/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11767773
>>more shifting of the burden of proof

If you refuse to read the article and understand it, that's on you. I don't feel like spoon-feeding you. I've given you the citation. That should be sufficient if you have an IQ above room temperature

I have a fully classical proof that avoids this issue since you don't believe the conventinal QM interpretation of malus's law.

>>11755208
>Mr. "retarded" is big on avoiding ad hominems, of course

That's after I go through a lengthy explanation of why my opponent is wrong. The difference is you never have an argument to begin with.

Here's another write-up of my position. I've taken days to distill this into something you can comprehend. It's painfully explicit and basic.

Show me where I made an error.