« first day (2575 days earlier)      last day (2358 days later) » 

4:00 PM
@Secret It wasn't a bot, it was a validated flag. There are no bots suspending people on chat (except for me if you believe the AI rumors ;)).
 
@Phase proof of?
 
The earth being flat @Abcd
 
And there are no blacklisted sites or anything like that, you're supposed to exercise your judgement whether the content of what you link violates Be Nice or not.
 
@Phase I thought you were joking when you said that the earth is flat! Come on, earth is geoid!
 
No, @Abcd the Earth is obviously flat and anyone who disagrees lacks basic physics
If you can solve a quadratic equation you should be able to realise the real shape of the Earth
 
Anonymous
4:01 PM
@ACuriousMind Sure, I'd say that's a good step on your part. Always better to do something you enjoy at the moment. I just hope the software job won't bore you and you'll have challenging stuff thrown your way. :)
 
@Phase What about the astronomers who have seen the earth being round?
 
Pssh, how would they do that? Point their telescopes at their feet?
 
Anonymous
@Abcd He's trolling you
 
@Blue Well, if I really do get bored I'll start looking for something else, but currently I think that's a long way off.
 
@ACuriousMind Meh, I will be a lot more careful on assessing contents of what I link in the future...
 
4:02 PM
Anyone?
 
@Blue are you sure? He always says that...
 
@Abcd Blue doesn't know what he's talking about
 
No, the guy who always says the earth is flat is @0celo7
 
@Phase What about the satellites REVOLVING around the earth?
 
LOL
 
Anonymous
4:03 PM
Phase and I are bros. I know him since birth.
 
You actually believe that?
Dude its just CGI lmao
 
@Phase Stop trolling, please
 
Bah fine.
 
@ACuriousMind no, don’t misrepresent my insanity please
 
@ACuriousMind why u gotta spoil my fun
 
4:04 PM
I always ask at the wrong moment
 
I’m saying we don’t know the shape
 
@0celo7 Ah, wait, you just say you have no proof it's round, right? :P
 
can you see a spherical earth in the night sky
 
@Phase what is CGI?
 
To be fair, I don't have a proof it's round either
Getting one sounds like a hassle
 
4:05 PM
CGI is an image that's fabricated
 
You have to move a lot
 
Using a computer
 
Do the whole Anaximander thing
 
@Abcd Computer Generated Imagery.
 
@Slereah We don't need a proof. when we have VISUAL proof.
 
4:05 PM
Visual proof like what?
 
Well yes, but then you have to trust the source!
 
At all heights the horizon is indistinguishable from that of a flat disc
 
@Slereah thank you
 
And that's not even trolling, that's just fact
 
If you want an actual proof, you have to do the whole measurement of shadows thing
 
4:06 PM
I’m not so crazy after all
@Slereah but then you’re supposing light works the way you think it does
 
@Slereah NASA?
 
@0celo7 Yeah
 
Oh yeah that guy
 
NASA clearly has a vested interest in the Earth being round, why would you trust anything they say?
 
4:07 PM
He's finally gonna dispel all the lies NASA have written
 
Well, at least the flat earthers now know the importance of the scientific method. Nature will tell them what the answer is
 
@ACuriousMind You mean Communist Generated Imagery
 
@0celo7 That's all in Reichenbach btw
The whole thing about how the measurement of geometry rests on some assumptions
 
I found the Moment of inertia of the earth some days ago...
 
Reichenbach?
 
4:08 PM
The philosophy of space and time guy
 
*what you think is the moment of inertia of the Earth. The earth isn't actually moveable
 
A big book of GR epistemology
 
It's the base on which god laid his grand tapestries
 
it's quite interesting
It's also one of the first book to discuss CTCs
There's a big chapter on what it means to MEASURE geometry
 
@Phase stahp, you’re giving me a hadron (the particle)
 
4:09 PM
I need a GR+ book that will tell me on how to actually build CTCs
 
And how it all rests on how you define "congruence"
 
@0celo7 I got a hadron for hardons
 
Meanwhile, my view is a lot less neutral about antivaxxers because:
 
@Secret you hate Antivaxxers for questioning what Big Pharma tells them?
 
^
You’re learning
 
4:11 PM
I don't hate them
 
It pays to be skeptical of everything.
 
I say let Darwin sort them out
 
How do you know that man isn't in an iron lung because of vaccine damage of an unrelated vaccine
 
The people who are wrong will die and things will be simpler
or will get autism and not reproduce
 
@Slereah Dirac had kids so
 
4:12 PM
Did he also have autism
 
@Slereah It's not that simple. It appears nature suck at filtering away false beliefs
3
Q: How are beliefs restricted by an objective reality?

SecretConsider the following belief A human can survive if they don't drink water for 1000 days We knew from biology that this is practically improbable as there are very few people who can survive for 18 days without water (Andreas Mihavecz in 1979). However, there are also beliefs that are unr...

 
He's Dirac
 
@Slereah Uhhhh... @Slereah I understand you probably don't mean it as what it sounds like but it reads really terrible.
 
nah idek if he had kids
 
I am not terrible, NATURE IS
3
Dun dun duuun
 
4:13 PM
@Slereah you're basically an SMBC comic
 
Big Pharma are really the bad apples for those good pharmas that actually does good things.

Example of big pharma is this guy: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/martin-shkreli-the-most-hated-man-in-america-is-raising-the-price-of-another-form-of-drug-a6770661.html
 
Nonsense
Shkreli isn't actually a bad guy
 
@Curio remind me what you're asking about ...
 
It's not as if he made the patients pay the insanely high prices
 
He did
With their LIVES
Dun dun duuuun
 
4:15 PM
He just exploited the market, to make other companies foot large bills, and as a result he can fund research into other areas
 
dayum son
slereah is dropping a lotta truth bombs today
 
I am feeling dramatic
Speaking of which
 
makes nuclear explosion noises
 
the place I'm working at has a secret Santa apparently
Which is perfect because I have to buy a gift for some dude I don't know
 
Buy him a book that @BernardoMeurer really wants, and tell him that you're giving it to some other guy
 
4:17 PM
the gift can't be over 10€ either
So that's gonna be a pretty cheap book
Maybe I should just buy him a bottle of beer
The normies love beer
 
Buy him a framed photo of yourself
it'll be super secret santa
 
Well it is SECRET Santa
Not Obvious Santa
 
@JohnRennie thanks! Does a human body exercise a pressure against the atmospheric pressure?
 
"Sometimes Secret Santa [puts on Shades] Needs to get Loud"
 
@Slereah Wear a mask when taking the photo, then.
 
4:19 PM
That's actually a great idea
 
@Curio Yes. Human bodies are mostly water, and water is compressible (though only slightly). Your volume is slightly less than it would be if I put you in a vacuum.
 
Probably the first time in many years I saw the word "secret" which is not referred to me. Usually as soon I have joined a chat, the number of instance of the word "secret" in normal usages decreases dramatically
 
If a man is in the vacuum, he exercises a pressure against nothing, so what happens?
 
@Curio Not much
Blood vessels will bulge a bit
and pop, for the smallest ones
skin swells somewhat
 
4:22 PM
@Curio He expands very slightly. But only very slightly because the bulk modulus of water is pretty high.
 
More dramatically, the alveoli start working in reverse
So you're getting all your oxygen leaking out
it is also not a good idea to hold your breath
lest your lungs pop
 
And even more dramatically you'll slowly start metamorphising into a weird mix of a boombox and a lizard
 
@Curio remember that water is a liquid so it has a finite volume even at zero pressure (unlike a gas)
 
I'm afraid I don't get that reference
 
What really happens if someone took a single breath in the vacuum of space?
will they lost consciousness imediately?
 
4:24 PM
@Slereah hang on I'll get the reference, need to find the citation on ViXra :^)
 
Consciousness in a vacuum lasts about 20 seconds
 
Don’t think you can breathe without pressure
 
You cant take a breath in the vacuum of space
You need a pressure differential, that's where your diaphragm comes in
 
Although those experiments were done on apes
 
@Slereah also remove any suppositories
 
4:25 PM
I don't know how it works with humans
 
@Slereah are we really just gonna believe what NASA says?
 
Do all the liquid evaporate?
 
I see
 
Who would lie about killing chimps
 
@Curio Eventually. If you left a body in vacuum for an extended period it would become a mummy.
 
4:26 PM
@Slereah whoever was the first to get AIDS
Uh oh
Star removed. Am I about to get banned?
 
Jeezus, it's hardly offensive
 
@0celo7 no, or at least not by me. I just didn't want to see it on the star board.
 
Okay thanks
Another question
 
@JohnRennie what was unstarred?
 
@Abcd no comment
 
4:29 PM
"Slereah whoever was the first to get AIDS"
oh
 
@Curio Yes?
 
AIDS was first obtained from eating/copulating with chimps, no?
Or is that racist propaganda?
 
I think it was from the hunting and eating of Apes in the congo
 
@0celo7 Chimps are killed for food, and that was the probable vector.
 
Is it possible that a body rotates constantly for ever?
 
4:32 PM
@Curio in the real world no
 
I would make a joke about a momma but those get flagged.
 
humans don't copulate with chimps @0celo7
 
@Curio in space?
 
Yeah
 
@Abcd somewhere, somewhen, someone has.
 
4:33 PM
well. I don't think one can entirely rule out bestiality as a possible vector. But possible != probable or significant.
 
I mean lets be real
 
rule 34 etc
 
@Curio Well, a rotating object can only slow down if it can interact with something else and transfer away it's rotational energy an angular momentum.
 
Given how long humans have been alive and how strange some of them are, probably anything that can have been used for sex probably has been
 
I'm going to start deleting posts I consider to be in questionable taste - you have been warned.
 
4:34 PM
@JohnRennie i mean everything will though
 
Fair.
 
Unless you had a perfectly symmetric uncharged body
Since otherwise you're gonna be zipping g waves and em waves all over the shop
 
I don't find the topic exactly tasteful, but logically I don't think it can be excluded.
I would see a chimp bite or consumption of chimpanzees for food as far more relevant, though.
 
@Curio so the question: for an isolated body rotating in a vacuum what could it interact with to make itself slow down?
 
An arguable example of a body that can sustain a permanent angular momentum would be a supercurrent in a loop.
 
4:35 PM
If we apply another moment
 
@JohnRennie come on you’ve never gotten mad at my comments about your sheep, why do chimps have you in a frenzy?
 
is @JohnRennie welsh...?
 
Yep.
 
(I want to say that a superfluid vortex can rotate essentially forever?)
 
@Phase my mother's family is Welsh. My father's is Scots Irish.
 
4:36 PM
I feel like the UK is held together by it's mutual hate for all the other countries in the UK
the english hate the scots, the irish hate the scots.
The welsh hate the english, the english hate the english
 
@Curio but what would apply that moment? Something external to the rotating body and interacting with it presumably?
 
Yeah
 
actually, I don't know what the lifetime of a superfluid vortex would be like
 
@Curio in which case we don't have an isolated body.
 
i'd imagine it's long on the relevant time scale, but i don't know what that would be
 
4:38 PM
So I meant a body with us :P
 
Well you started out asking:
7 mins ago, by Curio
Is it possible that a body rotates constantly for ever?
And what I'm saying is that it can only rotate forever if it is unable to transfer energy and momentum to anything else.
 
if you had a body in vacuum, interacting with nothing else, then there'd be no mechanism for it to lose angular momentum
(whether that's a meaningful possibility is another matter entirely)
 
Doesn't it accelerate constantly?
 
@Phase no one hates the irish or the welsh?
 
In its rotation I mean
 
4:41 PM
no. if it's not interacting with anything, then its angular momentum won't change. so it'll keep rotating with the same angular velocity
 
Oh they do
There's just not enough space
 
@Phase fair enough
 
The UK basically boils down a group, where multiplication is defined to be "hate" for every one of them
which isnt even a group but hey ho I didnt think the joke through before typing
 
If we exercise a force on a body it accelerates constantly in the vacuum. If we exercise a moment (which requires a force), why doesn't it accelerate?
 
what?
is moment synonymous with torque?
hmm, looks like it is
 
4:45 PM
From Wikipedia "Torque, moment, or moment of force is rotational force" so yes
 
i think we're talking about different scenarios, though
what I have in mind is: you apply a torque at one point in time, and then you don't apply any forces after that.
 
Yes
Does it accelerate in its rotation? You answered no, but however it's generated by a force
 
it's only going to accelerate if i continue to apply that torque
if i just apply it at the start and then cease to apply it, then it won't accelerate
same as if I tap a ball on a table with a hammer. it accelerates in the horizontal direction while the external force is being applied, but not after
 
But we aren't annulling that force
 
what?
in my assumed scenario, that's precisely what we're doing.
 
4:50 PM
I mean
 
the force is on for a certain amount of time, and then is off for all times after that.
 
Yes but we've exercised an acceleration
 
if I do that, and i'm in vacuum, the body will continue to rotate with whatever angular velocity it had at the time I ceased to apply to a force.
 
An acceleration that stops when you stop applying a force
 
@Phase ?
I feel like you missed a word in there
 
4:51 PM
And then it continues with constant velocity
 
oh, nm. I read you now
 
@Curio the rotational equivalent of Newton's 2nd law is: $$T = I\dot{\omega}$$
 
@Semiclassical why? I was responding to "
Yes but we've exercised an acceleration
"
ah ok
 
So as long as the torque $T$ is non-zero the angular acceleration $\dot{\omega}$ will also be non-zero
 
no torque = no angular acceleration
 
4:52 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutative_magma
Phase description of the situation in UK is best said to be a Rock Paper Scissors magma,
A hates B B hates C C hates A
 
@JohnRennie I don't see your latex
 
$T$ is $r \times F$ btw @Curio so only while you're applying a force does the torque exist, so when you stop applying it the angular momentum is constant
 
@Phase Oops :-)
 
Wow @JohnRennie deleting our criticism!!1! [jk]
 
4:54 PM
Wtf
 
down the memory hole
 
@JohnRennie are you censoring?
 
No, I haven't deleted anything ...
 
oh ffs
we removed it because the error got fixed. don't jump to conclusions
 
It's a joke
I wrote "jk"
That's universal code for just kidding
 
4:56 PM
So the first principle of dynamis is for torques=0 too
Not only forces
 
I dont know what you mean
 
yep. if the angular velocity is to change, then a corresponding torque is required
@Phase i.e. newton's first law of motion
 
What's a principle of Dynamic? Is that a language / country thing @Semiclassical ?
Whoa weird
 
it's not the terminology I know either
 
im gonna go buy a kebob
cya
 
4:57 PM
though i would say this is indeed a statement about dynamics (vs. kinematics)
 
And so the angular moment is constant
 
so long as no torque is applied, yes
or, rather, as long as the net torque is zero
 
@Curio you mean the angular momentum is constant?
 
Yes
 
Yes, remember the equation is $$T = I\dot{\omega}$$ That's all you need to know.
 
5:01 PM
$\sum T$
 
Net torque ...
 
yeah.
just seems worth emphasizing that notationally
 
Well we don't usually write $\sum F = ma$ :-)
 
ehhh
I actually have seen that
though $F_{net}$ is more typical
I don't like using just $F$ for the sum, since $F$ is not itself a force but is rather a combination of forces.
 
Thanks you all
 
probably worth noting that nonclassical is being used in a technical sense in the preprint
to wit: "We will also frequently make reference to the set of coherent states which we denote by $\{|\alpha\rangle\}$...It is known that every quantum state of light ρ permits a representation that is diagonal with respect to coherent states, i.e.
$$\rho = \int d^2\alpha\,P(\alpha)|\alpha\rangle \langle \alpha |$$ where the coefficient $P(\alpha)$ is called the Glauber-Sudarshan P distribution. The P distribution always sums to 1 but may display negativities, in which case it is considered nonclassical. On the other hand, P distributions that exhibit the properties of a classical, nonnega
so nonclassical is a claim about that P distribution specifically. that's still interesting, but it is a narrow claim.
 
vzn
glad you found something of interest, thought it might be related to your bkg/ interests. it looks to me like a basic advance in unifying classical vs qm povs but dont have enough bkg to grasp all the details.
 
what's poppin peeps
 
5:44 PM
Back
jeez it was raining so rapidly i wouldnt be surprised if my kebab is aqueous
its sad how many SE sites have dead chatrooms
 
@Phase Legit chemistry...
$\require{mhchem}\ce{H2O_{aq} + kebab_{s}=kebab_{aq}}$
 
chem + me = sadness
^ equally legit
 
Inorganic chemistry (at least at A level) is kinda fun...
organic is a bit meh tho
 
Is communicating vessels valid for a pyramid and a cylinder?
 
@Curio Huh? communicating vessels?
 
With communicating vessels the water level is always the same regardless of the shape of the vessels.
 

« first day (2575 days earlier)      last day (2358 days later) »