Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Whiteguy's avatar

when you described the feeling of seeing the center of the black hole in every direction, i felt something as well. I have a strong feeling that there is something important going on here.

I think there's a reason that the last great leap in physics was made by Einstein - someone who despised math, and thought about the universe in images, puzzles and parables. Concepts and ideas come first - math is just a tool to test the consistency of an idea, and link different concepts together.

Einstein was taken seriously once he was able to test his predictions via a real physical phenomenon (by seeing the curvature of spacetime from a star behind the sun during a solar eclipse). Maybe you need to find a way to prove your theory, not just through pure logic, but by an observation that only your theory can account for.

The first cartoon you made sounded super unhinged (the fast pace and complicated physics terms made me think you had gone crazy, or maybe that it was an AI voice impersonation?), but the way you write about it now feels much more grounded and openminded. I hope you include more self awareness in your future cartoons.

I also want you to keep pushing real physicists to talk to you. There has to be someone out there who is willing to be challenged on their existing beliefs.

Expand full comment
Man In The Arena's avatar

I'm excited to follow your exploration of this. I support you because you're willing to challenge the status quo in an interesting, thoughtful, and constructive way. We learn nothing if no one is willing to take risks or offer new ideas.

The reflexive and vitriolic reaction to your proposal is frustrating. If it’s incorrect, explain why—it’s a great opportunity for thoughtful engagement and for teaching others, at least within our little corner of the internet. There’s no place for demeaning personal attacks, especially when someone is earnestly trying to grapple with complex ideas. That kind of reaction feels deeply anti-human to me.

It also reminds me of how you sometimes clash with guests on your podcast—and podcasting in general. Podcasters often lack formal credentials or achievements, and much of the space seems driven by status and audience exchange. That’s probably why vulnerability or real disagreement is so rare—there’s only clout to lose, which is directly tied to their income (and ego/internet persona).

I worry that some of these same perverse incentives exist in academia. Take this with a grain of salt, but it seems like academics also rely heavily on the perception of their expertise—warranted or not. It's in their interest to be seen as infallible (or at least rarely wrong), so engaging in discussions that could make them look foolish often feels too risky. This might be even more pronounced with science communicators, oddly enough—as you explored beautifully in that incredible podcast episode. That was honestly a work of art.

Keep up the work, even if you are proven incorrect. It is the most human thing you can do in a world of bots and sheep.

Expand full comment
32 more comments...

No posts