Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

On 05/10/2024 20:24, Brett wrote:

Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 04/10/2024 19:59, Brett wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 03/10/2024 21:10, Brett wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 03/10/2024 05:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote:
>

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

>
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote:
>

Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics:

>
Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery?

>
He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ...

>
And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C.
>
In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or
sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence.

>
Indeed.
>
Also note that the two guys who won the Nobel Prize for the development
of MRI - the /real/ inventors of the MRI machine - are both long dead.
>
But this particular crank is mad enough and influential enough to have a
page on Rational Wiki, which is never a good sign.  (It seems he did
work on improving MRI technology before he went bananas.)
>
<https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille>

>
One day I will be on rational wiki. ;)
>
Watch his videos and try to debunk what he says.
>
Good luck with that. ;)
>

>
There are more productive uses of my time which won't rot my brain as
quickly, such as watching the grass grow.
>
A bit challenge with the kind of shite that people like this produce is
that it is often unfalsifiable.  They invoke magic, much like religions
do, and then any kind of disproof or debunking is washed away by magic.
When you make up some nonsense that has no basis in reality or no
evidence, you can just keep adding more nonsense no matter what anyone
else says.
>
So when nutjobs like that guy tell you the sun is powered by pixies
riding tricycles really fast, he can easily invent more rubbish to
explain away any evidence.
>
There's a term for this - what these cranks churn out is "not even
wrong".  (You can look that up on Rational Wiki too.)
>
And while the claims of this kind of conspiracy theory cannot be
falsified, there is also no evidence for them.  Claims made without
evidence can be dismissed without evidence - there is no need to debunk
them.  The correct reaction is to laugh if they are funny, then move on
and forget them.
>
We are all human, and sometimes we get fooled by an idea that sounds
right.  But you should be embarrassed at believing such a wide range of
idiocy and then promoting it.

>
>
A gas cannot emit the spectrum we see from the sun, liquid metallic
hydrogen can.
>

>
You do realise that the sun is primarily plasma, rather than gas?  And
that scientists - /real/ scientists - can heat up gases until they are
plasma and look at the spectrum, in actual experiments in labs?  Has
your hero tested a ball of liquid metallic hydrogen in his lab?
>

Gases do not show the pond ripples from impacts that we see from the sun
surface.
>
And a long list of other basic facts Pierre-Marie_Robitaille goes over in
his Sky Scholar videos.
>
Stellar science is a bad joke, such basic mistakes should have been
corrected 100 years ago.
>

>
You think one crackpot with no relevant education and no resources can
figure all this out in a couple of years, where tens of thousands of
scientists have failed over a hundred years?  Do you /really/ think that
is more likely than supposing that he doesn't understand what he is
talking about?
>
In real science, lab experiments, observation of reality (such as the
sun in this case), simulations, models, and hypotheses all go hand in
hand in collaboration between many scientists and experts in different
fields in order to push scientific knowledge further.
>
"Maverick" genius scientists who figure out the "real" answer on their
own don't exist outside the entertainment industry.

>
>
So science ended 100 years ago and we should close our eyes and ears and
say not anything that would counter our sacred flawless scientists of old.
>
Stop being a religious zealot and watch the videos.
>
If he is a crackpot you should be bright enough to figure it out and prove
it for the world to see. Crackpots cannot survive scientific rigor. A five
minute search crushes such fools with ease, I have done this a dozen times.
>

 Here is what Sabine Hossenfelder thinks of modern physics, and she makes
money promoting physics to people on YouTube.
 https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=USc2fHsaWTJMSDSt
 

Sabine Hossenfelder is quite a good commentator, and I've seen many of her videos before.  Her points here are not new or contentious - there is quite a support in scientific communities for her argument here.  We have arguably reached a point in the science of cosmology and fundamental physics where traditional scientific progress is unavoidably minimal.  Basically, we cannot build big enough experiments to provide corroborating or falsifying evidence for current hypothetical models that could explain quantum mechanics (known to be an extraordinarily good model on small scales) and relativity (known to work well on large scales, and with many aspects confirmed in laboratory experiments).  If gravity works like a quantum field mediated by a "graviton" boson, we'd need a particle accelerator the size of the orbit of Jupiter to find it.   If we want to use a particle accelerator to look for evidence of string theory (/not/ a scientific theory, despite the name), the size would be commensurate with the Milky Way.
Then there is the limit to the human mind.  This stuff requires such a depth of knowledge and study that by the time anyone has learned enough of the current ideas and existing data and evidence to be able to push the boundaries, they are already well past their creative prime.
Does that mean we (meaning the scientific community) should stop trying?   No, of course not.  But we should try to stop going round in circles. The emphasis should be on finding ways to split the problems up, so that more people can work on simpler parts, and perhaps making more use of AI to handle the details.  There should also, IMHO, be more focus on testability of ideas, and less on mathematical philosophy.
It also means that new sources of experimental data are important - that's why projects like the James Webb telescope are so vital.
Does it mean that /all/ of physics research is going nowhere?  No, of course not - it is only in a few certain areas that have somewhat stagnated, and where some of the ideas stretch credulity.  Cosmology may be suffering, but studies of the nanoscopic world, materials, unusual matter phases, and countless other branches of physics are all progressing solidly.
And does it mean that we can replace existing accurate (but not quite perfect) models with complete bollocks that doesn't fit the evidence and has no justification from reality?  For most people, that would be a rhetorical question - but for your benefit, the answer is no.

The comments are funny. ;)
 My translation is that modern physics is a bullshit engine of unprovable
gibberish like string theory.
 

Your translation is wrong.