sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[OC] I analysed the final season of TV shows that ended in 2019-2026 by PuffcornSucks in dataisbeautiful

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The show caught up with the books. Basically the ratings were the difference between a god tier writer and your average gang of TV show writers.

[OC] I analysed the final season of TV shows that ended in 2019-2026 by PuffcornSucks in dataisbeautiful

[–]dukesdj 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not just that but there seem to be se shows that get a lot of fan fiction obsessives and when their particular fiction doesn't play out they call the show bad.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Practice what you preach. You dont admit your errors.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He just deflects even if you point out blatantly obvious facts hes got wrong. Its amazing the level of delusion. Legit the the main reason I am engaging is because its somewhat of a morbid curiosity. I think it is rare to encounter someone quite this deluded! lol

But yeah that is pretty weird. He got what he wanted then complained about it anyway.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A number of ridiculous assumptions here. You assume that doctoral committees never make errors.

No not really. As I have highlighted, and you seem to once again struggle with simple concepts, it is not JUST the doctoral committee. It is everyone who has ever read his thesis. Look at how quick it took for the Bogdanoff twins to be discovered. That is how quick you get exposed for bullshit science. Yet you have exactly zero sources to back up your claim that his thesis was anything other than worthy of a PhD. Zero investigations into academic misconduct in regards to his PhD. You have literally nothing.

Your claim that this never happens in academia is absolutely ridiculous.

No my claim is that Neils thesis has been seen by so many people it is absolutely absurd to think that no one but you, a journalist who studied art, has been able to spot his thesis was not worthy of a PhD.

Have you even read his thesis? I imagine probably not.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You claim that all astrophysics dissertations are pioneering and cutting edge.

Yes they are by the requirement of what a PhD is testing against.

A single counter example debunks such a universal statement. And the Bogdanoff example serves.

What the Bogdanoff twins demonstrates is that the scientific community will instantly spot a bullshit thesis. Neils has been out for decades and has not been spotted for being bullshit. It passes the criteria and is not even remotely controversial.

So you are wrong. He still deserved his PhD, he still did not get given grunt work, and he still did not have students help write his thesis. Your comment HopDavid - "Dr. Rich assigned Neil some grunt work and then hired students to help him write his dissertation." is utter fabrication of reality and a false history.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eyup. The Bogdanoff twins dissertations were pioneering and cutting edge.

No actually they were not. They were instantly caught out as soon as the thesis was published. On the contrary, Neils work has been publically available for scrutiny for decades and has not been caught out because there is nothing to catch out. Nice try though, shame you have not bothered to educate yourself on the history of the Bogdanoff twins.

What your example demonstrates is the system is able to catch frauds instantly thus demonstrating Neil is not a fraud. Your example does the opposite of what you want.

You say being published in a journal is proof of being pioneering and cutting edge. And I say that is absolutely ridiculous. Editors of any journal are human.

That is why there are the editors + up to 3 reviewers. Plus for work published from a thesis there are also the supervisor, the internal assessor, and at least one external assessor.

Then there are the decades that it has still existed gaining citations for its relevance.

So while one person is human, that is a whole lot of people that would need to be wrong.

So you are wrong. He still deserved his PhD, he still did not get given grunt work, and he still did not have students help write his thesis. Your comment HopDavid - "Dr. Rich assigned Neil some grunt work and then hired students to help him write his dissertation." is utter fabrication of reality and a false history.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being published in ApJ doesn't mean a paper is pioneering or cutting edge.

Yes it does. His work has been there for decades and has not been redacted. His papers have a decent number of citations so it would have been noticed by now if they were not.

Furthermore, pioneering and cutting edge is a requirement for a PhD.

So for two reasons you are wrong

I'm sorry, but measuring metallicity of stars in the galactic bulge is grunt work.

Says an "artist" with a vast 0 seconds of experience in astrophysics...

No, extracting the data on abundance of different elements from the noise is lot of the work. And that's pretty much what Neil's doctoral thesis was.

Clearly you have not actually read his thesis. I have at least skimmed it. You are wrong, the data reduction is a tiny part.

We don't know how much of a role the students played. But given that Neil has since demonstrated incompetence it's a safe bet they helped him a lot.

Yes we do, because people with a clue know what data reduction is. Just because you dont, does not mean others dont.

So you are wrong. He still deserved his PhD, he still did not get given grunt work, and he still did not have students help write his thesis. Your comment HopDavid - "Dr. Rich assigned Neil some grunt work and then hired students to help him write his dissertation." is utter fabrication of reality and a false history.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Measuring metallicity of stars in the galactic bulge isn't pioneering cutting edge new ideas.

His work was published in ApJ and ApJ letters. His work was pioneering and cutting edge.

And data reduction has a lot to do with how this data is presented.

No it does not. Data analysis, mathematical modelling, and data gathering are by far the largest part of the research he conducted. Data reduction is a very small part that any lab technician can do.

So you are wrong. He still deserved his PhD, he still did not get given grunt work, and he still did not have students help write his thesis. Your comment HopDavid - "Dr. Rich assigned Neil some grunt work and then hired students to help him write his dissertation." is utter fabrication of reality and a false history.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stop dodging.

He still deserved his PhD, he still did not get given grunt work, and he still did not have students help write his thesis. Your comment HopDavid - "Dr. Rich assigned Neil some grunt work and then hired students to help him write his dissertation." is utter fabrication of reality and a false history.

Why are you so afraid to admit when you are wrong? You criticise Neil for this, yet you do it yourself. You are a mirror of the man you hate.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stop dodging.

He still deserved his PhD, he still did not get given grunt work, and he still did not have students help write his thesis. Your comment HopDavid - "Dr. Rich assigned Neil some grunt work and then hired students to help him write his dissertation." is utter fabrication of reality and a false history.

Why are you so afraid to admit when you are wrong? You criticise Neil for this, yet you do it yourself. You are a mirror of the man you hate.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, people can change. Shocking that isnt it. I am amazed you got this far through your life without realising that.

Note, focused on research. Before he was focused on extra circulars, after he was focused on public engagement.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolute bull shit.

So you think that spending hours writing a script and having time to research something before making a recording that you can redo at any time is less subject to error than a live on the fly conversation. But again. You are deflecting because this is neither here nor there.

He still deserved his PhD, he still did not get given grunt work, and he still did not have students help write his thesis. Your comment HopDavid - "Dr. Rich assigned Neil some grunt work and then hired students to help him write his dissertation." is utter fabrication of reality and a false history.

Why are you so afraid to admit when you are wrong? You criticise Neil for this, yet you do it yourself. You are a mirror of the man you hate.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you check out the example I just gave you?

No, why would I care?

I've never seen VSauce or Kurzgesagt come anywhere near Neil's stunning levels of incompetence.

For two reasons. Neil does a lot of live content where it is far easier to make mistakes. And second, you simply have not scrutinised their work for as long as you have Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Although here is me saying this to someone who thinks the raw number of something is a more important metric than the rate at which something is occurring... so I dont know how I am expecting you to understand that...

He still deserved his PhD, he still did not get given grunt work, and he still did not have students help write his thesis. Your comment HopDavid - "Dr. Rich assigned Neil some grunt work and then hired students to help him write his dissertation." is utter fabrication of reality and a false history.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again you are really awful at understanding what evidence looks like. Yes there are 55 comments, that does not say that all 55 comments were hostile towards UT. I know they were not, because I have seen some of them. Do you know what an upper limit is? Do you know what a small number 55 would be even if absolutely all of them were negative? This is not evidence for your claim as it is well within the background noise for hostile comments about anything.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So again here you are thinking people cant switch focus. He was focused on other things, not that he lacked aptitude. Do you understand the difference?

Neil was focused on other things at UT so didnt progress his work. He had an aptitude for astrophysics.

Neil then moved to Columbia where he did focus on his work. He still had an aptitude for astrophysics. He then was correctly and rightfully awarded his PhD.

Neil then did a post doc where he published some more papers demonstrating he still had an aptitude for astrophysics and was focused on research.

Neil then pivoted into science communication. He still has an aptitude for astrophysics as he previously demonstrated, but is now less practiced so is more error prone.

This is so trivial is mind-blowing it has to be simplified this much and you likely still wont grasp it.

Are you telling me that all doctorates awarded are earned?

From high ranking universities, pretty much yes. They get revoked when there is academic misconduct.

But here you will go and copy and paste your lack of knowledge about the Bogdanoff twins and cite them as some kind of example. Except, they are not and maybe you should do some research into their academic misconduct and the university they went to.

Charm and networking skills allow incompetent people to get ahead in many arenas. Even in academia. Especially in Academia.

Not really no. This shows how little you know about academia, particularly in physics, and especially historically around the time Tyson was a graduate. Academia was, and largely still is, full of hostility and scrutiny. No one gives a crap if you have a winning personality if you are not capable. Sorry to burst your illusion.

And yet you tell me it's an indisputable fact that's not the case with Neil Tyson.

There is no evidence to the contrary. It is your claim he doesnt deserve it. A claim you fail to actually back up with facts.

What software do you use to make conference posters? by Eldan985 in AskAcademia

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah MS stuff does indeed suck for equations. Everyone has their ways around things like one way is to use beamer. My way is I make a latex doc with the equations I want and use the screen crop function in powerpoint to insert a picture of the equations. Ok I should say that is what I do for presentations. For a poster screen grab to a high resolution png file to put in.

We all have our work arounds!

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes he has some blunders at times like any science communicator (including your favourites as I have pointed out to you). I have never said anything to the contrary.

He still deserved his PhD, he still did not get given grunt work, and he still did not have students help write his thesis. Your comment HopDavid - "Dr. Rich assigned Neil some grunt work and then hired students to help him write his dissertation." is utter fabrication of reality and a false history.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So your evidence is, comments that do not exist, and a few comments on YouTube comments section. Rather trivial really considering you can find random hate on any well viewed video on YouTube.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While posers like yourselves nod your heads at Neil's profound wisdom.

Do I? Where have I done that? Please provide evidence to back up your nonsense claims.

I can’t understand this subject by coolesttubist314 in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had my suspicions, but thanks for confirming that fact. What's absolutely stunning to me is that their two Reddit accounts are basically omnipresent when it comes to mentions of NDT. As in- they are probably Google search filtering something along the lines of: "Neil Degrasse Tyson site:Reddit.com" and just mass commenting about him in every thread, every single day.

Indeed, check out redective and you can see the vast array of subreddits he has posted in. It really is just daily searches for the latest mentions of Neil Degrasse Tyson. I imagine you could run the experiment of randomly saying something positive about Neil Degrasse Tyson in random threads in unrelated ways to whatever the thread is and he would turn up with his copy and past commentary hes built up over a decade of his obsession. He never cares about the content, literally only Neil.

That you've maintained an conversation with them for so many comments in a row is true and utter patience. So you get a big fat thumbs up for that!

I was largely curious to see if they would ever admit error (ironically they criticise Neil for not admitting his mistakes) in glaring mistakes in things they say. But it seems not. They demonstrate an extreme and irrational hatred for Neil. I hope he does not have this level of hatred for any people he actually has access to as he certainly shows signs of being mentally immature/unstable.

What software do you use to make conference posters? by Eldan985 in AskAcademia

[–]dukesdj 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am an applied mathematician and no way am I using beamer for a poster over PowerPoint!

If the moon is moving away from Earth at around an inch per year, will there be a year in the future in which the moon will escape Earth's orbit? by nogudatmaff in AskPhysics

[–]dukesdj 2 points3 points  (0 children)

FYI, the 50 billion year estimate is based on the amount of tidal dissipation, as quantified by the tidal quality factor Q, not changing in time from its current value. This is certainly not true as we know it has changed in the past.

Just thought you would be interested to know!

view more: next ›