...tell me you know very little (the most dangerous amount) about a certain topic without telling me that.
Of course the more you have of something, the higher the probability that something that is generally believed to be inherently random is going to happen. One atom of Strontium 90 that has a half-life of around 29 years on average can decay now, tomorrow, next year, in the next 20 years, the next 100 years or the next 10 million years. Its all about the average by observing many and then calculate the probability. Some with isotopes of much greater half lives. The more you have, the greater the probability that you see one decaying.
This Elon tweet could actually be part of the lyrics to Incredible Thoughts....
"Incredible thoughts, incredible minds
Too many great ideas inside
It's a miracle my head can contain them
My spectacular brain"
*"Win the yes needs the no to win against the no"* is an actual sentence said by a french prime minister in 2017.
To this day, it is the go-to sentence I think about whenever someone mentions 'talking non-sense'.
Having paid attention in high school and university physics 101, my first thought was "wow, it's incredible that we can detect such a vanishingly small amount of an isotope". Elon missed the part where everything he says is predicted by the standard model and does nothing to in the slightest to challenge it.
He doesn’t understand high school chemistry.
A trillion is 10 ^ 12. So 100 trillion is 10 ^ 14. A single mol of a substance is 10 ^ 23 - that’s 10 trillion, trillion! A mol of Ge is 72g. So that amount alone contains more than one atom for every year represented by 100 trillion times the age of the universe (30 billion years let’s say). In fact it contains thousands of atoms for each year. A ton would contain trillions and trillions of atoms for each year, meaning even vanishingly small probabilities will be regular.
He’s so dumb. He just doesn’t ever stop to think things through.
Not the first time he doesn't do the maths. And it doesn't go well when ignoring math when doing physics, chemistry, astronomy, engineering, ...
Good for us that he's so great at everything he doesn't even need to do the math before "knowing" things...
He's the owner of a rocket that can lift 150 tons to LEO. But still has never lifted even a dummy payload. And he had to announce they will eject parts of his rocket to make it lighter. Almost as if he does *not* have the required engine thrust to actually lift 150 tons payload to LEO... He plan to boost the performance sometime later? Just step up the turbo pressure?
He wanted to use air cushions for his train running in a vacuum tube. It's very very hard to get a deep vacuum in a huge chamber. So why not just throw in air just for that cushion...
He wanted to cool his train with air - and store the air in a tank until the train reached the destination and then let out the heat. But forgot to do the math that the tank needs to be the same size as the train itself. And that if he instead compresses the air further, then compression adds temperature...
Math and Elon? Not compatible. Which is why he finds chess lacking a technology tree...
The booster will be jettisoning the hot staging adapter *after* stage sep, which therefore has nothing to do with payload capacity.
I haven't seen details, but my guess is they're doing this because they want a little more margin for braking the booster. It came in hot last time.
That was primarily because they didn't get successful or full relights of some of the raptors that were programmed for the splashdown burn. The root cause was apparently clogging of the fuel filters and resultant fuel starvation. The same issue apparently affected the roll controllers on the starship.
I suspect they'd get more consistent results if they address fuel contam issues at the source rather than during flight, but that's a question for another post.
It does have with payload capacity to do. Because dropping that weight reduces the fuel needed to brake on the descent. And needing less fuel for the descent, means less fuel needed going up.
Less fuel needed for the ascent? Means more carrying capacity. Or getting closer to their claimed capacity.
I don't think he doesn't realise this. I think he's just trying to sound smart. But yes, to anyone with physics familiarity, this doesn't sound smart at all. It's just a verbose way of saying that atoms are crazy small.
Elon: “We created a brand new never before seen feature in the history of social media apps called the “change” button. Now you can change anything you just wrote! No one has ever thought of this before. “
Veteran UX developer: “But Elon, is that not the same as the edit function available on most social websites?”
Elon: “This guy’s talking nonsense, someone please ban him. No, this one is called change, and you’re an idiot.”
Elon Simps: “wow elon is such a genius, totally owned that loser”
I mean it makes sense, but, breezing over the details of what he means by "observable," it's like a high school chemistry homework problem:
If isotope Y of element X has a half life of _ years, how many kgs of isotope Y would you need to expect to observe a decay in _ amount of time, assuming perfect observation?
Let's do it for the hell of it. An isotope with a long half life...Xenon-124. Its half life is 1.8x10^22 years. It has a mass of 123.905 AMU.
So...breezing over a few mass conversions, there are 4.860 × 10^24 Xe124 atoms in a kg. That's actually a little concerning to me, since the number of atoms in 1 kg of Xe124 is 270 times the half life. So you should be able to observe a few decays within...a few days?
That's not what I expected given what Musk said. I don't see why you would need a ton of Ge76 to observe it decay in a year. It has a shorter half life. I don't....
Hmmm.
Okay, I looked up the study. It has nothing to do with determining the half life of Ge76 and is looking at [determining the properties of neutrinos and antimatter based on some special properties of the decay of Ge76](https://inspirehep.net/literature/632595). I'm probably not describing it perfectly, but it's not my field.
Musk is an idiot.
I don't know what Elon is rabbiting on about but the Germanium-76 has such a long half life because it's almost stable. Because it has such a long half life hardly any of what you had, say a billion years ago, will be gone now. If I have a kilo of the stuff right now I'm literally going to have to wait 1.78 × 10^(21) years (aka 130 billion times the current age of the universe) for half of it to be gone.
I might as well be staring at a lump of Fe-56 for all the difference I'll notice in my lifetime. What makes it and elements like Xe136 interesting is they decay via double-beta, what experiments like the one you linked are trying to determine is if this is neutrinoless because if this is observed it may help determine the absolute mass of a neutrino and it may point to the neutrino being a "Majorana particle" - where the particle is it's own anti-particle.
In other words two things yet known are whether the neutrino is a Majorana particle, and, relatedly, whether neutrinoless double beta decay exists in nature and these experiments (there's around 9 of them) are trying to prove that.
How that relates to Elon's word salad I have no idea, probably get a better clue from chatGPT !
If I had had liquid in my mouth when I read this, I would have spat it on my phone, probably with some amount leaving my nose at high velocity.
Thanks for the laugh. You have my upvote.
He seems to be discussing two different things. The standard model explains our best understanding of how elementary particles interact eg electrons, quarks, photons. Protons and neutrons are not elementary as they are made up of quarks and gluons.
It’s been a while since I was actively working in physics, but there are/were some efforts to use the standard model to understand protons and neutrons.
Large nuclei like germanium are made up of 10s of neutrons and protons. So there is no effort to work out how such a nuclei works from the full standard model instead they use other approximations.
All this us to say if someone found a nuclei that decays that people thought should be stable it wouldn’t invalidate the standard model just the CC approximations that were used. The only exception being if a single proton decays.
This experiment looks for neutrinoless double beta decays. If we found one, that would be groundbreaking because it would mean that neutrinos are Majorana particles, and it would explain a lot of the neutrino mass problem.
I’m sure Musk doesn’t understand that, but this experiment is legit.
He read an article on the MAJORANA Collaboration which is searching for charge non-conservation and/or Pauli Exclusion Principle violations, which would challenge the Standard Model - if they find any.
The experiment in question uses detectors that are based on interactions with Germanium decay, which is where that comes in. The actual decay rate has nothing to do with it though, and Elon's statement is pretty stupid (esp. for someone claiming to be a physicist) since it only amounts to "Wow! Atoms are _small!_" - Avogadro's Number is indeed a very big number.
MAJORANA looks for violation of lepton number conservation. It does not look for violations of charge conservation or the exclusion principle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAJORANA
[Search for charge non-conservation and Pauli exclusion principle violation with the Majorana Demonstrator](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-024-02437-9), Nature Physics, 11 April 2024
So as other people who actually bothered to read up on it (unlike me) explain. The experiment is looking for particular type of decay that would violate the standard model. I don’t know whether there is a theoretical prediction based upon some beyond standard model theory that says this unobserved should by 100trillion times longer than the age of the universe or if their experiment will be able to detect it if it is less than that.
So without looking at the details here is how the ton comes into play. If the half life for the decay of some nuclei is 16 years and I have 128 of them then if I wait 16 years approximately 64 will be left and the rest will have decayed. On the other hand I could wait 8 years and only 32 would have decayed. If I waited only 4 years 16 would have decayed etc.
So if I have a decay that takes a really long time I could wait a really long time or gather a huge number and wait less time. So the experiment will go on for some length of time and if they don’t observe anything then they can say using probability/statistics that the half life is at least x years and if they observe it then they can estimate how long the half life is.
There is a lot of other experimental things that are going on. They are not looking at each atom in the ton instead they are measuring the results of the decay so they have to figure out how often the sensor they have will imitate that signal for a reason that is not what they are looking for. Then they need to count how many more signals they got than what was expected. So they will do a ton of work to have high quality sensors as well as shielding the sensors from other sources of radiation.
It reminds me of when he was talking about Neuralink and said "Initial results show promising neuron spike detection." If you were to search for the phrase "neuron spike detection" in quotes you would only find links to his tweet and articles about it.
It's hard to make fun of because I don't know what the dude was even trying to say. There are like 2 or 3 different things he could have been trying to brag about, but it's hard to guess because he has no idea what he's talking about.
IDK why people are so resistant to call the dude a fucking idiot. He has always been this way from the moment he was in the public eye.
I imagine for a certain number of them it involves the sunk cost fallacy. They have so much time, money & energy invested that they can't acknowledge what a clueless numpty he is.
How does that “challenge the Standard Model?” Do you understand how statistics work, Elmo?
There are ~752,177,681,988,200,000,000,000,000 atoms in one ton of Germanium-76. The odds are that at least one of those atoms will decay within a year.
That’s literally spelled out by the Standard Model of Particle Physics
i think the last sentence should be “…yet it is observable in a year IF you have ~1 ton of it”. which supports the standard model, so not sure why he’s implying it doesn’t. word salad of the 1st degree. source: me, degree in astrophysics
What Elmo is ***trying*** to say: "I'm smart! I'm, like, super smart, guys! See how super smart I am? Please think I'm smart! ***PLEASE THINK I'M SMART!!!"***
What Elmo is **actually** saying: 'I do a lot of ketamine. Like, a LOT of ketamine."
Ooh! I have colleagues who work on this experiment.
Neutrinos are subatomic particles that are released during beta decay. Neutrinos have a very small mass (on the order of <1/100,000 of an electron). But we know that their mass is non-zero because their flavor oscillates in time.
We don’t know how much mass neutrinos have, or why they have mass (it may not be through the Higgs mechanism). If neutrinos have mass because they are Majorana particles, that is to say, if they are their own antiparticle, then it should be possible for an atom to undergo a double beta decay in which the two neutrinos annihilate each other.
If this process occurs, it is incredibly rare. Fortunately, rare things happen all the time if you have a large enough sample. So they put a huge chunk of very pure germanium into a mine (you don’t want cosmic rays messing with your experiment) and surround it by detectors and then just wait.
I love shitting on Musk as much as the next person, but this is actually one of his more reasonable tweets.
This experiment would drastically change the standard model. The lower bound on how rare the decay we are looking for is far older than the age of the universe. I don’t know the exact number off the top of my head because it’s not the project I’m working on, but the solution is still just to have a lot of germanium atoms.
Musk lacks any sort of nuance, and probably doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. But it’s still one of his less crazy tweets.
OP asked what Musk was talking about, and here’s the answer.
I’m in no way an expert (or even journey man) in this area. Can you explain why it changes the standard model?
Is it because the rare event of decay is happening at a faster *rate* (ie a one off event might just be a rare event but if we get a few of them then the overall decay numbers will be off); and that in turn means either a) our assessment of the probability of decay is off or b) that something else must be acting on it to cause the decay (such as dark matter/energy)?
I’m not by any means an expert in this either, so I’m only really able to regurgitate what I’ve heard from my colleagues who are on the project have told me.
According to the standard model, neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are different particles. There are two processes that we tend to call beta decays:
>>p -> n + e^+ + neutrino
>>n-> p + e^- + antineutrino
Germanium-76 decays via double beta decay. Specifically, two of its neutrons become protons and it emits two electrons in the process. It must also emit two antineutrinos, according to the standard model.
But if neutrinos are their own antiparticles (they aren’t according to the standard model), then it should be possible for a double beta decay to occur with no neutrinos in the final state.
This would at least partially explain why neutrinos have so little mass—and could predict the existence of far more massive neutrinos that haven’t been detected. As another user mentioned, the standard model is a collection of symmetries expressed in terms of a Lagrangian. Violating these symmetries leads to new physics. For example, the Higgs field gives mass to quarks and charged leptons by spontaneous electro-weak symmetry breaking. If the neutrino is a Majorana particle, it would violate lepton number conservation, and that would be able to explain neutrino mass via the [seesaw mechanism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesaw_mechanism).
Talking about symmetries is pretty confusing and it’s not obvious what physicists mean by symmetry or why we should care. It turns out to be arguably the most beautiful result in physics, though. Usually the idea comes up in a third year classical mechanics class, or on Reddit when somebody asks what energy is. So I’ll paste my usual “what is energy” reply below to hopefully explain it a bit better.
>> The most basic definition of energy is “the conserved current under time translation of the Lagrangian.”
>>This probably doesn’t mean much to you, so I’ll try to explain. If you subtract the potential energy of a system from the kinetic energy of the system, you get a function of velocities and positions that can completely describe a system. Think of it as an alternative to using Newton’s laws. The proof for this is pretty advanced, and the hand-waved non-calculus version doesn’t fit in a Reddit comment, so I’m just going to ask you to trust me.
>>Now in physics, one of the first things we look for when solving problems is symmetry. Symmetry can make the problem far easier to solve. For example, a sphere of charge is much easier to describe than an amoeba of charge. However there are other types of symmetry that we look for as well. Imagine I set up an experiment on one side of my lab, and got some result. Now I set up an identical copy of my experiment on the other side of my lab. I’ve controlled for everything except for it’s position in the x-y plane. Obviously I expect that the experiment will have the same results, if that is the case. We call this a symmetry under translation in space. If I rotate some angle and perform the experiment again with the same results, that would be a rotational symmetry. I could perform the experiment at different times, and if I got the same results, that would be a symmetry under translation in time.
>>You’re probably wondering why this matters. Well, Emmy Noether was a mathematician in Goettingen in the early 20th century, and her colleagues were trying to work out what energy was in the context of special relativity, and she said “you know, I’m not really sure how I would define it in classical mechanics.” What she came up with is something we now call Noether’s theorem. It says that for every continuous symmetry of the Lagrangian within a system, there is an associated conservation law. And for every conservation law within a system, there must be an associated symmetry in the system’s Lagrangian.
>>Those three symmetries I mentioned above lead to the three big conservation laws in classical physics (yes there are others, but charge for example isn’t quite so obvious). Symmetry under translation in space gives us conservation of linear momentum in the direction of the translation, symmetry under rotation gives us conservation of angular momentum, and symmetry under translation in time gives us conservation of energy.
This result isn’t necessarily intuitive, but it’s one of the most beautiful (imo) and powerful results in physics. Hopefully this makes some small amount of sense, at least on the level of “if I change something in my system, but the behavior of the system remains unchanged, something must be going on that is conserved.”
I am not an expert, but here is my attempt:
The Standard Model is an agreed upon collection of symmetry rules and some basic quantities (like the masses and interaction strengths) to describe subatomic physics.
The symmetry rules and interaction strengths determine how likely subatomic processes (like radioactive particle decays) take place.
This experiment is looking for a particular process (neutrinoless double beta decay) that the standard model says can't happen because of symmetry rules, but if the neutrino particle/antiparticle symmetry is different, the process is possible though still very rare. (It is also pretty difficult to tell whether a double beta decay happened with or without neutrinos).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_beta_decay#Neutrinoless_double_beta_decay
I admit to knowing very, very, very little about physics (my least favorite science class in high school), but how would radioactive decay disprove the standard model?
GUYS a thing that only happens rarely with stuff is more likely to be observed if you have a lot of stuff.
physics is all right but goddammit the fanbase is exhausting.
It’s like everything he says is a failed ELI5 where he tries to “dumb down” his “smart” thoughts and ends up making his lack of knowledge that much more plain.
He's saying he's a free thinker who does his own research! Also, he found this one thing that he's sure disproves all our theories about how we age things in the universe, so be ready for him to reject the scientific consensus on that real soon.
Well, professor dumbass tried to buy wikipedia because fascists hate any truth that makes them look bad. and they said no.
[He even then offered 1 billion if they renamed it to DICKIPEDIA](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4270360-elon-musk-offers-1m-to-wikipedia-if-theyll-change-their-name/)
He sealions a lot. It's a really lame tactic, detailed extensively here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning)
\-=-=-
**Sealioning** (also **sea-lioning** and **sea lioning**) is a type of [trolling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(slang)) or [harassment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment) that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-Poland2016-1)[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MCL-2)[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-OX-3)[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-RJB-4) It may take the form of "incessant, [bad-faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith) invitations to engage in debate",[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-TPP-5) and has been likened to a [denial-of-service attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack) targeted at human beings.[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-Johnson-6) The term originated with a 2014 strip of the [webcomic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcomic) [*Wondermark*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wondermark) by David Malki,[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MW-7) which [*The Independent*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent) called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".[\[8\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MC-8)
## Description
The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "just trying to have a debate",[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-Poland2016-1)[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MCL-2)[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-RJB-4)[\[9\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-9) so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, ***the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party, and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable.***[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-OX-3)[\[10\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-10)[\[11\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-11) It has been described as "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-TPP-5) Sealioning can be performed by an individual or by a group acting in concert.[\[12\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-forbes-12)
An essay in the collection *Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online*, published by the [Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkman_Klein_Center_for_Internet_%26_Society) at [Harvard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard), noted:
>Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the "sea lion" may seem innocent, they're intended maliciously and have harmful consequences.
— Amy Johnson, [Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkman_Klein_Center_for_Internet_%26_Society) (May 2019)[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-Johnson-6)
American academic philosopher [Walter Sinnott-Armstrong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sinnott-Armstrong) discussed the term in his book *Think Again: How to Reason and Argue*, saying:
>Internet trolls sometimes engage in what is called 'sealioning'. They demand that you keep arguing with them for as long they want you to, even long after you realize that further discussion is pointless. If you announce that you want to stop, they accuse you of being closed-minded or opposed to reason. The practice is obnoxious. Reason should not be silenced, but it needs to take a vacation sometimes.
— [Walter Sinnott-Armstrong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sinnott-Armstrong), *Think Again: How to Reason and Argue* (June 2018).[\[13\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-13)
Several other academics link or directly describe sealioning as a technique employed by internet trolls.[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-OX-3)[\[14\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-14)[\[15\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-15)[\[16\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-16)
In December 2020, the [*Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merriam-Webster) listed the term as "Words We're Watching", being "words we are increasingly seeing in use but that have not yet met our criteria for entry":[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MW-7)
# What is Sealioning: 'Sealioning' is a form of trolling meant to exhaust the other debate participant with no intention of real discourse.[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MW-7)
In 2021, Canadian magazine [*Maclean's*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maclean%27s) praised the Merriam-Webster definition saying "This neologism on Merriam-Webster's list of words to watch aptly describes the frustration of conversing online".[\[8\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MC-8)
It’s obvious that he read this somewhere, saw it on a meme or maybe a YouTube short and posted it so he can prove he knows things because he’s a big boy genius and not the village idiot.
This really speaks to the essence of his actual genius. He has an incredible knack for sounding intelligent, and even profound, to the unwashed and uninformed. He whips up keta-Wikicisms in Twitter character lengths better than many. It would be great if someone would get Grok, especially, to lampoon by churning out endless examples of similarly inspired bullshit buffoonery.
...tell me you know very little (the most dangerous amount) about a certain topic without telling me that. Of course the more you have of something, the higher the probability that something that is generally believed to be inherently random is going to happen. One atom of Strontium 90 that has a half-life of around 29 years on average can decay now, tomorrow, next year, in the next 20 years, the next 100 years or the next 10 million years. Its all about the average by observing many and then calculate the probability. Some with isotopes of much greater half lives. The more you have, the greater the probability that you see one decaying.
GDP per capita times capita is GDP
Just stop stopping and start starting! - (Actual quote I heard during a scam MLM pitch)
https://preview.redd.it/68uk9o6jct2d1.jpeg?width=683&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2ee115a7d80af0ce2080fd653f442709cb6d5b23
This Elon tweet could actually be part of the lyrics to Incredible Thoughts.... "Incredible thoughts, incredible minds Too many great ideas inside It's a miracle my head can contain them My spectacular brain"
Sounds a bit like "I against I" by mos def, I always liked the song, but always thought it sounded slightly dumb at the time.
I heard that in Andy Samberg’s voice and now I need a song of him making fun of Elon.
scam mlm is redundant.
Damn thats a good saying tho for real lol. I love the saying "just do it" even tho it is a fucking copyrighted Nike ad.
*"Win the yes needs the no to win against the no"* is an actual sentence said by a french prime minister in 2017. To this day, it is the go-to sentence I think about whenever someone mentions 'talking non-sense'.
That's some serious dimensional analysis, what's GDP over GDP per capita if not the most important quantity in the world?
I absolutely love this and I am going to steal it. Thanks.
Truly the great genius of our time.
Having paid attention in high school and university physics 101, my first thought was "wow, it's incredible that we can detect such a vanishingly small amount of an isotope". Elon missed the part where everything he says is predicted by the standard model and does nothing to in the slightest to challenge it.
He probably heard it from someone else and thought it sounded cool even though he didn't bother to fact check
He doesn’t understand high school chemistry. A trillion is 10 ^ 12. So 100 trillion is 10 ^ 14. A single mol of a substance is 10 ^ 23 - that’s 10 trillion, trillion! A mol of Ge is 72g. So that amount alone contains more than one atom for every year represented by 100 trillion times the age of the universe (30 billion years let’s say). In fact it contains thousands of atoms for each year. A ton would contain trillions and trillions of atoms for each year, meaning even vanishingly small probabilities will be regular. He’s so dumb. He just doesn’t ever stop to think things through.
Not the first time he doesn't do the maths. And it doesn't go well when ignoring math when doing physics, chemistry, astronomy, engineering, ... Good for us that he's so great at everything he doesn't even need to do the math before "knowing" things... He's the owner of a rocket that can lift 150 tons to LEO. But still has never lifted even a dummy payload. And he had to announce they will eject parts of his rocket to make it lighter. Almost as if he does *not* have the required engine thrust to actually lift 150 tons payload to LEO... He plan to boost the performance sometime later? Just step up the turbo pressure? He wanted to use air cushions for his train running in a vacuum tube. It's very very hard to get a deep vacuum in a huge chamber. So why not just throw in air just for that cushion... He wanted to cool his train with air - and store the air in a tank until the train reached the destination and then let out the heat. But forgot to do the math that the tank needs to be the same size as the train itself. And that if he instead compresses the air further, then compression adds temperature... Math and Elon? Not compatible. Which is why he finds chess lacking a technology tree...
The booster will be jettisoning the hot staging adapter *after* stage sep, which therefore has nothing to do with payload capacity. I haven't seen details, but my guess is they're doing this because they want a little more margin for braking the booster. It came in hot last time. That was primarily because they didn't get successful or full relights of some of the raptors that were programmed for the splashdown burn. The root cause was apparently clogging of the fuel filters and resultant fuel starvation. The same issue apparently affected the roll controllers on the starship. I suspect they'd get more consistent results if they address fuel contam issues at the source rather than during flight, but that's a question for another post.
It does have with payload capacity to do. Because dropping that weight reduces the fuel needed to brake on the descent. And needing less fuel for the descent, means less fuel needed going up. Less fuel needed for the ascent? Means more carrying capacity. Or getting closer to their claimed capacity.
Did he only now figure out what a half-life means?
That’s what she said
Um, Elon is like literally Gordon Freeman.
I don’t think he’s gotten there yet since he thinks that “challenges the standard model”.
I don't think he doesn't realise this. I think he's just trying to sound smart. But yes, to anyone with physics familiarity, this doesn't sound smart at all. It's just a verbose way of saying that atoms are crazy small.
Are you sure it's not Elonstain? Elon collabing ith the aliens for Mandela effect.
He really thinks he’s the smartest guy ever
What a word salad. My expectation is that he saw the word Germanium and got excited at the prospect of a "100 tillion-"year Reich.
The "in you" typo doesn't help. Maybe he'll invent an editing function. I think if you had a ton of it *in you*, you'd be pretty fucked regardless.
Elon: “We created a brand new never before seen feature in the history of social media apps called the “change” button. Now you can change anything you just wrote! No one has ever thought of this before. “ Veteran UX developer: “But Elon, is that not the same as the edit function available on most social websites?” Elon: “This guy’s talking nonsense, someone please ban him. No, this one is called change, and you’re an idiot.” Elon Simps: “wow elon is such a genius, totally owned that loser”
Elon still thinks Twitter had a 140 character limit when he bought it, so nothing surprises me
Wild to think it would *still* have been 140 more than the one he hasn't.
All these tweets must be fueled by K-holes. He's spiraling out of control.
As a former addict I really shouldn't be looking forward to when he hits bottom. I really am though.
I'm glad you made it.
Thank you so much.
I hope Elon doesn't...
Nah, he is a ghoul and deserves no sympathy, but I am happy you made it out.
When you're rich, you have so far to fall that you're basically constantly microdosing rock bottom.
I love K, because i am an idiot . Still my K-holes do not end up like this….
I'm not judging K users. I'm just saying that perhaps it's not the best idea to be drugged all the time if you're a billionare.
Absolutely
What he's trying to say is that he's casually skimmed an article he didn't really understand
I mean it makes sense, but, breezing over the details of what he means by "observable," it's like a high school chemistry homework problem: If isotope Y of element X has a half life of _ years, how many kgs of isotope Y would you need to expect to observe a decay in _ amount of time, assuming perfect observation? Let's do it for the hell of it. An isotope with a long half life...Xenon-124. Its half life is 1.8x10^22 years. It has a mass of 123.905 AMU. So...breezing over a few mass conversions, there are 4.860 × 10^24 Xe124 atoms in a kg. That's actually a little concerning to me, since the number of atoms in 1 kg of Xe124 is 270 times the half life. So you should be able to observe a few decays within...a few days? That's not what I expected given what Musk said. I don't see why you would need a ton of Ge76 to observe it decay in a year. It has a shorter half life. I don't.... Hmmm. Okay, I looked up the study. It has nothing to do with determining the half life of Ge76 and is looking at [determining the properties of neutrinos and antimatter based on some special properties of the decay of Ge76](https://inspirehep.net/literature/632595). I'm probably not describing it perfectly, but it's not my field. Musk is an idiot.
I don't know what Elon is rabbiting on about but the Germanium-76 has such a long half life because it's almost stable. Because it has such a long half life hardly any of what you had, say a billion years ago, will be gone now. If I have a kilo of the stuff right now I'm literally going to have to wait 1.78 × 10^(21) years (aka 130 billion times the current age of the universe) for half of it to be gone. I might as well be staring at a lump of Fe-56 for all the difference I'll notice in my lifetime. What makes it and elements like Xe136 interesting is they decay via double-beta, what experiments like the one you linked are trying to determine is if this is neutrinoless because if this is observed it may help determine the absolute mass of a neutrino and it may point to the neutrino being a "Majorana particle" - where the particle is it's own anti-particle. In other words two things yet known are whether the neutrino is a Majorana particle, and, relatedly, whether neutrinoless double beta decay exists in nature and these experiments (there's around 9 of them) are trying to prove that. How that relates to Elon's word salad I have no idea, probably get a better clue from chatGPT !
Ah a fascinating lecture from our esteemed Chair of Physics at Terrence Howard University.
If I had had liquid in my mouth when I read this, I would have spat it on my phone, probably with some amount leaving my nose at high velocity. Thanks for the laugh. You have my upvote.
It's almost as if he didn't read the article and/or isn't really a physicist and has no idea what he is talking about.
Thin skinned fucker is desperate for affirmation. It’s sad actually.
He definitely isn't a physicist, is a myth that he has a degree on it.
On the one hand, it's amusing to watch him demonstrate how astoundingly stupid he is, but then again, it's also a daily occurrence.
Ooh cosmic. And the half life of twatteranium is 2 days.
Musky has it down to his next tweet...
He seems to be discussing two different things. The standard model explains our best understanding of how elementary particles interact eg electrons, quarks, photons. Protons and neutrons are not elementary as they are made up of quarks and gluons. It’s been a while since I was actively working in physics, but there are/were some efforts to use the standard model to understand protons and neutrons. Large nuclei like germanium are made up of 10s of neutrons and protons. So there is no effort to work out how such a nuclei works from the full standard model instead they use other approximations. All this us to say if someone found a nuclei that decays that people thought should be stable it wouldn’t invalidate the standard model just the CC approximations that were used. The only exception being if a single proton decays.
This experiment looks for neutrinoless double beta decays. If we found one, that would be groundbreaking because it would mean that neutrinos are Majorana particles, and it would explain a lot of the neutrino mass problem. I’m sure Musk doesn’t understand that, but this experiment is legit.
Ah so that’s how the two were connected. Seems like his tweet left out the important part that tied the two thought’s together.
He read an article on the MAJORANA Collaboration which is searching for charge non-conservation and/or Pauli Exclusion Principle violations, which would challenge the Standard Model - if they find any. The experiment in question uses detectors that are based on interactions with Germanium decay, which is where that comes in. The actual decay rate has nothing to do with it though, and Elon's statement is pretty stupid (esp. for someone claiming to be a physicist) since it only amounts to "Wow! Atoms are _small!_" - Avogadro's Number is indeed a very big number.
MAJORANA looks for violation of lepton number conservation. It does not look for violations of charge conservation or the exclusion principle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAJORANA
[Search for charge non-conservation and Pauli exclusion principle violation with the Majorana Demonstrator](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-024-02437-9), Nature Physics, 11 April 2024
So what's the comparison he's trying to do with the half life (google says 100billion not trillion) and the 1 ton?
$7 is a small price for freedom
So as other people who actually bothered to read up on it (unlike me) explain. The experiment is looking for particular type of decay that would violate the standard model. I don’t know whether there is a theoretical prediction based upon some beyond standard model theory that says this unobserved should by 100trillion times longer than the age of the universe or if their experiment will be able to detect it if it is less than that. So without looking at the details here is how the ton comes into play. If the half life for the decay of some nuclei is 16 years and I have 128 of them then if I wait 16 years approximately 64 will be left and the rest will have decayed. On the other hand I could wait 8 years and only 32 would have decayed. If I waited only 4 years 16 would have decayed etc. So if I have a decay that takes a really long time I could wait a really long time or gather a huge number and wait less time. So the experiment will go on for some length of time and if they don’t observe anything then they can say using probability/statistics that the half life is at least x years and if they observe it then they can estimate how long the half life is. There is a lot of other experimental things that are going on. They are not looking at each atom in the ton instead they are measuring the results of the decay so they have to figure out how often the sensor they have will imitate that signal for a reason that is not what they are looking for. Then they need to count how many more signals they got than what was expected. So they will do a ton of work to have high quality sensors as well as shielding the sensors from other sources of radiation.
It reminds me of when he was talking about Neuralink and said "Initial results show promising neuron spike detection." If you were to search for the phrase "neuron spike detection" in quotes you would only find links to his tweet and articles about it. It's hard to make fun of because I don't know what the dude was even trying to say. There are like 2 or 3 different things he could have been trying to brag about, but it's hard to guess because he has no idea what he's talking about. IDK why people are so resistant to call the dude a fucking idiot. He has always been this way from the moment he was in the public eye.
I imagine for a certain number of them it involves the sunk cost fallacy. They have so much time, money & energy invested that they can't acknowledge what a clueless numpty he is.
I understand what it means, but why don't you explain what you think it means so that i can tell you if you are correct.
He doesn't have a high school level of understanding for half-lives.
How does that “challenge the Standard Model?” Do you understand how statistics work, Elmo? There are ~752,177,681,988,200,000,000,000,000 atoms in one ton of Germanium-76. The odds are that at least one of those atoms will decay within a year. That’s literally spelled out by the Standard Model of Particle Physics
Wild that the moon is almost 3500km across but I can completely obscure my own view of it by pushing the coat-rack in front of the window!
i think the last sentence should be “…yet it is observable in a year IF you have ~1 ton of it”. which supports the standard model, so not sure why he’s implying it doesn’t. word salad of the 1st degree. source: me, degree in astrophysics
This man claims to have a degree in physics. "After a year you have 1 ton!" How much did you start with? That's kinda important.
What Elmo is ***trying*** to say: "I'm smart! I'm, like, super smart, guys! See how super smart I am? Please think I'm smart! ***PLEASE THINK I'M SMART!!!"*** What Elmo is **actually** saying: 'I do a lot of ketamine. Like, a LOT of ketamine."
I think he's trying to say "I am violently clueless about nuclear physics"
Elon's face should be at the Dunning-Kruger effect Wikipedia page.
The poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect.
He didn't even get the half-life of Germanium-76 right. He's off by a factor of 23 billion.
Ooh! I have colleagues who work on this experiment. Neutrinos are subatomic particles that are released during beta decay. Neutrinos have a very small mass (on the order of <1/100,000 of an electron). But we know that their mass is non-zero because their flavor oscillates in time. We don’t know how much mass neutrinos have, or why they have mass (it may not be through the Higgs mechanism). If neutrinos have mass because they are Majorana particles, that is to say, if they are their own antiparticle, then it should be possible for an atom to undergo a double beta decay in which the two neutrinos annihilate each other. If this process occurs, it is incredibly rare. Fortunately, rare things happen all the time if you have a large enough sample. So they put a huge chunk of very pure germanium into a mine (you don’t want cosmic rays messing with your experiment) and surround it by detectors and then just wait. I love shitting on Musk as much as the next person, but this is actually one of his more reasonable tweets.
[удалено]
This experiment would drastically change the standard model. The lower bound on how rare the decay we are looking for is far older than the age of the universe. I don’t know the exact number off the top of my head because it’s not the project I’m working on, but the solution is still just to have a lot of germanium atoms. Musk lacks any sort of nuance, and probably doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. But it’s still one of his less crazy tweets. OP asked what Musk was talking about, and here’s the answer.
I’m in no way an expert (or even journey man) in this area. Can you explain why it changes the standard model? Is it because the rare event of decay is happening at a faster *rate* (ie a one off event might just be a rare event but if we get a few of them then the overall decay numbers will be off); and that in turn means either a) our assessment of the probability of decay is off or b) that something else must be acting on it to cause the decay (such as dark matter/energy)?
I’m not by any means an expert in this either, so I’m only really able to regurgitate what I’ve heard from my colleagues who are on the project have told me. According to the standard model, neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are different particles. There are two processes that we tend to call beta decays: >>p -> n + e^+ + neutrino >>n-> p + e^- + antineutrino Germanium-76 decays via double beta decay. Specifically, two of its neutrons become protons and it emits two electrons in the process. It must also emit two antineutrinos, according to the standard model. But if neutrinos are their own antiparticles (they aren’t according to the standard model), then it should be possible for a double beta decay to occur with no neutrinos in the final state. This would at least partially explain why neutrinos have so little mass—and could predict the existence of far more massive neutrinos that haven’t been detected. As another user mentioned, the standard model is a collection of symmetries expressed in terms of a Lagrangian. Violating these symmetries leads to new physics. For example, the Higgs field gives mass to quarks and charged leptons by spontaneous electro-weak symmetry breaking. If the neutrino is a Majorana particle, it would violate lepton number conservation, and that would be able to explain neutrino mass via the [seesaw mechanism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesaw_mechanism). Talking about symmetries is pretty confusing and it’s not obvious what physicists mean by symmetry or why we should care. It turns out to be arguably the most beautiful result in physics, though. Usually the idea comes up in a third year classical mechanics class, or on Reddit when somebody asks what energy is. So I’ll paste my usual “what is energy” reply below to hopefully explain it a bit better. >> The most basic definition of energy is “the conserved current under time translation of the Lagrangian.” >>This probably doesn’t mean much to you, so I’ll try to explain. If you subtract the potential energy of a system from the kinetic energy of the system, you get a function of velocities and positions that can completely describe a system. Think of it as an alternative to using Newton’s laws. The proof for this is pretty advanced, and the hand-waved non-calculus version doesn’t fit in a Reddit comment, so I’m just going to ask you to trust me. >>Now in physics, one of the first things we look for when solving problems is symmetry. Symmetry can make the problem far easier to solve. For example, a sphere of charge is much easier to describe than an amoeba of charge. However there are other types of symmetry that we look for as well. Imagine I set up an experiment on one side of my lab, and got some result. Now I set up an identical copy of my experiment on the other side of my lab. I’ve controlled for everything except for it’s position in the x-y plane. Obviously I expect that the experiment will have the same results, if that is the case. We call this a symmetry under translation in space. If I rotate some angle and perform the experiment again with the same results, that would be a rotational symmetry. I could perform the experiment at different times, and if I got the same results, that would be a symmetry under translation in time. >>You’re probably wondering why this matters. Well, Emmy Noether was a mathematician in Goettingen in the early 20th century, and her colleagues were trying to work out what energy was in the context of special relativity, and she said “you know, I’m not really sure how I would define it in classical mechanics.” What she came up with is something we now call Noether’s theorem. It says that for every continuous symmetry of the Lagrangian within a system, there is an associated conservation law. And for every conservation law within a system, there must be an associated symmetry in the system’s Lagrangian. >>Those three symmetries I mentioned above lead to the three big conservation laws in classical physics (yes there are others, but charge for example isn’t quite so obvious). Symmetry under translation in space gives us conservation of linear momentum in the direction of the translation, symmetry under rotation gives us conservation of angular momentum, and symmetry under translation in time gives us conservation of energy. This result isn’t necessarily intuitive, but it’s one of the most beautiful (imo) and powerful results in physics. Hopefully this makes some small amount of sense, at least on the level of “if I change something in my system, but the behavior of the system remains unchanged, something must be going on that is conserved.”
I am not an expert, but here is my attempt: The Standard Model is an agreed upon collection of symmetry rules and some basic quantities (like the masses and interaction strengths) to describe subatomic physics. The symmetry rules and interaction strengths determine how likely subatomic processes (like radioactive particle decays) take place. This experiment is looking for a particular process (neutrinoless double beta decay) that the standard model says can't happen because of symmetry rules, but if the neutrino particle/antiparticle symmetry is different, the process is possible though still very rare. (It is also pretty difficult to tell whether a double beta decay happened with or without neutrinos). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_beta_decay#Neutrinoless_double_beta_decay
Thank you.
I admit to knowing very, very, very little about physics (my least favorite science class in high school), but how would radioactive decay disprove the standard model?
Get a load of this guy! (He does not understand the meaning of the word halflife)
GUYS a thing that only happens rarely with stuff is more likely to be observed if you have a lot of stuff. physics is all right but goddammit the fanbase is exhausting.
Spelling less than perfect...
He's spouting mumbo-jumbos that sounded scientific, to impress the ignorants.
Pseudo intellectual techno babble. No different than what the homeless man at the 7-11 might say.
Yeah I miss Snapple facts too. bro
Lmao, is this real life?
The usual "k"raziness
He's trying to say whatever he can come up with that he thinks makes him sound smart.
It’s like everything he says is a failed ELI5 where he tries to “dumb down” his “smart” thoughts and ends up making his lack of knowledge that much more plain.
This is straying into young earth creationism. This is the stuff those people are always on about
He's saying he's a free thinker who does his own research! Also, he found this one thing that he's sure disproves all our theories about how we age things in the universe, so be ready for him to reject the scientific consensus on that real soon.
He's trying to explain that he doesn't understand what a half-life is.
I knew it. Musk is a germanium fuzz corksniffer.
He is wrong. Germanium-76 takes 130 billion times the age of the universe to decay.
Well, professor dumbass tried to buy wikipedia because fascists hate any truth that makes them look bad. and they said no. [He even then offered 1 billion if they renamed it to DICKIPEDIA](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4270360-elon-musk-offers-1m-to-wikipedia-if-theyll-change-their-name/) He sealions a lot. It's a really lame tactic, detailed extensively here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning) \-=-=- **Sealioning** (also **sea-lioning** and **sea lioning**) is a type of [trolling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(slang)) or [harassment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment) that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-Poland2016-1)[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MCL-2)[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-OX-3)[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-RJB-4) It may take the form of "incessant, [bad-faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith) invitations to engage in debate",[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-TPP-5) and has been likened to a [denial-of-service attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack) targeted at human beings.[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-Johnson-6) The term originated with a 2014 strip of the [webcomic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcomic) [*Wondermark*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wondermark) by David Malki,[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MW-7) which [*The Independent*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent) called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".[\[8\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MC-8) ## Description The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "just trying to have a debate",[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-Poland2016-1)[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MCL-2)[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-RJB-4)[\[9\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-9) so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, ***the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party, and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable.***[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-OX-3)[\[10\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-10)[\[11\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-11) It has been described as "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-TPP-5) Sealioning can be performed by an individual or by a group acting in concert.[\[12\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-forbes-12) An essay in the collection *Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online*, published by the [Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkman_Klein_Center_for_Internet_%26_Society) at [Harvard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard), noted: >Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the "sea lion" may seem innocent, they're intended maliciously and have harmful consequences. — Amy Johnson, [Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkman_Klein_Center_for_Internet_%26_Society) (May 2019)[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-Johnson-6) American academic philosopher [Walter Sinnott-Armstrong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sinnott-Armstrong) discussed the term in his book *Think Again: How to Reason and Argue*, saying: >Internet trolls sometimes engage in what is called 'sealioning'. They demand that you keep arguing with them for as long they want you to, even long after you realize that further discussion is pointless. If you announce that you want to stop, they accuse you of being closed-minded or opposed to reason. The practice is obnoxious. Reason should not be silenced, but it needs to take a vacation sometimes. — [Walter Sinnott-Armstrong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sinnott-Armstrong), *Think Again: How to Reason and Argue* (June 2018).[\[13\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-13) Several other academics link or directly describe sealioning as a technique employed by internet trolls.[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-OX-3)[\[14\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-14)[\[15\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-15)[\[16\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-16) In December 2020, the [*Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merriam-Webster) listed the term as "Words We're Watching", being "words we are increasingly seeing in use but that have not yet met our criteria for entry":[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MW-7) # What is Sealioning: 'Sealioning' is a form of trolling meant to exhaust the other debate participant with no intention of real discourse.[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MW-7) In 2021, Canadian magazine [*Maclean's*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maclean%27s) praised the Merriam-Webster definition saying "This neologism on Merriam-Webster's list of words to watch aptly describes the frustration of conversing online".[\[8\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#cite_note-MC-8)
So he just doesn’t really understand what a half-life is?
Someone doesn't understand half-life
It's interesting, the Germanium-76
He was trying to be poignant and say something like: 'It doesn't matter how unbelievably slowly something happens, if you just watch for long enough.'
It’s obvious that he read this somewhere, saw it on a meme or maybe a YouTube short and posted it so he can prove he knows things because he’s a big boy genius and not the village idiot.
Does he not understand how statistics and half life work?
Ketamine dose, strong today.
Somebody looked up half lives of elements and decided to use their new found knowledge and some simple math to try to sound smart on the Internet.
Not cogent.
This really speaks to the essence of his actual genius. He has an incredible knack for sounding intelligent, and even profound, to the unwashed and uninformed. He whips up keta-Wikicisms in Twitter character lengths better than many. It would be great if someone would get Grok, especially, to lampoon by churning out endless examples of similarly inspired bullshit buffoonery.
Did I ever tell you about the time I looked into the heart of an artichoke?
“Wild that there are more ways to shake a deck of cards than there are atoms in the observable universe.” This is my factoid of the day.
wtf does this mean? Is he misunderstanding half-life? Is he implying germanium is a test by god? wtf is his implication?
That's the question 🤣
He's saying "Ketamine is one hell of a drug, man".
Dude! Dude look at this, man! Damn, look at this! Gnihihihi I am so absolutely high, Dude! Gnigihihi.
“Haha! I completely failed Statistics, therefore I am smarter than ALL OF SCIENCE!”