Sorry, didn’t mean to come across as an asshole - just meant to emphasize that the word “theory” could also be used as a figure of speech.
I realize it maybe wasn’t clear enough from my post that I didn’t try to make any actual scientific hypothesis or anything - I merely found it entertaining to figure out why anyone would think climate change could alter the speed of time. It just seemed like such an absurd starting point that I found it enjoyable to try to make sense of it.
But again, no hard feelings - communicating online can be tricky. Sorry about that!
Sorry, didn’t mean to come across as an asshole - just meant to emphasize that the word “theory” could also be used as a figure of speech.
I apologize if I also came across as a dick. I know you meant the informal usage. I don’t know where in the world you’re from (nor is it my business really), but I’m from America, and here we have a big problem with science ignorance which has led to anti-science being a very common thing. Small things like the difference between “theory” and “hypothesis”, though mostly inconsequential on their own, are symptomatic I feel of this larger problem. That’s why we get ignorant morons here that deny evolution and claim “It’s just a theory” as if that’s a valid rebuke.
I merely found it entertaining to figure out why anyone would think climate change could alter the speed of time. It just seemed like such an absurd starting point that I found it enjoyable to try to make sense of it.
And I get that. I totally find that enjoyable as well. Like reading about some of the ways someone could claim the Earth is flat and try to scientifically justify it. Totally bullshit, but it’s fascinating.
Like I said, perhaps I came across as way more vicious than I intended. If so, I sincerely apologize. Like you said, tone is difficult to convey over text and clearly I have failed at that.
No worries at all! My original comment was playing around with pseudoscience while being willfully ignorant, I totally see how that can trigger a negative reaction. :)
Sorry, didn’t mean to come across as an asshole - just meant to emphasize that the word “theory” could also be used as a figure of speech.
I realize it maybe wasn’t clear enough from my post that I didn’t try to make any actual scientific hypothesis or anything - I merely found it entertaining to figure out why anyone would think climate change could alter the speed of time. It just seemed like such an absurd starting point that I found it enjoyable to try to make sense of it.
But again, no hard feelings - communicating online can be tricky. Sorry about that!
I apologize if I also came across as a dick. I know you meant the informal usage. I don’t know where in the world you’re from (nor is it my business really), but I’m from America, and here we have a big problem with science ignorance which has led to anti-science being a very common thing. Small things like the difference between “theory” and “hypothesis”, though mostly inconsequential on their own, are symptomatic I feel of this larger problem. That’s why we get ignorant morons here that deny evolution and claim “It’s just a theory” as if that’s a valid rebuke.
And I get that. I totally find that enjoyable as well. Like reading about some of the ways someone could claim the Earth is flat and try to scientifically justify it. Totally bullshit, but it’s fascinating.
Like I said, perhaps I came across as way more vicious than I intended. If so, I sincerely apologize. Like you said, tone is difficult to convey over text and clearly I have failed at that.
No worries at all! My original comment was playing around with pseudoscience while being willfully ignorant, I totally see how that can trigger a negative reaction. :)
I hope you have a nice evening / morning / afternoon / whatever-the-fuck-this-is.