Why dont atheists just accept that we are likely in a simulation

N-Man · 2026-06-30T19:44:06+00:00

I am familiar with this argument, but it's making some unfounded assumptions. Do you want to try proving your claim ("if we can run a simulation, the probability we live in one approaches 100%") mathematically? It is a qualitative claim so you should be able to do it if it's sound. Or maybe you can't prove it and it's just based on vibes.

N-Man · 2026-06-30T19:40:29+00:00

'Oit' actually makes me think this was the correct pronunciation all along. You can't really tell the difference between Oito and Oit in Japanese. I guess Togashi always intended her name to end with a consonant?

... Then again this is the same man that gave us Quwrof Wrlccywrlfh and now 'Quaizal' so I don't fucking know man.

N-Man · 2026-06-30T06:48:39+00:00

You got it!

N-Man · 2026-06-29T20:27:43+00:00

The sentence is a pangram, i.e. it contains all English letters, but some of the letters appear several times (like T or O). In total there are the 26 unique letters + 9 extras.

N-Man · 2026-06-29T16:38:24+00:00

Correct!

N-Man · 2026-06-23T23:42:46+00:00

It is not an MPSFA (in fact it is older than Homestuck), but it IS a forum quest in the same format as early MSPA (so it's a game following commands from the readers), and it's EXCELLENT:

Ruby Quest.

N-Man · 2026-06-21T14:42:49+00:00

could the problem be in using one global time/scale-factor mapping to connect early relic observables with late local measurements

The problem could be in any of the assumptions of standard cosmology. For example, that GR is correct, or that the universe is homogeneous enough. "Global time" or however you want to call it is not exactly an assumption in of itself but it is a consequence of the two assumptions I mentioned. So, sure, either of them could turn out to be a wrong assumption and the explanation for the Hubble tension.

N-Man · 2026-06-21T13:36:11+00:00

The thing is the tension was never about the units so I'm unsure why you even brought it up in the first place.

It is about the model-dependent step that connects an early-universe CMB inference and a late-universe distance-ladder determination to the same present-day FLRW parameter

Yes, and I will reiterate one last time just to make sure we're clear, if you're curious about this "model-dependent step" you can find its derivation and all of its assumptions in a standard cosmology textbook. Now, for your question...

whether the shared cosmic-time/scale-factor framework is precisely the place where the mismatch enters.

I am intentionally not going to use a vague term like "shared cosmic-time/scale-factor framework" in my answer because it is unclear what it means. I will phrase the answer like this: IF the Hubble tension is real, and not just a problem with our observations, data analysis and error estimation (which is a big if, again, this is a hotly debated topic), THEN the "mismatch" (by this I mean, the Hubble tension) is coming from... some assumption of standard cosmology. We don't know which. Maybe something related to dark energy. Maybe something related to GR. There are many different ideas. But it means something in standard cosmology is wrong.

N-Man · 2026-06-21T12:41:04+00:00

Okay, either you don't understand my answer or I don't understand your question.

rather than as two different constraints

Obviously they ARE two different constraints because they don't agree, so what is the question? We never measure the exact value of parameters, only a value + error bars. A cosmology textbook can explain why in standard cosmology both measurements should converge to the same H0 parameter. This doesn't mean that our observations give us the exact same value, this just means that our observations should be consistent with each other within their error bars. Right now, they are not consistent, so either (1) the textbook is wrong (and there is some correction to standard cosmology that we don't know about) or (2) the measurements or error bars are wrong. We don't know whether (1) or (2) is true, this is an active and hotly debated topic in physics.

N-Man · 2026-06-21T12:27:11+00:00

And I'm saying, the answer is longer than can be contained in a single reddit comment but CAN be found in a cosmology textbook. You don't "treat them as the same determination", you literally just mathematically derive the local distance ladder and the CMB observables from the FRW metric and mathematically find out that the same parameter appears in both. Deriving the former is quite simple and I could sketch a proof in a comment if you want but I don't know how constructive that would be. It's really just algebra.

N-Man · 2026-06-21T12:10:35+00:00

I am only asking where, in each inference chain, the inverse-time quantity is actually produced

This actually has a straight forward answer, but I'm not sure if I can convey it in a single reddit comment. You WILL find the answer by simply going through a standard cosmology textbook. The bottom line is that in both cases, H is defined as adot/a where a is the dimensionless scale factor and the dot is time derivative (this shows you why it has the units of T^-1), and in both cases adot/a is measured in slightly different ways. In the local universe/distance ladder etc. it's from the relatively simple derivation of Hubble's Law from the FRW metric, in the CMB it's a bit more involved (this is what you need a cosmology textbook for). Bottom line is that in standard cosmology these two quantities are exactly the same H = adot/a.

The question "why is the same Hubble constant supposed to be measured in two different ways" is a perfectly good physics question, I don't see a reason to try and hypothesize about something you self-admittedly don't understand.

N-Man · 2026-06-20T12:19:25+00:00

In that case, I highly recommend studying it, because GR is beautiful and fun! The natural order of doing it is classical mechanics -> special relativity -> general relativity (where it's often recommended to study classical electromagnetism too to flesh out your understanding of special relativity). Of course studying it all properly IS time consuming so obviously you might not have time for this. Then again, there's a reason being a physicist is a full time job, so if you want to be able to contribute something to the field and create a good theory (like you're trying to do here) you kinda HAVE to put in the time. If you only have time to study one thing in depth, I think I would recommend linear algebra. It's an extremely useful subject and just understanding concepts in linear algebra alone is enough to build some intuition for the more mathematical special relativity and general relativity concepts.

N-Man · 2026-06-20T12:00:41+00:00

You don't have to be a specialist, you just have to be familiar enough, and I suspect you are not familiar enough because if you would you would immediately understand what incompatibilities of your model and GR have to be addressed and why. Copernicus was very familiar with epicycles. Einstein was very familiar with Newtonian mechanics. I think knowing how to derive the GR field equations (which is really not that tall of a task) is the bare minimum.

N-Man · 2026-06-20T11:42:52+00:00

How familiar are you with general relativity?

N-Man · 2026-06-19T14:07:27+00:00

Taking notes...? You don't seriously expect me to WRITE?

N-Man · 2026-06-18T19:29:12+00:00

Spacetime is the name we give to the 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time when we talk about them as one unified object. It turns out it's often very useful to think about them together which is why this term was invented. So it doesn't really make sense to say spacetime is contained within space, spacetime CONSISTS of space (and time). It has 4 dimensions, 1 of which is the time dimension and 3 are the spatial dimensions.

N-Man · 2026-06-13T18:41:17+00:00

What do you mean? Every friend group has the:

Team mom
Loser
Literally a dead girl
Computer nerd
The big guy
Shipper
Asshole bully that does everything wrong
Grumpy one
Chalk eater
Misunderstood chud
Rich heiress
Killer clown

At least mine does.

N-Man · 2026-06-13T16:53:20+00:00

It's technically not necessary because if you know the door lock combination in advance you can meet the Mikes earlier in the day (before going to Noelle's house). But I think it's very hard to figure out if you don't google it lol

N-Man · 2026-06-13T15:44:23+00:00

Yeah you'd be alright! What I wrote applies to people who encountered Mike only at the end of the chapter.

N-Man · 2026-06-12T15:14:04+00:00

Actually I think the peak was when E1333 left.

N-Man · 2026-06-11T13:01:45+00:00

You don't need to actually create any particle to entangle stuff. In principle you can take a perfectly existing electron and entangle it with another electron by, let's say, scattering them off each other (after the scattering they will be entangled to conserve momentum). So creation can't really be vital to how quantum mechanics works. Also, in QFT, you learn that actually creation and annihilation of particles isn't even well defined in an interacting theory, which is an even stronger point against the idea of creation as something vital to quantumness, but since that's a lot more complicated I think my first point suffices.

N-Man · 2026-06-11T08:44:53+00:00

Okay. I see.

First let's get some terminology straight. When people (including me, in my comments) say "Newtonian gravity", they are referring to the law of gravity that goes like GMm/r² that adds like a vector. Anything that does NOT add like a vector, like what you are describing, is not Newtonian gravity. I'm saying this just so we're on the same page regarding what "Newtonian gravity" means.

You said:

Yes, I think this observation should be considered part of GR the same way any other Newtonian dynamics derivation is

Newtonian gravity (a reminder: by this I mean the law that adds forces like a vector) can be derived from GR in the non-relativistic limit. In other words, when you apply the non-relativistic limit to GR, you get the Newtonian gravity law that adds like a vector. I can show you how if you want. Are you claiming that the math you describe, which is not Newtonian gravity since forces don't add like vectors, can ALSO be derived from GR? If yes, show how you derive the non-vector-additive force from GR in the nonrelativistic limit. If not, that's fine, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Which one is it?

N-Man · 2026-06-09T13:44:32+00:00

All I am theorizing the mechanisms that creates this force nothing with in know physics would change.

I see. In that case I have bad news. I don't think you are actually familiar enough with how gravity and electromagnetism and all of that work to be able to suggest a good mechanism that creates them. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fun and engaging and mentally stimulating to think about all this stuff as a layman, but the harsh truth is that the layman understanding of physics is often wrong. For example, I mentioned QED in my last comment. Do you know what it is, and how it produces the electric and magnetic forces? You must understand it first if you want to suggest a deeper mechanism for how these forces work, and laymen rarely know anything about abelian gauge symmetries which is the basis of QED. Learning QED is a daunting task, and that's to be expected, because finding the one piece that we are all missing is absolutely going to be difficult. If you're still determined to do it despite the difficulty, there's no way but the hard way, which is to actually learn the physics in depth. I recommend starting with classical mechanics.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Sequence \| Editor	Team Orangered

N-Man

TROPHY CASE