Search results

The only thing going for it in the believability part is the fact that is a pretty ugly cock. That said, if you have one real one, it makes sense to model the second one after it.

Life long cowboys fan checking in. The bandwagon has seats. HOP ON BOARD.

Old news. Until there's video of that shit ill assume its fake.

Edge of tomorrow was pretty cool. I'm okay with movies being based off books or other media. Even sequals can be fine if they have love. Its the cash cow shitquals like anything hobbits that need to die in a fire.

yea, looks like the right call was made. The late PI on the lions to help dallas take the lead was strange to me. I don't agree with tackling receivers in the box being a penalty, they could have the ball or whatever. There's a reason you can hold and grab people and shit in the box and have it...

damn that kick

I cant wait to do an exploration game with my friends. Oh wait

Even in texas the lag is unbearable. I was getting ocassional 1 second drops and shit all day today. Somehow I managed to go on a win streak despite it.

Me and aryasar both like animal dicks, so it could be a toss up between me and wormie.

Information destroyed has to do with undoing the equation, not figuring out the possibilities. -2 and 2 squared both have one distinct answer. The root of 4 has two different distinct and correct answers. In the real world, there is typically only one solution to the equation what is the root of...

Correct, the information destroyed is which number it came from.

to be fair, i should specifically said squaring a number destroys information. Because what is the root of 4. ect ect

Grats, its a proof. That's independent of the point of my example. I never said the math was wrong. It is indeed very right.

You're beginning to understand. Basically, when both sides of any physical property cannot be bound, then negative numbers are fine as results. When a side of a physical property can be bound, then negative numbers are irrational. So negative distances are not irrational, you can just frame it...

Sure you can. Point at the sky, the ground. Even a cell. How you partition that object determines if you could find one trillion there. Anywhere you point in nature, you will not find even -1.

And where do I say they aren't useful? Thats the supposition that you make. Infact, negative numbers and imaginary ones can be quite beautiful in describing nature. Take the euler's formula. It's a very self evident proof. Anyone in basic level mechanical engineering classes will be able to...

Of course you can, but you can not describe negative numbers with real world. Concepts are more flexible than nature, and that is why you must be careful with them.

Existing in nature is my criteria for something being real, yes. Call me crazy for that all you want. I can believe in all of those numbers as human concepts, because that is what they are.

I've met professors at every end of the spectrum from full on hate QM more than me to how dare you defile my temple of worship. There are grave concerns in QM, and its important for anyone who appreciates the math to understand what those grave concerns are and why. Taking the stance that its...

Dont listen, chip! Quarterbacks can carry teams just like in college. Who needs any of those other pleb players.

progress from quantum entanglement? I'm still waiting for someone to show me where its been proven as true.

The most interesting thing about your augment is that you are are arguing against proven theory and I am arguing for it. Entanglement has not been proven by scientific standards. I taught you that microwaves are a light, perhaps I can educate you a bit on a polarizer. You can make a very...

I assumed you guys knew how double slit experiments work specifically in regards to quantum entanglement when I made that statement. I realize now that this was very wrong for me to do. So I'll explain some basics. What is a polarizer, it is basically a series of lines that breaks up light...

Or malus's law. What a bizarre coincidence that it exactly follows malus's law. Of course a classical explination for quantum phenomenom is unacceptable, so there's a renamed 'quantum malus's law' to explain it in quantum terms.

Okay. That doesn't change the fact that field theory ignores the laws of physics. This is well established and an accepted problem by quantum mechanics itself, it is the reason the theories I have problem with were developed. The only issue we are arguing over is the why it violates these laws...

light and microwaves are both electromagnetic radiation. The only difference is frequency. They are both governed by the exact same equations, and they both do the exact same things.

That is what the uncertainy principle says, and it is what I disagree with.

It's clever that this experiment is done with microwaves, lots of people don't see stuff so they don't believe it. It's two cancelling snell's equations that explains why light passes through when there's two blocks. The form of them is this. Y is 45 and a is one in this equation. If you knew b...

He is correct though. Randomness is because we don't know or control all variables. Take a coin flip. Just flip a coin and it seems random. Build a machine to flip the coin the same way in the same environment every time, and something that was random becomes controllable. What Rhuma is arguing...

It makes it way different. Earth works how earth works, not how venus works. Either way, I'm against global warming because I'm against making grand sweeping statements that are unjustified. If they get proven wrong, It is generally conductive to a political climate that is generally...

It is, thats why I established the roots of both those subjects outside of QM multiple times previously. My problem isn't with subjects that QM was later put over. It is mostly with subjects that QM has created. I've explained this repeatedly throughout my posts.

How quickly we forget the past.

I've said repeatedly I respect particle physics and their creation of field theory, even if it later got labeled as part of quantum mechanics. I also said my respect for Lorentz as a brilliant mind, and he created a large chunk of QED, which was later refined by einstein and then finally claimed...

Correct. I believe we shouldn't pollute the shit out of our planet, but none of the global warming conspiracy theory bullshit. Feel free to come back and drop that supposed data you're hording that proves entanglement whenever you find it.

I'll use the scientific standard established for accepting theories, five standard deviations. Perfection isn't expected or required.

Even global warming tards have lots of numbers verifying the fact the planet should of melted by now. You could at least throw one experiment that 'proves' that theory my way. I decided to look at burnems cause you're playing coy, but I'll give you one too. If you really ask nice, I might...

Read their paper. They state that the experiment doesn't prove anything themselves They sure are close to proving something though, so don't forget to send that grant money.

I'm accusing entanglement of being pseudo science. Clearly when the majority of people agree with it, it makes it right. Just like global warming was proven by a majority. Who needs science or data when you have consensus!

Ok, here's your chance to shine cupcake. Link me an experiment that proves entanglement. Prove me wrong. You're the one claiming you have this data, where is it.

Yea, the universe doesn't exist unless humans enforce the rules with their god-given gaze. We found the limits of his omnipotence.