Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,423
73,489
Skanda_sl said:
On one hand, the entire field of theoretical physics.

On the other, a man who wishes he had been born a mongoose trying to pretend he's smarter than all of them.

Hmm...
Click to expand...
Troll_sl said:
Why is furfag still allowed to post here? ALL OF THE FUCKING SCIENCE SUPPORTS IT.

ALL OF IT.

PERIOD.

YOU ARE WRONG.
Click to expand...
Furry_sl said:
Paper is published that states the data isn't conclusive. I state the data doesn't appear to be conclusive yet.
Click to expand...
Which publication are we talking about here? Certainly if all the science and an entire field of physics disagrees with Furry, there's a paper that blows Furry's skepticism out of the water, right?
 
I

Itzena_sl

shitlord
4,609
6
6CwgWjM.jpg
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,040
19,500
Furry_sl said:
I've covered this before. There's two theories about why the math behind quantum mechanics work. The first theory is that the math is the best estimation of the systems, and that with a better understanding of the systems the inaccuracies and randomness APPEARANCE to it would eventually be entirely eliminated. Einstein and schrodinger with their thought experiments argued for this belief. Essentially, the math and the randomness in it is a artifact of us not being scientifically advanced enough to figure out the finer details yet.

The second, the one pushed by fields such as quantum entanglement is that the math is ACTUALLY HOW THE SYSTEMS WORK. The randomness is part of nature and the knowledge can not be refined ever. It's basically a silly and childish principal that because we haven't been able to discover more yet, we obviously know how everything works already.

I think the second view is absolutely retarded, and I at every chance argue against proponents of it, such as troll.
Click to expand...
You can't post shit like this then pretend you're neutral and objectively waiting for more conclusive evidence.

It's the same shit you did with gravitational waves. You called their existence stupid and we were all idiots for believing in them. They were very close to being completely debunked, you said. Fast forward to their direct observation and you now claimed you were always just an objective observer waiting for more evidence before committing to their belief.

You're a science hipster who goes against established science thinking it somehow makes you superior, despite having no clue what you're talking about.
 
T

Troll_sl

shitlord
1,703
6
That's exactly what furfag is. He's a science contrarian. Except, unlike good contrarians like Christopher Hitchens, he doesn't bother to support his side of the argument with logic or facts or anything resembling the ability to back up his views. He doesn't bother to do the legwork required to actually read studies (the very least that would be required to take his stance) and he doesn't actually do any of the science he tries to refute.

He is worse than the nutbags that write many of the papers that get sent in to the top scientists in the world. The ones who claim to have solved the Theory of Everything or to have refuted the foundations of science or whatever. He doesn't even write the batshit insane papers. He doesn't even go that far. Furfag doesn't deserve a place in the "Shit" files these people keep when they need to read something for a laugh.
 
T

Troll_sl

shitlord
1,703
6
We've known for a long time that the brain remains plastic throughout your life. It would be impossible to learn anything at all otherwise.

TED Talks are shit and are about as reliable as IFLS posts.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Plasticity generally refers to the synapses or axons. What she's talking about is the production of new cell bodies in adults. Which is relatively new, it is, and an important fact. It makes sense, it does, but you can find current textbooks which state that neurons do not reproduce and are not replenished. Well, they still don't reproduce. And these aren't shitty textbooks... it's just that it's relatively new.

Although TED talks are really hit or miss.
 
AngryGerbil

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
TED at least tries. They've had their wackos but they've also had some really great stuff too. A forum like that will always be targeted by charlatans in the end. It's just the natural attrition against all of us trying to actually know stuff.
 
Aaron

Aaron

Goonsquad Officer
<Bronze Donator>
8,102
17,887
AngryGerbil_sl said:
Is that the guy who Sam jokingly accused of "noticing my wife's equations"? That was great. Probably his best podcast yet. I'll definitely have to check his book out some day.
Click to expand...
I read that as "noticing my wife's erections". All the god damn tranny talk on this forum have fucked with my semi-dyslexia. :/
 
T

Troll_sl

shitlord
1,703
6
Iannis_sl said:
Plasticity generally refers to the synapses or axons. What she's talking about is the production of new cell bodies in adults. Which is relatively new, it is, and an important fact. It makes sense, it does, but you can find current textbooks which state that neurons do not reproduce and are not replenished. Well, they still don't reproduce. And these aren't shitty textbooks... it's just that it's relatively new.

Although TED talks are really hit or miss.
Click to expand...
Adult neurogenesis isn't a new thing either.

It's been around as an idea since the 60s. Taken seriously since the late 80s, early 90s.Adult neurogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
R

Running Dog_sl

shitlord
1,199
3
Making flat lenses that are better and probably much cheaper than conventional lens. I'm not sure how far the tech would scale up; the obvious market would be cameras.

The advantage, Prof Capasso said, is that these "metalenses" avoid shortfalls - called aberrations - that are inherent in traditional glass optics. "The quality of our images is actually better than with a state-of-the-art objective lens. I think it is no exaggeration to say that this is potentially revolutionary."

Those comparisons were made against top-end lenses used in research microscopes, designed to achieve absolute maximum magnification. The focal spot of the flat lens was typically 30% sharper than its competition, meaning that in a lab setting, finer details can be revealed.

But the technology could be revolutionary for another reason, Prof Capasso maintains. "The conventional fabrication of shaped lenses depends on moulding and essentially goes back to 19th Century technology. But our lenses, being planar, can be fabricated in the same foundries that make computer chips. So all of a sudden the factories that make integrated circuits can make our lenses."
Click to expand...
Flat lens promises possible revolution in optics - BBC News
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Yeah, that's the kind of material science and engineering that actually promotes advancement.

Someone will do something strange with flat lenses and mobile devices and we'll all go, "Well. Huh. That's neat. Why weren't we always doing that?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.