TinTower posted:

Lottery of Babylon posted:

Lottery of Babylon posted:

Forgall posted:

Lottery of Babylon posted:

In this universe, there are only two objects: you and a huge planet-sized ball.There is no gravity in this hypothetical reality in the classic sense of objects being attracted to each other. There is only one rule: Every piece of matter in this universe is constantly expanding, doubling in size every second. You wouldn't notice the doubling, because both you and the huge ball would remain in the same proportion to each other. There would be no other reference points. And you wouldn't feel your own matter doubling any more than you feel the activity of the atoms in your body now.

In your current universe, you don't feel your skin cells dying, and you don't feel yourself being propelled at high velocity around the Sun or spinning with the Earth s rotation. So it shouldn't be hard to imagine how you could be doubling in size every second without being aware of it in the hypothetical universe. The only effect you would feel from this doubling in size is the illusion of gravity. The ball's growth would cause a constant pushing against you. If you tried to "jump" away from the growing ball, you would create some space temporarily, but the ball's growth would catch up with you and close the distance quickly. To you, it would feel as though you were attracted to the huge ball and whenever you jumped "up," you would be sucked back down to it.

There would be no gravity, but it would look and feel exactly like gravity. Visually, it would seem that the huge ball had more "gravitational pull" than you do, because you seem to be attracted to it and not the other way around. This corresponds to our classic view of gravity‹that huge objects have more of it.

Imagine a marble and a bowling ball. Now imagine they both instantly double in size. The marble still looks pretty much like a marble, but the bowling ball appears huge. When a large object doubles in size, it seems to have a disproportionately significant impact compared to a smaller object. So if gravity is an optical illusion, large objects would appear to create more of the illusion than smaller objects. That's consistent with what we see.

Now let's move from the hypothetical universe to our current universe filled with planets and other matter. You'd have to add another rule in order for the expanding matter theory to replace gravity in the current universe. You'd have to have a universe where all the major planets are moving away from each other quickly, otherwise they'd grow until they all bumped together. In fact, the current universe does appear to be expanding, so that's no obstacle to the expanding matter theory. I can't think of anything in the "real" universe that would contradict the notion of gravity being an illusion caused by expanding matter.

subpar anachronism posted:

I kept trying to read this on my feed but my eyes kept glazing over so if I missed a spot, sorry

Absurd Alhazred posted:

https://twitter.com/chuckwoolery/status/869284650665037824

Lottery of Babylon posted:

Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status), and be supported by men.

A prisoner’s dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.

If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women, and a these women sleep with only one man at a time, but sleep with one man after another, trading partners in an unending struggle to get a better male, or get a better position on his booty call list. This bad female behavior is exacerbated by the male tendency to give the newest woman the highest position on his boot call list. Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children don’t get fathers. Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, most women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men. In order that men have the incentive and the power to restrict female sexual choice women have to be owned by men. Men and women have to be stuck with each other. Men need to own women, except that they cannot sell, rent out, abandon, or give away a well behaved woman that they have had sex with.

Iterated prisoner’s dilemma has a good solution if the number of iterations is large and has no definite end, but this is not the case with mating behavior, because a woman’s fertile years are short. The progressive scenario where woman sleep with one man after another until they find “the one” and then live happily ever after is prisoner’s dilemma with a large and indefinite number of iterations resulting in cooperate/cooperate, but the actual outcome is that they sleep with one man after another until they start to get desperate.

Rollo Tomassi, in his excellent book “The Rational Male”, starts out by criticizing “oneitis” – criticizing male disinclination to defect. If you defect on women harder and faster than they defect on you, women will defect on you less, not more. It is a successful and effective male adaptation to female emancipation. It works. He also criticizes mate guarding, because ineffective mate guarding is counterproductive, and effective mate guarding is illegal. Hard to do effective mate guarding without substantial social support – which certain religious communities have, but most of us do not. That effective mate guarding is difficult and illegal is extremely distressing to males.

Mak0rz posted:

So how do they compare to American Confederates in terms of racism, conservatism, guns, etc?

Elderbean posted:

As a veteran, I tried arguing that it was silly to be mad about people kneeling during the national anthem when vets have inadequate healthcare, high rates of suicide, etc. I argued that making a bunch of people stand for the anthem is an empty gesture when they could be doing something productive. Apparently that makes me an entitled weak cuck. This guy kept bringing up poo poo I never even mentioned too.

goose willis posted:

So you're saying I can have paid, trained Facebook employees view and verify my best Goatse impression?

Rogue 7 posted:

You should eat lots of garlic because it's loving delicious, though.

Maker Of Shoes posted:

Is there some cliff notes on GW awfulness? I got out of 40k in the late 90's because it was impossible to play while being a poor kid in the sticks and I haven't kept up with the drama.

MageMage posted:

This is actually true

Admiral Joeslop posted:

Sometimes there's just no response you can have to things in real life

EL BROMANCE posted:

A lady MAGA bot incorrectly womansplaining to shitbag Ms. Frizzle. It’s genuinely hard to know which side to be on this time.

jivjov posted:

https://twitter.com/trumpstudents/status/974101106266603520?s=21

china bot posted:

a man falls through the earth and into parisian catacombs. taking a torch from the wall he spies row upon row of skeletons. grasping the nearest by the shoulders, he shakes it madly, yelling "my nigga u r now mormon"

Skwirl posted:

Wait, what? What do they think is the benefit of washing their eyes with urine?

Araenna posted:

Thought I posted this, but I guess not? People on a trans friend's status about Scarlett Johanson playing a trans man. There were some other bad ones, but this one was something else.



I like when people double down on being a bigot. Lets me know I can disengage and block right now.

Data Graham posted:

Not sure what thread to put this in, but IOSM seems closest.




Yeah big fuckin talk from someone who would have made his money by following Rule 0: "Be in the right place at the right time"

Thanks for the goddamn attitude Jimmy Johns

T-man posted:

LoB posts stupid internet bullshit ITT without quoting, it's their gimmick here.

Tiggum posted:

Does he think Marxism and post-modernism are the same thing? The use of "is" instead of "are" and "it" instead of "they" is confusing me.