this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2025
4 points (55.6% liked)
Space
1961 readers
23 users here now
A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics
Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instanceβs local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.
Related Communities
π Science
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
π Engineering
π Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's beyond the event horizon. It's unknown by definition. They restated the definition.
And maybe a black hole is filled with pudding. Again this is restating the definition: Maybe there's something unknown inside an object that's defined to be something that is unknown.
Using two paragraphs to say there's unknown inside of an object defined as being unknown inside is ridiculous.
Again if this was an essay titled, "A beginners guide to Black Holes.", it would have been perfectly fine.
No, they didn't. Your reading comprehension just blows.
They didn't provide ANY support for their claim that MAYBE (their word) the inside of a black hole is uniquely different.
It's fucking unknown. That's the definition. It is juvenile to conclude an essay with an imaginary idea of what's inside an unknown object.
It is no different if I titled an article "Black Holes are filled with chocolate pudding." Then after several pages of background on Black Holes, I conclude with "No one knows so maybe it's chocolate pudding."
Are you the author that you are so defensive about a click bait article?
I'm not here to prove their ideas, so getting mad at me for you disagreeing with them is... juvenile.
I'm not "defensive" in the slightest. You just feel attacked, so you're projecting that, despite my comments being extremely neutral.
You claimed I had a reading comprehension problem. That's a personal attack.
I did not.
I commented on your reading comprehension, and not even in as surly a tone as you had been using at me.
You're directing anger towards me for them having sensationalism in their piece? How does that make sense?
I'm merely pointing what the text states.
I'm directing anger at you for a personal attack. Claiming I have reading a comprehension problem is a personal attack. It is especially egregious because you refuse to defend the article to explain where I am wrong in my interpretation.
I have given multiple explanations as to why the article is bad without calling you an idiot. In fact I didn't even say the article was bad but that it is mistitled into click bait.
No, it isn't a personal attack. You commented "the article doesn't even suggest what they might be hiding".
It does.
You didn't see it. Despite (presumably) reading the article. This means you didn't understand what you read. I pointed that out. You got rather pissy about it, and here we are.
Saying "it might be different inside" without absolutely any support isn't a valid suggestion. That's why I compared it to suggesting chocolate pudding. Because it isn't valid, it isn't a suggestion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
So you're back to pretending I've written the article. I haven't. I'm merely explaining to you what it said, since you couldn't figure that out yourself.
Please contact the authors of the article if your want to tell them they're wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension
Read my post and quote where it implies you wrote the article.
Reading comprehension, indeed.
The author's suggestion wasn't valid and therefore wasn't a suggestion at all.
That's not your claim. You said I went back to saying you are the author.
Show it or apologize.
I have never said you have said I'm the author. I've implied that your rhetoric should be directed at the authors of the article, and not me, since I'm not arguing you.
The fact that you couldn't suss that out sort of supports my notion of you having a somewhat bad level of reading ability.
"Show it or apologise"
What are you 12?
"So you are back to pretending I wrote the article."
Nothing I wrote implied that.
You're fucking pathetic, you know that? You can't accept you made a mistake so you go fucking ages on Lemmy pretending you didn't. Who are you trying to delude except yourself? Not me, that's for sure
The author said, "maybe it's different inside". My restating the author is not an accusation that you wrote the article.
You don't understand context even. Sheesh. This is what I mean by you having a shit reading level.
Yes, it is.
I arguing that you didn't understand the article. Then you reply to that by disagreeing with the thing you misunderstood.
You don't have an argument so you deflect and insult.
My argument is that you misunderstood, because of your reading capabilities. For anyone with proper reading comprehension, that's kinda evident from reading this thread.
You have been arguing by trying to have it both ways.
You claim the author gave a suggestion of what is inside black holes. I asserted that the suggestion doesn't meet the criteria of a suggestion for a scientific article and therefore isn't a suggestion.
You then respond with the equivalent of, "I'm not the author and not defending the content."
This is Space, not Astrology. The criteria for article content is higher.
It very clearly does.
If you can't see that you're illiterate.
Then you get mad at me pointing that out and start crying for apologies online. Fucking lol
A suggestion in a scientific paper isn't anything you pull out of your ass.
Back to commenting on the content, despite me not at any point talking about it with you. I merely pointed out you read it poorly β which you did. Now stop crying over it and just leave rhe thread alone if you're so ashamed.
"apologise to meeeee REEEEEEEE"
You just commented on the content. You can't have it both ways.
You comment on the content by claiming he gave a suggestion.
Jesus fucking hell. You just can't accept you made mistake while reading. I really hope you are 15-25. If you're over 26 and still this childishly stubborn because you're incapable of accepting you make mistakes, then you'll be like that as long as you live. Fucking eww.
You didn't understand what the author meant. You were wrong that they "just restated the definition".
Carry on with your tantrum if you want man, it won't change you having been wrong.
From what Iβve gathered you are in a constant state of throwing a tantrum and you sound like a stupid 12 year old as far as your ability to process information, who the fuck are you to talk, you dumb ass entitled little cunt?
Yes, I'm the one who sounds like they're having a silly tantrum, when you can't even reply without "dumb-ass (that's how you spell it, just to educate you a bit) entitled little cunt".
Do you genuinely think a kid like you saying "cunt" to me shakes in any way? I've had 2m tall fully tatted up criminals yell at me how they're gonna kill and maim and torture me and my family if I don't [whatever shit they were wanting to do at the time.]
Do you know why you get so angry? Because you hate the facts. You hate that you don't understand the subject, you hate that I know that, you hate that you're too lazy to read up this, despite this argument already having gone several days, during which you could've educated yourself.
But you chose not to.
Because fuck science right, you're not giving up your legal speed even when you have it with a false excuse.
Addicts are so fkin easy to read :DD
Jesus christ, you are fucking hilarious.
I've seen this exact model of behaviour a thousand times.
Just spend a few minutes reading up on what neurodevelopmental disorders are, mkay?
Spend a few minutes reading up on NPD, you jackass.
Oh no, not a JACKASS! However will I face the next day, knowing that someone online has compared me to an equine of low standing! Noooo!
Almost as bad as having a meltdown for everyone to see, because you couldn'tbe arsed to google "neurodevelopmental disorder" before showing everyone your ignorance and childish attitude. But I'm the narcissist for using a forum to... write things. Tell me again how you're deluding yourself that that makes sense?
So you canβt even look up NPD, youβre that dumb, you canβt even admit that youβre too scared to even learn something? Youβre such an addict to your narcissistic ways.
I honestly can't tell if he's serious or trolls for fun. I looked at his other posts and he does the same childish hostility everywhere.
Heβs just a run of the mill narcissist, they donβt really believe in anything.
You're literally spamming a forum despite not being able to even say anything. You don't realise how ridiculous you look?