swansont

I took that as differentiating between the particle and the antiparticle. matter vs antimatter.

You don’t quote (including enough for proper context) or link to this claim. That’s what I mean by not bringing the receipts. The mention that I saw was here, in the context of Hawking radiation, and the particle that reduces the mass of the BH is indeed associated with a negative energy, because it’s a virtual particle/antiparticle pair. That’s why the mass decreases, and how you get real particles emitted as radiation.

At least two of the objections above are likely typos; = instead of + and n instead of N are issues of not hitting the “shift” key at the right time. If you can’t be charitable about typos, you might not have the right temperament for online discussion. I can’t fathom how one gets from that to “pseudoscience” And as I’ve suggested before, complaining without bringing the receipts? No. It’s just whining.

What’s the made-up part? What is your support for the claim? And what is your definition of pseudoscience? It must differ from mine.

Horrible89 banned as a sockpuppet of ImplicitDemands

As I said, we use the earth because that’s where we are. That makes it best purely from a practical standpoint, much like choosing a particular frame of reference makes it easier to solve a problem. You won’t get a different answer by using another frame, as Mordred notes above.

I agree that this isn’t going to affect anything. Points of fact can be discussed in their own threads. I don’t know what axe there is to grind here, but that’s what this feels like. “Is this word salad?” smacks of argument by personal incredulity. If it was, one should be able to point out why. If you don’t know, it means you don’t have sufficient knowledge to tell. Labeling it as pseudoscience is similar - you should be able to show that it is, and nothing close to that has happened

How does time running slower in the past mean that it is expanding? Doesn’t that imply a longer duration? i.e. slowing down?

Doesn't matter; the expansion is not from a single point. We use the earth because that's where we are.

Thread bumping is something we discourage. Other people probably feel similarly about some of their own threads, and if they all get bumped, nothing changes - a thread on page 4 is still on page 4.

it’s not offered as a definition; as I said, you assume certain knowledge on the part of the thread originator. The context of the statement was in response to a claim about reference frames - “A worldline cannot be associated with two different reference frames” The issue is whether the statement is correct or not. An answer to a post is not expected to be a tutorial on the topic. It certainly does not rise to the level of pseudoscience

And yet there are manufactured controversies.

No? Manufacturing controversy isn’t a failure of integrity?

If they are reporting things accurately, then they aren’t in the large swaths that aren’t. Large number, perhaps, but limited reach. Indeed. Almost like integrity has taken a back seat to profit. Maybe because Trump winning means more money for the bosses (tax cuts and all)

When someone posts a thread on a topic, it’s OK to assume they have the requisite background knowledge to discuss the topic. No need to reinvent the wheel. “ALice has one reference frame Bob has his own reference frame” is inconsistent? Inconsistent with what? Um, no. Events do have their own reference frame. That’s not claimed, nor are dimensions given I don’t see where “spacetime interval” is mentioned at all One post can’t establish a pattern, and you haven’t shown what you’re claiming. Sounds like you asked for clarification, but are complaining that it didn’t tie back some earlier point, but there’s no reason that that needs to happen.

Why would it?

Who are not the mainstream media. (they are not in the large swaths) You can report that he’s spouting gibberish, and that if you have to work that hard to find meaning, perhaps the spouter is not up to the job. Also, given his many efforts to subvert the electoral process, why aren’t the obvious candidate for intentions being reported? Why the effort to make them benign? Allegedly hit. We don’t have an actual medical report confirming that, or detailing how much brain damage he suffered.

Trump’s speech at the convention, for one recent example. Really, pretty much any speech he’s made - the gibberish isn’t reported. The nuggets of coherent points are picked out. Saying that you won’t need to vote anymore, but the headlines are about calling Harris a bum https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-harris-attacks-bum-failed-vice-president-rcna163922

If we’re talking about issues of fact, and basic concepts, you can post them here.

I think large swaths of the media have displayed massive malpractice in their coverage of Trump. They filter out the nonsense to report something coherent, while for others they ignore the message and latch on to any misstatement.

I’d need to see examples, because if you can support an argument it doesn’t sound like pseudoscience. And you make no mention of the support for your position. The thing is, every scientist is/can be wrong about some things. We do have misconceptions, and they can become entrenched. But that doesn’t make it pseudoscience; that’s a much higher bar.

You have examples of a resident expert repeatedly posting pseudoscience? (Not just errors, that everyone makes and are often corrected when pointed out, and not mere communication errors or points of esoteric minutiae)

It’s never come up. If someone went off the rails there would probably be a wellness check by other staff and we’d discuss the situation. Only then would we consider depositing their body in a shallow grave in the woods.

ABC/IPSOS poll https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-sees-boost-favorability-after-biden-drops-race/story?id=112306763 Harris July 19-20: 35/46 (favorable/unfavorable) July 26-27: 43/42 Trump July 19-20: 40/51 July 26-27: 36/52 Vance July 19-20: 25/31 July 26-27: 24/39 (presumably voters but not couches were polled) Name a system that would not have die-hard fans I think a presidential candidate should not require such a large contingent of people continually telling you what they really meant by their remarks.

Yes, but they were already going to vote for him.