Comment on wat
derek@infosec.pub 2 days agoBecause 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…