/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12040146
probably she started to shill her videos here
anyway i'm subbed

>>11148489
>I am walking through a hall, but instead of going straight to the end, I walk left and right when in the hall. So when I leave the hall, it would have taken me more time than going straight through it.
>That's what I said. You claimed this is not an explanation for why I would have appeared to slow down.
You're right. When you go left and right in the hall you magically become something completely different. You are now a noun known as a "wave" going through he hall instead of a person in motion. I can explain the wave-walking duality by sitting here and continuing to describe a walking person as both a person and a wave simply because I observed the way the person walk.

Which still doesn't explain what a fucking wave is, it describes what it does over a period of time.

>.Again, it doesn't matter. The wave model explained electron patterns created in a wall for example.
It described what they do yes. Still doesn't make a "wave" something.

Then in other experiments, the particle model explained what was seen. You keep ignoring this simple fact and attacking the duality statement as something you make it out to be.
I'm not ignoring it though! This is why I keep calling it dualistic hogwash. That is literally how you are describing it to me right now. "It is but it isn't" contradictory bullshit! That's not an explanation to anything because It doesn't explain why it actually occurs.

>So, again, do waves have energy and momentum?
WAVES
OF
WHAT????
I ignore what wave-particle dualism means
Because its a flat out contradiction, it opposes it's own meaning.
>ignoring all experimental evidence for the electron and its properties
What empirical evidence?
>Absolutely idiotic.
Yeah and if only you could actually explain why.


>If you had attacked the existence of quarks, you might have had a point.
Why would it matter if I did? Both have no empirical evidence and are just a part of rehashed atomism.

>>11036004
>he can't conceptualize waves without medium
>concepts mean more to me than what is actually there in reality
Your image is fitting at least
>>11036007
Of what?

>>10864962
>the thing ken wheeler flips out is a mechanical model of the torus. and what happens when it flips out? does it spin around and around on its own? no it locks up on itself. thats how that shape/object mechanically works. it doesnt work is what im saying. it just locks in on itlsef. it pushes on itself.

Cool story bro

>if ur too stupiod to describe a movie shown to you or get what im saying and just point out its a gif file then ur a dumbass and wasted replies to my topic.

Descriptions are not explanations. Also your "Description" doesn't really describe anything. Infinity" "of what" you fucking idiot? This reeks of buttblasted schizoposting. Pretty sure he also used the term "incommensurable" which doesn't mean "infinity" at all. It doesn't come close to meaning "infinity".

>the torus isnt a WORKING model, it mechanically is broke. its just a drawing on a piece of paper.

Why do you assume the universe changes?

>if you cant make a workign model, or make a movie thats not forming to a single line in the middle to trick somebody with 2 lines coming out/going in to it and of it. then you dont have anything but a concept, not any explanation for any physical object and you didnt debunk as ken wheeler bleieves we dont live in a hphysical universe because i bet a bullet would sure blow his fat head off

Maybe that's why he clarifies that it's an analogy at the start of that video you moron.


I'm not filling in the blanks for your stupid thread anymore. Clarify your shit up, don't just take a shot in the dark. You use the term "they" like you're Alex Jones combating some kind of conspiracy or something. Give me a break faggot, nobody cares about your paranoia, this is a science board.

>>10648281
if it is placebo then this is the strongest placebo feeling ive ever had. Either it is a placebo or I'm hyper sensitive to this drug.

>>10605500
so what you're saying is, those with 10mil have a better chance of making it to space rather than those with a phd? within 20 years?