Comment on wat
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 days agoThat link doesn’t address directional parallelism.
And if you take my willingness to express a gap in my knowledge as evidence that I just don’t know what I’m talking about and that everything I say should be discarded, then I don’t know what to tell you. Do you have perfect knowledge, free of any gaps? Or are you simply unwilling to admit to having gaps?
If I was willing to admit to one gap in my knowledge, then why do you think that means everything else I say must be bullshit? Seems kinda strange…
Anyway, my main point is that even the experts have major knowledge gaps when it comes to theoretical astrophysics. And they are very aware of that, and willing to acknowledge the incompleteness of their knowledge.
I was simply pointing out some of the errors in the “best answers we have,” explaining why they need to be rethought. If you won’t even consider my actual point simply because I freely admit to not knowing whether cosmic background radiation aligns or has a random trajectory, then this conversation might as well be over.
derek@infosec.pub 2 days ago
Because parallelism is not relevant.
I did not suggest you ought to discard anything.
I have considered your point. I then addressed the framework you seem to be using to build that conclusion. You’ve assumed axioms from what you see as related disciplines are still useful in a context you’re admittedly ignorant of. I suggest that familiarizing yourself with domains on which you are ignorant will provide the answers you’re looking for.
It’ll also explain why others already familiar with the topic find your reasoning falls short or isn’t interesting enough to meaningfully engage with.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
Parallelism is relevant. If the background radiation happens to be aligned in parallel fashion rather than at random trajectories, then that indicates something different than if they’re moving at random. If it wasn’t relevant, I wouldn’t have asked it.
And just because I ask one question about something specific, which is apparently niche enough that the wikipedia page didn’t even address it, doesn’t mean I’m ignorant on the whole topic. You’re too afraid to ask questions you don’t know the answer to, because you’re afraid it might make you seem ignorant. So you don’t think outside the box, you just rehash the pop science that’s been packaged for you nice and neatly. That’s why you don’t find my reasoning interesting enough to meaningfully engage with.
I’m familiar with the pop science, and that’s why I ask questions that go beyond the scope of what typically gets packaged and presented for us laypeople. If that makes me more ignorant than people who read the pop science and then don’t ask questions, then whatever…