Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

On 29/09/2024 04:08, Brett wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:43:20 +0300, Michael S wrote:
 

On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 23:55:50 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
 

On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 20:21:53 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote:
 

You hear physicists talk of microscopic black holes, but the force
that keeps atoms apart is so much more powerful than gravity that
such talk is just fools playing with math they don’t understand.

 
That would mean that neutron stars (all the atoms crushed so tightly
together that individual subatomic particles lose their identity)
couldn’t exist either. But they do.

 
Radio pulsars exist.
The theory is that they are neutron stars. But theory can be wrong.

 
Occam’s Razor applies: stick to the simplest explanation that fits the
known facts.
 
Radio pulsars pulse at a very regular frequency (which is why they were
originally thought to be created by some intelligence), but that frequency
also gradually slows down with time. This is consistent with loss of
angular momentum (and loss of energy) from radiation emission from a
spinning neutron star.
 
Remember, this isn’t all just hand-waving: they have formulas, derived
from theory, into which they can plug in numbers, and the numbers agree
with actual measurements.

 
Theories are a dime a dozen, it is easy to back fit data to fit any number
of models.

 
No, theories are not common.  Wild ideas are common.  Scientific
theories need a huge amount of work, evidence and support.
 

 

Can you come up with some other mechanism for a radio source that pulses
extremely regularly, yet also slows down gradually over time?

 
Here is a nice alternative to the standard model, which follows Occam’s
Razor:
 
https://youtu.be/bGygGius61I?si=6k0H1Bi70b4O9zgr
 
ThunderboltsProject posts a lot of interesting videos, but the quality
varies a lot with some crack pot ideas thrown in on occasion, to make one
think I would suppose.
 

 
These links you keep posting are not theories - they are, at best,
crackpot ideas with no justification and only a vague fit to some
cherry-picked data.
 
Remember, there is a big difference between a "scientific theory" and a
"conspiracy theory".  They are not all just alternative theories!