.

[Anonymous No.23489841]

As a scientist you all deserve the rope.

[Anonymous No.23489877]

>>23489841
Why, that's not very objective of you

[Anonymous No.23489901]

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

[Anonymous No.23489929]

>>23485732
Yes
He could have also mentioned space expansion (red shift), but the list is pretty solid
>>23485940
>>23485961
Frens

[Anonymous No.23489941]

>>23489877
Scientifically speaking you all objectively deserve the rope.
>>23489929
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 faggots.
>I don't hecking "believe" in red shift
Too braindead to even mean anything.

[Anonymous No.23489958]

>>23489941
Why are you existentially threatened by people merely disagreeing? Is the state of modern science an unassailable dogma?

[Anonymous No.23490065]

>>23489941
Oh I believe in red shift but I don't believe that it's linked to "space" expanding

[Anonymous No.23490117]

>>23485732
Wow! What an original and controversial thinker! He's going so against the grain here!

[Anonymous No.23490132]

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

[Anonymous No.23490646]

>>23490132
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. /lit/ agrees.

[Anonymous No.23490650]

>>23485732
>no-effort twittercap threads have made their way to /lit/
>get 100+ replies
i don't even read books i just lurk /lit/ because it was one of the last boards with majority humans on it... 4chan is dead

[Anonymous No.23490701]

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

[Anonymous No.23492321]

>>23490650
> i don't even read books i just lurk /lit/ 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 /lit/ 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.

[Anonymous No.23492358]

>>23485955
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

[Anonymous No.23492380]

>>23487057
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.

[Anonymous No.23492547]

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.'

[Anonymous No.23492577]

>>23485732
This tweet is giving me the ick.

[Anonymous No.23492696]

>>23492321
Why'd you switch to non-fiction?