♪♫ caek's corner ♪♫

p sure gravity is due to god

im a scientist btw

i love caek

like a fat kid loves caek

lj: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

lol

sombrero galaxy would be a good band name

;_;

plan to use that as awesome stealth zing though so all good

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong

Something that is wronger than wrong is therefore more wrong than something that is not even wrong.

wrong

not as stealthy as it used to be thanks to peter woit: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0099488647/

(a+ book)

RONG

∞RONG∞

the rong ranger rides again

~wtw~

sombrero galaxy would be a good band name

― 鬼の手 (Edward III), Wednesday, March 3, 2010 10:54 AM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark

STEALING THIS

also caek u rule and also again i solved the universe btw the other night on w33d and it has to do with magnets, do u want my theory y/n

magnets sound more plausible than god tbh and you can have sombrero galaxy btw

dude

god is magnets

why do you think one magnet moves when you put another one near it

I thought I was moving it with my mind

it is like when the T-1000 was frozen and shot to bits but managed to recoagulate - god's design is beautiful and mysterious

popular 3-D cinema is also god's design fwiw

no gbx U rule, when we're both doctors let's start a blog called hipster doctors

ppl already think i'm the hipster med student cause i ride a bike and played in a band once. so cool let's do it

btw i am working on my explanation of magnets for u

popularpoppage 3-D cinema is also god's design fwiw

― queen of the rapping scene (acoleuthic), Thursday, March 4, 2010 2:19 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark

click here to see fresh young teens losing their anal virginity...in 3D

tbf that is the point at which we put human culture into a little box and fire it into a comet at ~high speed~

3D Porno wd be kind of self-defeating in its unsatisfyingness

"Hey! Just look at these awesome 3D boobies all up in your face" is more distracting than arousing really

i mean being caught wanking is one thing but wearing those goggles too i mean seriously now

btw LJ, is there an official definition of poppage that is more than just 'sex'

zits exploding in 3D is much, much grosser than 3D porn

'solving' the universe by making it destroy itself in sheer embarrassment.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2750/27501101.jpg

well that's as clear as mud then

need more physicists to cheerfully admit 'we can't know that right now, but thanks for asking', then carry on with studying actual data.

onion infographics like that aren't entirely physicists's fault, to be fair. there is codependent relationship between a certain kind of science and new scientist type publications.

basically www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=2773

~god is a hologram~

i have that tattooed on my back

only in *this* universe

btw caek i bet you feel the same way about this kind of science as many humanities profs feel abt buzzy crit theory papers

ha, i hope so.

although i don't see many scientists defending the bullshit, and i know where to look, whereas finding people working in the humanities willing to defend the airless heights is a lot easier : ( is that fair or is this confirmation bias?

popularising science kind of depends on pushing out a lot of fuzzy/dumbed down stuff, though?

if science was easy we'd all do it, imo. i was strongly advised by prof of theoretical physics in trinity to back off on an open day, as my expectations in the LC weren't A1 in both physics/maths. broek hart ;_;

popularising science kind of depends on pushing out a lot of fuzzy/dumbed down stuff, though?

― quiz show flat-track bully (darraghmac), Thursday, March 4, 2010 2:47 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

when done properly, it certainly involves making stuff more accessible, which is fine.

but a lot of popular writers have no interest in this. they choose stuff that is particularly difficult to explain in human language (field theory, quantum mechanics) because it sells and they don't have to work hard at making it comprehensible because no one can tell the difference.

or far worse, they are willfully obfuscatory about stuff like quantum mechanics of field theory or whatever because "gee whizz awesome" or "lol what will those crazy scientists think of next"

or they do things like that NS article, and write about stuff that is miles outside the mainstream of even theoretical physics, and simply be mentioning it they give the impression that it is credible or they are teaching the debate or something.

fwiw field theory and quantum mechanics have been touched upon at not a single point by my scijourn class - we're largely concentrating on stuff that can be explained lucidly while still telling the whole story

good. totally down with abraham cowley when it comes to science writing: abjure "the painted scenes and pageants of the brain".

which is not to say people should not try to explain QM or string theory or whatever. they should just not do a deliberately bad job of it in order to sell more copies. hawking started this.

abjure "the painted scenes and pageants of the brain".

this sounds like the kind of thing i'd totally fail to abjure, but i've been pretty good about hardtruthing it iirc - psychedelia is best saved for art, not news