↑ ↓
 

Podcast for 6 October 2014

Started by MrBogosity, October 05, 2014, 06:00:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions
October 05, 2014, 06:00:38 PM
[mp3]http://podcast.bogosity.tv/mp3s/BogosityPodcast-2014-10-06.mp3[/mp3]


Co-Hosts: Charles Thomas and Travis Retriever

News of the Bogus:
37:00 - Biggest Bogon Emitter: The News Media http://www.theskepticsguide.org/not-black-holes-do-not-exist-part-2

47:46 - Silver Cluon Award: Mark Daly and nVidia http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/09/18/debunked/

56:10 - Idiot Extraordinaire: Matt K. Lewis http://theweek.com/article/index/268686/why-the-libertarian-boom-is-bad-for-traditional-conservatives

This Week's Quote: "Human history can be viewed as a slowly dawning awareness that we are members of a larger group. Initially our loyalties were to ourselves and our immediate family, next, to bands of wandering hunter-gatherers, then to tribes, small settlements, city-states, nations. We have broadened the circle of those we love...If we are to survive, our loyalties must be broadened further, to include the whole human community, the entire planet Earth. Many of those who run the nations will find this idea unpleasant. They will fear the loss of power." —Carl Sagan
October 06, 2014, 09:47:32 AM #1
I was going to try to give a slightly better description of both black holes and Hawking Radiation, but this isn't a good place to try to give a course in upper-year physics (when I went through, General Relativity was a 4th year physics topic, and even introductory quantum mechanics was 3rd year).

Hawking's first general book has a somewhat more detailed description of both.

One of the things I'd like to point out is that the GR description says that the region inside the event horizon has the property that all directions that objects can actually travel are towards the singularity.  (In the lingo, all directions of increasing proper time [the directions of worldlines that material bodies can actually follow] are towards the singularity.)  It's very hard to describe in words what's happening.

Jarah, incidentally, tried to pretend the whole thing doesn't matter, and that his clumsy simulation doesn't need to include a figure of Neil to get the right brightness for Buzz, despite the fact that nVidia clearly demonstrated that he WAS a significant source of light for that image.  (And even more amusingly, I've seen people refer me to the very video where Jarah demonstrates he doesn't know basic arithmetic and that Percy is a liar as if it was supportive of moon hoaxing.)

There is a strain of religious thinking that tries to co-opt everything good as the result of the religion.  Communists are quite notorious for doing this, despite communism never having produced anything significant.  (The USSR was so prone to do this that in Star Trek: TOS, they wrote Chekov to do it as well.)
October 06, 2014, 10:06:30 AM #2
Quote from: evensgrey on October 06, 2014, 09:47:32 AM
I was going to try to give a slightly better description of both black holes and Hawking Radiation, but this isn't a good place to try to give a course in upper-year physics (when I went through, General Relativity was a 4th year physics topic, and even introductory quantum mechanics was 3rd year).

Yeah, it doesn't compress well into 2 minutes.

QuoteHawking's first general book has a somewhat more detailed description of both.

Black Holes and Baby Universes? Love that one!

QuoteOne of the things I'd like to point out is that the GR description says that the region inside the event horizon has the property that all directions that objects can actually travel are towards the singularity.  (In the lingo, all directions of increasing proper time [the directions of worldlines that material bodies can actually follow] are towards the singularity.)  It's very hard to describe in words what's happening.

It's orbital mechanics on steroids!

QuoteJarah, incidentally, tried to pretend the whole thing doesn't matter, and that his clumsy simulation doesn't need to include a figure of Neil to get the right brightness for Buzz, despite the fact that nVidia clearly demonstrated that he WAS a significant source of light for that image.  (And even more amusingly, I've seen people refer me to the very video where Jarah demonstrates he doesn't know basic arithmetic and that Percy is a liar as if it was supportive of moon hoaxing.)

Not to mention the fact that Armstrong, Aldrin, and the LEM DIDN'T HAVE A BIG STUPID CARDBOARD BOX OVER THEM!!!
October 06, 2014, 12:35:57 PM #3
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 06, 2014, 10:06:30 AM

Black Holes and Baby Universes? Love that one!


No, that's his second one.  The first one is A Brief History of Time.

Quote from: MrBogosity on October 06, 2014, 10:06:30 AM

Not to mention the fact that Armstrong, Aldrin, and the LEM DIDN'T HAVE A BIG STUPID CARDBOARD BOX OVER THEM!!!


Well, a LEGITIMATE simulation done on the Earth's surface would need something to block out light from the sky and any other extraneous light sources, so the box is actually a good idea, provided that you don't leave out any light sources, such as the effective reflective surface of the Moon (which appropriate painting of the inside of the box will cover) and all the major objects (which includes the extremely bright figure of Neil, standing in his nice, clean, white-surfaced Lunar EVA suit there in the full sunlight not very far away at all).

Another thing hoaxers like to ignore is that the LEM was covered in highly reflective insulation with an outer layer of nickle foil, and that the Lunar EVA suits were pretty much as bright a white as they could be made to be to limit solar heating. The effect is that both the lunar module and an astronaut at the beginning of the first EVA are going to be a LOT more reflective than anything else around.

Moon hoaxers turn up in surprising places.  I once ran into a Statist who was praising the FDA, despite my poiting out that the FDA's own press release effectively admitted to a single drug being delayed killing tens of thousands of people needlessly, and he eventually declared that things being reported in newspapers was reason enough to assume they were false.  On this basis, it can only be concluded that he was a Moon Hoaxer, since the Lunar landings were absolutely EVERYWHERE in the newspapers (at first, at least).
October 06, 2014, 12:45:37 PM #4
Quote from: evensgrey on October 06, 2014, 12:35:57 PM
No, that's his second one.  The first one is A Brief History of Time.

Ah. I was thinking BHaBU came first. But then, he came out with 70 different editions of ABHoT so who can keep up?

QuoteWell, a LEGITIMATE simulation done on the Earth's surface would need something to block out light from the sky and any other extraneous light sources, so the box is actually a good idea, provided that you don't leave out any light sources, such as the effective reflective surface of the Moon

Which Jarrah greatly minimized by using the box.

Quoteand all the major objects (which includes the extremely bright figure of Neil, standing in his nice, clean, white-surfaced Lunar EVA suit there in the full sunlight not very far away at all).

And in all of Jarrah's "simulations," I'm not sure his astronauts were sufficiently bright.

QuoteAnother thing hoaxers like to ignore is that the LEM was covered in highly reflective insulation with an outer layer of nickle foil, and that the Lunar EVA suits were pretty much as bright a white as they could be made to be to limit solar heating. The effect is that both the lunar module and an astronaut at the beginning of the first EVA are going to be a LOT more reflective than anything else around.

Yeah, and that means you actually have to consider the light bouncing off the ground, off Aldrin, off the LEM, back off Aldrin again, and THEN into the camera. Just think through the ramifications of that if you still don't grok the amazingness of nVidia's new technology!

QuoteMoon hoaxers turn up in surprising places.

My first encounter with someone from Mensa was a moon hoaxer.
October 06, 2014, 02:25:46 PM #5
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 06, 2014, 12:45:37 PM

And in all of Jarrah's "simulations," I'm not sure his astronauts were sufficiently bright.


And he tends to leave some of them out, like Neil in the box simulation he's so proud of for no apparent reason.

Quote from: MrBogosity on October 06, 2014, 12:45:37 PM

My first encounter with someone from Mensa was a moon hoaxer.


The first one I came across was Ian Juby, music teacher (which means, given he's from Canada, he probably does have a real degree...in music).
October 06, 2014, 07:32:18 PM #6
Quote from: evensgrey on October 06, 2014, 02:25:46 PM
The first one I came across was Ian Juby, music teacher (which means, given he's from Canada, he probably does have a real degree...in music).

wait, THAT Ian Juby? the one Potholer54 keeps tearing a new one?
Meh
User actions
Print
Go Up Pages1