An unbiased debate.

  • 112 Replies
  • 8222 Views
*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #90 on: July 01, 2015, 03:47:20 AM »
Keep in mind that these are layman's explanations and do not accurately represent the entire theory.

In 20 words or less, explain what a string is.
A string is a theoretical object which has the potential to be any fundamental particle, depending on how it vibrates.

In 20 words or less, Explain where it is and in 20 words or less, explain what it does.
Strings are everywhere. They make up the universe.

In 20 words or less, what microscope picks these up to know they're there.
A microscope can't observe subatomic particles. Soon, the Large Hadron Collider will allow us to look for strings.

In 20 words or less, how do they become super string.
That question is meaningless and shows that you did not read Rayzor's explanation from earlier.

It's obvious that you are either blind or do not know how to read. Please ask the person who is reading these forum posts to you to read the whole post and not just paraphrase it.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 03:49:52 AM by Poko »
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22729
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #91 on: July 01, 2015, 04:00:54 AM »
One last try,  everything is vibrations,  every particle, every force, all energy,  all vibrations on tiny tiny strings.   

That's it.  18 words, I'm done.
Everything is vibration and frequency, I agree. Tiny strings? you'll have to elaborate in basic terms using explanation without bullshit equations. If you can't exist in logical basic, don't worry about it. Your head's probably been so warped throughout your indoctrination that it's hard to actually be normal now.

*

JerkFace

  • 10099
  • Looking for Occam
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #92 on: July 01, 2015, 04:05:35 AM »
One last try,  everything is vibrations,  every particle, every force, all energy,  all vibrations on tiny tiny strings.   

That's it.  18 words, I'm done.
Everything is vibration and frequency, I agree. Tiny strings? you'll have to elaborate in basic terms using explanation without bullshit equations. If you can't exist in logical basic, don't worry about it. Your head's probably been so warped throughout your indoctrination that it's hard to actually be normal now.
I already tried,  you are on your own from here.   My advice is go and do high school physics for a start.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22729
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #93 on: July 01, 2015, 04:17:37 AM »
Keep in mind that these are layman's explanations and do not accurately represent the entire theory.
A string is a theoretical object which has the potential to be any fundamental particle, depending on how it vibrates.
Does a theoretical object mean it doesn't actually exist but someone or a few people believe it exists and are looking for it to verify that it does what they are telling people it does?
A bit like a drawing of a fictional monster eating deer in the woods at night. The boffins draw the potential culprit that exists on paper but is never seen and that's what they are looking for, except to find it, they may need a special helicopter with a quark plasma gluon infra/ultra wave/particle gun which has to be switched on at the right time so this monster stands out.

Sort of? am I on the right lines? or are you stringing me along?

Strings are everywhere. They make up the universe.
Ok so strings are on Earth and also in a vacuum of space and vibrate in space that has no matter to vibrate. Maybe you can elaborate a little on this.

A microscope can't observe subatomic particles. Soon, the Large Hadron Collider will allow us to look for strings.


That question is meaningless and shows that you did not read Rayzor's explanation from earlier.

It's obvious that you are either blind or do not know how to read. Please ask the person who is reading these forum posts to you to read the whole post and not just paraphrase it.
Well this is what Rayzor said: Open strings of zero mass are photon like,   closed strings of zero mass are graviton like. 
Study the maths of superstrings  8) vibrating in 11 dimensions  (10 spatial and 1 time)  and you get M-theory.



M theory. Brown girl in the ring, tra la la la la. Oop's that's boney M. Just a little M joke.
Maybe you can explain M in basic a little later so I can skit it. After all this is what it's about. You can't have free run on bullshit hidden with perfume. The smell will always come through.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22729
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #94 on: July 01, 2015, 04:20:01 AM »
One last try,  everything is vibrations,  every particle, every force, all energy,  all vibrations on tiny tiny strings.   

That's it.  18 words, I'm done.
Everything is vibration and frequency, I agree. Tiny strings? you'll have to elaborate in basic terms using explanation without bullshit equations. If you can't exist in logical basic, don't worry about it. Your head's probably been so warped throughout your indoctrination that it's hard to actually be normal now.
I already tried,  you are on your own from here.   My advice is go and do high school physics for a start.
I done all that. I couldn't stomach anymore of that bullshit. I've decided to find out what the real world is all about. It doesn't include a lot of what you buy into, so I suggest you start taking your own course on real physics instead of fantasy physics that have strings attached.
My theories have no strings attached.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #95 on: July 01, 2015, 04:33:27 AM »
Does a theoretical object mean it doesn't actually exist but someone or a few people believe it exists and are looking for it to verify that it does what they are telling people it does?
A bit like a drawing of a fictional monster eating deer in the woods at night. The boffins draw the potential culprit that exists on paper but is never seen and that's what they are looking for, except to find it, they may need a special helicopter with a quark plasma gluon infra/ultra wave/particle gun which has to be switched on at the right time so this monster stands out.
Strings are theoretical in the sense that that are predicted using math and using the observations we have already made. They haven't yet been shown to exist, but it's not impossible that they will. The Higgs Boson was a theoretical particle until it was shown to exist in 2013. The graviton is still a theoretical particle, but we still know that gravity exists.

Maybe you can explain M in basic a little later so I can skit it. After all this is what it's about. You can't have free run on bullshit hidden with perfume. The smell will always come through.

I'm not a physicist so I'm not going to pretend to have enough knowledge to give an adequate explanation of M-theory or superstring theory. Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation here https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory. I've linked the simple English version for very special people like you. It has a few 4-syllable words, but hopefully you should be able to follow along.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 04:36:22 AM by Poko »
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22729
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #96 on: July 01, 2015, 04:49:25 AM »
Strings are theoretical in the sense that that are predicted using math and using the observations we have already made. They haven't yet been shown to exist, but it's not impossible that they will. The Higgs Boson was a theoretical particle until it was shown to exist in 2013. The graviton is still a theoretical particle, but we still know that gravity exists.

How can you predict something using maths. You see,. you people can sit and scream about people being a dunce and uneducated and what not, then harp on about telling them to study something that clearly has been scooped out of thin air all supposedly based on maths to manifest it into a theory but still that theory is just that. They do not exist but can be made to exist  POSSIBLY  because the math works for them to exist, even though the maths or the person doing the maths had to manifest this string.

I mean you can manifest anything by doing this crap.

The laughable thing is, if a person says something could be possible, they get laughed at by people like you. You jump in and shout, " citation, please" or "how can you predict this" or " you've just made that up."

Guess what? your string is made up. It doesn't exist and yet you have math and equations to back it up and it does not exist.
The beauty about mainstream science is, anything can be made up and numbers can be attached. Anyone who argues against it is a looney who does not understand physics or science that even kindergarten kids are adept at. This is the utter garbage that gets spewed.
Now wonder I have no respect for people like you. I actually believe people like you are the real nutters. I seriously do.

Half of you people use velcro because you can't even tie your frigging shoe laces and yet you sit on a forum and try and tell people that you are some genius scientist who knows complicated equations but passes them off as simply, basic first grade stuff.

Bollocks. :P

I'm not a physicist so I'm not going to pretend to have enough knowledge to give an adequate explanation of M-theory or superstring theory. Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation here https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory. I've linked the simple English version for very special people like you. It has a few 4-syllable words, but hopefully you should be able to follow along.
I'm sure M theory will be second grade science when you've had 10 minutes to go through it. Hahahahaha.
Oh you people are special, just not in the way you believe.

*

JerkFace

  • 10099
  • Looking for Occam
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #97 on: July 01, 2015, 05:00:46 AM »
Scepti,  I see your problem,  and it's not your fault,   the language of science is mathematics,   you are a frustrated scientist  ( even though you probably deny it ) but you have zero aptitude for mathematics.  So you are destined to go through life blaming everyone and everything for your own shortcomings.   Sorry I can't help you,  only you can do that.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #98 on: July 01, 2015, 05:07:47 AM »
Strings are theoretical in the sense that that are predicted using math and using the observations we have already made. They haven't yet been shown to exist, but it's not impossible that they will. The Higgs Boson was a theoretical particle until it was shown to exist in 2013. The graviton is still a theoretical particle, but we still know that gravity exists.

How can you predict something using maths. You see,. you people can sit and scream about people being a dunce and uneducated and what not, then harp on about telling them to study something that clearly has been scooped out of thin air all supposedly based on maths to manifest it into a theory but still that theory is just that. They do not exist but can be made to exist  POSSIBLY  because the math works for them to exist, even though the maths or the person doing the maths had to manifest this string.

I mean you can manifest anything by doing this crap

People said the exact same thing about the Higgs Boson. That is, until is was shown to exist experimentally in 2013. The Higgs Boson wasn't predicted by pure maths alone. It was predicted using a combination of observation, previous knowledge, and maths. That's how we were able to correctly predict the existence of a particle before we could observe it.

The laughable thing is, if a person says something could be possible, they get laughed at by people like you. You jump in and shout, " citation, please" or "how can you predict this" or " you've just made that up."

That's because it's important that you have data to back up your claims. In science, we don't accept models because they feel nice and make intuitive sense. We accept models if and only if those models make predictions which can be shown to be correct. When somebody asks you to back up your claim, their simply asking you to subject your ideas to the same scrutiny and testing that every single scientific model was subject to. We're not being especially hard on you because what you say contradicts mainstream science. Every idea has to go through the same process.

Before you say "well what about string theory? that hasn't been tested yet", realize that string theory isn't accepted in mainstream science yet.

Guess what? your string is made up. It doesn't exist and yet you have math and equations to back it up and it does not exist.
The beauty about mainstream science is, anything can be made up and numbers can be attached. Anyone who argues against it is a looney who does not understand physics or science that even kindergarten kids are adept at.

Actually, plenty of ideas in the past have gone against mainstream science and have been correct. Before germ theory became mainstream, it was believed that disease was caused by miasma and that the health of a person was determined by four essential "humors". Before Newtonian physics became mainstream, it was believed that objects in motion eventually stop because they become tired. Science is always open to new ideas. New ideas are the driving force behind scientific progress.

If you want to change mainstream science, all you have to do is create a model, create a prediction based on that model, and test to see if your prediction comes true. If your prediction does not come true, go back and adjust your model or make a new model entirely. If your prediction does come true, start making more predictions and test those. Repeat this process until you have a working model and a large amount of data. Then submit your findings to peer-review and see how they fare. If your idea really does hold up and accurately predicts future events, it may become mainstream science.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22729
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #99 on: July 01, 2015, 05:12:12 AM »
Scepti,  I see your problem,  and it's not your fault,   the language of science is mathematics,   you are a frustrated scientist  ( even though you probably deny it ) but you have zero aptitude for mathematics.  So you are destined to go through life blaming everyone and everything for your own shortcomings.   Sorry I can't help you,  only you can do that.
I absolutely do not need mathematics to see when bullshit is spouted. I accept what you think about me, now accept what I think about you and other's like you.
The naivety shown by you people borders on the scary. It borders on the same chart as a nearly blind old woman answering the door to roofing con men who tell her her roof will collapse if she doesn't get it done. She then tells them to do it and allows them to take her to the bank to withdraw large amounts of cash to cover it.

That's how gullible and naive you people are in my mind, so fair enough with how you think. It's only thoughts.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22729
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #100 on: July 01, 2015, 05:18:26 AM »
Strings are theoretical in the sense that that are predicted using math and using the observations we have already made. They haven't yet been shown to exist, but it's not impossible that they will. The Higgs Boson was a theoretical particle until it was shown to exist in 2013. The graviton is still a theoretical particle, but we still know that gravity exists.

How can you predict something using maths. You see,. you people can sit and scream about people being a dunce and uneducated and what not, then harp on about telling them to study something that clearly has been scooped out of thin air all supposedly based on maths to manifest it into a theory but still that theory is just that. They do not exist but can be made to exist  POSSIBLY  because the math works for them to exist, even though the maths or the person doing the maths had to manifest this string.

I mean you can manifest anything by doing this crap

People said the exact same thing about the Higgs Boson. That is, until is was shown to exist experimentally in 2013. The Higgs Boson wasn't predicted by pure maths alone. It was predicted using a combination of observation, previous knowledge, and maths. That's how we were able to correctly predict the existence of a particle before we could observe it.

The laughable thing is, if a person says something could be possible, they get laughed at by people like you. You jump in and shout, " citation, please" or "how can you predict this" or " you've just made that up."

That's because it's important that you have data to back up your claims. In science, we don't accept models because they feel nice and make intuitive sense. We accept models if and only if those models make predictions which can be shown to be correct. When somebody asks you to back up your claim, their simply asking you to subject your ideas to the same scrutiny and testing that every single scientific model was subject to. We're not being especially hard on you because what you say contradicts mainstream science. Every idea has to go through the same process.

Before you say "well what about string theory? that hasn't been tested yet", realize that string theory isn't accepted in mainstream science yet.

Guess what? your string is made up. It doesn't exist and yet you have math and equations to back it up and it does not exist.
The beauty about mainstream science is, anything can be made up and numbers can be attached. Anyone who argues against it is a looney who does not understand physics or science that even kindergarten kids are adept at.

Actually, plenty of ideas in the past have gone against mainstream science and have been correct. Before germ theory became mainstream, it was believed that disease was caused by miasma and that the health of a person was determined by four essential "humors". Before Newtonian physics became mainstream, it was believed that objects in motion eventually stop because they become tired. Science is always open to new ideas. New ideas are the driving force behind scientific progress.

If you want to change mainstream science, all you have to do is create a model, create a prediction based on that model, and test to see if your prediction comes true. If your prediction does not come true, go back and adjust your model or make a new model entirely. If your prediction does come true, start making more predictions and test those. Repeat this process until you have a working model and a large amount of data. Then submit your findings to peer-review and see how they fare. If your idea really does hold up and accurately predicts future events, it may become mainstream science.
So what is the Higgs boson right now, now that it's been proven?

How do we see it and how is it made and what is its purpose.
Also, tell me how Higgs boson first manifested itself into someone's mind. I'll try and help. I think Peter Higgs had said he was walking along in Scotland (maybe) on a snowy day and he had his Eureka moment. I may be wrong on this but I di recall something along those lines.
So what was his Eureka moment that manifested this boson into life to eventually become real not so long ago?

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #101 on: July 01, 2015, 05:23:35 AM »
I absolutely do not need mathematics to see when bullshit is spouted.

1. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 4m/s/s for 6 seconds will have traveled 64 meters by the end of the 6 seconds.
2. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 6m/s/s for 4 seconds will have traveled 72 meters by the end of the 4 seconds.
3. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 12m/s/s for 3 seconds will have traveled 54 meters by the end of the 3 second.

Without using any mathematics, tell me which of the above statements is bullshit:
A. 1
B. 1 and 2
C. 2 and 3
D. 3
E. all of the above
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22729
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #102 on: July 01, 2015, 05:38:29 AM »
I absolutely do not need mathematics to see when bullshit is spouted.

1. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 4m/s/s for 6 seconds will have traveled 64 meters by the end of the 6 seconds.
2. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 6m/s/s for 4 seconds will have traveled 72 meters by the end of the 4 seconds.
3. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 12m/s/s for 3 seconds will have traveled 54 meters by the end of the 3 second.

Without using any mathematics, tell me which of the above statements is bullshit:
A. 1
B. 1 and 2
C. 2 and 3
D. 3
E. all of the above
Possibly all right and possibly all wrong.

Regardless of that. I'm not talking about the basics of stuff like this. I'm talking about the stuff that cannot be physically proven.
Arsing about with this stuff means nothing.

When it comes to your Higgs and string and big bang bollocks and all the rest of the crap, as well as rockets in space and gravity on a moon or gravity on Earth and warped space time. The list is absolutely endless of bullshit that will remain bullshit until someone physically proves it not to be by allowing the public to see it all in action, by numbers, not by a pretence of one random picked lucky bastard being put into space or whatever.

 A lot of these theoretical scientists are good story tellers and sci-fi writers. that's all they ever will be.
The real scientists are actually at work doing physical stuff as well as solving problems that are physically used and seen by the public.

The fake one's are busy giving press conferences proclaiming mars rover success or finding particles that someone thought off whilst having a their morning crap.

Stop believing in nonsense and start working some real stuff out if you're supposed to be a scientist.
Anyone can tell a story but only the good story tellers get to bullshit the nation by hard back or paper back.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #103 on: July 01, 2015, 05:41:18 AM »
So what is the Higgs boson right now, now that it's been proven?

How do we see it and how is it made and what is its purpose.
Also, tell me how Higgs boson first manifested itself into someone's mind. I'll try and help. I think Peter Higgs had said he was walking along in Scotland (maybe) on a snowy day and he had his Eureka moment. I may be wrong on this but I di recall something along those lines.
So what was his Eureka moment that manifested this boson into life to eventually become real not so long ago?

In our current model of physics, the Higgs Boson is one of the fundamental particles in the universe. It was first theorized to exist in the 1960's. Basically, the Standard Model at the time predicted that certain particles would not have mass. However, we observed that these particles did have mass. So, the Higgs Boson was theorized to explain the presence of mass where we otherwise wouldn't expect to see it. There was quite a bit of controversy over whether or not this particle actually existed because there was no experimental evidence. But, in 2013, a particle was detected which matched the description of the Higgs Boson exactly.

As for the Big Bang, the story is quite remarkable. The Big Bang was, at first, entirely theoretical. Edwin Hubble observed that objects in space are moving away from each other and that the rate at which they are moving away from each other is proportional to the distance between them. This suggests that space itself is expanding. It was then hypothesized that, because space is expanding now, then at one point it was all together. In 1948, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman predicted what is called the cosmic microwave background. It is essentially the "afterglow" of the Big Bang.

A few years later, Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson were building a radiometer which they intended to use for astronomy and satellite communication. When they tested out the radiometer, they found a faint static and could't locate the source. They pointed the radiometer in every direction and they still detected constant static. They thought that maybe some part on the radiometer was loose, so they made sure everything was tight again. They though that maybe bird droppings had gotten into the antenna and that was the cause, so they cleaned out the antenna. After trying everything they could think of to eliminate the static, they still detected it. Despite the static, they still decided to publish their results anyway.

As it turns out, this static matched the description of the cosmic microwave background almost exactly. Two astronomers who were not involved in creating the Big Bang theory had unknowingly proven it. Now, we have a much better idea of what the cosmic microwave background looks like because we know how to look for it, and it still matches the predictions made back in 1948 before any observations were made.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 05:56:16 AM by Poko »
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22729
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #104 on: July 01, 2015, 05:52:25 AM »
So what is the Higgs boson right now, now that it's been proven?

How do we see it and how is it made and what is its purpose.
Also, tell me how Higgs boson first manifested itself into someone's mind. I'll try and help. I think Peter Higgs had said he was walking along in Scotland (maybe) on a snowy day and he had his Eureka moment. I may be wrong on this but I di recall something along those lines.
So what was his Eureka moment that manifested this boson into life to eventually become real not so long ago?

In our current model of physics, the Higgs Boson is one of the fundamental particles in the universe. It was first theorized to exist in the 1960's. Basically, the Standard Model at the time predicted that certain particles would not have mass. However, we observed that these particles did have mass. So, the Higgs Boson was theorized to explain the presence of mass where we otherwise wouldn't expect to see it. There was quite a bit of controversy over whether or not this particle actually existed because there was no experimental evidence. But, in 2013, a particle was detected which matched the description of the Higgs Boson exactly.
1960's and a boson was thought of. A particle of some sort. The particles were thought not to have mass but them found to have mass
This caused trouble until this particle appeared...WHERE?

How was the mass of this particle measured and by what microscope was this particle seen?
Did they manage to keep this particle, like freezing it or something or is it more magical than this?

Go on, let's see what you got.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #105 on: July 01, 2015, 06:12:39 AM »
1960's and a boson was thought of. A particle of some sort. The particles were thought not to have mass but them found to have mass
This caused trouble until this particle appeared...WHERE?

How was the mass of this particle measured and by what microscope was this particle seen?
Did they manage to keep this particle, like freezing it or something or is it more magical than this?

Go on, let's see what you got.

The particle is believed to exist wherever there is mass, but it was directly observed for the first time in the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. The mass of very small particles is determined using very mathy equations you probably wouldn't be interested in. To put it simply, it is calculated using the particle's energy and its momentum. Like I said before, microscopes aren't used to look at sub-atomic particles. The particle was observed in the CMS and ATLAS experiments within the Large Hadron Collider. Here's a cimple rundown of how the detectors in the LHC work http://home.web.cern.ch/about/how-detector-works.

Honestly I'm just googling these answers. If you really want to know these things, you can look these things up yourself on CERN's website. Also, you should go back up and read my previous post. I edited it and told the story of the Big Bang.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22729
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #106 on: July 01, 2015, 06:29:09 AM »
1960's and a boson was thought of. A particle of some sort. The particles were thought not to have mass but them found to have mass
This caused trouble until this particle appeared...WHERE?

How was the mass of this particle measured and by what microscope was this particle seen?
Did they manage to keep this particle, like freezing it or something or is it more magical than this?

Go on, let's see what you got.

The particle is believed to exist wherever there is mass, but it was directly observed for the first time in the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. The mass of very small particles is determined using very mathy equations you probably wouldn't be interested in. To put it simply, it is calculated using the particle's energy and its momentum. Like I said before, microscopes aren't used to look at sub-atomic particles. The particle was observed in the CMS and ATLAS experiments within the Large Hadron Collider. Here's a cimple rundown of how the detectors in the LHC work http://home.web.cern.ch/about/how-detector-works.

Honestly I'm just googling these answers. If you really want to know these things, you can look these things up yourself on CERN's website. Also, you should go back up and read my previous post. I edited it and told the story of the Big Bang.
I'm well aware you're googling the answers. I'm well aware that you have no clue how in the hell all this stuff works.
I'm also aware that you are too proud to make yourself look anything but intelligent by admitting that you know very little  about the physics that you try to bestow on other's.

What the hell are you actually doing here. I mean, why come to a place to tell people who are sceptical of what you believe in and attempt to tell them what you believe in, whilst trying to get them to believe in it. What gain do you get?

It's as sad as hell because you're gaining nothing. You can argue that you're gaining more education on your physics by googling but it's not an excuse to use the flat Earth society as that reason, when you can go on many science sites and talk about your stuff all day long and actually be agreed with and helped along, with very little to no resistance by so called lunatics who know nothing, like you believe people like us are.


My goal is to make people see this shit for what it is. I accept that people like you are so far gone as to be not worth the effort, so I just get you to parrot your shit.

I will always respond with my stuff because it gives genuine people that are not naive, a chance to actually see through the bullshit that you bought into by paying in full and then insuring it, plus buying the added extra's like  special cleaners.  ;D


You don't seem a bad person. You seem decent compared to some. You know what? You should try an experiment for yourself, without giving in to peer pressure.
The experiment: for one year out of your life, or even 6 month's. Try and look at alternative thoughts with a critical mind also pointed at your indoctrination and see where it takes you.

Don't attempt it if you believe that you need equations and maths to make you see a potential, because you lose before you start.

*

JerkFace

  • 10099
  • Looking for Occam
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #107 on: July 01, 2015, 07:01:41 AM »
1960's and a boson was thought of. A particle of some sort. The particles were thought not to have mass but them found to have mass
This caused trouble until this particle appeared...WHERE?

How was the mass of this particle measured and by what microscope was this particle seen?
Did they manage to keep this particle, like freezing it or something or is it more magical than this?

Go on, let's see what you got.

The particle is believed to exist wherever there is mass, but it was directly observed for the first time in the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. The mass of very small particles is determined using very mathy equations you probably wouldn't be interested in. To put it simply, it is calculated using the particle's energy and its momentum. Like I said before, microscopes aren't used to look at sub-atomic particles. The particle was observed in the CMS and ATLAS experiments within the Large Hadron Collider. Here's a cimple rundown of how the detectors in the LHC work http://home.web.cern.ch/about/how-detector-works.

Honestly I'm just googling these answers. If you really want to know these things, you can look these things up yourself on CERN's website. Also, you should go back up and read my previous post. I edited it and told the story of the Big Bang.
I'm well aware you're googling the answers. I'm well aware that you have no clue how in the hell all this stuff works.
I'm also aware that you are too proud to make yourself look anything but intelligent by admitting that you know very little  about the physics that you try to bestow on other's.

What the hell are you actually doing here. I mean, why come to a place to tell people who are sceptical of what you believe in and attempt to tell them what you believe in, whilst trying to get them to believe in it. What gain do you get?

It's as sad as hell because you're gaining nothing. You can argue that you're gaining more education on your physics by googling but it's not an excuse to use the flat Earth society as that reason, when you can go on many science sites and talk about your stuff all day long and actually be agreed with and helped along, with very little to no resistance by so called lunatics who know nothing, like you believe people like us are.


My goal is to make people see this shit for what it is. I accept that people like you are so far gone as to be not worth the effort, so I just get you to parrot your shit.

I will always respond with my stuff because it gives genuine people that are not naive, a chance to actually see through the bullshit that you bought into by paying in full and then insuring it, plus buying the added extra's like  special cleaners.  ;D


You don't seem a bad person. You seem decent compared to some. You know what? You should try an experiment for yourself, without giving in to peer pressure.
The experiment: for one year out of your life, or even 6 month's. Try and look at alternative thoughts with a critical mind also pointed at your indoctrination and see where it takes you.

Don't attempt it if you believe that you need equations and maths to make you see a potential, because you lose before you start.

You have  the symptoms common to a lot of conspiracy nutters,   a belief that everyone else has been misled somehow,  and you are smarter than everyone else to see through the conspiracy, so you are in possession of some secret knowledge which makes you feel somehow superior,  in your case the conspiracy has extended somehow to incorporate mathematics,  which is a peculiar conspiracy variant to say the least.   Maybe people lie,  but whether you understand it or not,  mathematics doesn't lie.   

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22729
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #108 on: July 01, 2015, 07:58:17 AM »
You have  the symptoms common to a lot of conspiracy nutters,   a belief that everyone else has been misled somehow,  and you are smarter than everyone else to see through the conspiracy, so you are in possession of some secret knowledge which makes you feel somehow superior,  in your case the conspiracy has extended somehow to incorporate mathematics,  which is a peculiar conspiracy variant to say the least.   Maybe people lie,  but whether you understand it or not,  mathematics doesn't lie.
A psychologist now are we?  ;D

Mathematics doesn't lie you say. Mathematics can't lie on their own. It's like having a till and taking payment for goods. You can change what you want for the goods and type in a totally different price. It's not the mathematics that's lying; you're right there, but the people who plug in the figures are cheating those who are oblivious to what those figures should work out at, especially if nothing is price tagged.

It seems that the boson and string theory and a lot of other crap is not price tagged but you people keep ringing it all in and coming up with a price.
Can't blame the till, so where does the blame lie?

Yep; math's don;t lie but people are shit hot at it.

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #109 on: July 01, 2015, 11:41:16 AM »
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.
Where'd you get 85 degrees from?
Scepti gave it, saying it was 5 degrees off of when they were at 90 degrees.  and you cannot have an angle of over 90 degrees in any triangle.
You sure about that?

though I'm sure you meant "right triangle"
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #110 on: July 01, 2015, 11:54:32 AM »
I absolutely do not need mathematics to see when bullshit is spouted.

1. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 4m/s/s for 6 seconds will have traveled 64 meters by the end of the 6 seconds.
2. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 6m/s/s for 4 seconds will have traveled 72 meters by the end of the 4 seconds.
3. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 12m/s/s for 3 seconds will have traveled 54 meters by the end of the 3 second.

Without using any mathematics, tell me which of the above statements is bullshit:
A. 1
B. 1 and 2
C. 2 and 3
D. 3
E. all of the above
It's E right?

EDIT: It's B
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 12:03:25 PM by The Ellimist »
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

*

Mikey T.

  • 2400
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #111 on: July 01, 2015, 12:47:50 PM »
Yes, you are correct, I meant any right triangle. TY for the correction.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #112 on: July 01, 2015, 03:44:44 PM »
I absolutely do not need mathematics to see when bullshit is spouted.

1. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 4m/s/s for 6 seconds will have traveled 64 meters by the end of the 6 seconds.
2. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 6m/s/s for 4 seconds will have traveled 72 meters by the end of the 4 seconds.
3. An object which starts at rest and accelerates at 12m/s/s for 3 seconds will have traveled 54 meters by the end of the 3 second.

Without using any mathematics, tell me which of the above statements is bullshit:
A. 1
B. 1 and 2
C. 2 and 3
D. 3
E. all of the above
It's E right?

EDIT: It's B

B is correct. Good job.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi