You also have the burden of proof, furry. And what you "laid out" falls far from meeting that. You're railing against a phenomenon that has been experimentally demonstrated, despite your insistence that it has not. We can do nothing for your delusion.
Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,885
- 28,606
I am pushing no theories. My claim in this instance is that I do not believe in QE, because it is not scientifically proven. Yet again, I very specifically have said what I consider proof, and what I consider proof agrees exactly with the scientific standard of proof. Since talking with you is going nowhere, I will refrain until you bring something new for consideration or provide said proof to show me wrong. It's a very simple request with a very simple way of showing me wrong.
Why should the burden of proof be on me? I am not claiming anything except that you have no scientific basis for your belief. That's like saying the burden of proof is on Athiests to deny the existence of god. You believe in something, you have to show it exists.
And it's been shown. I even posted a link that allows you to build an apparatusto test it for yourself. You did, however, conveniently gloss over that little bit.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,885
- 28,606
My standard for science is data and peer review. I forgot your standard is something a guy claims proves something, never mind that whole science mumbo jumbo stuff. I mean, it does what you believe, so It must be fact. I forgot that you're the guy who couldn't even understand the conventional explination of that device, or even understand what electromagnetism was- never mind that the thing you linked had absolutely nothing to do with QE.
Ambiturner
Ssraeszha Raider
- 16,043
- 19,530
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,885
- 28,606
Since you don't want to specify a paper, and likely wouldn't even understand it if you did, I will use the first example from your list that deals with quantum entanglement:http://journals.aps.org/prx/pdf/10.1...ysRevX.4.04103
This paper is a fun one, because the entire point of it is using pre-selection in attempt to close the fair sampling loophole. They failed, and reluctantly sneak their admission of that fact in this brief blurb in their conclusion:
Have a good day.
This paper is a fun one, because the entire point of it is using pre-selection in attempt to close the fair sampling loophole. They failed, and reluctantly sneak their admission of that fact in this brief blurb in their conclusion:
Of course, The mathematical basis for their experiment does not account for rotational invariance in its setup. Even if they managed to close the loopholes (they didn't) it would be mathematically invalid according to quantum mechanics itself.
Have a good day.
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 20,336
- 14,000
You know that Newtonian gravity eventually was seen to have problems too right? A problem that mystified everyone even though it was a "law". Just sayin'
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,885
- 28,606
Science occured in the correct order in this situation. We observed how gravity worked, and made a theory that matched it as close as we mathematically could. When our powers of observation got better, we found that this theory could not perfectly predict the movement of things, as first noticed with mercury. We then scientifically set out on a quest to change the math to as correctly as possible model what we observed in nature.
QE was manufactured to validate a mathematical idea, not based on any actual observational data. A mathematical proof was created for their idea, and then people set out on a quest to create something in nature that would verify it. So far they have not ever created a situation which could replicate this idea or even prove that the problem they're trying to solve actually exists in nature.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,358
- 80,736
As a layman it looks like Furry is doing exactly what he is preaching against. He doesn't like the approach that brought about QE (seeing mathematical possibilities and trying to reproduce them experimentally) and is rejecting evidence of it.
On the flip side, the people who disagree with Furry seem to be generally lazy in proving that QE is true. Whether this is because they can't do more than just quote a few papers and rely on the authority of those papers is unknown.
On the flip side, the people who disagree with Furry seem to be generally lazy in proving that QE is true. Whether this is because they can't do more than just quote a few papers and rely on the authority of those papers is unknown.
At some point you have to rely on the authority ofpeople who know what they're talking about better than you do.People who have worked in the field for 20+ years. People who have done a hell of a lot more booklearnin' and experimentin' than either me or furfuck.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,885
- 28,606
I'm not rejecting the evidence. I'm just extremely read on the subject and very aware of the fact that there is no evidence yet. If someone could prove me wrong, I'd be more than willing to accept it. Why should I believe in something that has no observational basis what so ever? What I don't understand are the people who believe it does have this basis, and willfully ignore the fact that the very mathematicians attempting to study it admit and agree that there is no observational proof yet.
My personal belief that it is a garbage area of science is separate from those facts. I have no problem with people studying QE all they want, just like I have no problem with people going to church.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,358
- 80,736
So for all the experiments going on with QE, what is your explanation for how it works?
ex:
JPL | News | Researchers Advance
What is going on here that isn't QE?
Phazael
Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
- 14,659
- 31,514
This. I am inclined to trust reputable experts over Star Fox trapped in a Neck Beard's body. Links have been provided and he basically just regurgitates nonsense. This whole derail got started because he lumped QE in with a bunch of nonsense, like religion, in out of one side of his mouth. Meanwhile he claims greenhouse gases don't exist out of the other. It would not surprise me in the least if he was an anti-vaxer, too. We have far more entertaining crazy people on this forum to waste time on than the Yiffer.
The answer is: nothing. Because it's QE and QE is a thing, despite what he thinks.
And yeah. Not going to spend any more time on it.