Does anyone NOT find nerdiness endearing?

**gwahir** · 01-20-2009, 04:39 PM

I mean, obviously in here we all do. But out there, do you know anyone who actually would think less of you for liking nerdy things?

I find that, where I come from, at least, "nerdy" has just lost all meaning. It's cute (if anything) to like Star Wars, and if you say you read comics, people either say "Oh cool; which ones?" or "I've never really been able to get into it, myself". I mean, not everyone I know likes nerdy things, but nobody I know looks down on me for liking them.

I do get made fun of for liking Buffy and other such shows because that goes beyond nerdy into girly, which some people feel compelled to make fun of, but that's separate.

Does anyone really not find nerdiness endearing?

**Atmosfear** · 01-20-2009, 04:45 PM

I do not

**gwahir** · 01-20-2009, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

I do not

Yes, but you're a southerner.

And obviously there can be too much. You can have too much of anything. That's what too much is: that quantity which is excessive.

**Sion** · 02-05-2009, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by gwahir

Yes, but you're a southerner.

And obviously there can be too much. You can have too much of anything. That's what too much is: that quantity which is excessive.

your the single most pretentious person ive ever encountered.

**Pepsi** · 02-05-2009, 04:42 PM

You're.

And it's not pretentious if you can back it up.

**gwahir** · 02-07-2009, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Sion

your the single most pretentious person ive ever encountered.

No need to get all snippy because what you were going to say was already fairly badly said and then dismissed.

Also, I borrowed that phrase from a really funny A Bit of Fry and Laurie sketch, not that it matters.

**Mr. E** · 01-26-2009, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

I do not

you don't count

**Shinysides** · 01-20-2009, 04:54 PM

I would say that it is endearing to a certain extent. There is such a thing as too much though.

**KT.** · 01-20-2009, 04:56 PM

Nerdiness is not an endearing trait for fat or ugly people.

**djwolford** · 01-20-2009, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by KT.

Nerdiness is not an endearing trait for fat or ugly people.

**Mr. E** · 01-20-2009, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by KT.

Nerdiness is not an endearing trait for fat or ugly people.

This is true, however it does make fat and/or ugly people easier to be around

**Dr. Baltar** · 01-20-2009, 06:41 PM

Nerdiness has become mainstream in recent years so in a way being geeky is not that geeky anymore.

**Infernus** · 01-20-2009, 07:02 PM

after high school no one really cares anymore

**Infernus** · 01-20-2009, 07:02 PM

except if you like anime

**Dr. Baltar** · 01-21-2009, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Infernus

except if you like anime

this

**Woofness** · 01-20-2009, 07:04 PM

I think it really depends on whether or not said person can back up his nerdy desires in a logical and understandable fashion when called out on it.

**no_brains_no_worries** · 01-21-2009, 01:52 AM

I dunno. I think we need to put another negative spin on nerdiness because some geeks/nerds are getting uppity. I actually sat behind two guys in the movie theatre who were arguing whether or not superman could turn back time by reversing the earth's gravitational spin.

That should be punishable by wedgies.

**Shinysides** · 01-21-2009, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

I dunno. I think we need to put another negative spin on nerdiness because some geeks/nerds are getting uppity. I actually sat behind two guys in the movie theatre who were arguing whether or not superman could turn back time by reversing the earth's gravitational spin.

That should be punishable by wedgies.

Superman is a horrible movie, but that is a perfectly alright topic of conversation. I get in arguments about shit like that when I'm high all the time.

**KT.** · 01-21-2009, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

I actually sat behind two guys in the movie theatre who were arguing whether or not superman could turn back time by reversing the earth's gravitational spin.

How the fuck do people argue that Superman could turn back time by reversing the earth's gravitational spin? That just doesn't make any logical sense. Good god.

**gwahir** · 01-21-2009, 02:22 AM

He doesn't reverse the Earth's spin. He spins around the Earth so fast that he turns back time.

**no_brains_no_worries** · 01-21-2009, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by gwahir

He doesn't reverse the Earth's spin. He spins around the Earth so fast that he turns back time.

Still that doesn't make sense! I know the irony considering the star is a man from the planet Krypton but still! One of the guys actually began to quote the theory of relativity!

**gwahir** · 01-21-2009, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

Still that doesn't make sense! I know the irony considering the star is a man from the planet Krypton but still! One of the guys actually began to quote the theory of relativity!

Well it's one of those bits of popularly known science that if you exceed the speed of light you can move backwards in time.

**KT.** · 01-21-2009, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by gwahir

Well it's one of those bits of popularly known science that if you exceed the speed of light you can move backwards in time.

lol

I really hope you are joking.

**Killuminati** · 01-21-2009, 11:06 AM

but exceeding the speed of light is impossible.

**djwolford** · 01-21-2009, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Killuminati

but exceeding the speed of light is impossible.

I think that myth got busted about 7 or 8 years ago with some kind of fancy laser.

**Atmosfear** · 01-21-2009, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Killuminati

but exceeding the speed of light is impossible.

Is there any logic to this statement? No.

And while we haven't yet sped up the speed of light, have been able to slow it down significantly. It stands to reason if it's possible to slow it down, it would also be possible to speed it up.

**Killuminati** · 01-21-2009, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by djwolford

I think that myth got busted about 7 or 8 years ago with some kind of fancy laser.

First of all this isn't a "myth". We can't accelerate any particle to a velocity faster than that of the speed of light(299,792 km/s).

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Is there any logic to this statement? No.

And while we haven't yet sped up the speed of light, have been able to slow it down significantly. It stands to reason if it's possible to slow it down, it would also be possible to speed it up.

"It is generally considered that it is impossible for any information or matter to travel faster than c, because it would travel backwards in time relative to some observers.[25] However, there are many physical situations in which speeds greater than c are encountered.

Some of these situations involve entities that actually travel faster than c in a particular reference frame but none involves either matter, energy, or information traveling faster than light"

We will never make matter travel faster than the speed of light. The reason for this is because E=mc^2. If you look at this

imagine if v=c. That would mean that the velocity was at the speed of light. When you do that the amount of energy required to reach that velocity is infinite.

**djwolford** · 01-21-2009, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Killuminati

First of all this isn't a "myth". We can't accelerate any particle to a velocity faster than that of the speed of light(299,792 km/s).

Laser smashes light-speed record

One of the most sacred laws of physics is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum. But this speed limit has been smashed in a recent experiment in which a laser pulse travels at more than 300 times the speed of light (L J Wang et al. 2000 Nature 406 277). However, the laws of physics remain intact because Lijun Wang and colleagues at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton in the US are able to explain the results of their experiment in terms of the classical theory of wave propagation.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2810

Electrical pulses break light speed record

Pulses that travel faster than light have been sent over a significant distance for the first time. Alain Haché and Louis Poirier of the University of Moncton in Canada transmitted the pulses through a 120-metre cable made from a coaxial 'photonic crystal'. The achievement raises hopes that data could travel through electronic communications systems at almost the speed of light (A Haché and L Poirier 2002 Appl. Phys. Lett. 80 518).

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3630

**Pepsi** · 01-21-2009, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by djwolford

Laser smashes light-speed record

One of the most sacred laws of physics is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum. But this speed limit has been smashed in a recent experiment in which a laser pulse travels at more than 300 times the speed of light (L J Wang et al. 2000 Nature 406 277). However, the laws of physics remain intact because Lijun Wang and colleagues at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton in the US are able to explain the results of their experiment in terms of the classical theory of wave propagation.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2810

Electrical pulses break light speed record

Pulses that travel faster than light have been sent over a significant distance for the first time. Alain Haché and Louis Poirier of the University of Moncton in Canada transmitted the pulses through a 120-metre cable made from a coaxial 'photonic crystal'. The achievement raises hopes that data could travel through electronic communications systems at almost the speed of light (A Haché and L Poirier 2002 Appl. Phys. Lett. 80 518).

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3630

You sir, just won my heart and my britches.

(no homo)

**Killuminati** · 01-21-2009, 02:45 PM

Maybe you should read your articles before posting them.

Originally Posted by second article

"Haché and Poirier emphasize that their experiment does not break any laws of physics. Although the group velocity exceeds the speed of light - an effect permitted by relativity - each component of the pulse travels slower than light. It would be impossible to transmit information faster than light because it would be encoded onto a single frequency component. "

Originally Posted by first article

"Special relativity prevents any object with mass travelling at the speed of light, and the principle of causality - the notion that the cause comes before the effect - is used to rule out the possibility of superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by light itself. However, a pulse of light can have more than one speed because it is made up of light of different wavelengths. "

**Anonymous D** · 01-21-2009, 05:18 PM

Ive heard the "if you can travel faster then light you can see into the past" thing.

Think about it this way. Lets say you can teleport 100 million lightyears away from Earth, and have a telescope that can see Earth from there. You would see Earth as it was 100 million years ago because at teh speed light travels, the light from Earth is just reaching you 100 million lightyears away.

I think the light and time travel thing only works so you can see the past though. I dont think they will ever be able to travel to the future.

**KT.** · 01-21-2009, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

Ive heard the "if you can travel faster then light you can see into the past" thing.

Think about it this way. Lets say you can teleport 100 million lightyears away from Earth, and have a telescope that can see Earth from there. You would see Earth as it was 100 million years ago because at teh speed light travels, the light from Earth is just reaching you 100 million lightyears away.

I think the light and time travel thing only works so you can see the past though. I dont think they will ever be able to travel to the future.

Well according to Einstein, by traveling at the speed of light one would age slower than a person not traveling at the speed of light. You could interpret this as traveling into the future.

**Shinysides** · 01-21-2009, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by KT.

Well according to Einstein, by traveling at the speed of light one would age slower than a person not traveling at the speed of light. You could interpret this as traveling into the future.

According to Raffi, the wheels on the bus go round and round. You could interpret this as traveling on a bus.

**Infernus** · 01-21-2009, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Shinysides

According to Raffi, the wheels on the bus go round and round. You could interpret this as traveling on a bus.

Woah buddy nerdcore isn't the place for that intellectual speak

**Shinysides** · 01-24-2009, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Shinysides

According to Raffi, the wheels on the bus go round and round. You could interpret this as traveling on a bus.

This conversation was getting too escalated. I felt like quoting myself. I still feel that my observation is true and would hold up under the Theory of Relativity.

**gwahir** · 01-22-2009, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by KT.

Well according to Einstein, by traveling at the speed of light one would age slower than a person not traveling at the speed of light. You could interpret this as traveling into the future.

travelling into the future is a possibility with our current knowledge of the universe (we just don't have the technology to make the vehicle that would travel that fast and for that long)

but yes, exceeding the speed of light would mean that, according to observers travelling slower than you, you are going backwards in time. we know this because of einstein's finding that there is no such thing as absolute time, rather time is unique to observers depending on where they are stationed, the gravity affecting them and the speed at which they are travelling.

this has been a vaguely true mainstay of science fiction for a long, long time

basically: you know nothing

**KT.** · 01-22-2009, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by gwahir

travelling into the future is a possibility with our current knowledge of the universe (we just don't have the technology to make the vehicle that would travel that fast and for that long)

but yes, exceeding the speed of light would mean that, according to observers travelling slower than you, you are going backwards in time. we know this because of einstein's finding that there is no such thing as absolute time, rather time is unique to observers depending on where they are stationed, the gravity affecting them and the speed at which they are travelling.

this has been a vaguely true mainstay of science fiction for a long, long time

basically: you know nothing

I'm not saying it's impossible to move back in time but I am right about what I said. To the observer on earth, the one traveling at or faster than light speed would be moving at a slower rate, not moving back in time.

This is called time dilation.

**Killuminati** · 01-22-2009, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by captain castle

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SUPERMAN YOU STUPID FUCK

Damn do you think you could have overreacted more? I said that mostly as a joke. If that sparked some debate about physics I think that's great, better talk about special relativity than this stupid topic. I mean the question is not who does not find nerdiness endearing, it's who does find it endearing. I know you would probably like to get back on the original topic cc because the level of your nerdiness is unimaginable to most people. I know it must seem nice to think that some people find your primary quality endearing but the truth is no one in real life does. No one besides the same kind of sweaty, nerdy people. Why would you even make that post you douchebag.

Originally Posted by KT.

Well according to Einstein, by traveling at the speed of light one would age slower than a person not traveling at the speed of light. You could interpret this as traveling into the future.

Traveling the speed of light one would cease to age relative to someone who who is not moving at the speed of light. Your relative aging would slow as you approached the speed of light but once you hit it there is no slowing, it just stops. Another cool way to travel into the future would be to go hang out near a black hole (hovering just above the event horizon of course). The size of the black hole and how close you are to the event horizon would affect how much slower time would go for you than for someone on earth.

edit: I didn't even see this post before

Originally Posted by KT.

I'm not saying it's impossible to move back in time but I am right about what I said. To the observer on earth, the one traveling at or faster than light speed would be moving at a slower rate, not moving back in time.

This is called time dilation.

I don't believe it's possible to travel back in time, it doesn't make any fucking sense to even think about. Imagining what would happen if someone exceeded light speed doesn't even make sense because it will never happen. We can approach it all we want but we are never moving a human with a velocity greater than that of light speed. Like I said before it's because it would take infinite energy to do and unless we get some infinite energy engines we will never do it. I'm not sure what you mean by "To the observer on earth, the one traveling at or faster than light speed would be moving at a slower rate." Even if someone was able to go light speed how would they seem to be moving at a slower rate? Also time dilation is not what you were talking about. I don't know if you just worded what you meant to say badly but what you have written is not time dilation.

**djwolford** · 01-22-2009, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Killuminati

I don't believe it's possible to travel back in time, it doesn't make any fucking sense to even think about. Imagining what would happen if someone exceeded light speed doesn't even make sense because it will never happen.

That's been said about a lot of things, way to keep an open mind. I think you're missing one of the main points of science.