site banner
PaperclipPerfector  19d ago (text post)   26664 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 30, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There are a couple of pretty boring "anti-gravity" explanations that don't violate "the laws of physics," - I don't think negative mass does, but more prosaically propulsion utilizing the Meissner effect is quite possible.

There's something hinky going on in that article.

I don't think the superconducting plates can "know" that they are on the outside of a sphere, and therefore direct their force outwards. Sure, they can know the difference between inside (insulated from the Earth's magnetic field) and outside (exposed to it), but that asymmetry breaks once you turn off the top half of the sphere and attempt to create lift: instead of changing from a full sphere (top half pushing up, bottom half pushing down, net zero force) to a half sphere (top half missing, bottom half pushing up, net upwards force) as the article claims, it has changed into a hemisphere (top flat surface pushing down, bottom curved surface pushing up, net zero force).

You definitely might be right about the article, but I'm not following your analysis (probably a me problem!)

Perhaps a simpler objection: He is proposing a perpetual motion machine.

An ideal superconductor does not require any energy input. Our superconductors need energy-intensive cooling setups, but that's just a quirk of our technology and environment. If you could produce lift with the mere presence of superconductors (in a hemispherical shape), then you could lift something for free, drop it to generate energy, and repeat forever with no inputs.

The standard model of physics doesn't allow for perpetual motion machines, therefore it doesn't allow for his proposed machine.

The Meisner effect occurs at the time the superconductor is cooled. So there's no perpetual motion... but also not more than a momentary thrust.

But he's not proposing lifting anything for free - he's proposing power in using beamed power, right?

The power goes in, then...? The only power expenditure he laid out is cooling the material. That deals with the inefficiency in our technology, but it is still generating free energy at its heart.

Assuming the combination of very high cooling power, an enhanced magnetic field, and a lightning-fast computer to control the superconducting plates, this system can go from hover to high subsonic speeds and stop and turn at 90-degree angles. But crossing the transonic barrier and dealing with a bow shock wave requires a very different type of technology like plasma actuators that we will save for another time.

I read three power expenditures:

  1. Very high cooling power
  2. An enhanced magnetic field [I think he's just describing using the superconductors to create magnetic fields by running current through the superconductors, this...isn't controversial, I don't think?]
  3. A lightning-fast computer

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats