Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About HopDavid

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ajo, Arizona
  • Interests
    art, math, geometry, space exploration, science fiction
  • Favorite Area of Science
    orbital mechanics

Recent Profile Visitors

814 profile views
  1. You want Tyson saying our universe is simulation created by a supreme race of beings. And PZ Myers correctly notes that's little different from saying we're created by the race that lives on Mount Olympus. Or in Asgard. Sorry but Tyson's tomaytoe is no different from Myer's tomahtoe. Bolding your tedious semantics arguments does not lend it any weight. And, once again, Tyson rejects the label "atheist". You've been busted repeatedly dropping this steaming pile.
  2. A lot of people point to Tyson's credentials. I call that the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. In the case of his stuff on infinite sets -- Many people learned in high school that the transcendentals are a subset of the irrationals. So it's not possible for the set of transcendentals to have a higher cardinality than the irrationals. And both sets are thought to have the same cardinality, the cardinality of the continuum. Again, something many people learned in high school. Tyson has stage presence and a commanding baritone voice. But he's not obviously intelligent and it's debatable if he deserves the label "scientist". FALSE. Time and time against Tyson has rejected that lable. See this Wikipedia article. The article quotes Tyson: You've just been caught speaking with authority on a topic you know nothing about.
  3. Tyson makes numerous errors. Here is a list I've compiled. A lot of them are screwing up basic math and physics, stuff people should have learned in high school. Time and time again he demonstrates he's comfortable speaking authoritatively on subjects he knows nothing about. Much worse is when he invents histories to push a narrative. From my list: Bush and Star Names Ghazali: Math is the work of The Devil Newton and Laplace The notion that we're in a simulation is not testable. Precisely what poser nerds from the IFLS crowd and similar cliques like to discuss. We live in a shallow culture that values celebrity and entertainment more than truth and accuracy. I call it the Tyson-Trump zeitgeist.
  4. Einstein was speculating on ideas at the frontiers of physics. Tyson is botching basic math and physics, stuff most people should learn in high school. I don't like Bush nor do I regard him as the sharpest tool in the shed. Does that justify slamming him with falsehoods? Evidently in your book it does. So no irony at all. I value truth and accuracy. You, on the other hand, seem to think it's okay to spread false stories about people you regard as stupid. And, again, Tyson admitted the Bush and Star Names story was false.
  5. And I most certainly WOULD call him an incompetent buffoon. He doesn't merely simplify. He often gets his material completely wrong. For example Tyson telling Joe Rogan there are more transcendental numbers than irrationals. See this thread in the r/badmathematics subreddit. And this wasn't an isolated incident. Tyson will study something with half his attention and then build a story around it. Usually entertaining but often resulting in misinformation. That Tyson manages to botch basic math and physics is merely annoying. Much worse is when he uses his poor memory and strong imagination to invent histories. And then uses his bad history to push a narrative. I will give an example of his inventing history to support his political talking points: Tyson would give an account of President Bush's 9-11 speech. Supposedly the speech was "an attempt to distinguish we from they". That's what Republican presidents do, right? Use disasters to sow division and whip up fear and anger. Sadly for Tyson, Bush's actual speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. This was a standard part of Tyson's routine for eight years. Then Sean Davis called out Tyson in 2014. Turns out Tyson conflated Bush's eulogy for the Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts with his 9-11 speech. However in neither speech did Bush try to set Christians above Muslims. With some arm twisting Tyson eventually admitted his error and apologized to Bush. See Jonathan Adler's column in the Washington Post. Getting back to Intelligent Design vs Simulation. Both assume our universe was made by an intelligent being (or beings). And neither are testable. So it's not in the realm of science. Which makes it perfect material for an addled pop science celebrity who hasn't cracked a text book in almost 30 years.
  6. Ummmm.... No. Neither PZ Myers nor I are suggesting there's evidence supporting or refuting the simulation hypothesis. It's not a testable. PZ Myers does note that both Tyson as well as religious people speculate the universe is an artifact created by an intelligent being (or beings). So Myers is correct. Tyson is indeed suggesting the universe is intelligently designed. Personally Tyson's suggestion doesn't sway me one way or the other. The man is an incompetent buffoon.
  7. Well there are skeptics who've taken Tyson to task that the notion's not a testable hypothesis. P Z Myers did a piece We have a term for that, Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Intelligent Design".
  8. Your story is changing. First you were saying Sergiu clipped my mention of m(v*vb). He did not -- as shown in the screen capture upthread. Now you want to focus on the word expect. You seem to believe all expectations are accurate. Not so. For most people m(v*vb) is unexpected. They are typically surprised to learn of the Oberth benefit. You also want to argue that a period gives you license to ignore the second part of the paragraph. Comedians lampoon public figures by taking a single sentence out of context to get an obviously wrong statement. People with common sense recognize this as silliness, a comedic device. It is sad to see you using this in earnest. Ophiolite, the error was an obvious typo, acknowledged and fixed. The other errors are Swansont fictions. I have not omitted the term m(v+vb). In fact that term is the focus for much of the blog post in question. Nor have i said the relationship between velocity and energy is linear. These two bloopers come from Swansont's imagination, not me. I am justifiably annoyed.
  9. Believe me, under normal circumstances I wouldn't be here. I have zero interest in "Wharp Drives". It's forgivable if you give Sergiu's scheme only a cursory reading. For your benefit I did a screen capture: As you can see, Sergiu did not clip context. See the portion with the red underline. The clipping was done by you. Yes, if you clip the latter part, the statement's wrong. Thank you for stating the excruciatingly obvious. Kudos for ignoring context. I make mistakes on my blog. I welcome criticism and correction. But misinterpretation coming from a clipping of context is a waste of my time. If you have a valid criticism, I'd like to hear it. If not, please admit as much and I will be done with this silly thread.
  10. False. Sergiu included the phrase in his quotes. It is you who clipped context.
  11. You've brought to my attention a typo. I had an extra v in the equation. I've corrected that. That section now looks like this: Take 1/2 of m (v + vb)2, and you get 1/2 mv2 as well as 1/2 mvb2, the kinetic energy you might expect from adding these two speeds. On top of that, you also get m(v * vb). The pink rectangle above is Oberth gravy. --------------------- A naive reader often does expect vb to boost kinetic energy by only 1/2 mvb2. People are often surprised that they also get m(v * vb). But some of my readers may have more accurate expectations so I inserted the word "might". The context you clipped is also there: On top of that, you also get m(v * vb). That part I didn't change. The illustrations as well as the text are now quite clear. 1/2 (v + vb)2 = 1/2 v2 + v*vb + 1/2 vb2
  12. 1/2 (v + vb)2 = 1/2 v2 + v*vb + 1/2 vb2 just as I said in my explanation. If you don't think this is true, I would suggest you lack a basic understanding of math. This is high school math. My explanation does not suggest doubling speed would double the energy. Kinetic energy is 1/2 m v2. Doubling the speed would quadruple the kinetic energy. Tripling speed would increase kinetic energy nine fold. My explanation is not bad. Rather your reading comprehension is bad.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.