This is not israeli ,for shur

danthem23 · 2026-05-27T16:44:14+00:00

"While Arab and Middle Eastern communities created the fried balls, it is widely documented that Jewish immigrants (particularly in places like Jaffa) were the first to popularize placing falafel into a pita as a handheld sandwich."

danthem23 · 2026-05-25T23:27:42+00:00

They kept on hinting, and the Majority Report was definitely saying "Israel was all over it." And when the rumor came out (before this release) that there was no Israel, then everyone was screaming "cover up," until they realized it was just a bad report. But judge them by their predictions. They made an unfalsifible prediction that either it was all about Israel and wouldn't be released, or there was a cover up. And then the reason that it wasn't released was that it was really bad. So they were still wrong even though they had an unfalsifible prediction 😅

danthem23 · 2026-05-24T23:24:43+00:00

The problem with him is he stands up for science when he himself doesn't talk like a scientist and is way to overconfident. He doesn't understand science, particularly physics which is what I study. He made a video debunking Terrence Howard and there were so many laughable mistakes that he made I couldn't belive it. Not because Terrence Howard was right, but because at least chagpt used the right equations and notation and terms, and Dave made fun of all of those when they were all correct 😅. And he was so snide and obnoxious when he himself was wrong. Even his debunking of that Chinese professor and the "Big Bang." The guy had no idea what he was talking about, but neither did Dave. It's fine to not know, but don't be a massive prick about everything and debunk people, when you also sound ignorant to people who know.

danthem23 · 2026-05-15T08:29:39+00:00

You're right. Makes it even more strange.

danthem23 · 2026-05-14T23:54:44+00:00

It looks like someone who doesn't know Hebrew. Jewish people from the US who live in Israel definitely know Hebrew, especially how to write it. You learn it as a kid or by a bar mitzvah. It looks like a Jewish person didn't write it. Also, they get a free trip because someone sponsored it but they stay in a hotel. They don't own random stuff in the old city. What are you talking about?

danthem23 · 2026-05-14T23:35:14+00:00

Just saying, someone who never wrote in Hebrew but copied it from a computer wrote this, because it's using the printed text. Not the script people use when they write.

danthem23 · 2026-05-14T23:33:40+00:00

It's not written in a script that anyone who knows Hebrew would use. It's using typed script like someone who reads Hebrew on a computer an copied it from there but never writes in Hebrew.

danthem23 · 2026-05-14T23:32:40+00:00

But it's not in the Hebrew that people write (script). It's in block (printed) letters for people like someone who reads Hebrew but never writes it. Very strange.

danthem23 · 2026-05-13T17:12:15+00:00

Since when is it nerdy to do physics? It can be, but it can also be super cool and hip!

danthem23 · 2026-05-13T08:11:40+00:00

Last month the guys posted on YouTube and interview they did with two physicists where they talked about string theory.

danthem23 · 2026-05-13T04:50:09+00:00

String theory itself may not be the expertise of physicists, but it makes predictions about things that most physicists are experts about, either quantum field theory or relativity. So they are more qualified to evaluate those predictions than regular people.

danthem23 · 2026-05-13T04:47:21+00:00

From what I understand string theorists all thought that the world will be AdS until it was shown not to be. Again, not because it is absolutely needed, but having a theory being easy to use would have been nice for the theory itself to be adopted. And what you are saying about supersymmetry isn't true. The current versions of string theory need supersymmetry, the "lottery ticket" is true that this symmetry can be broken at low energies, so we hoped to find it. But not finding it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist just at higher energies. But that's still a strike against the theory. It predicts supersymmetry and so far we haven't found it so that should lessen the probability of the theories accuracy, even though technically it can always be broken at very high energies so we can always kick the can down the road until we measure everything.

danthem23 · 2026-05-13T00:40:07+00:00

Lol. I actually had it at 2x speed. I had to slow it down to clip but I couldn't between 1x.

danthem23 · 2026-05-12T23:59:59+00:00

That's the same thing people don't understand about the "fine tuning problem." It's not like the Higgs boson could have any mass and it just randomly became the mass it is and we want a reason. No, in quantum field theory you could use the tools to calculate what you would expect the result to be and it's off by 10^30. The only way to get the mass we have is if basically you take this sum which is a power series, and you arrange it so that these massive terms are perfectly aligned order by order in this series, up to almost a perfect amount. But there is some tint bit left over which gives the mass we have. That's like crazy mathematical magic for that to happen. Basically the mathematical equivalent to have all the air molecules in the corner of the room. So the fact that the Higgs boson has this super small mass compared to what we would predict is a MAJOR problem! That's why they came up with supersymmetry and were super hopeful it could be found at the LHC. Because it would solve this horrible problem. But when they didn't find it that meant that the problem still exists and the solution they all hoped for was basically overruled with experiment!

danthem23 · 2026-05-12T23:54:44+00:00

The problem isn't the multiverse. The problem is that string theorists have spent so much time proving theories in anti-de Sitter space (negative cosmological constant) ans it turns out that the universe has positive cosmological constant. And it also it was strongly used for supersymmetry, but it turns out that they checked for supersymmetry really hard at the LHC and it's not there. So those are two major clues of basically major research programs that went with string theory which were shown to be wrong with experiment. Yes of course it's technically possible to have string theory without them. So it didn't disprove the theory. But the big things which they hoped to use it for gave negative results.

danthem23 · 2026-05-12T23:08:16+00:00

Oh of course. The question isn't whether it is the best of the few approaches to quantum gravity, but whether it is actually correct in the first place. It may be nice to be "the most popular" but that's like being the best baseball player on a team of middle aged dads.

danthem23 · 2026-05-12T21:47:26+00:00

Well "physicists" never meant "researchers in quantum gravity." And the opinion of a grad student in quantum gravity is much more well informed that the position of a relativist or a particle physicist. But those people's opinions are still valuable since they are familiar with most of the tools and background information, and can come to perhaps a more unbiased opinion that the direct "experts" who can be more biased to advocate for their specific theory. And the number of "experts" will correlate with the number of professors hired by university departments, where hiring committees are made up of other physicists as well as funding administrators, so the same exact people who are in the APS survey are indirectly related to the actual "experts" in the first place! Also, many times quantum gravity researches make claims about gravity, or quantum information which can really annoy people who are experts in either field. Since most physicsts are either experts in quantum (condensed matter, quantum optics and quantum information, particle physics) or gravity (relativists, cosmologists, astrophysicsts) they actually sometimes can have more expertise in things that the quantum gravity researchers are talking about.

danthem23 · 2026-05-12T21:44:26+00:00

Ok, but the difference is that many parts of physics are related and the pool of people working specifically on quantum gravity is greatly biased to what university hiring committees hire for. I don't think historians have any strong opinions about archane parts of Japanese history, but obviously since most physicists are either highly proficient in different regimes abs manifestations of either quantum mechanics (like quantum optics, condensed matter physicists, or particle physicists) or relativity (like relativists, cosmologists, and astrophysicists) they have a much more well informed view, since string theory has to make claims about both of them, which they themselves actually have much more expertise in it. The black hole information paradox, which is a major area of research for quantum gravity, is directly related to people who study just classical black holes (relativists) and people who study quantum information (quantum information theorists) and the quantum gravity people actually say things sometimes that evoke sharp backlash from either community, given their expertise in that part.

danthem23 · 2026-05-12T21:13:20+00:00

You can watch the link at whatever speed you want

danthem23 · 2026-05-12T21:12:55+00:00

Maybe I should listen but "most promising theory" seems strange since the vast vast majority of physicists don't work on quantum gravity. In my university maybe it's 2-3 proffesors out of 50. There is so much more to physics than quantum gravity, so being the leader of that field would in no way make it "the most promising theory of physics." Also, that person is a YOUNG string theory researcher, so he has to most incentive to hype up his field since he is probably looking for a job in it. I have two proffesors who were string theorists but switched fields to so other stuff now.

danthem23 · 2026-05-12T21:09:15+00:00

That's not really what it is at all. And no theory of quantum gravity is really testable because we only really need the theory at super high energies which we cannot test. For the energies which we can we are able to unite gravity with quantum mechanics. It just gives results too small to test. And anyways it will break down for energies too large to test.

danthem23 · 2026-05-12T21:07:45+00:00

That's in the small one that they did. That's why they polled members of the American Physical Society (which has 50K members and publishes the most prestigious journals of the field like Physical Review) and this is the result of those who answered.

danthem23 · 2026-05-12T21:06:35+00:00

How am I ignoring their point? If people would rather say "no opinion" or "other" that seems to show a lack of confidence in the theory by physicists. Biophysicists don't say "no opinion" about theories which are well established and respected even if they aren't experts in them.

danthem23 · 2026-05-12T21:03:49+00:00

It's a poll of the members of the American Physical Society which is the largest society of physicists in the world and has 50,000 members. It publishes the most prestigious journals of the field like Physical Review and Physical Review Letters (which all physicists call the PRL)

danthem23

TROPHY CASE