/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12008335
>OP is gay.

>>12008339
Still voting Biden

> The Earth is round.
You're already wrong here.
> The Moon landings happened and space travel is real.
Proof?
>Newtonian Mechanics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
You should replace accurate with approximative.
Also I discard your deliberately vague definition of "accurate"
>The Standard Model of particle physics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
Though, that model isn't really working well.
>More generally, if you disagree with thermodynamics, you are wrong.
Thermodynamics is really only a macroscopic approximation which starts to break down for a sufficiently small space.
>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
Proof?
>Approved vaccines are effective and much safer than the diseases they prevent.
Many vaccines are simple injections containing weakened versions of the exact same disease. Its usefulness can be questioned but I'm not here to start a vaccine thread.
>> Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give accurate answers and be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform the current theory.
In short, OP likes sucking dicks.

Conclusion: OP really is a massive faggot and pushing a political agenda. He does not never a (You) from me.

> The Earth is round.
You're already wrong here.
> The Moon landings happened and space travel is real.
Proof?
>Newtonian Mechanics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
You should replace accurate with approximative.
Also I discard your deliberately vague definition of "accurate"
>The Standard Model of particle physics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
Though, that model isn't really working well.
>More generally, if you disagree with thermodynamics, you are wrong.
Thermodynamics is really only a macroscopic approximation which starts to break down for a sufficiently small space.
>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
Proof?
>Approved vaccines are effective and much safer than the diseases they prevent.
Many vaccines are simple injections containing weakened versions of the exact same disease. Its usefulness can be questioned but I'm not here to start a vaccine thread.
>> Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give accurate answers and be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform the current theory.
In short, OP likes sucking dicks.

Conclusion: OP really is a massive faggot and pushing a political agenda. He does not get a (You) from me.

>FTL communication is impossible

But you already admitted that relativity is incomplete. A more accurate and complete theory might abandon the axiom of c being the upper limit.

>>12008420
>But you already admitted that relativity is incomplete. A more accurate and complete theory might abandon the axiom of c being the upper limit.
While that is a fair point, such a theory would necessarily break causality. And it seems highly unlikely that you can have a functioning universe without causality.

>>12008399
>> The Earth is round.
>You're already wrong here.
Fuck off, schizo. You are not welcome here. You are not respected here. No-one with even a modicum of intelligence believes or will ever believe you. Go back to /x/ where you belong and leave the science to the scientists.
>inb4 argumento ad judaismus

>>12008335
The flu vaccine is an exception. Epidemiologists have known for the last 50 years that flu does not follow the normal pattern for an infectious disease. It's transmission is still not understood.

Nine influenza conundrums:
(1) Why is influenza both seasonal and ubiquitous and where is the virus between epidemics?
(2) Why are the epidemics so explosive?
(3) Why do they end so abruptly?
(4) What explains the frequent coincidental timing of epidemics in countries of similar latitude?
(5) Why is the serial interval obscure?
(6) Why is the secondary attack rate so low?
(7) Why did epidemics in previous ages spread so rapidly, despite the lack of modern transport?
(8) Why does experimental inoculation of seronegative humans fail to cause illness in all the volunteers?
(9) Why has influenza mortality of the aged not declined as their vaccination rates increased?

Cannell, J.J., Zasloff, M., Garland, C.F. et al. On the epidemiology of influenza. Virol J 5, 29 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-422X-5-29
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-5-29

>>12008399
>> The Moon landings happened and space travel is real.
>Proof?
Everything has been meticulously documented and everything is publicly available. There is literally nothing new I can show you that you won't simply reject as lies. Your mind is made up, you must find your own way out of the insane fantasy you live in.

>Also I discard your deliberately vague definition of "accurate"
What's vague about it?

>>The Standard Model of particle physics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
>Though, that model isn't really working well.
Please give me an example of the SM failing.

>>More generally, if you disagree with thermodynamics, you are wrong.
>Thermodynamics is really only a macroscopic approximation which starts to break down for a sufficiently small space.
This is false. Thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental and all-encompassing theories of physics. There is literally nowhere it breaks down.

>>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
>Proof?
Same as above. All the evidence is publicly available, yet you reject it in your delusions.

>Conclusion: OP really is a massive faggot and pushing a political agenda. He does not get a (You) from me.
All of these are simple statements of fact about the reality we live in. You do not get to choose your facts based on your politics.

>12008457
Not worthy of a comment, retard. I didn't imply flat earth.
>>12008463
Let me just play devil's advocate here.
>Everything has been meticulously documented and everything is publicly available.
From which it follows it's all real without any possibility that it is faked or staged?
>There is literally nowhere it breaks down.
It does because thermodynamics ultimately rests on statistics thus only provides actually accurate answers in macroscopic spaces.
>Please give me an example of the SM failing.
Gravity. Also tons of theoretical extensions of the SM have failed.
>All the evidence is publicly available
It's know that the already established climate change model blaming anthropological causes can be modified to accommodate pretty much any possible change in the empirical data thus rendering it pseudoscientific. A theory that can account for anything predicts nothing.

>>12008458
A lot of these are really stupid questions, desu. Expect nothing less of epidemiologists to lack common sense.

>>12008335
> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.

You just had to invalidate the decent points you made before by adding this postmodernist politics dressed up as """science"""

If you want to keep climate science on the list the rest of the list have to go. I mean I can make a model that shows the Earth is a pyramid made out of straight lines, and because it's a scientific model it is therefor by definition true.

No? Well YOU'RE A FUCKING SCIENCE DENIER, GO BACK TO /X/

>>12008532
>>Everything has been meticulously documented and everything is publicly available.
>From which it follows it's all real without any possibility that it is faked or staged?
From which it follows that you have all the information available to you that would make it obvious to anyone with half a functioning brain to conclude that it's real.

>>There is literally nowhere it breaks down.
>It does because thermodynamics ultimately rests on statistics thus only provides actually accurate answers in macroscopic spaces.
Thermodynamics does not rest on statistics. The fundamental postulates of thermodynamics are much deeper than that. Read the first chapter of Callen if you want a baby introduction.

>>Please give me an example of the SM failing.
>Gravity.
That's not a failure of SM, it was never built to include gravity. It is incomplete, that doesn't mean it's failing. That's like saying hydrodynamics fails because it doesn't predict the speed of light.
>Also tons of theoretical extensions of the SM have failed.
Extensions of SM are not SM.

>>All the evidence is publicly available
>It's know that the already established climate change model blaming anthropological causes can be modified to accommodate pretty much any possible change in the empirical data thus rendering it pseudoscientific. A theory that can account for anything predicts nothing.
The same tired old lies over and over and over and over again. I'll simply refer you to this and ignore any further stale lies about this topic. https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

>>12008335
>is a real threat
not a fact, thats opinion which hasnt panned out

>>12008592
>From which it follows that you have all the information available to you that would make it obvious to anyone with half a functioning brain to conclude that it's real.
Not an argument. You can't rigorously prove that it's not fabricated thus I rest my case.
>The fundamental postulates of thermodynamics are much deeper than that.
No, not really. The fundamental postulates are what you would expect in a macroscopic space where the background noice averages to zero.
>That's not a failure of SM, it was never built to include gravity. It is incomplete, that doesn't mean it's failing.
Literally: Model1 was never built to include phenomenon A. It is incomplete, that doesn't mean it's failing. Sounds kinda wrong to me.
Now the empirical verification of those funny particles adds to it a nice touch though I'm not even sure it was able to predict most of the particles covered by the SM itself.
>I'll simply refer you to this and ignore any further stale lies about this topic.
>We simply adapt our models until it fits the empirical data.
>Add in anthropogenic emission (we have no clue how much there is and how it actually will act but whateva)
>Sceynce.

>>12008592
>From which it follows that you have all the information available to you that would make it obvious to anyone with half a functioning brain to conclude that it's real.
Not an argument. You can't rigorously prove that it's not fabricated thus I rest my case.
>The fundamental postulates of thermodynamics are much deeper than that.
No, not really. The fundamental postulates are what you would expect in a macroscopic space where the background noice averages to zero.
>That's not a failure of SM, it was never built to include gravity. It is incomplete, that doesn't mean it's failing.
Literally: Model1 was never built to include phenomenon A. It is incomplete, that doesn't mean it's failing. Sounds kinda wrong to me.
Now the empirical verification of those funny particles adds a nice touch to it though I'm not even sure whether or not the SM purely rests on empirical findings. As said before, if you got thousands of theoretical extensions, one of it will be right, somewhat. Scientific success
>I'll simply refer you to this and ignore any further stale lies about this topic.
>We simply adapt our models until it fits the empirical data.
>Add in anthropogenic emission (we have no clue how much there is and how it actually will affect the atmosphere but whateva)
>Sceynce.

>>12008592
>From which it follows that you have all the information available to you that would make it obvious to anyone with half a functioning brain to conclude that it's real.
Not an argument. You can't rigorously prove that it's not fabricated thus I rest my case.
>The fundamental postulates of thermodynamics are much deeper than that.
No, not really. The fundamental postulates are what you would expect in a macroscopic space where the background noise averages to zero.
>That's not a failure of SM, it was never built to include gravity. It is incomplete, that doesn't mean it's failing.
Literally: Model1 was never built to include phenomenon A. It is incomplete, that doesn't mean it's failing. Sounds kinda wrong to me.
Now the empirical verification of those funny particles adds a nice touch to it though I'm not even sure whether or not the SM purely rests on empirical findings. As said before, if you got thousands of theoretical extensions, one of it will be right, somewhat. Scientific success
>I'll simply refer you to this and ignore any further stale lies about this topic.
>We simply adapt our models until it fits the empirical data.
>Add in anthropogenic emission (we have no clue how much there is and how it actually will affect the atmosphere but whateva)
>Sceynce.

Fixed some typos.

>>12008694
>>From which it follows that you have all the information available to you that would make it obvious to anyone with half a functioning brain to conclude that it's real.
>Not an argument. You can't rigorously prove that it's not fabricated thus I rest my case.
Yet there is no credible evidence that it was fabricated. The null hypothesis remains: it's real.

>>The fundamental postulates of thermodynamics are much deeper than that.
>No, not really. The fundamental postulates are what you would expect in a macroscopic space where the background noise averages to zero.
You conflate thermodynamics with statistical mechanics. Again, there is no experiment which contradicts thermodynamics.

>>That's not a failure of SM, it was never built to include gravity. It is incomplete, that doesn't mean it's failing.
>Literally: Model1 was never built to include phenomenon A. It is incomplete, that doesn't mean it's failing. Sounds kinda wrong to me.
That is literally the point of domains of validity and the entire point of the original post. Go back and read it again.
>Now the empirical verification of those funny particles adds a nice touch to it though I'm not even sure whether or not the SM purely rests on empirical findings. As said before, if you got thousands of theoretical extensions, one of it will be right, somewhat. Scientific success
The standard model of particle physics was built upon a mixture of theory and empirical evidence, and has been thoroughly tested.

>>I'll simply refer you to this and ignore any further stale lies about this topic.
>>We simply adapt our models until it fits the empirical data.
>>Add in anthropogenic emission (we have no clue how much there is and how it actually will affect the atmosphere but whateva)
>>Sceynce.
It has been proven again and again that anthropogenic emissions are the main driving factors behind current observed climate change. See https://www.skepticalscience.com/ which refutes all of your falsehoods.

>>12008335
> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
>mostly caused by humans
>humans

Isnt it kinda political to assume chinese ppl are human?

>climate change
you mean global warming that is caused only by anthropogenic CO2 that prevents infrared radiation from escaping the earth and not by increased thermal activity from the extra billion hominids shat out from third world wombs on to the surface of the earth? Yah that's bullshit. CO2 does marginally very little past 100 ppm (and even the 100 ppm doesn't do much). Go google it for 5 minutes. Carbon taxes are just a scam.

>vaccines
some are useful like the smallpox and polio ones
others are just ineffective because the target pathogen mutates too quickly (e.g., flu)

>The Moon landings happened
maybe
rather weird that they haven't been replicated by any other country in 40 years

>>12008922
>Carbon taxes are just a scam.
No one mentioned carbon taxes. This is about facts. Not about what to do with those facts.

>>12008335
are wireless mass scanning apparatus' possible?

>>12008922
>i read one article that says CO2 doesn't affect climate on page 7 of google

>>12008541
I guess you didn't read the paper I linked to.

>>12008907
don't be like this

If accepting something will not affect my life, I can give it some slack. If it will affect my life negatively, then only absolutely strong evidence will suffice.
For example moon landings and relativity theory do not impoverish or imprison me. So I can accept them as true. Meanwhile global warming or corona truthers force me to massively decrease my life quality. That's why I will fight against them as much as I can.

>>12008335
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
But I want to believe.

>>12009267
>Meanwhile global warming or corona truthers force me to massively decrease my life quality. That's why I will fight against them as much as I can.
"If something is inconvenient I will simply assume it's not true and that way all my problems will magically disappear!"

>>12009308
>"If something is inconvenient I will simply assume it's not true and that way all my problems will magically disappear!"
That's the optimal way to live your life. Way better than being gullible fool who will agree to suffer for vague promises of common good.

>>12008335
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible
false

>>12009331
This is you.

>>12009350
More like I don't agree to drown if some dog is burning somewhere.

>>12009355
If your neighbor's appartment is on fire, it is in your own self-interest to help put it out. I don't see how it is difficult to understand that you depend on society functioning to survive.

As far as verifying the moon landings go, isn't it possible to see the footprints with a very good telescope?

>>12008399
>You're already wrong here
Proof the Earth isn't round?

>>12009370
Not really footprints, but recently LRO (Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter) was able to image the landing sites. Just search for LRO moon landing images. NASA has a ton of them.

You can't see it from Earth because telescopes just aren't that powerful.

>>12009364
If firefighters suddenly appear and drown my apartments in water because supposedly some house in other town caught a fire, I will try to fight them off (and will also be skeptical about their foreign fire claims).

>>12008428
we know one of causality, reality, or locality must be incorrect based on quantum mechanics, we just don't know which one. all three if those are equally concerning metaphysically. causality being wrong at least makes a little sense since information travelling backwards in time is technically A-okay in (admittedly very theoretical) physics and is one of the proposed solutions for epr paradox. in this sense reality would only have -the appearance of- a lack of causality.

>>12009233
man, its hard for me to believe you even responded ( with respect ) to such a low and disrespectful comment
the anon basically went sixnine
>A lot of these are really stupid questions
huurrr duuur

i am debating with my self how to approach those kind of attitudes. they can be ignored. they can be deconstructed and treated as naive children looking to learn. please share with me your opinion on how you see fit for us collectively to respond to such low quality nonsense.

>>12008457
>You are not respected here
i respect him

>>12008335
Good thread here’s a bump

>>12010073
if i do all that can i save myself from reading the whole book? or are his ideas presented in a way that only works if i give him money?

>>12009477
The irony being that firefighters frequently douse buildings that are next to the ones on fire to keep them from spontaneously igniting from heat or stray embers.

But sure, next time the firefighters try to spray water on your house go and fight them. I bet they'll have a grand time watching your house burn.

>>12008335
>I am bored and want strangers to troll me.
The entire thread.

>>12010085
he dead - November 1, 1955
burn the money and say a prayer

>>12010307
so the book is promoted non-profit by actual people who were helped or publishers who win a ton off money of his idea hmmm?

>>12008335
usual bait thread where OP sucks cock instead of delivering anything substantial.

>>12008335
>facts
>everyone should
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

>>12008907
lmao

>>12008335
>Approved vaccines are effective and much safer than the diseases they prevent.
The flu shot is at best 30% effective against a disease that's marginally dangerous

>>12010025
>please share with me your opinion on how you see fit for us collectively to respond to such low quality nonsense.

Please share with me your opinion on how that is on topic.

>>12010357
Not relevant. Everyone should agree on basic facts of reality for meaningful discussion to be had. Anyone who actively disagrees with any of these these cannot sensibly contribute to a conversation about science.

>>12008457
>>12009391
Ackchyually, earth isn't round, it is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid. Or, rather, a geoid. So he's right.

Someone help me out, it's been a long time since I took physics. There's equations to determine how big your lens needs to be to see an object of X size with Y distance but I don't remember the formula or what the equation is called.n

I remember in class calculating it out that you would need a telescope like 2000 feet wide while the largest telescope is only like 30 feet wide. Know what I'm talking about? Can someone post the equations?

>>12010885
Sorry, I mean we would need a telescope like 2000 feet wide to see the landers on the moon from the orbit of the Earth
>>12009403

>>12008922
>rather weird that they haven't been replicated by any other country in 40 years
>I am retarded and I don't understand the complete lack of economic or PR reasons for going to the moon in 2020

>>12010885
I think you are refering to concave/convex lenses and the derived lens maker formula for them.

>>12008694
>>We simply adapt our models until it fits the empirical data.
is it somehow bad for models to fit the data? That is what models are designed to do.

>>Add in anthropogenic emission (we have no clue how much there is
We know how much there is, it can be measured in several different ways.

>and how it actually will affect the atmosphere but whateva)
The point is to predict how it will affect the atmosphere. This instantiated is based on fundamental physics, chemistry, and direct observation.

>>12008399
>Thermodynamics is really only a macroscopic approximation
Thermodynamics is close to the only thing we think is truly true. The second a break is found, all of physics will be upended.

>>12010887
Diffraction limit gives angular resolution as a function of the diameter of your objective lens or mirror and the wavelength of light being used. Formula is:
resolution = 1.22 * diameter / wavelength.
You can figure out yourself what resolution you need to make out a moon lander.

>>12008399
>Thermodynamics is really only a macroscopic approximation which starts to break down for a sufficiently small space.
You can derive all of thermodynamics from the assumption that the universe obeys physical laws. It is irrelevant what those laws are or whether we know them or not. The fact that they exist is sufficient to prove all of thermodynamics.

>>12011121
Bro no. Thermodynamics is a statistical representation of the universe.

That's why Maxwell's demon is such a problem.

>>12011129
>I don't know thermodynamics.
You are foolhardedly displaying your ignorance. Go study.

>>12011130
Not an argument dude, I've studied this plenty.

Thermodynamics is a statistical representation of the universe. It relies on the tendencies of systems alongside a couple boundary conditions. However there are violations to thermodynamic law, both theoretically and physically which implies that while it is a great and useful description of reality it is incomplete. A great example which I was pointing out being that tendencies towards equilibrium are a statistical phenomena and can be theoretically, and in some confined cases experimentally, determined to do the reverse.

Side note, I can derive a lot of incorrect things from the premise that the universe obeys physical laws depending on how it is conceptualized and defined. It doesn't mean what I derive is accurate unless it is consistent with physical observation.

quantum computers can communicate faster than light

>>12011267
They cannot. There are non-local correlations, which is not the same as transmitting information FTL.

>>12011376
Yes it is

https://youtu.be/cUZNXgIXM1c

>>12011163
Okay, I was wrong to call you out like that. Sorry, not used to talking to sensible people on here.

I think our disagreement stems for what we consider thermodynamics breaking down. If a system appears to violate the second law due to correlations (like how quantum entanglement can make heat flow from cold to hot), you might say that thermodynamics is breaking down. The way I see it is that our classical description of entropy is breaking down. Subtle difference. I still hold that thermo is unbreakable, and any apparent discrepancies between thermodynamics and reality are caused by calculating entropy in a way that does not apply.

>>12011385
If the definitions we use to define our laws break down under certain conditions it means that the law itself is incomplete.

I do agree it could just be that we are calculating something inappropriately, however the fact remains that there are a variety of situations which arise from the physical statistical nature of thermodynamics that run counter to the absolute "law based" conception. I guess the difference here is that I could see the current "laws of thermodynamics" being subsumed by some greater set of laws in the future and are not the end all be all.

>>12011418
I guess this stems from you considering thermodynamics as a large scale shorthand for the more general statistical mechanics, whereas I consider statistical mechanics a micro-scale description of the abstract more general thermodynamics?

And I agree that there's still a lot we have yet to discover about both disciplines. I'm very eager to see how non-equilibrium thermodynamics develops in the coming decades.

>>12011129
Hahahaha


HAHAHAHAHA

HE THINKS MAXWELLS DEMON IS A PROBLEM FOR THERMODYNAMICS

OH MY GOD HOW

>>12011455
That makes some sense. Thermodynamics are nice but they don't do a perfect job at simulating interactions and understanding how systems evolve, particularly on a micro level. Which comes back to the entropy problem you obliquely referenced. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if an information-thermodynamic law ended up eventually being codified. But going back the way I view laws are that they are supposed to be invarient on scale, since thermo has a break down at certain scales it means that a crucial piece is missing, imo information encoding. There are some very interesting statistics proofs on information correlation and entropy that come to mind.

I work in an equilibrium thermodynamics lab and it kills me sometimes because non-equilibrium processes are fascinating, but my boss is super old school. It makes sense cause we already work in a super noisy system (inside of cells and quinary interactions). But it still frustrates me.

>>12010352
you have to be over 18 to post here

>>12011473
>Which comes back to the entropy problem you obliquely referenced. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if an information-thermodynamic law ended up eventually being codified. But going back the way I view laws are that they are supposed to be invarient on scale, since thermo has a break down at certain scales it means that a crucial piece is missing, imo information encoding. There are some very interesting statistics proofs on information correlation and entropy that come to mind.
Exactly. It does indeed come down to a proper description of entropy as information content, and correlation makes that extremely non-trivial. I am convinced that if we find a general description of entropy, thermodynamics will once again be proven to be ironclad.

>>12008347
SVT

>>12011473
I thought you worked in a Buddhist monastery

hows does it feel to have spent so much time doing something actually useful?

>>12011163
here is my private email pls contact me with your info so we can better communicate about this more

>>12008335
This looks like a Leddit comic.

>>12009895
Man I swear to God nobody has the same vocabulary on those topics. For me, locality and causality are synonymous, what's the difference for you? And what is "reality", is it contrafactual definiteness?

>>12008335
Intellectually castrated, fully circumcised, incredibly clamped, 110% vaccinated, deeply fluoridated, heavily irradiated, chronically chlorinated, basically brominated, totally teratogenated.

>>12011757
>Man I swear to God nobody has the same vocabulary on those topics. For me, locality and causality are synonymous, what's the difference for you? And what is "reality", is it contrafactual definiteness?
the way I heard it when I was told one of the three had to be wrong was:
causality: things have causes come before the effects
locality: things are effected only by their immediate surroundings (ie, no 'action at a distance'. you need virtual particles, space curvature, fields, etc. as an in-between)
reality: laws of the universe do not change based on time/place

>>12008335
Generally agree, but the Lambda-CDM model got a beating two weeks ago or so by a paper cleverly showing there is much more matter than we thought there was.
It is still debated how much of a role human doing plays in climate change, so I really wouldn't list it here as "mostly caused by". Climate change is (now very obviously) real and happening though.

>>12012172
Reality is more about that everyone will agree on the outcome of a single experiment (after relativity has been taken into account).

>>12012552
isn't that a weaker version of the other statement?
is that way of defining reality due to the fact fundamental constants shift, or is there some other nuance that makes the other way of phrasing it too strong a condition?

>>12011520
Big fucking "if" there, and the problem remains that by properly defining entropy we might invalidate the second law as it currently stands. Which would be really good news on an existential level. Although that might be more wishful thinking than anything.

>>12011529
Not gonna lie if actually does help motivate me to get up in the morning. My work is specifically on a protein that we think can be used to stabilize vaccines on top of being just absolutely fascinating as a material.

>>12011536
What? About what? What email?

>>12010088
Kek. Schizo anon BTFO!

>>12013601
Look, a drowned anon posting!

>>12010088
If firefighters drown houses to have fun, sue them for being malignant.
If firefighters let houses burn, sure them for negligence.

>>12013624
>A dude was attacking us for trying to put water on his house so we didn't
No judge in the world would convict a fire station for focusing on the other houses when a schizo home owner attacks them for trying to help. Hell the homeowner would probably get slapped with an assault charge.

Also when's the last time you heard of a firefighter "drowning" a house for fun.

>>12013643
Let's see
>If firefighters suddenly appear and drown my apartments in water because supposedly some house in other town caught a fire,
>No judge in the world would convict a fire station for focusing on the other houses
Yes, then such a fire station is profoundly mad, or evil. If your city is constantly experiencing this - well, you can try to fight them back or have destroyed computer/books/furniture every month.

>>12013651
I think your reading comprehension skills should be honed a little finer before trying this argument in the future man.

>>12013659
Let's see: >>12009477 clearly states
>If firefighters suddenly appear and drown my apartments in water because supposedly some house in other town caught a fire
Looks like it's you who is unable to read the very simple text.

>>12008347
China?

>>12008335
>each of the op image subpics is arbitrary and useless
>but last is at least fun

>>12013666
The post you responded to (>>12013643)
was pointing out that suing firefighters for letting your house burn down because you attacked them is retarded.

You sound like a paranoid schizophrenic with an attitude problem.

Also you are torturing this metaphor horribly with the whole "drowning" comparison.

>>12008335
>The Moon landings happened and space travel is real.
I really would't put it past Americans to fake the first landing to achieve the goal of doing it before the end of the decade as a propaganda victory against the Soviets who up until that point had won at every space related milestone.

Of course we have landed on the moon a bunch of times by now, have extensive documentation and samples to prove it, but I get the doubts about the first one.

>>12013693
If you will see the >>12013643 >>12013624 >>12010088 >>12009477 post chain you will see that
> firefighters frequently douse buildings that are next to the ones on fire
Is clearly your invention and does not relate to the initial
>If firefighters suddenly appear and drown my apartments in water because supposedly some house in other town caught a fire

In fact the real analogy would be "pump all the houses in the city full of water and then send fire to the only wooden house in the city" which the New York did with covid.
>Also you are torturing this metaphor horribly with the whole "drowning" comparison.
"Drowning" a house does not mean literally drowning you, it means grossly hitting your life quality on a whim. Although all the current covid fight probably lead to a lot of additional deaths (which do not matter to you).

>>12013720
The original post mentioned a neighbor's house being on fire. You displaced it to another city. Then on top of that manufactured a fake scenario where firefighters destroy homes Willie nillie. Then tried to call the, rightful, identification of irony within your tortured metaphor as being unrelated.

You really aren't helping your case of not being a schizo poster with this post quality either.

>>12013742
The original fire post was the dog comic. Which was perfectly unrelated to everything said before. So torturing the metaphors is all on you.
>You really aren't helping your case of not being a schizo poster with this post quality either.
Anon, that's a nice self-reflection.

>>12013750
Fine. Your original post you were trying to defend was literally an argument from ignorance >>12009331

That better? Now go take your meds.

>>12013770
Oh no, it's not an "argument from ignorance". That's the problem with you - you don't know the meaning of the words you use.
>That better? Now go take your meds.
Anon, go and take the anti-corona meds, you will need them for a second wave. Oh, and wear the tinfoil hat - it will prevent corona from getting on your hair. A nice addition to the muzzle.

>>12008335
>Science field X is an accurate but incomplete description of reality
>proceeds to claim some things such as FTL comms are fundamentally impossible
You just went full retard bro.

>>12013787
Not him, but can you please shut the fuck up? A lot of my family friends die thanks to the coronavirus and you fuckers can't wear a fucking mask because "muh, rights", masks don't make a shit to your rights. The absolute state of amerimutts.

It's impressive how /sci/ denies basic facts. What the fuck, what's next? Creationism?

>>12008339
is an accurate and incomplete description of reality

>>12015182
>masks don't make a shit to your rights

What is a "real threat" op?
Your dick supply running out?

>>12008335
>The Earth is round

Why did you place this as the first item?

>>12015182
>A lot of my family friends die thanks to the coronavirus
Looks like you are a superspreader, so isolate yourself in a barrel.

>>12015191
If creationism is true, am I obliged to wear a cross? What wardrobe item will the evolutionism force on me?

Space time denier bro here, back to remind you that space time is a Jewish hoax and an inaccurate understanding of the universe.

>>12008335
>Basic facts everyone should agree on.
>The Earth is round.
You start.

>>12008335
Pretty based except:
> Faster-than-light communication is impossible.

This can be made possible with Quantum entanglement.

>>12008335
>"Accurate": Models built from the theory accurately predict the outcomes of experiments and do not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity, which is large enough to be useful.
>"Incomplete": The theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe.

By this definition, the Ptolemaic geocentric model of the universe is accurate and incomplete, it has its domain of validity: predicting the position in the sky of the Sun, Moon and planets to a higher degree of accuracy than the Copernican model. But the Ptolemaic is [math]\mathit{qualititively}[/math] inaccurate: the Sun does not orbit the Earth. I agree with you that CM, QM, ΛCDM, the standard model of particle physics, special & general relativity are "accurate" and "incomplete" according to your definitions - but as to whether they are qualitatively accurate descriptions of reality I have no idea and suspect knowing that is impossible to ascertain. Classical mechanics probably isn't a [math]\mathit{qualititively}[/math] accurate description of reality since it seems in conflict with the postulates of quantum mechanics, which we favor over it as a somhow truer description of reality, even if they quantitatively agree in the classical domain.

>>12015396
It can't, but believe what you want to believe schizo.

Is anything at all in physics "complete"?

>>12008463
>This is false. Thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental and all-encompassing theories of physics. There is literally nowhere it breaks down.
I am going to play devils advocate here.
One example that it breaks down is Maxwell's Daemon(https://www.britannica.com/science/Maxwells-demon).).

I also agree with >>12008532's devil advocate.

>>12015198
>"Incomplete": The theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe.
Show me one post in the entire universe where the OP is not a fag

>>12008335
This is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst.

https://biblehub.com/1_timothy/1-15.htm

>>12015583
See this thread
>>12012634

>>12008335
>Basic facts everyone should agree on.
"Science" have dangerously close started reassembling religion.
Because people are still think there's no politics even in pure science

>>12008335
>> Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
>> Perpetuum mobiles, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
Never say never. What might not work for us now doesn't mean it can't or won't ever work hundreds of years into the future.

>>12008335
The flat earth is an accurate and incomplete description of reality
The round earth is an accurate and incomplete description of reality
problem libtard?

>>12008339
/thread

>>12008457
he is right though, earth is more like a rough pear then a round ball

>>12008335
Excellent post, the reality that /sci/ needs, sadly. Thanks to all of that post-2015 bitch-boys.

>>12015758
The problem is that it's gotten to the point where you're not allowed to question the validity of "science", and if you do so, then you're simply a "denier", even though there are very few things that are genuinely set in stone. Science has become heavily politicized, and the "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality has taken over. We're constantly discovering new things, whether they be scientific or historic, and to claim that everything exists in absolutes is ridiculous. Scientists are meant to question each other, support critical thinking, and abject with different hypotheses. It is destructive to never question anything, and accept things at face value, but there are instances where there certainly are facts, like landing on the moon and space travel, but as I said, some things have become very heavily politicized, and are denied only to save face, or to push certain narratives and agendas.

>>12008457
>i can define round to be whatever the fuck i want
commit

>>12015583
how does maxwells demon meassure the paricles velocity without using at least as much avalible work as the sortation prosses creates?

>>12015520
>Classical mechanics probably isn't a qualititively accurate description of reality since it seems in conflict with the postulates of quantum mechanics, which we favor over it as a somhow truer description of reality, even if they quantitatively agree in the classical domain.
Due to the Ehrenfest theorem they even agree qualitatively. Every variable of classical mechanics can be shown to either be the same variable in quantum mechanics or be an expectation value of a quantum mechanical operator. Basically, classical mechanics has the same structure as quantum mechanics if you take the limit of h -> 0.

I do agree that my definitions include the ptolemaeic model. Whether this is a bug or a feature is something I'm not sure of.

>>12015396
There is no scheme that you can devise that will allow you to send information FTL using entanglement. All data transfer is limited by c.

>>12016049
Due to they Ehrenfest theorem they agree quantitatively, not qualitatively*. They say very different things about the structure of the universe:
>particles are points on a 3-dimensional manifold imbued with time (4-dimensional with time one dimension for special & general relativity) with an exact momentum vector
versus
>particles are infinite dimensional Hilbert states not localized to a particular point in space or momentum space
Classical mechanics is regained through the constructive interference of quantum states, which can never be fully complete to fully localize a particle to a point in space or momentum space.

*Actually they don't agree, the Ehrenfest theorem shows that the expectation values of position and momentum obey the equations of classical mechanics if we replace the expectation value of the potential with the potential of the expectation value of the position. These are subtly different, they only agree when the classical equation of motion is linear (which is almost never).

> Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
Theoraticly this is false. Using quantum antanglement you can Theoraticly make the same event happen instantly over any distance.

These things are all common sense. If anyone denies any of these, they probably deny most of the rest, have a complete funhouse mirror view of the world, and likely believe in dozens of absurd conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific claims.

If this applies to you, you're living in a different reality. Go away and post somewhere that conforms to your reality, like /x/.

>>12016329
No, entanglement can't allow FTL communication.

>>12008335
There no benefits for male genital mutilation (circumcision) and all studies claiming it has are pseudoscientific.

>>12008335
>AGREE WITH EVERYTHING ON MY LIST OR YOU ARE A FLAT EARTHER!

shittiest shill tactic ever.

>>12017464
So reiterating a few basic things that are obviously true is "shilling" now?

>>12018459
>obviously true
Assertions with no supporting evidence is the definition of shilling. I know, I know, you watched it on youtube and it had like this many views ZOG! Everyone knows it is true!
It's not my fault.

>>12008335
>distilled water is not poison

> "Faster-than-light communication is impossible." is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.

Perpetuum moblies never work is an accurate and incomplete description of reality!

>>12015834
>>12010864
the definition of "round" is not "perfect sphere"

>>12008335

Nice. There is also a physics version of this sometimes being reposted:

List of elementary, settled facts, Fundamental Physics edition:

> Nature is inherently continuous. Discrete theories or theories based on cellular automata-like or pixel-like concepts are blatant pseudoscience. Being Quantum is not the same as being discrete, so this is not in conflict with Quantum Mechanics at all, quite the opposite.
> Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic/random. Deterministic theories are demonstrably false. Probabilities is all that we can predict, and this is not just due to our lack of knowledge or precision, but it is fundamental.
> Nature is inherently local. No faster than light transfer of information or any other superluminal effects is possible.
> Nature is inherently non-realist. We cannot speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed. An observer (not to be conflated with conscious beings) is a basic requirement in quantum mechanics.
> "Interpretations of quantum mechanics" are overwhelmingly pseudoscience. But as much as some of them can be said to be correct, it is Copenhagen or it's upgrade, Consistent (Decoherent) Histories.
> Energy may not be globally conserved in General Relativity and this is OK.
> We already have the correct theory of low energy quantum gravity, it is theory of high energy quantum gravity that is largely unknown. Consequently, low energy tabletop QG experiments are very likely a waste of time and funding.
> String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity and also other forces, otherwise known as the Theory of Everything.
> Cosmic Inflation is very likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang.

Some of these statements may seem controversial to laymen or even some subpar physicists. They are not controversial among actually competent researchers at all.

Thank you for listening.

>>12018757
Ah yes, the clergy of ultimate truth. The elite few of the all knowing brainwashed maggots. The definition of success, follow and know their rewards.

>>12018757
>> Nature is inherently continuous. Discrete theories or theories based on cellular automata-like or pixel-like concepts are blatant pseudoscience. Being Quantum is not the same as being discrete, so this is not in conflict with Quantum Mechanics at all, quite the opposite.
How could you possibly know that for certain? One of the two most favored theories of quantum gravity, loop gravity, does indeed discretise space .
> Nature is inherently local. No faster than light transfer of information or any other superluminal effects is possible.
What is Bell's theorem?
> Nature is inherently non-realist. We cannot speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed. An observer (not to be conflated with conscious beings) is a basic requirement in quantum mechanics.
It's not at all clear what you mean by realist or non-realist.
>it is Copenhagen or it's upgrade, Consistent (Decoherent) Histories.
How could you possibly know this?
> Energy may not be globally conserved in General Relativity and this is OK.
Maybe the one thing you've said that's correct
> We already have the correct theory of low energy quantum gravity, it is theory of high energy quantum gravity that is largely unknown. Consequently, low energy tabletop QG experiments are very likely a waste of time and funding.
Okay, that's sorta correct too, we have effective field theory that presumably works in the low energy domain, but we haven't been able to test it either since we've never seen a quantum gravity effect. But that's also kinda like saying that classical mechanics is a "correct" theory of quantum mechanics in the high temperature, macroscopic limit.
> String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity and also other forces,
Again, you have no possible way of knowing that
> Cosmic Inflation is very likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang.
Again, you couldn't possibly know

>>12018757
this is the most milquetoast, vanilla popsci opinions you could ever fucking have

>>12008335
Why do people associate crackpottery with conspiracy? Every coup is a conspiracy, government corruption is conspiracy and so are a ton of other relatively mundane things.

>>12008335
> Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
> Perpetuum mobiles, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
> Likewise, it is impossible to extract work from the zero-point energy of the vacuum.
> More generally, if you disagree with thermodynamics, you are wrong.

All of this needs to be qualified with "almost certainly" or "probably", as per the host of "accurate but incomplete" models of reality.

Also, just for the sake of pedantry

>The Earth is sphere-like

Otherwise, pretty solid list.

>>12008335
You are right about the earth being round, but you forgot to mention that it's hollow

>>12008399
Such a heavy bait, but you succesfully wasted the time of naive autists. There are still some clever anons here.

>>12019647
1)People above don't fully tell us about everything they do
2)We can't understand a lot of things people above us do
and as a bonus
3)Not everything people above us do is good for us

If you don't believe in 3, you are incredibly naive, if you don't believe in 1-2, you are simply delusional.

>>12019762
Please spam evidence in new threads.