RATM First Public Performance

[Chun Liroy]

I hate my low GPA, but I only have myself to blame. It's kinda like a vicious cycle.

[Mizango]

Fuck Leroy tho.

[Mizango]

I hate my low GPA, but I only have myself to blame. It's kinda like a vicious cycle.

What give with that?

[BerenTebogo]

I'd do you niggas at any time, no doubt.

[Woozie]

My top schools are still in MA and CA though. Berkeley, UC Davis, MIT, Harvard. But I'm starting to do more research into specialized programs that might be better fits. It's gonna come down to like 1-2 points on the QMII final I just finished today whether I get an A or an A-. A- would ruin the 4.0 I have in physics right now ~_~

I want to apply to some of those top schools too, which is partially why me not getting accepted to UNC for 2012 was a good thing. Getting a second masters not only means I'll have an advantage over others (who have zero masters, for the most part) but it will give me a chance to get a good GPA and some really good publications to really put me ahead. Plus I'm black (which was a lot more useful as an undergrad but it still has its advantages in grad school). I've already started my research for my physics masters. I'm basically doing carbon nanotech again. This time it's graphene instead of nanotubes though. And because of my thesis on hyperbolic conservation laws, I have a background that allows me to approach problems that my professor says he can't even touch. He's expecting some good publications from me in the next few years. Who knows, I might see you at MIT or Harvard in a few years.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I miss having you guys around, we need to seriously get up and have out own little get together. Me, you, Sath, Perm and the rest of the folks from the old science thread. I troll but I really do love and admire this shit out of you guys.

I'd be all over this.

[Chun Liroy]

What give with that?

I underestimate the test/over estimate my knowledge, I'd say. Or I just study to the point where I say "Fuck it, I dun care." Like, I got a B+ in genetics despite getting over a 90 on each test (while studying maybe hmmmm 2 hours max per test), and maybe I should get an A, but I can't blame the teacher because if I got 100% on each test (entirely possible) then I could have gotten an A. Stuff like that. I'll study "hard" for the first half of the material, get bored and never study the second half; Test is easy, it's just I didn't study it but would have known if I did. Things like that.

After writing this all out, it makes it sound really bad, but I disappoint myself because I feel like I waste potential to be one of the best (Delusions of Grandeur? Maybe.) and I know much more than I let on "publically."

[BerenTebogo]

I want to apply to some of those top schools too, which is partially why me not getting accepted to UNC for 2012 was a good thing. Getting a second masters not only means I'll have an advantage over others (who have zero masters, for the most part) but it will give me a chance to get a good GPA and some really good publications to really put me ahead. Plus I'm black (which was a lot more useful as an undergrad but it still has its advantages in grad school). I've already started my research for my physics masters. I'm basically doing carbon nanotech again. This time it's graphene instead of nanotubes though. And because of my thesis on hyperbolic conservation laws, I have a background that allows me to approach problems that my professor says he can't even touch. He's expecting some good publications from me in the next few years. Who knows, I might see you at MIT or Harvard in a few years.

I'd sex you up something fierce, and then re-teach you matlab and latex.

[Chun Liroy]

To not study, not get stressed, and not do any work; I can do much better than a 3.27.

I have a gift of not being able to get stressed, and I don't abuse it enough.

[BerenTebogo]

I'm watching season 3 of Archer right now instead of working on all of the things I still have to finish before Wednesday.

Don't ever mistake me for a good student.

[Woozie]

I hate my low GPA, but I only have myself to blame. It's kinda like a vicious cycle.

Yeah....my GPA really sucked. I got kicked out of college twice for failing grades when I first started. Even after years of getting Dean's List consistently, it only brought my overall GPA up to just barely over 3.2. Part of the problem is that I started grad school before I finished my undergrad and they separated my undergrad GPA and my grad GPA. So I didn't get that GPA boost most people get from taking classes in their major since most of the classes I took in my major were in the grad level.

Basically, as a Freshman I tested out of every math class before Fundementals of Advanced Mathematics (our proofwriting/logic class), which is the last undergrad class for a math major. Then I counted some of my physics electives (like mathematical methods) as graduate math electives. Plus I tested out of some of my physics classes, such as my entire freshman year and ODEs. If I had gotten undergrad credit for every class I've taken, my GPA would definitely be over a 3.5. It would probably be like 3.8 or something.

[Mertron]

doing well in school is also for nerds

nerds

[Woozie]

Perm is in/near NC?

[Mizango]

Perm is in/near NC?

Nah hes in Colorado, but he travels for bros.

[BerenTebogo]

Yeah....my GPA really sucked. I got kicked out of college twice for failing grades when I first started. Even after years of getting Dean's List consistently, it only brought my overall GPA up to just barely over 3.2. Part of the problem is that I started grad school before I finished my undergrad and they separated my undergrad GPA and my grad GPA. So I didn't get that GPA boost most people get from taking classes in their major since most of the classes I took in my major were in the grad level.

Basically, as a Freshman I tested out of every math class before Fundementals of Advanced Mathematics (our proofwriting/logic class), which is the last undergrad class for a math major. Then I counted some of my physics electives (like mathematical methods) as graduate math electives. Plus I tested out of some of my physics classes, such as my entire freshman year and ODEs. If I had gotten undergrad credit for every class I've taken, my GPA would definitely be over a 3.5. It would probably be like 3.8 or something.

Honestly, I take as many classes as I do because I only test out of something if it's really more work than I want to do. This semester with 7 actual challenging classes SUCKED, but like next semester I'm taking discrete math 1 (which I already taught myself ages ago...lol) and not testing out of it because it's an easy A, fulfills credit requirements, and won't be much work. If I test out I have to get 3 credits from somewhere else.

I mean yeah I am going out of my way to take courses like differential geometry, but on my own schedule and because I want to. I don't want to be forced to take like complex analysis as an undergrad with the prof who teaches it here...I'll wait til grad school, thanks, lol.

I do kinda play to getting into a good grad school as my #1 goal, honestly.

[Woozie]

Ugh, complex analysis. I probably could have tested out of that but decided not to. Turns out, the class is only offered at 7:40am. No one can do math at 7:40am. No one. It's not possible.

The main reason I tested out of so much stuff is because I was trying to do two bachelors and a masters at the same time. Last semester I took 22 credit hours as a grad student (full time is 9 in grad school) just to graduate before my assistantship ended. Imagine how many classes I would have been taking if I hadn't tested out of so many.

[Greatguardian]

Edit: And when he says things like "time travel is easy to dick around with" I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he has conversations about some "popular science" theories. For example, Michio Kaku likes to talk about the "science" behind sci fi stuff, but he never claims that everything in scifi movies/shows are possible or plausible. GG made it sound as if his posted ideas about time travel were possible/plausible, which is wrong, but I think he's willing to admit that.

I'm no physics post-grad and I'll readily admit that, but I think a lot of this is just being blown way out of proportion. Physics, astrophysics in particular, is something I'm passionate about and am working on establishing a more solid background in. The majority of the more hairbrained ideas I talk about are things that former physics/astron professors of mine talk to me about whenever we correspond. I like to highlight really cool shit on a conceptual level because I find it fascinating. If anyone with a more developed background in the field had anything at all to say about it, I'd always be glad to listen. The problem is, no one ever has. To date, I've only really had expository conversations with Kaylia out of the BGScience crowd and I found that correspondence to be of great value to me. If Miz has a problem with my portrayal of astrophysics, or believes something I'm stating is just flat out incorrect, this is the very first I've heard of it and I would have appreciated being corrected beforehand.

With that said, I think people are getting the wrong idea about the intent behind my portrayal of time travel. I wasn't sitting here talking to the LHC crowd. I like to nerdgasm over the concept of time dilation and random potential time travel venues that my professors have nerdgasmed about because that shit is cool. There is very little expectation of technical accuracy going in, and very little claim of usability.

I'm not homeschooled. I'm not self-taught. I'm enrolled in a Master's program. I don't have Aspergers. And no, it generally doesn't require a Ph.D to lay out Newton's Universal Law of Gravity for people on occasion (and most seem to just enjoy the daily dose of basic science). Being called a pseudo-intellectual is mildly annoying, but Perm's just a shitty troll trying to get in on the hot nerd action. I'm not a Doc yet, but I'm not a slacker. I've published various works in non-STEM collegiate journals in other areas. I like to think, and I like to learn stuff. I read most of the things you all post, outside of portions of the LHC thread that are just over my head. But you don't interact with me. If there's a problem with thinking science is cool, posting NDT videos, and occasionally talking about extremely basic mechanical physics and purely conceptual relativistic physics, then I'd like to know exactly what's up.

[Woozie]

With that said, I think people are getting the wrong idea about the intent behind my portrayal of time travel. I wasn't sitting here talking to the LHC crowd. I like to nerdgasm over the concept of time dilation and random potential time travel venues that my professors have nerdgasmed about because that shit is cool. There is very little expectation of technical accuracy going in, and very little claim of usability.

Okay, then what exactly is your intent behind your portrayal of time travel?

Totally serious.

Science and all.

Time travel is the easy part. Constructing the actual time machine is bit more difficult. There are various methods we know we can use to achieve time travel.

For example, expanding and stabilizing a quantum wormhole (or just building a macroscopic one) and towing one end into a high gravity field like the event horizon of a black hole or (the safer alternative) the periphery of a neutron star. Then you tow it back, and whenever you go in one end you come out the other at a different point in time based on the amount of exposure that end had to said high gravity field.

The only problem with this method is it's impossible to go back in time beyond the point at which the wormhole was first created/expanded. So you can't visit the dinosaurs or anything that way (and good thing, too. grandfather paradoxes etc).

BUT, If you really want to go fuck a triceratops, it is theoretically possible to travel backwards in time by navigating the event horizons of two colliding black holes. Good luck surviving that trip, though.

Really, we have time travel. It's the machine to do it with that's the problem. You can't travel through time while staying on the planet Earth. Even Superman had to fly out to the Earth's orbit in order to break the light-speed barrier and travel backwards in time in Superman 2. Lack of spaceships means lack of time travel.

The parts in bold is where you get into trouble. Traveling forward to the future is fine. Everyone knows that's just a matter of moving really close to the speed of light, which is impossible (for anything bigger than proton) in practice but is easy in theory and we in fact do this on a regular basis with particles in accelerators.

Moving to the past as an entirely different matter and to imply that the science is even there is misleading. No experiment ever done gives us any reason to believe that time travel to the past is possible, even in theory. A lot of scientists such as Kaku and Hawking like to talk about the "what ifs", such as using black holes as wormholes, but we cannot say that this is possible, even in theory. We cannot justify stating that wormholes even exist at all. For you to say that it's easy or that the science is there is simply not true, no matter if you're talking "casually" or to the "LHC crowd". It's simply untrue, and that's the part that made Miz do what he did. Your post implies that things are possible that may not be and your post implies that science says things that it doesn't say.

You mentioned your chats with physics professors and with Kaylia. One thing you need to remember is that not everything a scientist says is science. If you ask Brian Greene how many dimensions our universe has, he might say 11. Does that mean our universe has 11 dimensions? No. As of right now, science does not indicate that our universe has 11 dimensions. The only reason Brian Greene believes it does is because he's a String Theorist. If someone were to claim that science implies the existence of any dimensions other than the three spacial dimensions and the one of time, that person would be misleading his audience (and hopefully Miz would be around to shut said person down). This would be an extreme example because not only does science not indicate that the universe has 11 dimensions, but the one theory that does posit the existence of 11 dimensions is a theory that most people in theoretical physics disagree with string theory/M-theory. It used to be popular but has fallen out of favor. Even though Brian Greene is a brilliant scientist who knows his stuff much better than most, his answer to the question of spacial dimensions would not be supported by science, would be rejected by most people in his field, and is very likely to not even be correct (even Brian Green himself admitted a few years ago that he doesn't believe in String Theory).

Hawking is another good example of someone who talks a lot about stuff that science doesn't necessarily support. If you've read the LHC thread, you've probably seen examples of Kaylia and I complaining about something Hawking said. Kaylia believes that since Hawking is a well respected scientist, he has a responsibility to be careful about what he says. For me, I think Hawking can saw whatever he wants and that the general public and news/media are responsible for reacting appropriately instead of treating him like he's God and each word he says is perfect and infallible.

Obligatory:

Spoiler: show

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/stephen_hawking.png

and

Spoiler: show

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090830.gif

The reason I'm mentioning these scientists is because I've heard them mention ideas of using black holes or wormholes before. I don't know why you implied that the science of time travel is understood (or even that it's possible) but even if it's because you heard Kaku/Kaylia/your professor say it, it's still not true. You definitely said that the science of time travel is there, and that it's easy, and you strongly implied that it was well understood. None of this is true and that's why Miz got set off. It doesn't matter if you were talking "casually" or to the "LHC crowd". What you said is both untrue and misleading no matter how it was used in conversation or who it was meant for. There is no reason to believe that the ideas you posted are even remotely plausible.

[Mizango]

Did I ever tell you that I actually know NDT? I have had the pleasure of meeting many folks in the science field. Not trolling, not some celebrity or anything of the sorts and not something I throw out there as bragging rights, just a cool "did you know" tidbit Perm is not "some troll, trying to get in" on any action, he's one of the longest posting members here on BG (remember the tuck?), he has always, always been up on game and known what the fuck. I mean I was more annoyed with your reactions, or lack thereof in past threads. I responded to you in Howies thread and in the Asteroid mining thread, and got no response. That is where the MaxTeem part comes into play, you see. Ostrich meets head in the sand = assburgers and wiki dude.

It is what it is, I saw it and I called it. You were defiant at first (see YO DAWG comments) and only gave yourself an out once I called you out of the hypothetical concept of time travel being easy. Im all for daily science knowledge, I just cant and don't condone BAD science daily. That does everyone a disservice in every conceivable way. I love Ronald Mallett to death and enjoy his books, lectures and his passion for his life work. Then BAM! out of the blue, I see a nigga on BG that was readily telling everyone that time travel is "cake". All we have to do is tow event horizons and haXXorz super dense neutron stars and force them to summon time banshees and allow us to enter the stargate to the parallel universe of our choice. Im sure youre a nice guy, but you sort of crept up on BG and my spam in my absence on BG due to my schooling and work, but first impressions go a long way with me and ill be the first to say, that was not a good look. Anyone can tell you that I take this extremely serious, we all do. Mainly because we like what we do and I love seeing others regain the magic of looking up and wondering again.

Done beating my dick, but yeah. You may not realize it, but just look at Howie's thread, he thought he was getting genuinely "good" science facts, when he in fact wasnt. That is the danger as passing off hypothetical scenarios as plausible ideas lol. Before this thread today, there are probably many that see/saw you as legit. Most of us wreck our brains and do this for a living or are actively working towards that. Frustrating when someone with a liberal arts degree from some mail order college comes in and passes his/her word as the gospel. Not saying you did that, but I am saying if the shoe fits...

[Woozie]

There is very little expectation of technical accuracy going in, and very little claim of usability.

You cannot say "science says this is true" and then say "there is little expectation of technical accuracy". Maybe you have different standards, but to me, those two statements contradict each other. And that's probably how most of us feel.

And no, it generally doesn't require a Ph.D to lay out Newton's Universal Law of Gravity for people on occasion (and most seem to just enjoy the daily dose of basic science).

This is certainly a true statement about Newton's Laws. But you weren't talking about Newton's Laws. To lay out the laws of time travel or of black holes most certainly does require a PhD or at least some form of advanced study.