From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2013, 04:56 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 04:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-09-2013 04:15 PM)I and I Wrote:  And you are the one that maintains that George Bush did not lie about Iraqs WMD..... that is fucking retard.

Ah, yes! Because that is relevant.

Incidentally, and as you well recall, I didn't make that claim. I've found it's beyond my ability to know exactly what certain other people knew and thought 11 years ago. You don't seem to have that problem!

You should talk to the JREF; there's a million dollars there with your name on it.

(17-09-2013 04:15 PM)I and I Wrote:  Are you implying that it is crazy to want observable evidence for something? Again, this site has the shittiest atheists.

Are you under the delusional impression that there isn't observable evidence for the predictions of quantum mechanics?

[Image: 57029.jpg]

This site has the shittiest trolls.

So you don't know that george bush was lying? Earlier this wasn't your stance, you were claiming that george bush didn't lie.. Apparently, evidence like WMD is selective and you basically believe whatever right wing bullshit you want to.

The conclusions ans statements that quantum mechanics makes are not based on observable evidence no. Do you disagree with that statement? I notice how you guys never come out and agree or disagree with my statements.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2013, 05:02 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 04:56 PM)I and I Wrote:  So you don't know that george bush was lying?

Nope.

(hint: neither do you)

(17-09-2013 04:56 PM)I and I Wrote:  Earlier this wasn't your stance, you were claiming that george bush didn't lie..

Citation needed.

(17-09-2013 04:56 PM)I and I Wrote:  Apparently, evidence like WMD is selective and you basically believe whatever right wing bullshit you want to.

Yes. Right wing. That's me.

(17-09-2013 04:56 PM)I and I Wrote:  The conclusions ans statements that quantum mechanics makes are not based on observable evidence no. Do you disagree with that statement? I notice how you guys never come out and agree or disagree with my statements.

I disagree. That statement is idiotic and you delude yourself if you think the contrary. You ought to be proud, I and I. You're making the likes of theword or excubitor look like worldly men of science. But I shouldn't be surprised; when it comes to disappointment, you never disappoint. Never change!

Riddle me this, champ: how might we determine whether quantum mechanics has any explanatory validity? (all the rest of you watching at home can play along, too!)

That's right! It would make testable predictions! That's literally the definition of the scientific method. But, you know what? There's an even more relevant subject for us to explore. After all - can you tell me what happens when we apply scientific knowledge?

Yes, that's right! Technology!

"But wait, cjlr", I know you're thinking. "I'm such a pathetic retard that I, in my monumental and willful ignorance, don't know any practical applications which would rely on working theories of quantum mechanics!" Don't worry your pretty little head, I and I; I, cjlr, will tutor you. We'll get through this together. Ignorance is curable.

I'll start with a little something you might have heard of - and maybe even used once or twice!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
17-09-2013, 07:37 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
So you do believe that george bush didn't lie about WMDs in Iraq. Yes or No

(oh wait, of course no straight answer)

According to equations, multiple worlds exist or wormholes exist, according to you does this equation serve as evidence?

And equation based on an equation is not evidence or science. An equation that is based on an idea is not science. However the new religion peeps that use the word science to describe what they do believe in all kinds of things that we can never and will never see....but according to equations they are real so we should just have faith in the equations and criticize anyone who questions our new religion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2013, 07:55 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
So? are you stupid or just a troll? one or the other, or are you as dodgy as you say we are?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2013, 09:57 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 07:55 PM)nach_in Wrote:  So? are you stupid or just a troll? one or the other, or are you as dodgy as you say we are?

Both.

Or perhaps a quantum superposition of the two...

(17-09-2013 07:37 PM)I and I Wrote:  So you do believe that george bush didn't lie about WMDs in Iraq. Yes or No

I don't know.

I'm inclined to believe he did not know he was wrong. This is due to two maxims on human behaviour: simplicity is more likely than complexity, and ignorance is more likely than malice. People are fully capable of believing even (apparently) obviously untrue things, given sufficient self-assured stubbornness. Not that you would know anything about that, of course.

If anyone cares to check the archives you can see that I've given I and I this summary several times over more or less verbatim. Will he actually read it this time? Let's stay tuned!

(to the new folks around here: no, I really don't know why he keeps bringing this up. That I admit to no certainty is apparently to be construed as some sort of inadequacy; he, as we know, can read minds in the past, and thus need face no such limits of fallibility)

(17-09-2013 07:37 PM)I and I Wrote:  According to equations, multiple worlds exist or wormholes exist, according to you does this equation serve as evidence?

Boy, you are just dumber than a sack of dead mice.

A theory which makes both testable and untestable predictions is still of use; if the testable predictions are confirmed, there is some cause to believe the untestable ones, but without independent confirmation, they cannot be said to be true in any sense.

(17-09-2013 07:37 PM)I and I Wrote:  And equation based on an equation is not evidence or science. An equation that is based on an idea is not science. However the new religion peeps that use the word science to describe what they do believe in all kinds of things that we can never and will never see....but according to equations they are real so we should just have faith in the equations and criticize anyone who questions our new religion?

Translation: "I see what you're saying, cjlr, but I'm too willfully idiotic to admit that my computer exists and functions according to the laws of quantum mechanics, as theorized, designed, and built by people much smarter than me, so I will go on pretending not to admit to the overwhelming evidence available to me that there is practical, verifiable, universal evidence that the precepts of quantum theory are a better explanation of the physical world and our observations of it than any competing theory."

That's what you meant, right?

Oh, how I hoped your understanding of the computer you're using was slightly more sophisticated than "me press button, make shiny box show pictures; make forum post for troll smart people lol".

...

Would you like a history lesson? I feel as though your prodigious ignorance ought to be addressed. Why I should be so self-sacrificing as to let that lot fall to me, I can't say. I linked several wiki pages demonstrating the necessity, genesis, and development of quantum theory in my last post, but as is quite evident, you did not understand them. Perhaps you didn't try; perhaps you did - if you didn't get it, let us know which of the big words you got stuck on, and we'll sound them out together. Ignorance is curable. I'll teach you quantum mechanics if it kills me.

It has been known since the 1800s that objects emit light in proportion (in both energy and intensity) to their temperature. This is why an incandescent light bulb glows. You've seen a light bulb before, yes? Marvelous! (incidentally fluorescent bulbs and LEDs also rely on quantum mechanics, but we must save those for a more advanced class).

Because we observe a qualitative correlation, we suppose there may be an underlying mathematical relationship, that we may model. Lo and behold, there is! It is called the Rayleigh-Jeans Law. It predicts that intensity of emitted radiation is proportional to the inverse fourth power of wavelength. Don't worry if those words are too hard! Just ask nicely, and I can tell you what they mean.

That law, however, is only valid for low temperatures and high wavelengths. As experimental equipment improved, people could test objects in a wider range of conditions. Do you know what ultraviolet light is? Fantastic. Below ultraviolet wavelengths the simple inverse law predicts exponentially increasing intensity. That is, obviously, not what happens under experiment.

One day around then (1900, for the curious), a very smart man named Max Planck was thinking about this problem (how to predict black body radiation). The existing theory was inadequate - it had originally held for all testable conditions, but it did so no longer. Why might it be wrong? Well, one of the underlying assumptions was that energy was emitted in continuous amounts - there was no such thing as a "smallest unit" of energy. But that axiom was not based on observation; it was simply assumed based on "common sense" (a potentially dangerous term).

So, herr Planck thought to himself - what if that assumption was not true? What if energy was only emitted via radiation in quantized (finite, discrete) amounts? Being a smart man, he calculated that emitted radiation would then have a peak intensity at a certain wavelength and then decrease with either higher or lower wavelengths. I'll spare you the details - after this thread I've no doubt the math is beyond you. For the existing data (and remember - that's what had given the Rayleigh-Jeans law problems!) it was a very good fit. It was then used to predict further results, and these too were later confirmed to behave just as predicted. Thus, over the protests of many who, like you, to give you perhaps far too much credit, saw the underlying assumption (quantization) as ridiculous - the theory was accepted. This is something you may have heard of - it is called the scientific method.

But what of this conclusion? Well - it was a verifiable, useful, enlightening description, which accounted for observation better than any alternatives. It has never yet been falsified; thus, the scientific community as a whole accepts it as fundamentally true, that they may use it as a basis for further inquiry.

And that, little I and I, is where quantum comes from.

You may either accept the reality that is overwhelmingly manifest in front of you, or you may continue on as the forum's resident comic relief and bottom-dwelling (I'd say scum, but even scum sits on top of the pond) intellectual cuntwaste. I look forward to your reply.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
18-09-2013, 06:31 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 09:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-09-2013 07:55 PM)nach_in Wrote:  So? are you stupid or just a troll? one or the other, or are you as dodgy as you say we are?

Both.

Or perhaps a quantum superposition of the two...

(17-09-2013 07:37 PM)I and I Wrote:  So you do believe that george bush didn't lie about WMDs in Iraq. Yes or No

I don't know.

I'm inclined to believe he did not know he was wrong. This is due to two maxims on human behaviour: simplicity is more likely than complexity, and ignorance is more likely than malice. People are fully capable of believing even (apparently) obviously untrue things, given sufficient self-assured stubbornness. Not that you would know anything about that, of course.

If anyone cares to check the archives you can see that I've given I and I this summary several times over more or less verbatim. Will he actually read it this time? Let's stay tuned!

(to the new folks around here: no, I really don't know why he keeps bringing this up. That I admit to no certainty is apparently to be construed as some sort of inadequacy; he, as we know, can read minds in the past, and thus need face no such limits of fallibility)

(17-09-2013 07:37 PM)I and I Wrote:  According to equations, multiple worlds exist or wormholes exist, according to you does this equation serve as evidence?

Boy, you are just dumber than a sack of dead mice.

A theory which makes both testable and untestable predictions is still of use; if the testable predictions are confirmed, there is some cause to believe the untestable ones, but without independent confirmation, they cannot be said to be true in any sense.

(17-09-2013 07:37 PM)I and I Wrote:  And equation based on an equation is not evidence or science. An equation that is based on an idea is not science. However the new religion peeps that use the word science to describe what they do believe in all kinds of things that we can never and will never see....but according to equations they are real so we should just have faith in the equations and criticize anyone who questions our new religion?

Translation: "I see what you're saying, cjlr, but I'm too willfully idiotic to admit that my computer exists and functions according to the laws of quantum mechanics, as theorized, designed, and built by people much smarter than me, so I will go on pretending not to admit to the overwhelming evidence available to me that there is practical, verifiable, universal evidence that the precepts of quantum theory are a better explanation of the physical world and our observations of it than any competing theory."

That's what you meant, right?

Oh, how I hoped your understanding of the computer you're using was slightly more sophisticated than "me press button, make shiny box show pictures; make forum post for troll smart people lol".

...

Would you like a history lesson? I feel as though your prodigious ignorance ought to be addressed. Why I should be so self-sacrificing as to let that lot fall to me, I can't say. I linked several wiki pages demonstrating the necessity, genesis, and development of quantum theory in my last post, but as is quite evident, you did not understand them. Perhaps you didn't try; perhaps you did - if you didn't get it, let us know which of the big words you got stuck on, and we'll sound them out together. Ignorance is curable. I'll teach you quantum mechanics if it kills me.

It has been known since the 1800s that objects emit light in proportion (in both energy and intensity) to their temperature. This is why an incandescent light bulb glows. You've seen a light bulb before, yes? Marvelous! (incidentally fluorescent bulbs and LEDs also rely on quantum mechanics, but we must save those for a more advanced class).

Because we observe a qualitative correlation, we suppose there may be an underlying mathematical relationship, that we may model. Lo and behold, there is! It is called the Rayleigh-Jeans Law. It predicts that intensity of emitted radiation is proportional to the inverse fourth power of wavelength. Don't worry if those words are too hard! Just ask nicely, and I can tell you what they mean.

That law, however, is only valid for low temperatures and high wavelengths. As experimental equipment improved, people could test objects in a wider range of conditions. Do you know what ultraviolet light is? Fantastic. Below ultraviolet wavelengths the simple inverse law predicts exponentially increasing intensity. That is, obviously, not what happens under experiment.

One day around then (1900, for the curious), a very smart man named Max Planck was thinking about this problem (how to predict black body radiation). The existing theory was inadequate - it had originally held for all testable conditions, but it did so no longer. Why might it be wrong? Well, one of the underlying assumptions was that energy was emitted in continuous amounts - there was no such thing as a "smallest unit" of energy. But that axiom was not based on observation; it was simply assumed based on "common sense" (a potentially dangerous term).

So, herr Planck thought to himself - what if that assumption was not true? What if energy was only emitted via radiation in quantized (finite, discrete) amounts? Being a smart man, he calculated that emitted radiation would then have a peak intensity at a certain wavelength and then decrease with either higher or lower wavelengths. I'll spare you the details - after this thread I've no doubt the math is beyond you. For the existing data (and remember - that's what had given the Rayleigh-Jeans law problems!) it was a very good fit. It was then used to predict further results, and these too were later confirmed to behave just as predicted. Thus, over the protests of many who, like you, to give you perhaps far too much credit, saw the underlying assumption (quantization) as ridiculous - the theory was accepted. This is something you may have heard of - it is called the scientific method.

But what of this conclusion? Well - it was a verifiable, useful, enlightening description, which accounted for observation better than any alternatives. It has never yet been falsified; thus, the scientific community as a whole accepts it as fundamentally true, that they may use it as a basis for further inquiry.

And that, little I and I, is where quantum comes from.

You may either accept the reality that is overwhelmingly manifest in front of you, or you may continue on as the forum's resident comic relief and bottom-dwelling (I'd say scum, but even scum sits on top of the pond) intellectual cuntwaste. I look forward to your reply.

Spit out George bush's cum you dumb right wing fuckhead. George bush and all his staff saw intelligence reports that said Hussein didn't have WMD, yet they chose to still sell the idea to the public to get a war started. This is called lying you dumb rightwing mother fucker. Bush and his staff lied.......fucking period.

I am surprised you conservative new age religious peeps know what science is, I mean after all you guys still hold on to the idea that bush didn't lie about WMD, which means after that anything you say is going to be looked at as bullshit. Dumb asses like yourself (who believe that George bush didn't lie about Iraq). Also hold crazy ideas that after a total fucking failure of the economy around the world which had highly sophisticated computers making models of possible outcomes, for some reason like your faith in bush you still have faith that equations resemble reality or are some proof or evidence of a reality EVEN WITHOUT THE EQUATION EVER BEING VARIFIED. Many ideas of quantum physics/ mechanics are hypothesis based in equations ( not a scientific method) or equations based on equations based on equations ( not scientific). Rightwing religious fucks like yourselves just love faith. " the equation says so.....just believe" or " hey bush said there were WMD, just believe". Don't question the troops or what we have faith in.

Your new religion isn't likes by the older religions.....that doesn't mean your religion isn't just as fucking dumb. You should learn science, and not that new age woo woo garbage that people call science.

Get that quantum voodoo bullshit out of here....but hey just think positive and good things will happen to you.......because the equations say so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2013, 07:04 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 09:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It has been known since the 1800s that objects emit light in proportion (in both energy and intensity) to their temperature. This is why an incandescent light bulb glows. You've seen a light bulb before, yes? Marvelous! (incidentally fluorescent bulbs and LEDs also rely on quantum mechanics, but we must save those for a more advanced class).

Because we observe a qualitative correlation, we suppose there may be an underlying mathematical relationship, that we may model. Lo and behold, there is! It is called the Rayleigh-Jeans Law. It predicts that intensity of emitted radiation is proportional to the inverse fourth power of wavelength. Don't worry if those words are too hard! Just ask nicely, and I can tell you what they mean.

That law, however, is only valid for low temperatures and high wavelengths. As experimental equipment improved, people could test objects in a wider range of conditions. Do you know what ultraviolet light is? Fantastic. Below ultraviolet wavelengths the simple inverse law predicts exponentially increasing intensity. That is, obviously, not what happens under experiment.

One day around then (1900, for the curious), a very smart man named Max Planck was thinking about this problem (how to predict black body radiation). The existing theory was inadequate - it had originally held for all testable conditions, but it did so no longer. Why might it be wrong? Well, one of the underlying assumptions was that energy was emitted in continuous amounts - there was no such thing as a "smallest unit" of energy. But that axiom was not based on observation; it was simply assumed based on "common sense" (a potentially dangerous term).

So, herr Planck thought to himself - what if that assumption was not true? What if energy was only emitted via radiation in quantized (finite, discrete) amounts? Being a smart man, he calculated that emitted radiation would then have a peak intensity at a certain wavelength and then decrease with either higher or lower wavelengths. I'll spare you the details - after this thread I've no doubt the math is beyond you. For the existing data (and remember - that's what had given the Rayleigh-Jeans law problems!) it was a very good fit. It was then used to predict further results, and these too were later confirmed to behave just as predicted. Thus, over the protests of many who, like you, to give you perhaps far too much credit, saw the underlying assumption (quantization) as ridiculous - the theory was accepted. This is something you may have heard of - it is called the scientific method.

But what of this conclusion? Well - it was a verifiable, useful, enlightening description, which accounted for observation better than any alternatives. It has never yet been falsified; thus, the scientific community as a whole accepts it as fundamentally true, that they may use it as a basis for further inquiry.

And that, little I and I, is where quantum comes from.

You may either accept the reality that is overwhelmingly manifest in front of you, or you may continue on as the forum's resident comic relief and bottom-dwelling (I'd say scum, but even scum sits on top of the pond) intellectual cuntwaste. I look forward to your reply.

(18-09-2013 06:31 AM)I and I Wrote:  Get that quantum voodoo bullshit out of here....but hey just think positive and good things will happen to you.......because the equations say so.





I'll just leave that here.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
18-09-2013, 09:34 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(18-09-2013 06:31 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(17-09-2013 09:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Both.

Or perhaps a quantum superposition of the two...


I don't know.

I'm inclined to believe he did not know he was wrong. This is due to two maxims on human behaviour: simplicity is more likely than complexity, and ignorance is more likely than malice. People are fully capable of believing even (apparently) obviously untrue things, given sufficient self-assured stubbornness. Not that you would know anything about that, of course.

If anyone cares to check the archives you can see that I've given I and I this summary several times over more or less verbatim. Will he actually read it this time? Let's stay tuned!

(to the new folks around here: no, I really don't know why he keeps bringing this up. That I admit to no certainty is apparently to be construed as some sort of inadequacy; he, as we know, can read minds in the past, and thus need face no such limits of fallibility)


Boy, you are just dumber than a sack of dead mice.

A theory which makes both testable and untestable predictions is still of use; if the testable predictions are confirmed, there is some cause to believe the untestable ones, but without independent confirmation, they cannot be said to be true in any sense.


Translation: "I see what you're saying, cjlr, but I'm too willfully idiotic to admit that my computer exists and functions according to the laws of quantum mechanics, as theorized, designed, and built by people much smarter than me, so I will go on pretending not to admit to the overwhelming evidence available to me that there is practical, verifiable, universal evidence that the precepts of quantum theory are a better explanation of the physical world and our observations of it than any competing theory."

That's what you meant, right?

Oh, how I hoped your understanding of the computer you're using was slightly more sophisticated than "me press button, make shiny box show pictures; make forum post for troll smart people lol".

...

Would you like a history lesson? I feel as though your prodigious ignorance ought to be addressed. Why I should be so self-sacrificing as to let that lot fall to me, I can't say. I linked several wiki pages demonstrating the necessity, genesis, and development of quantum theory in my last post, but as is quite evident, you did not understand them. Perhaps you didn't try; perhaps you did - if you didn't get it, let us know which of the big words you got stuck on, and we'll sound them out together. Ignorance is curable. I'll teach you quantum mechanics if it kills me.

It has been known since the 1800s that objects emit light in proportion (in both energy and intensity) to their temperature. This is why an incandescent light bulb glows. You've seen a light bulb before, yes? Marvelous! (incidentally fluorescent bulbs and LEDs also rely on quantum mechanics, but we must save those for a more advanced class).

Because we observe a qualitative correlation, we suppose there may be an underlying mathematical relationship, that we may model. Lo and behold, there is! It is called the Rayleigh-Jeans Law. It predicts that intensity of emitted radiation is proportional to the inverse fourth power of wavelength. Don't worry if those words are too hard! Just ask nicely, and I can tell you what they mean.

That law, however, is only valid for low temperatures and high wavelengths. As experimental equipment improved, people could test objects in a wider range of conditions. Do you know what ultraviolet light is? Fantastic. Below ultraviolet wavelengths the simple inverse law predicts exponentially increasing intensity. That is, obviously, not what happens under experiment.

One day around then (1900, for the curious), a very smart man named Max Planck was thinking about this problem (how to predict black body radiation). The existing theory was inadequate - it had originally held for all testable conditions, but it did so no longer. Why might it be wrong? Well, one of the underlying assumptions was that energy was emitted in continuous amounts - there was no such thing as a "smallest unit" of energy. But that axiom was not based on observation; it was simply assumed based on "common sense" (a potentially dangerous term).

So, herr Planck thought to himself - what if that assumption was not true? What if energy was only emitted via radiation in quantized (finite, discrete) amounts? Being a smart man, he calculated that emitted radiation would then have a peak intensity at a certain wavelength and then decrease with either higher or lower wavelengths. I'll spare you the details - after this thread I've no doubt the math is beyond you. For the existing data (and remember - that's what had given the Rayleigh-Jeans law problems!) it was a very good fit. It was then used to predict further results, and these too were later confirmed to behave just as predicted. Thus, over the protests of many who, like you, to give you perhaps far too much credit, saw the underlying assumption (quantization) as ridiculous - the theory was accepted. This is something you may have heard of - it is called the scientific method.

But what of this conclusion? Well - it was a verifiable, useful, enlightening description, which accounted for observation better than any alternatives. It has never yet been falsified; thus, the scientific community as a whole accepts it as fundamentally true, that they may use it as a basis for further inquiry.

And that, little I and I, is where quantum comes from.

You may either accept the reality that is overwhelmingly manifest in front of you, or you may continue on as the forum's resident comic relief and bottom-dwelling (I'd say scum, but even scum sits on top of the pond) intellectual cuntwaste. I look forward to your reply.

Spit out George bush's cum you dumb right wing fuckhead. George bush and all his staff saw intelligence reports that said Hussein didn't have WMD, yet they chose to still sell the idea to the public to get a war started. This is called lying you dumb rightwing mother fucker. Bush and his staff lied.......fucking period.

I am surprised you conservative new age religious peeps know what science is, I mean after all you guys still hold on to the idea that bush didn't lie about WMD, which means after that anything you say is going to be looked at as bullshit. Dumb asses like yourself (who believe that George bush didn't lie about Iraq). Also hold crazy ideas that after a total fucking failure of the economy around the world which had highly sophisticated computers making models of possible outcomes, for some reason like your faith in bush you still have faith that equations resemble reality or are some proof or evidence of a reality EVEN WITHOUT THE EQUATION EVER BEING VARIFIED. Many ideas of quantum physics/ mechanics are hypothesis based in equations ( not a scientific method) or equations based on equations based on equations ( not scientific). Rightwing religious fucks like yourselves just love faith. " the equation says so.....just believe" or " hey bush said there were WMD, just believe". Don't question the troops or what we have faith in.

Your new religion isn't likes by the older religions.....that doesn't mean your religion isn't just as fucking dumb. You should learn science, and not that new age woo woo garbage that people call science.

Get that quantum voodoo bullshit out of here....but hey just think positive and good things will happen to you.......because the equations say so.

You believe Bush knew, you don't know it.

And you dismiss quantum theory as voodoo? Really?

You have just made yourself completely irrelevant. Your presence here is of no value except as comedy, and that has worn pretty thin.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
18-09-2013, 09:55 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(18-09-2013 06:31 AM)I and I Wrote:  Spit out George bush's cum you dumb right wing fuckhead. George bush and all his staff saw intelligence reports that said Hussein didn't have WMD, yet they chose to still sell the idea to the public to get a war started. This is called lying you dumb rightwing mother fucker. Bush and his staff lied.......fucking period.

Ah! Yes, I see. You can read minds in the past. You really ought to talk to the JREF, I and I. You have a gift. Share it with the world.

(for the audience: let us just note that this is literally the only thing I and I's feverish brain can manage to accuse me of, and it is both not true and not relevant)

(18-09-2013 06:31 AM)I and I Wrote:  I am surprised you conservative new age religious peeps know what science is, I mean after all you guys still hold on to the idea that bush didn't lie about WMD, which means after that anything you say is going to be looked at as bullshit.

Let us grant you your premise, for the sake of argument.

Premise: I once said something incorrect.
Conclusion: everything I say is incorrect.

No, that's not logic. You aren't very good at this, are you?

(18-09-2013 06:31 AM)I and I Wrote:  Also hold crazy ideas that after a total fucking failure of the economy around the world which had highly sophisticated computers making models of possible outcomes, for some reason like your faith in bush you still have faith that equations resemble reality or are some proof or evidence of a reality EVEN WITHOUT THE EQUATION EVER BEING VARIFIED.

Okay, first of all, that's not even a cogent sentence. I know they take things slowly in your special class, but haven't you covered elementary school grammar yet? And what is "varified", can you tell me? Words can be hard for you, I know, but we'll work this out together.

This brings us to another shining example of the I and I syllogism:
Premise: a conclusion based on a mathematical model was once wrong.
Conclusion: all conclusions based on mathematical models are wrong.

No, that's still not logic. Sheesh, thinking is hard. I can see why you so rarely bother to try it.

(18-09-2013 06:31 AM)I and I Wrote:  Many ideas of quantum physics/ mechanics are hypothesis based in equations ( not a scientific method) or equations based on equations based on equations ( not scientific). Rightwing religious fucks like yourselves just love faith. " the equation says so.....just believe" or " hey bush said there were WMD, just believe". Don't question the troops or what we have faith in.

You do know that I am a member of a socialist party, yes? But don't let those pesky facts intrude on your delusional circlejerk reality.

(18-09-2013 06:31 AM)I and I Wrote:  Your new religion isn't likes by the older religions.....that doesn't mean your religion isn't just as fucking dumb. You should learn science, and not that new age woo woo garbage that people call science.

Get that quantum voodoo bullshit out of here....but hey just think positive and good things will happen to you.......because the equations say so.

If ever anything in my entire life has been demonstrated to me conclusively, it is that you are utterly incapable of grasping the significance and import of the scientific method and its consequences. The enormity of your ignorance is dwarfed only by the perversity of your revelry in it.

Does that computer of yours still turn on? Yes? Fantastic! For you see, my degenerate little pissant, the operation of its integrated circuits is governed by, and relies on, quantum mechanics. You have yet to confront this fact. I suppose it is only natural, for such a small mind to cower and hide from upsetting truths. But don't worry - we'll get through this together. Ignorance is curable.

...

Let us continue from where we left off. The second major impetus behind quantum mechanics was the photoelectric effect. This is how solar panels work. You do know what those are, yes? Delightful! But have you ever wondered how they work? It involves some of that scaaary math, which I know makes you nervous and angry, but I assure you, they do, in fact, function.

What is the photoelectric effect? Well, you see, when light strikes a sensitive material, it creates an electrical current and thus a potential difference. It was discovered through experiment and observation that it was the wavelength of light, and not its intensity that had greater effect on the current output.

Based on the earlier work of Max Planck (see previous post), Einstein knew that light existed at finite energies. How, then, might that be applied to explaining the photoelectric effect? Well, electrons had been discovered a few years prior, and were known to be the active charge carriers. Electrons were considered to be part of, or embedded with, the atoms constituting materials.

Einstein's reasoning was this: when light strikes the material, its energy (as realized by Planck) is absorbed by an electron. The electron is bound to its atom - meaning, it is held there by a certain amount of energy. If the light has that amount of energy, it frees the electron, which contributes to the current. If it has less, it does nothing. If the light has more than that much energy, the electron is freed, and the surplus energy becomes its kinetic energy.

How could this come about? Well, this behaviour is best explained if light exists in discrete particles - which we call photons. Thus, incorporating Planck's model of black body radiation, light exists as individual photons, whose energy is proportional to their wavelength. Such discretely quantized phenomena are referred to as quantum mechancis. This was opposed by some very intelligent people at the time (>100 years ago) because it is in apparent contradiction to a superficial interpretation of Maxwell's laws, which generally describe energy as being related to intensity. And yet, it is a better model for predicting experimental results and applying to new technologies.

Knowledge of this wave-particle nature of light, and its quantized energy levels, which induce electrons to jump between energy levels, is one of the most fundamental discoveries ever made. It allows for an explanation of photosynthesis via biochemistry, which is a process you may have heard of; it allows for a description of the functioning of the light receptors in your eyes, which you may occasionally have found useful. It led, in time, to the invention of such things as fluorescent light bulbs - have you heard of those too? Yes? Wonderful.

That, little I and I, is where quantum comes from.

This is the work which earned Einstein his Nobel Prize, as it happens. You do know what Nobel Prizes are, yes? And you have heard of Einstein? Incidentally, I note that you have made no effort whatsoever to address the theoretical underpinnings of quantum theory as I have elaborated them. If you can prove this work wrong there is most assuredly a Nobel Prize in it for you. You so clearly know better than the entire scientific community; why not use that to your great advantage? Between that and your JREF money, you'd be set for life!

Now, once more: you may either accept the reality that is overwhelmingly manifest in front of you, or you may persist in revelling in the dank, fetid corners of your abject and inadequate mind, exemplifying the sublime, cretinous embrace of ignominious ignorance usually left to creationists. I look forward to your reply.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
24-09-2013, 06:27 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
An equation alone is not evidence that something exists. Do we all agree?

George Bush saw and knew of intelligence reports that stated that Hussein didn't have WMD, he and others on his staff chose to not promote the view that Hussein did have WMD. This is called lying you stupid mother fucker.

Any explanation has to how a hypothesis (which was stated before as someone else that can be biased) becomes an unbiased conclusion. Someone mentioned peer review, which begs the question why peer review is necessary when earlier in another thread of mine, you guys were insisting that fact was not based at all on belief. Why is a consensus needed when according to you guys a fact is a fact no matter what.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: