<p>I have been spelling “definitely” wrong my entire life. Epic. Failll.
(Must now resist urge to spell it wrong on purpose)</p>
<p>Chuck Norris has been so romanticized in pop culture that I feel like he automatically wins everything.
Also, I listened to Watsky rap fast like 50 million times, but I think he wasn’t quite as good in the actual rap battle. Nicepeter kind of killed him in the beginning as the Cat in the Hat, IMHO. </p>
<p>@thespastictroll: lol! You’re funny</p>
<p>real rap battles, 24/7, bender, & eLzhi >>>> the world</p>
<p>Well… its called Epic RAP battles of history;its not Epic battles of history; so the freezing means nothing. "Uhhm, Hawking’s awesome. I saw him on an episode of the Simpsons. (And on the Fairly Oddparents!) That means he’s automatically cool.’’ That really doesn’t help your argument; also Einstein’s epic line where he says “So take a seat Steve…OH! I see you brought your own.” is an automatic win.</p>
<p>“There are ten million million million million million million million million million particles in the universe that we can observe. Your momma took the ugly ones and put them into one nerd.” </p>
<p>Boom.
There was nothing that Einstein could have said to redeem himself. It was over as soon as Hawking said the 9th “million.” </p>
<p>Plus, Einstein really shouldn’t have thrown an apple at a cripple. </p>
<p>On an unrelated note, have you heard that E=MC squared might soon become obsolete? Einstein’s entire theory centers around the ‘fact’ that nothing is faster than the speed of light.
But if a few CERN scientists could prove that certain subatomic particles are, in fact, faster than the speed of light, then we’ll have a different way of looking at the universe. </p>
<p>See, I knew Albert was overrated.</p>
<p>Actually, superluminal neutrinos can be explained with relativity. You clearly aren’t a physicist.</p>
<p>/condescending HSL comment</p>
<p>@catchtwentythree I don’t think you understand the basic principles behind the scientific method. You see, when something occurs that is not in accordance with a theory there is an attempt to modify the theory and integrate the new information rather than starting from scratch. What you are suggesting is akin to claiming that we need to get rid of all the modern cars, airplanes, etc. because they all rely on Newtonian mechanics, which was disproved by relativity.</p>
<p>I am guessing you don’t know very much physics, so let me enlighten you on something you probably missed from the video. Einstein says, ‘rip holes in you larger than the holes in your black hole theory were’. Stephen Hawking came up with a theory that suggested information could be destroyed in a black hole, which was shown to be false. The black hole war is a good book about this. The point being that it is absurd for you to judge if you don’t even know what all the insults are about.</p>
<p>We need a virus like the one in this comic for CC
[xkcd:</a> Listen to Yourself](<a href=“http://xkcd.com/481/]xkcd:”>xkcd: Listen to Yourself)</p>
<p>@catchtwentythree</p>
<p>I disregarded most of the details in your assertions the first time I read them, but now I revisited that which is your inane stupidity and I shall proceed to point out flaws including but not limited to:</p>
<ol>
<li>A neutrino is not a subatomic particle</li>
<li>Special relativity implies that nothing can travel faster than light, whereas it is dependent upon the speed of light being constant for all observers.</li>
</ol>
<p>I would recommend that you read some popular theoretical physics book like a brief history of time, which started that genre, but I’m afraid they’d be too advanced for you considering your present state of knowledge and comprehension.</p>
<p>Back on topic…</p>
<p>I thought Einstein beat Stephen Hawking pretty bad. His opening sequence was just awesome. And Hitler definitely won the Hitler vs. Vader rematch.</p>
<p>@Jake24
Einstein did have some brilliant opening lines, but I still think Hawkings KILLED him with that last one.
Why do you think Hitler won the rematch? </p>
<p>@michael2
Unlike you, I have no interest in theoretical physics and neutrinos, and I don’t spend my time holed up in my room reading “Popular Science.” But since you mentioned it…</p>
<ol>
<li><p>neutrino: neutral elementary particle: a stable neutral elementary particle of the lepton group with a zero rest mass and no charge. There are three types of neutrinos, associated respectively with the electron, muon, and tau particle, and all have a spin of 1/2.</p></li>
<li><p>subatomic particles: In physics or chemistry, subatomic particles are the smaller particles composing nucleons and atoms. There are two types of subatomic particles: elementary particles, which are not made of other particles, and composite particles.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I’d say that calling a neutrino a subatomic particle isn’t too far off. </p>
<p>I’d never suggested anything “akin to claiming that we need to get rid of all the modern cars, airplanes, etc.” Where did you get that from?</p>
<p>Yes, I have heard of Hawking’s “black hole theory,” although I haven’t read any books on it. Perhaps you should read them to me and enlighten my poor, moronic soul. </p>
<p>All I said was if Einstein’s theory is disproved (which I believe it will be eventually) then we’ll have a different way of looking at the universe, won’t we?</p>
<p>Though your condescension is lovely.</p>
<p>@mathsciencedude
Clearly, I’m not a physicist. Are you?</p>
<p>Go Hawking!!! Bieber sucks!!!</p>
<p>I think Nietzsche v. Freud needs to happen. That’d be a verbal fight to the death</p>
<p>@catchtwentythree I read a myriad of topics, which has included a few books on theoretical physics. However, I am certainly not holed up in my room reading. I do any other things such as mountain biking, which I did today.</p>
<p>“All I said was if Einstein’s theory is disproved (which I believe it will be eventually) then we’ll have a different way of looking at the universe, won’t we?”
Sure, but you said more than that.</p>
<p>“On an unrelated note, have you heard that E=MC squared might soon become obsolete?”</p>
<p>My response is more specifically to your assertion that it would become obsolete. There are many applications of relativity that have been shown to work e.g. GPS, so even if we end having to rework this theory we will keep using its applications in the same way we continue using Newtonian mechanics, which are technically wrong, for many mechanical purposes.</p>
<p>"I’d say that calling a neutrino a subatomic particle isn’t too far off. "</p>
<p>Here is that thing from wikipedia:</p>
<p>In physics or chemistry, subatomic particles are the smaller particles composing nucleons and atoms. There are two types of subatomic particles: elementary particles, which are not made of other particles, and composite particles. Particle physics and nuclear physics study these particles and how they interact.[1]</p>
<p>The elementary particles of the Standard Model include:[2]</p>
<pre><code>Six “flavors” of quarks: up, down, bottom, top, strange, and charm
Six types of leptons: electron, electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tau, tau neutrino
Thirteen gauge bosons (force carriers): the graviton of gravity, the photon of electromagnetism, the three W and Z bosons of the weak force, and the eight gluons of the strong force.
</code></pre>
<p>Composite subatomic particles (such as protons or atomic nuclei) are bound states of two or more elementary particles. For example, a proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark, while the atomic nucleus of helium-4 is composed of two protons and two neutrons. Composite particles include all hadrons, a group composed of baryons (e.g., protons and neutrons) and mesons (e.g., pions and kaons).</p>
<p>In the first paragraph it states that subatomic particles are either elementary particles or composite particles. However, and this is the important part, it does not imply that all elementary particles are subatomic particles.</p>
<p>Subatomic particles are the particles which constitute atoms. i.e. Protons and neutrons, which are composite particles, electrons, up quarks, down quark/s, and gluons, which are elementary particles. The gluons hold the quarks together.</p>
<p>Neutrinos are not a part of atoms and thus are not subatomic. It is somewhat of a nuance technicality.</p>
<p>Also, sorry about being condescending in the last post; condescension is a bad habit I have.</p>
<p>/unabashed condescension</p>
<p><em>Smiles</em></p>
<p>Gotta love trolls, they keep life interesting.</p>
<p>@michael2
Isn’t Wikipedia wonderful? But honestly, I am way out of my depth with this science-y stuff. I barely scraped by with an “A” in Chemistry, so it’s pointless trying to argue theoretical physics with me. I applaud your effort though, you really went through a lot of work to refute all of my points. You’re probably right, too, only I wouldn’t know the difference (my inane stupidity is acting up again)…
Sure, I forgive you.
I wish I could be more intellectually stimulating, but I’m no Einstein.
Hey, I’m glad you went mountain biking! It’s great to get out of the house. </p>
<p>@anaychi
I love Sigmund, I think he’s such an interesting character. Psychosexual analysis of our dreams? What a great idea. Friedrich is cool, too. I’m just having a hard time picturing them rapping…</p>
<p>Dali vs. Picasso?</p>
<p>My brain Freudian slipped when I read this:
</p>