Poster wolfpup linked directly to an image and the site doesn’t allow hot-linking. Here’s the page the image is on: Pompous Ass English Ale • Great Lakes Brewery
I like the name they chose for their character: “Fuggled Doublebottom”. I’m sure we can make that into some kind of in-joke insult if we try.
I’m afraid he may have banned you from forever having a dialog with him. It’s really simple, put everyone on ignore and all your thread will be like blogs. No one will ever disagree with you. He figured this out before any of us, so…he wins.
BTW, you just got my 10,000 post. You are now part of history. (and I never even asked what a trogolodyte was., or whether it had plack on its back) 
Trogolodyte is a fragment of the doomed planet Trogolodo. The one weakness of Surpeman.
Ah, SuperSammy is from Trogolodo? I sort of suspected that.
Yes, but wolfpup’s find has a much more fitting picture. 
What irritated me was that we were talking about a very simple subject. From the reference frame of an asteroid, any mass * velocity gained or lost from the asteroid, whether it be from new material added or lost, with a velocity vector, affects the course of the asteroid.
So here Tripler jumps in and wants to know if I am one of ‘dem foreigners’ who doesn’t even understand English.
This irritated me because the topic is literally freshman year physics.
And it also doubly irritates me because topics like physics and math, there are a small number of ideas that everyone with any credibility agrees on, 100% of the time. One of which is conservation of momentum.
So if tomorrow, the most credible physicist alive gets senile and starts making public statements where conservation of momentum is violated (such as a nuke “pushing” an asteroid but the asteroid is “squishy” and so the push “doesn’t count”)…even a mere high school student would be right to challenge him. And that high school student would be right. And other people would be idiots if they didn’t read the argument, no matter who wrote it, and at least consider the argument in the context of invariant physical laws, not the “authority” of the speaker.
As it so happens, I have a college degree and I have mentioned this in other threads if you had stalked me enough. It’s a mere computer engineering degree and I’m about halfway done with a master’s in computer science. So my knowledge of the matter is rudimentary and I don’t claim otherwise. At no point do I cite anything but well established physical laws.
As a side note, the main topic you guys have slammed me for, cryogenic preserving of recently deceased humans, also depends on invariant physical laws regarding conservation of information. If the process of freezing leaves the information intact for the synaptic connections - both topology and approximate weight - you could probably recover a lot of a person’s memories and personality if you took apart the frozen brain basically molecule by molecule. The brain is very complex and maybe there’s some super-secret unknown mechanism of information storage that gets destroyed by freezing, but my point is that if we could recover even some of what makes up deceased individuals, that’s better than what we have now.
Again, this argument shouldn’t depend on the identity of the person making the argument. Obviously the medical doctor of, say, an Alzheimer’s long term care facility is under several incentives not to publicly say “well since all my patients degrade and die anyway, and since cryogenic freezing probably retains more data than letting them slowly rot, freezing is better than “memory care” that doesn’t work”.
But it’s true. Actual physical reality says it’s true. (that if you have a pattern of information preserved in low temperature ice, you can potentially recover that pattern, and if that pattern is the plan for a computing system, you can build an equivalent emulator of that computing system and get similar outputs from any inputs you feed it)
No doubt you’re going to slam me over and over and claim I’m not credible enough to make claims about reality…but you’d still be wrong. The paragraph above is based on solid, invariant ideas that you should be evaluating on the merits, not the identity of the speaker.
And now, a message from our sponsors. We’ll be right back.
True, but the identity of the speaker is that such merits only exist in his head.
Ok, maybe I should have said “you should examine the merits of the idea even if you start with the belief that the speaker is not credible”.
If a homeless man starts ranting about his proof to a famous unsolved problem in math, and you happen to be a world class mathematician yourself and able to at least parse what he’s talking about, maybe you should look at the first few lines he scrawled on the side of his box. You know, just in case.
I mean even if you immediately find an error, you’d do the bum a solid to mention your criticism.
Your post is the equivalent of saying “I’m not even going to look.”
The timecube guy had a whole website if I recall full of his rantings. So maybe it’s going to take too long. But if you have a pattern of information preserved in low temperature ice, you can potentially recover that pattern, and if that pattern is the plan for a computing system, you can build an equivalent emulator of that computing system and get similar outputs from any inputs you feed it…are you just not able to read that sentence fast enough? What’s the problem here?
You obviously think that what I wrote is about the equivalent of that bum writing on the side of a cardboard box in crayon, but for god sakes, you’re being an asshole.
Will work for food?
Dealt with above. Using my “bum” analogy, your argument (if you were the world class mathematician) is saying “it smells like pee over here, I’m just not even going to read what is scrawled on this here box”
I worked in Alzheimer’s research at Stanford University. I’ll try to keep up with your stupendous string of blathering nonsense.
I take issue in particular with this:
By several incentives, you mean health professionals prefer not to get charged for murder in order to “preserve” memories via a method which has never been shown to be effective at doing that. Oddly, healthcare professional prefer to provide quality care, and on the research side, we amused ourselves by trying to find an actual cure. Quaintly, we could do this without killing our patients and freezing their brains, and then waiting an unknown time for technology to be invented to see if there is anything left to be salvaged.
Really, why stop with Alzheimer’s, you could expand to any terminal illness. They’re all going to die anyway, amirite? Kill them now, while their brains are “fresh”. No point in wasting medical care on anyone.
You are someone I would characterize as evil. You casually throw around the idea that early death for people whose lives have no meaning for you is reasonable. Their death is a worthwhile thing because it will help you pursue your dream of cryo. The idea that human death is a reasonable course of action to support Cryo is monstrous.
Remember Samuel, Galileo was interrogated while threatened with physical torture for his theories. They didn’t believe him either. Be strong.
SamuelA, if conservation of momentum is all you need to know about deflecting asteroids with nuclear weapons, why can’t you move a fog bank with a bullet?
Regards,
Shodan
You do the bum’s calligraphy a disservice.
This is NOT a thread about DGU’s.
Nothing in your post can be considered a rational thought. You’re starting with the preconceived notion that death is absolute, not relative, and working from there. Freezing a person who is certain to rot into a corpse later is in fact better than the alternative. The freezing does less damage than the death + rotting, so…
I would characterize you as the evil one, and history will prove me right. As a result of the dominant beliefs that you and your peers hold, we send over a million people to the ground, every year, without even attempting to preserve some of them.
There will be an era of human history where preservation of the terminally ill is practiced on a large scale. I may or may not personally live to see it, but this is the obvious thing to do for non-idiots. Our current methods (freezing in liquid nitrogen + injected chemicals to reduce frost damage) are basically shit. They are only a little better than the alternative. We should be pouring money into making the preservation better. Perhaps half of all medical research money, since it obviously treats all diseases, while any given research can at best delay death from a single class of disease.
By my perspective, the weighting I am mentally performing is as follows :
Suppose a person has a month left to live. You are very certain of this - you have a laboratory confirmed diagnosis and statistically, 99.9% of the patients in this pool die within 30 days. (we can discuss greater uncertainty at a later time). You could either get at most 30 days of interaction with that human being, or freeze them. Let's saying freezing them preserves only 50% of their mind, the other half is lost. But if you do potentially revive them in the future, and you think there's a 50% chance that will happen (so down to net '25% of them is left'), you get 25% of them for 1000 years.
A rational person multiplies. A person who believes in woo does not. Unfortunately, a lot of people…even well educated doctors…believe in woo.
Of course we should research new treatments for disease, but for a person that is terminally ill, the odds are about 99.9% they are just going to die. It is very rare for clinical trials to work, most people don’t even get them or get put in the control group, and so on.
You just need the nano-bots to go with the bullets…