Talk:2113: Physics Suppression

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 21:16, 18 February 2019 by (talk) (Cosmological constant)
Jump to: navigation, search

That's how mafia works. 16:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

But White Hat didn't mention anything about a Mafia...? 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
No, but to suppress people publishing their results, a body like the mafia would be needed, is what Megan jokes about. And then takes an example (and one more in title text) about annoying results that did not get suppressed. Her example turned out to win a noble prize, the title text was later shown to be an error. But a mafia might have stopped both sets of results to have not been published. Basically proving that you can not suppress such results wether relevant or not. If White Hat's model is not taken serious it is probably because he has no data to back it up. Wild claims demands extraordinary well documentation. --Kynde (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
A "mafia" isn't the only candiate. "Inquistions" have also worked well for suppression, but (AFAIK) have less of a history of intramural violence. I think the image of a cabal of cloaked physics monks torturing dark energy heretics into recantation would have been striking enough, but RMMV (Randall's Mileage May Vary). 17:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
if you need to spell out your initialism in full, you may not realize they're intended as shorthand.

Dark energy isn't a direct consequence of the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant could potentially have been 0 or even negative. There's nothing that currently implies that it should be a positive number. That's exactly why it is annoying. If general relativity dictated it, people would just praise this as another result showing relativity is true. But since it doesn't, it needs an explanation. 21:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)