Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • 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!
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Furry_sl said:
plenty of theories say they exist, and I think they're bullshit.
Click to expand...
Based off feels. You find it uncomfortable, therefore it doesn't exist. The universe doesn't owe you anything in making all of its ideas fit inside your gray matter.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I dunno about you guys, but every time I try to imagine who the next Einstein will be, the only picture I get in my head is a guy living in a trailer park who gets erect each time he passes the stuffed animal section of the local Wal Mart.

Just sayin'.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,910
28,643
khalid_sl said:
Based off feels. You find it uncomfortable, therefore it doesn't exist. The universe doesn't owe you anything in making all of its ideas fit inside your gray matter.
Click to expand...
Show me where anything I just said is shown to exist in reality. One tiny small example will do. Even one. Cmon, do it.
 
Agraza

Agraza

Registered Hutt
6,890
521
hodj_sl said:
Getting soft would require a negative value for volumetric flow of blood, which is irrational.

So you really, truly, honestly CAN'T explain that!
Click to expand...
the negative is relative to a positive when you take in the larger system. which, of course, you know.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Agraza_sl said:
the negative is relative to a positive when you take in the larger system. which, of course, you know.
Click to expand...
Yes but apparently Furry doesn't get that

The defining characteristic for an object to have negative mass is that when a force is applied to it, it accelerates in the opposite direction from the force.
Click to expand...
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Everything negative is relative to 0 in the same way all positives are relative to 0.

I dunno why this is so hard for you to grasp, but you clearly need help.

Negative mass and volume are relative to no mass or volume in the same way positive mass and volume are relative to no mass or volume.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,411
80,901
This is the part where I know too little about the subject matter to know whether I know more about the subject matter than the people confidently discussing it.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Tuco_sl said:
This is the part where I know too little about the subject matter to know whether I know more about the subject matter than the people confidently discussing it.
Click to expand...
Don't worry the subject matter is dumb, to be honest.

He doesn't get that negative values he's complaining about are only theoretical models that are being used to test abstract mental constructs, and therefore he declares that since since they can't be demonstrated to exist in functional reality, its irrational to use them to model theoretical abstract mental constructs. Which is dumb.

Real negative values of things like mass and volume are, by definition, always relative to some point, object, place or thing, because they are referencing real objects in the real world. They are defined that way. Like if you throw a ball up in the air, it is moving in a positive direction upwards until it begins to fall, then it is moving in a negative direction, because we define the point of reference as the person throwing the ball upwards, but if we define the highest point the ball reaches as the point of reference, then the ball is moving in a negative direction as it travels upwards, and a positive direction as it falls back down. Its all definitionally defined and based on the point of reference chosen.

Its just a plain stupid thing to be caught up on, frankly. He's basically saying we shouldn't use negative values to model theoretical ideas because its irrational.

Its not irrational because no one is claiming that these actually represent real, tangible qualities. They're only being used to determine what could be plausible, not what is factual.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,411
80,901
hodj_sl said:
Don't worry the subject matter is dumb, to be honest.

He doesn't get that negative values he's complaining about are only theoretical models that are being used to test abstract mental constructs, and therefore he declares that since since they can't be demonstrated to exist in functional reality, its irrational to use them to model theoretical abstract mental constructs. Which is dumb.

Real negative values of things like mass and volume are, by definition, always relative to some point, object, place or thing, because they are referencing real objects in the real world. They are defined that way. Like if you throw a ball up in the air, it is moving in a positive direction upwards until it begins to fall, then it is moving in a negative direction, because we define the point of reference as the person throwing the ball upwards, but if we define the highest point the ball reaches as the point of reference, then the ball is moving in a negative direction as it travels upwards, and a positive direction as it falls back down. Its all definitionally defined and based on the point of reference chosen.

Its just a plain stupid thing to be caught up on, frankly. He's basically saying we shouldn't use negative values to model theoretical ideas because its irrational.

Its not irrational because no one is claiming that these actually represent real, tangible qualities. They're only being used to determine what could be plausible, not what is factual.
Click to expand...
Based on
furry_sl said:
Again, I'm not talking about negative numbers, I'm talking about absolute negatives which aren't based off frames of reference.
Click to expand...
I don't think he's saying that, but I'll let him respond to it directly.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
rrr_img_111188.png


He already did.

Also this

Furry_sl said:
My rant was against negative -RESULTS- being irrational, if they can't be calculated with a frame of reference that makes them positive. .
Click to expand...
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
And this

Furry_sl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where he asserts holographic and string "theories" are "real theories".

They aren't.

They're hypotheses. Just because the name of string theory includes the word theory doesn't mean its actually a theory, as in a valid and proven explanatory model with decades to centuries of experimental research backing it up.

In fact, no part of string theory has ever been demonstrated to be true. It is a string hypothesis. The people who came up with it labeled it string theory because I dunno why, but it leads to endless confusion.

Is String Theory Testable? | Not Even Wrong

I don't think the points I was making in the talk were particularly controversial. It was an attempt to explain without too much editorializing the state of the effort to connect the idea of string-based unification of gravity and particle physics with the real world. This is something that has not worked out as people had hoped and I think it is important to acknowledge this and examine the reasons for it. In one part of the talk I go over a list of the many public claims made in recent years for some sort of "experimental tests" of string theory and explain what the problems with these are.

My conclusion, as you'd expect, is that string theory is not testable in any conventional scientific use of the term. The fundamental problem is that simple versions of the string theory unification idea, the ones often sold as "beautiful", disagree with experiment for some basic reasons. Getting around these problems requires working with much more complicated versions, which have become so complicated that the framework becomes untestable as it can be made to agree with virtually anything one is likely to experimentally measure. This is a classic failure mode of a speculative framework: the rigid initial version doesn't agree with experiment, making it less rigid to avoid this kills off its predictivity.

Some string theorists refuse to acknowledge that this is what has happened and that this has been a failure. Most I think just take the point of view that the structures uncovered are so rich that they are worth continuing to investigate despite this failure, especially given the lack of successful alternative ideas about unification of particle physics and gravity. Here we get into a very different kind of argument.
Click to expand...
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,910
28,643
I ignored hodj forever ago tuco. He's got a terminal case of verbal diarrhea. He links a bunch of shit he doesn't even understand then argues against positions that people don't even have. Talking with him is as pointless as talking to wall.

People like khalid at least put a bit of honesty into their posts, even if they won't back up their position by justifying it.

I'm making the claim something doesn't exist. It should be easy to show I'm wrong if I am. So why not khalid? Why do you insist on just attacking me instead? I want to be your friend, sir.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
I agree with Furry

I also have a problem with negative mass.
Mass is usually defined as the amount of substance of something, the number of atoms. Now having zero atoms is understandable, now having negative number of atoms makes no sense whatsoever.
Also negative mass goes against the concept of gravity, where objects with mass pull TOWARDS each other.
It goes competently against the rest of our established frameworks. Ill put it next to the "how dragons flight physics."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.