Talk:675: Revolutionary - Revision history

42.book.addict at 18:34, 5 November 2024

2024-11-05T18:34:43Z

These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For: Mentioning future technology.

2023-11-27T02:45:47Z

Mentioning future technology.

Lackadaisical at 12:58, 27 July 2016

2016-07-27T12:58:17Z

Davidy22 at 01:58, 27 July 2016

2016-07-27T01:58:11Z

108.162.222.38 at 00:30, 27 July 2016

2016-07-27T00:30:53Z

Davidy22 at 20:52, 9 March 2016

2016-03-09T20:52:38Z

Pacerier at 20:25, 9 March 2016

2016-03-09T20:25:32Z

Davidy22: Reverted edits by 108.162.219.160 (talk) to last revision by Davidy22

2015-02-21T16:48:49Z

Reverted edits by 108.162.219.160 (talk) to last revision by Davidy22

108.162.219.160 at 14:52, 21 February 2015

2015-02-21T14:52:56Z

Davidy22: Good job checking your formatting. I like how you checked to make sure you didn't cause any existing comments to flow into yours. At least you signed this one.

2015-01-28T06:51:54Z

Good job checking your formatting. I like how you checked to make sure you didn't cause any existing comments to flow into yours. At least you signed this one.

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ::Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right.[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 20:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
-They both look the same to me. Which one do you mean?
+They both look the same to me. Which one do you mean? [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 I guess that the mouseover text refer to the Occam's razor, a favourite tool of many philosophers. --[[User:Barfolomio|Barfolomio]] ([[User talk:Barfolomio|talk]]) 14:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:45, 27 November 2023
Line 31:		Line 31:
	Less work, says the title text. But - less work for WHO? See, actually correcting a widely accepted theory (or replacing it) takes a lot of work. Lots of textbooks to be rewritten. Lots of courses to be updated. Errata on material too valuable to discard completely. Lots of people to be informed - this is after the conferences and papers that establish the overturning of the existing widely accepted theory. Which in themselves are usually going to take a few years. It's just that there is a chance that the person uncovering the problem may be able to escape all that work ... although this is only going to happen for someone outside the field; for someone inside, they'll be writing papers and textbooks and doing the work, and they may expect to build considerable prestige as a result. Rachel {{unsigned ip\|108.162.222.38}}		Less work, says the title text. But - less work for WHO? See, actually correcting a widely accepted theory (or replacing it) takes a lot of work. Lots of textbooks to be rewritten. Lots of courses to be updated. Errata on material too valuable to discard completely. Lots of people to be informed - this is after the conferences and papers that establish the overturning of the existing widely accepted theory. Which in themselves are usually going to take a few years. It's just that there is a chance that the person uncovering the problem may be able to escape all that work ... although this is only going to happen for someone outside the field; for someone inside, they'll be writing papers and textbooks and doing the work, and they may expect to build considerable prestige as a result. Rachel {{unsigned ip\|108.162.222.38}}
	:You know, I had always read the title text as if overturning a rigorously supported and integral theory was more work but then I realized it's from a layman's perspective. [[User:Lackadaisical\|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical\|talk]]) 12:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)		:You know, I had always read the title text as if overturning a rigorously supported and integral theory was more work but then I realized it's from a layman's perspective. [[User:Lackadaisical\|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical\|talk]]) 12:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	Nearly 14 years later, I asked "Bing Chat with GPT-4" about the "Racecar on a train" reference, and this very cartoon was the response used in explaining the The Dunning-Kruger Effect. (Unfortunately, URLs don't exist for this kind of thing. You have to re-run the inquiry. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 02:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:58, 27 July 2016
Line 30:		Line 30:

	Less work, says the title text. But - less work for WHO? See, actually correcting a widely accepted theory (or replacing it) takes a lot of work. Lots of textbooks to be rewritten. Lots of courses to be updated. Errata on material too valuable to discard completely. Lots of people to be informed - this is after the conferences and papers that establish the overturning of the existing widely accepted theory. Which in themselves are usually going to take a few years. It's just that there is a chance that the person uncovering the problem may be able to escape all that work ... although this is only going to happen for someone outside the field; for someone inside, they'll be writing papers and textbooks and doing the work, and they may expect to build considerable prestige as a result. Rachel {{unsigned ip\|108.162.222.38}}		Less work, says the title text. But - less work for WHO? See, actually correcting a widely accepted theory (or replacing it) takes a lot of work. Lots of textbooks to be rewritten. Lots of courses to be updated. Errata on material too valuable to discard completely. Lots of people to be informed - this is after the conferences and papers that establish the overturning of the existing widely accepted theory. Which in themselves are usually going to take a few years. It's just that there is a chance that the person uncovering the problem may be able to escape all that work ... although this is only going to happen for someone outside the field; for someone inside, they'll be writing papers and textbooks and doing the work, and they may expect to build considerable prestige as a result. Rachel {{unsigned ip\|108.162.222.38}}
		+	:You know, I had always read the title text as if overturning a rigorously supported and integral theory was more work but then I realized it's from a layman's perspective. [[User:Lackadaisical\|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical\|talk]]) 12:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, 27 July 2016
Line 29:		Line 29:
	::I disagree that it doesn't help the explanation. It gives a fairly simple example of somebody who thinks they have found a flaw, but where it would take minimal extra reading to realise its actually not a flaw (which is the whole concept of this comic). I would argue that substantially more than 5% of readers will have come across imaginary numbers, if they haven't then the wiki link is there for them to look them up. The fact that it refers to imaginary numbers is actually not even particularly relevant, only that there is a field of mathematics to explain the sqrt(5-6) "flaw". Maybe the explanation could be improved by changing the example to relate to special relativity, but as I said before I'm not qualified to write that. --[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)		::I disagree that it doesn't help the explanation. It gives a fairly simple example of somebody who thinks they have found a flaw, but where it would take minimal extra reading to realise its actually not a flaw (which is the whole concept of this comic). I would argue that substantially more than 5% of readers will have come across imaginary numbers, if they haven't then the wiki link is there for them to look them up. The fact that it refers to imaginary numbers is actually not even particularly relevant, only that there is a field of mathematics to explain the sqrt(5-6) "flaw". Maybe the explanation could be improved by changing the example to relate to special relativity, but as I said before I'm not qualified to write that. --[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

−	Less work, says the title text. But - less work for WHO? See, actually correcting a widely accepted theory (or replacing it) takes a lot of work. Lots of textbooks to be rewritten. Lots of courses to be updated. Errata on material too valuable to discard completely. Lots of people to be informed - this is after the conferences and papers that establish the overturning of the existing widely accepted theory. Which in themselves are usually going to take a few years. It's just that there is a chance that the person uncovering the problem may be able to escape all that work ... although this is only going to happen for someone outside the field; for someone inside, they'll be writing papers and textbooks and doing the work, and they may expect to build considerable prestige as a result. Rachel	+	Less work, says the title text. But - less work for WHO? See, actually correcting a widely accepted theory (or replacing it) takes a lot of work. Lots of textbooks to be rewritten. Lots of courses to be updated. Errata on material too valuable to discard completely. Lots of people to be informed - this is after the conferences and papers that establish the overturning of the existing widely accepted theory. Which in themselves are usually going to take a few years. It's just that there is a chance that the person uncovering the problem may be able to escape all that work ... although this is only going to happen for someone outside the field; for someone inside, they'll be writing papers and textbooks and doing the work, and they may expect to build considerable prestige as a result. Rachel {{unsigned ip\|108.162.222.38}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:30, 27 July 2016
Line 28:		Line 28:
	:I removed this paragraph because "sqrt(5-6)" or "imaginary numbers" do not help to explain the comics content — less than 5% will understand only that phrases. We can't explain special relativity — using "imaginary numbers" — to a common reader. BUT we can explain how or why some people NOT understanding Einstein still trying to invent better solutions... without any knowledge of the real matter. I did not remove it again, so it's up to you to give a better explain.--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 22:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)		:I removed this paragraph because "sqrt(5-6)" or "imaginary numbers" do not help to explain the comics content — less than 5% will understand only that phrases. We can't explain special relativity — using "imaginary numbers" — to a common reader. BUT we can explain how or why some people NOT understanding Einstein still trying to invent better solutions... without any knowledge of the real matter. I did not remove it again, so it's up to you to give a better explain.--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 22:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
	::I disagree that it doesn't help the explanation. It gives a fairly simple example of somebody who thinks they have found a flaw, but where it would take minimal extra reading to realise its actually not a flaw (which is the whole concept of this comic). I would argue that substantially more than 5% of readers will have come across imaginary numbers, if they haven't then the wiki link is there for them to look them up. The fact that it refers to imaginary numbers is actually not even particularly relevant, only that there is a field of mathematics to explain the sqrt(5-6) "flaw". Maybe the explanation could be improved by changing the example to relate to special relativity, but as I said before I'm not qualified to write that. --[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)		::I disagree that it doesn't help the explanation. It gives a fairly simple example of somebody who thinks they have found a flaw, but where it would take minimal extra reading to realise its actually not a flaw (which is the whole concept of this comic). I would argue that substantially more than 5% of readers will have come across imaginary numbers, if they haven't then the wiki link is there for them to look them up. The fact that it refers to imaginary numbers is actually not even particularly relevant, only that there is a field of mathematics to explain the sqrt(5-6) "flaw". Maybe the explanation could be improved by changing the example to relate to special relativity, but as I said before I'm not qualified to write that. --[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	Less work, says the title text. But - less work for WHO? See, actually correcting a widely accepted theory (or replacing it) takes a lot of work. Lots of textbooks to be rewritten. Lots of courses to be updated. Errata on material too valuable to discard completely. Lots of people to be informed - this is after the conferences and papers that establish the overturning of the existing widely accepted theory. Which in themselves are usually going to take a few years. It's just that there is a chance that the person uncovering the problem may be able to escape all that work ... although this is only going to happen for someone outside the field; for someone inside, they'll be writing papers and textbooks and doing the work, and they may expect to build considerable prestige as a result. Rachel

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Looks like this guy doesn't know about Lorentz contraction and time dilation. That or he's so confident about his idea that he hasn't bothered to look further into the subject. --[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 09:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
   Looks like this guy
 They both look the same to me. Which one do you mean?

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 They both look the same to me. Which one do you mean?
 I guess that the mouseover text refer to the Occam's razor, a favourite tool of many philosophers. --[[User:Barfolomio|Barfolomio]] ([[User talk:Barfolomio|talk]]) 14:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@@ Line 16: / Line 18: @@
 : None the less the fact remains that there are at least three completely different explanations known. Or at least there were, the last time I spent a couple of hours on the subject (one hell of a while back.)
 :Once I got to the fact that there were a lot of alternative values for time -let's face it, that is what it is all about in the first place... I just lost interest.
 Dgbrt, I have reverted your edit which removed the example using imaginary numbers. I understand that the example uses imaginary numbers which are not referenced in the comic, however rather than removing a paragraph which gives a succinct example of the comics content (and points out that it is only an example), it would be far more useful to change the paragraph to reference special relativity instead of imaginary numbers. There are two reasons I didn't do this when I wrote the paragraph: Firstly, I don't understand special relativity in enough detail to give an example where a 'flaw' is easily explained, and secondly most readers probably don't either. Because of this I used imaginary numbers which I would think a larger proportion of people have come across in some form before. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 10:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 :I removed this paragraph because "sqrt(5-6)" or "imaginary numbers" do not help to explain the comics content — less than 5% will understand only that phrases. We can't explain special relativity — using "imaginary numbers" — to a common reader. BUT we can explain how or why some people NOT understanding Einstein still trying to invent better solutions... without any knowledge of the real matter. I did not remove it again, so it's up to you to give a better explain.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 ::I disagree that it doesn't help the explanation. It gives a fairly simple example of somebody who thinks they have found a flaw, but where it would take minimal extra reading to realise its actually not a flaw (which is the whole concept of this comic). I would argue that substantially more than 5% of readers will have come across imaginary numbers, if they haven't then the wiki link is there for them to look them up. The fact that it refers to imaginary numbers is actually not even particularly relevant, only that there is a field of mathematics to explain the sqrt(5-6) "flaw". Maybe the explanation could be improved by changing the example to relate to special relativity, but as I said before I'm not qualified to write that. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)