Adele Lopez

Wiki Contributions


That's a speculative quantum gravity effect, still a live hypothesis.

Outside of the black hole, its gravity acts essentially the same as any object with the same mass - the Schwarzchild metric is used for the external gravity of the earth and sun too.

Spaghettification happens when there is a significant difference in curvature over the space containing different parts of the body. For a big enough black hole, the curvature at the event horizon can be gentle enough to be survivable for a human. There might be quantum gravity effects that change things but as far as GR is concerned, there's nothing locally special about the event horizon of a black hole.

(I consider it drop-dead obvious that the task of verifying acquired skills and hence the power to grant degrees should be separated from the institutions that do the teaching, but let's not go into that.)

Was/are there any organizations that are just dedicated to verifying rationality skills? CFAR tried to do both IIRC. Seems pretty bad if there haven't been any attempts at this even.

At least 6 navy staff on those boats have very publicly and extensively testified to having seen a very strange propulsion technology.

Even if it were true, how would they know it was a propulsion technology?

Regardless, if you are sure that it's definitely not aliens, you should be extremely interested in the possibility that humans, hence, appear to have created practical alcubierre drives.

I'm very sure it's not this either. Alcubierre drives have several issues, such as requiring negative energy densities, not having any way of accelerating them, or requiring astronomical amounts of energy.

This video debunks some of the Pentagon's UFO footage, and I have no reason to doubt that the other videos have similarly mundane explanations.

Yeah, it's not empirically meaningful over interpretations of QM (at least the ones which don't make weird observable-in-principle predictions). Still meaningful as part of a simplicity prior, the same way that e.g. rejecting a simulation hypothesis is meaningful.

And they were probably right about "action-at-a-distance" being impossible (i.e. locality), but it took General Relativity to get a functioning theory of gravity that satisfied locality.

(Incidentally, one of the main reasons I believe the many worlds interpretation is that you need something like that for quantum mechanics to satisfy locality.)

Wikipedia has some ideas for stellar engines, the simplest being essentially half a Dyson sphere.

I would guess that a lot (perhaps most) of time, "salvage epistemology" is a rationalization to give to rationalists to justify their interest in woo, as opposed to being the actual reason they are interested in the woo. (I still agree that the concept is likely hazardous to some people.)

No, because that point is for the case where he does want free speech, just that there are other factors that might interfere with that. This point covers the case where he doesn't actually want free speech (i.e. wants it for me but not thee).

That is indeed a point critics are making - though usually it's more about the hypocrisy. I've seen this brought up recently in particular:

Load More