Read that list and found you guys tend to score higher than me when we argue. I make a few points, but the list is poisoned in a way that makes it almost impossible not to score some points via interpretation when you talk about anything related to science.
which items are poison?Read that list and found you guys tend to score higher than me when we argue. I make a few points, but the list is poisoned in a way that makes it almost impossible not to score some points via interpretation when you talk about anything related to science.
Whats that got to do with QM?Tuco, I really think you missed his rant against negative numbers in equations.
I remember it, I just didn't understand it. I don't know if anyone understood it. Including Furry.Tuco, I really think you missed his rant against negative numbers in equations.
My rant was against negative -RESULTS- being irrational, if they can't be calculated with a frame of reference that makes them positive. Not even QE falls to this standard. Of course, people here heard negative numbers and assumed I hate all negatives, which is not true. The main culprits of negative results being used to base real theories are in completely unproven science fields, such as holographic theories and string theories.I remember it, I just didn't understand it. I don't know if anyone understood it. Including Furry.
You obviously don't have the slightest understand of what im talking about. Again, I'm not talking about negative numbers, I'm talking about absolute negatives which aren't based off frames of reference. Concepts that fall into this void are things like negative mass and negative volume.Great conversation about the irrational nature of physics between Max Tegmark and Sam harris that is very applicable to this discussion.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...ou-you-you-you
As for Furry's argument, pretty sure he used the argument of not being able to see negative numbers in the real world. Well, I can't see viruses either. Of course we can see some evidence of those though, but what if we go down to the quark level? It is a vacuous statement and argument. The universe doesn't have to make sense and in many ways is directly counter-intuitive. Whenever you say to some result that you don't like it because "feels", that is a problem.
Okay. You've completely proved you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Negative mass and volume are purely hypothetical and only being used as exploratory tools. Nobody has actually said they exist or that they even could exist.You obviously don't have the slightest understand of what im talking about. Again, I'm not talking about negative numbers, I'm talking about absolute negatives which aren't based off frames of reference. Concepts that fall into this void are things like negative mass and negative volume.
plenty of theories say they exist, and I think they're bullshit.Okay. You've completely proved you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Negative mass and volume are purely hypothetical and only being used as exploratory tools. Nobody has actually said they exist or that they even could exist.
Plenty ofhypothesessay they exist.plenty of theories say they exist, and I think they're bullshit.