Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,782
- 25,087
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.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,526
- 73,617
Ambiturner
Ssraeszha Raider
- 16,040
- 19,502
We don't know. He's only said that foundational aspects of QM are wrong and he knows better. He's never actuallytoldus anything.
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,782
- 25,087
QM is mostly fine with me. My problems are mostly with QE, and a couple various fringe theories. QM, especially the parts used in particle physics/QFT is fine with me. This is also the part of QM that was developed before QM even existed. It was only later added to the theory. Troll likes to say I hate all of QM, despite my repeated correction of that belief.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,526
- 73,617
If I can add to that, I think Furry has been pretty clear about it. He believes in QM, but thinks a lot of physicists overstate the applications or function of QM in many fields, ex: QE and intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent what is happening in QE experiments.
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,782
- 25,087
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,526
- 73,617
I remember it, I just didn't understand it. I don't know if anyone understood it. Including Furry.
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,782
- 25,087
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.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
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.
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.
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,782
- 25,087
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.
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.
Furry
WoW Office
- 19,782
- 25,087