/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10040376
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Null.
Null.
Null.
Yes. (Meaninglessly vague answer)
No.
Null. Statement doesn't make sense.
Yes. The problem is people can't be reasoned with and generally won't accept the answers,

>>10040376
based rational /sci/entist

What evidence do you have to support your claim about climate change?

>>10040398
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1022632/science-news-lhc-large-hadron-collider-quantum-latest-discoveries
here you go basedfaggot

>>10040410
http://www.ipcc.ch

>>10040376
the only thing i don't like about this meme: "does not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity."
Tautology for the faggotry.

>>10040427
Given that there are still great flaws in QED and relativity, I don't find this particularly exciting beyond the possibility of sampling this virtual state.

Prime issue: Royal Rife's microscope. It worked. Standard QED says it can't. Therefore the predictions of QED do not hold up to experiment.

>>10040376
>The Singularity is near

>>10040445

>>10040451

>>10040376
>> Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
>> Perpetuum mobiles, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
>> Likewise, it is impossible to extract work from the zero-point energy of the vacuum.
you again, forgot to add the bit about, 'according to current understanding of the universe.'

>>10040376
>correct and incomplete
No such thing.

>>10040427
>basedfaggot
Why the homophobia?

>>10040376
Also:
>The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>10040512
Found the scientifically illiterate

>>10040376

>space travel is real.
Only in the future, not in the past.

>energy-from-nothing generators
Quantic perturbations from the void are needed to explain some gamma decay... so why not a generator ?

> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
Too bad the

> Approved vaccines are safe and effective.
Safe and effective has an active cure could be.

>>10040376
>Approved vaccines are safe and effective.
Should be
>Vaccines are safe and effective, until a safer and/or more effective product is approved.
Your initial statement doesn't take into consideration how the life cycle of a medical product works. Flu vaccine for example becomes obsolete and loses effectiveness every flu season due to mutations. Pharmaceutical and medical engineering industry constantly improves their products. Yes, this is nitpicking.

>>10040376
"correct and incomplete"

Just like saying the world is flat.

>>10041166
Nice job outing yourself as a psued.

>>10040376
>correct

>>10041183
It's simple mathematics. If you think the world is flat, ie 2-dimensional, your description is 'correct but incomplete', in that there is in fact a third dimension. 1 + 1 = 2. 2 + 1 = 3.

Nice job outing yourself as someone who can't even add

>>10041224
But a flat earth IS a correct but incomplete model for many circumstances you utter brainlet. Not like you have any experience solving physical problems anyway.

>>10041227
Neither do you, it appears, as someone who does not even understand how to add and subtract.

>>10041237
>hurr durr 1 plus 1 is 2 that means ur wrong
This is actually the argument you are making. Sad!

Imagine the look on Einsteins face when he was shitposting on /sci/ during his days at the patent office and some anon told him.
>light is waves in a medium called Aether, if you disagree you are a brainlet

>>10042071
MOUND BUILDER.

>>10040376
> Newtonian Mechanics is correct
> Quantum Mechanics is correct
> Special and General Relativity are correct

This is a contradiction. It is because each of these things are wrong that the other exists.

>Perpetuum mobiles, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.

Wrong, and it's because of the errors in the theories above that the workings of this is occulted from you. Simply put, the Sun is such a generator, it is not a burning ball of gas. All stars feed of the galactic charge field. At a velocity of 1/1500 C the sun is churning through a very very large sum of zero point energy every moment, it channels it, think step down transformer. Ps hint hint wink wink read this part !!! What direction is the Sun moving? SOUTH!!!!!!!

>>10041224
>>10041227
Mathematics actually disproves the globe/gravity. A sphere requires a center, as does gravity (both Newtonian and Einsteinian), yet centers do not exist in physical reality.

No centers = infinite plane.

>>10040376
>faster than light communication is impossible
only if communication has to be based in light and it doesn't necessarily
>impossible to extract work from zero-point energy
at the present yes, but again if this applies to the future it's an incorrect assumption
>approved vaccines are safe and effective
depends on the specific vaccine as the approval process can possibly be incorrect in method for some reason. for the huge majority I'd agree

>>10042071
I may make a thread for this.

Why is the sky during rainbows brighter inside the arc?

>>10042140
>>faster than light communication is impossible
>only if communication has to be based in light and it doesn't necessarily
This has nothing to do with light itself, it's the speed limit of causality.
>>impossible to extract work from zero-point energy
>at the present yes, but again if this applies to the future it's an incorrect assumption
Not a technological limit, but a theoretical limit.

>>10042109
>> Newtonian Mechanics is correct
>> Quantum Mechanics is correct
>> Special and General Relativity are correct
>This is a contradiction. It is because each of these things are wrong that the other exists.

You forgot the "incomplete". Read the OP again, because you're failing at reading comprehension.

Also please predict the power output of the Sun from your "theory".
> Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform current scientific theory.

>>10040376
>>10040398
>Earth is round
>b-but for some reason the galaxy is flat and i have no explanation as for why
Fucking textbook sheep.

>>10042119
Why can't centers exist in reality?

>>10042202
>interpreting different uses of the same word to mean the same thing
Embarrassing. You're like a stormnigger who things GR has something to do with moral relativism.

>>10042202

> "I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. The fact that the universe is not simple enough for you to understand is your failing, not the universe's.

A planet has sufficient gravity to overwhelm centrifugal forces, so a planet ends up being roughly spherical. A galaxy on the other hand has centrifugal forces that can't be ignored and is more of a gaseous conglomerate. This ends up forming a spinning disk upon which matter falls from above and below. All your "criticism" says is "I'm too stupid to understand basic science". Go read a textbook and leave the science to the adults.

>>10042197
Correct and incomplete is also a contradiction. So ridiculous I left it out.

As for a power output prediction. That's something I may do but not right now. Let me leave it at this. I predict that the core of the Sun will be proven to be Iron.

>>10042206
How big is the center of the earth?

>>10042194
Causality isn't the end-all and be-all. Also, theoretical limits are there to be tested. When the technology capable of testing those limits arises. Reality may shatter theory.

>>10042253
Points in space do not have size.
"How long is an instant"
"What's the volume of a square"
are equivalent nonsense questions

>>10042253
infinitesimal, just like every other point....

>>10042261
Exactly my point. If points in space have no size then they don't exist in physical reality and cannot be used to explain how reality is or works.

>>10042263
>infinitesimal, just like every other point....
Which is meaningless.

>>10042250
It must be a very tiny core considering the sun is less than .1% iron atoms.

>>10042276
Hes wrong, points aren't infinitestimal. The have precisely no size.

>>10042281
>Hes wrong, points aren't infinitestimal. The have precisely no size.
They mean the same thing. Mathematical points supposedly don't have a size yet they are still used like they do, which is cheating.

>>10042250
>Correct and incomplete is also a contradiction. So ridiculous I left it out.
Which means you did not understand the most important point of the OP and have proven yourself to be scientifically illiterate. Reread and try again.

>>10042287
>Mathematical points supposedly don't have a size yet they are still used like they do,
Points dont have size and they arent treated as such either.

>>10042296
>Points dont have size and they arent treated as such either.
They are called locations and use a circle to represent themselves, these require the property of size. If they have no size, they can't be a location. They are symbolised with a small circle but circles can't exist either. They are meaningless.

>>10042333
Okay, I guess all of math is wrong then huh?

>>10042362
FIX IT

>>10042362
The point here, pun intended, is that the math is math. Reality is pointless.

>>10042368
No you
>implying you know any math

>>10042391
>why dont our physical models look exactly like reality?

>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
give it a 1000 years

>>10042333
Points dont have anything to do with circles lmao

>>10042423
What's the center of a circle?

>>10042394
Working on it.

>>10042446
Circles are defined in terms of points. Doesnt mean points depend on existence of circles or have size, nigger

>>10042457
In the meantime, do not post again fucking mathlet.

>>10042464
Both circles and points are abstract. Neither can exactly exist one due to the irrationallity of pi, the other due to tge simple fact everything has volume, even very small things /sci/ calls pointlike.

>>10042510
Good thing physical models are also abstract

>>10042520
Tell that to the physicists.

>>10042415
that would imply backwards time travel, because for some observers all faster than light information transfer appears to occur backwards in time, so you get the call before the caller ever made it which doesn't make sense causally
in some circumstances using this faster than light travel you could send to yourself winning numbers for a lottery, but this opens in all kinds of paradoxes, I doubt the universe/nature would allow it, c is a constant for a reason

>>10040438
Well it's true that with those definitions you could easily come up with an "correct and incomplete" theory, simply by having a very narrow domain of validity. But the specific theories in the OP have a huge fucking domain of validity, which is exactly what gives them their value.

>>10040376
>X. *clap* Is. *clap* True. *clap*
So this is how science works, huh?

>>10042274
The point is infinitesmally small in both reality and predictions of such. It can be used to explain reality. Centers of mass and gravity are real things. The physics begins to fall apart when you get to a level of precision that is challenging to calculate cause real life is a discrete set of moving atoms.

>>10042529
The fact that theories are abstract is part of the point of physics, you doorknob. Newtonian or Relativistic mechanics are abstract physical THEORIES that are not proven, but are instead supported by empirical results. This is distinct from how pure mathematics works.

>>10042391
Mathematics are a created representation of reality. The problem here is not in the validity of mathematics or of reality, but rather in the ability of humans to acquire the "true" (or truest) mathematical descriptions for infinitesimal points in systems that become extremely dynamic at the finest and most fundamental scales of reality. Human mathematics are just as much an illustration of Plato's cave as any other form of human interpretative understanding.

>>10042705
Aka, we know gravity slows light, but instead we say it stretches space ;)

>>10042202
Optimized.

>>10042716

>it's another brainlet tries to get around the obvious truth that mathematics as-such is wholly discovered by doing another variation on "herp we invented the notation though so that counts for something" which is intended to make him look all smart and nuanced and not like the brainlet that he actually is episode

>>10042258
The "speed of light" is not strictly speaking the speed of light, but the speed limit of the propagation of information transfer/change across spacetime. We refer to this as the speed of light because it is the maximum speed that a massless particle (or more precisely any quantum) can travel at; it is precisely because this quantum is massless that it is "automatically accelerated" to the speed limit upon a release of energy. Of course, because energy also exists as discrete quanta, we realise that photons are essentially just the transmission of these energy quanta across spacetime, and that everything is energy quanta in different forms of varying quantity. If the most discrete unit of energy, of information and change, did not travel at the information speed limit -- that is, if some energy quantum traveled faster, then 1) the "current" energy quantum would not be the most discrete unit, 2) our understanding of the speed limit would be incorrect, 3) spacetime itself would necessarily be another form of this smaller quantum and thus also potentially matter/energy instead of the "canvas" of our reality, and 4) the behaviour, existence, and interaction of these faster-than-light quanta would either be completely inexplicable or completely irrelevant, possibly both.

This is of course absurd. We've very certain that the current speed limit is the genuine speed limit of "change" due to observational confirmation that time dilation occurs; similarly, we would never even be able to interact with any FTL event in our spacetime, as it would reach its position faster than information would've propagated through spacetime to reflect its position.

>>10042772
No, you aren't paying attention. The notation is irrelevant; mathematical descriptions of physical relationships are a true and valid representation of reality regardless of how this relationship is actually portrayed.

If you'd like to actually get some reading comprehension, I stated that the problem is in the human ability to actually reach and depict the truest descriptions of dynamic physical phenomena. If you want to actually describe and predict the behaviour of "centres" of gravity and other phenomena in spacetime at the most infinitesimal levels, then you have acquired a need for an unattainable degree of knowledge as far as all discrete quanta contributing to the conditions of the system you are attempting to describe are concerned. We can not portray the mathematics that describe this system at the most precise level, even though the existence of this system necessarily means that the mathematics also "exist."

>>10042848

>this level of backpedaling and cope

You're still doing a flavor of the basic mistake which young people regularly do when considering this question, as they try to have it both ways. You've just sprinkled some physics in like it matters (it doesn't). Your opening sentence and thesis statement still reads as it did a half hour ago, and is still wrong.

>>10042898
You automatically assume "backpedaling and cope" when someone has to point out that you misunderstood basic parts of their argument? I can't imagine how insufferable your colleagues find you.

If you want to assert that it's wrong when everyone else that's responded to you has argued against your idea that the failure to exactly translate mathematical abstractions like centres and points to real physical phenomena/vice versa indicates that the globe/gravity are false, then fine, whatever. You're not interacting with the actual idea that the mathematics we commonly use to describe spatial relationships in reality (which are nevertheless still extremely accurate at large scales where quantum reality is irrelevant) do not actually reflect the exact physical reality we interact with. Is this an "everyone else is wrong including all the brainlets in physics and mathematics" kind of thing or are you just trolling?

>>10040445
>Royal Rife's microscope. It worked.
Got a source because looking at his track record on the internet he just sounds like a crank, we have plenty of those on /sci/

>>10042261
>"What's the volume of a square"
0

>>10043006
>"How big is the center of the earth?"
0

Zero dimensional objects embedded in a 3D space do not have size.

>>10042983
Provide some of the sources you're looking at.

Let's put it this way, he didn't fund his research and build a microscope that's components cost ~250,000 in 1920 (several million today) on his own. (Refer to the article in Science on him, and the Smithsonian article later). He had to have funding, right?

That came from 2 main sources. Henry Timken Jr, of Timken Roller Bearings. And his sister, Amelia Bridges. This came about for 3 reasons
-He built a speedboat engine for Timken in 1915, capable of generating 7200 HP. It sustained a speed of 82 mph (to my recollection) for >100 miles. Was a world record and remained unbeaten at least until the 70's. Possibly longer.
-He built a system described as an "xray eye" for Timken which screened sheets of steel for structural strain beyond some tolerance, and flagged them for removal accordingly. Saved the company millions in premature bearing failures, got him a lifetime stipend.
-Amelia Bridges was quite sick and nearing death. She'd seen many docotrs. Rife was a bacteriologist and studied optics for 7 years at Zeiss, he still had microscopes kicking around and decided to look at their food. It was contaminated with salmonella. They got rid of it all and sourced it differently, she recovered. His first lab / residence was on her estate, above a garage.
-Milbank Johnson probably helped later.

Now ask yourself, how. How would a guy get dozens of leading bacteriologists to look through his microscope and say it works, have it pass standard magnification tests (proving they weren't observing artifacts), have an article published in science, and successfully predict things that wouldn't be widely accepted for the next 50 years (bacteria releasing viruses when stressed near to death, pleomorphism, so on). How would he retain funding from all these people up until their death. And then ask yourself, after an intense trial (internal struggles in Beam Rays) that turned him into alcoholic, why.

>>10040376
Ok but you're a retarded brainlet. this is literally "im right and you're wrong" if you accept theories as facts you're not a scientist. you should not believe something as fact if it is not proved true. as for zero point energy there's no scientific basis for your beliefs. go back to school kid.

>>10043388
Established science can be accepted as fact. That's what science does. Learn real science instead of acting smug with your "but you can't be sure of anything", and accept that science has actually made incredible progress over the past few centuries.

>>10042151
Taking a guess here, feel free to call me a brainlet:

The real "body" of the rainbow IS that bright disc in the middle. It's an area where light from the sun is being scattered by water droplets, and the visible portion of the spectrum is bouncing toward your eyes. It's almost like a big ghostly reflection of the sun itself hanging in the sky. The pretty colors at the edge of this disc are due to the water droplets acting like a lens - like chromatic aberration, different wavelengths refract at different angles, and this becomes obvious at the boundary where wavelengths start getting filtered out.

I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>10043509
No, that's not how it works. If you knew about "real science", you would realize that 100% certainty is guaranteed impossible, and you can still make huge amounts of progress by using approximations.

"F = ma" used to be a fact. Turns out, it's not really true at all. The thing is that it is exceedingly accurate for nearly everything that does not involve speeds at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Most things are still engineered using Newtonian physics today, and you would never be able to tell the difference.

Also, there is a fundamental disconnect between theory and experiment. No matter how logical something is, it's consistency in and of itself does not force our universe to take heed. The F=ma does NOT lead to any contradictions within classical mechanics. All the results involved were perfectly logical given the assumptions. The reason why we found out in a general sense that it wasn't true is from Maxwell's equations, which deal with electrodynamics, equations formulated to describe the things we were observing. You may look up how Einstein derived his famous special relativity on your own.

And even then, it would be foolish to demand that the universe follow what Einstein says either, because if we were to do that, then we would be no different that believing F = ma as dogma. If we were wrong once, we could always be wrong again/

I'm not the person who you commented to first, but I have no idea why you are insistent that science be some unbreakable authority. That right there is highly un-scientific.

>>10040458
I would now like to get into the field of spaceship design.

>>10040512
Go back, read the post and the definitions of terms OP uses. Then be less not smart.

>>10043574
Established scientific theories of which we've clearly established the domain of validity can be taken as fact and will never be overthrown.

One of the greatest results from this is the results that causlity requires a limitation on the transfer of information (speed of light). Also, anyone who claims to be able to extract work from zero-point energy clearly does not understand what zero-point energy is.

This is not dogma, this is building upon what has been discovered.

>>10040517
That one gets a bit tricky, and is often misused.

If I go in the kitchen and don't see any evidence for killer whales firing Thompson sub-machineguns at each other in the kitchen, that is pretty good evidence that there are no killer whales doing that in there.

If I cant' see, hear, smell or otherwise detect anything about the kitchen one way or another, then the absence of evidence for them killer whales is not meaningful -- though past experience might lead me to have a good guess about it, I have no evidence.

>>10041166
No, that would be "completely incorrect," which is a different thing.

>>10043589
Perhaps that one can be amended with "but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But I feel the same as you and think it's something that leads to more misuse than use.

>>10043509
>science has actually made incredible progress over the past few centuries
Yeah, because they questioned their theories. Go back to >>>/hm/ if you don't know anything about science.

>>10043599
I probably have more experience in science than you do. Doubt is useful and necessary, but at some point you really can simply build upon what has been discovered before.

>>10043588
yeah you know everything

>>10042119
>yet centers do not exist in physical reality.
Reality has a different opinion.

>>10043604
for me, it's sheldon :DDD

>>10043610

>>10043567
Nice man! I've got a great read for you explaining rainbows in a whole new light.

But first you seem like a bright fellow so I'll give you a breadcrumb and let you think it out.

>>10043588
>this is building upon what has been discovered.
So, was many other things that turned out to be inaccurate. Literally all of modern physics is this way. The quantum world completely defied our expectations, and yet, on the macro level everything seemed to work fine within the results of classical theories. I'm not saying everything we know is wrong, what I'm saying if we only have data pertaining to certain areas, then our conclusions from theory are only as strong as that. Everything should be prefaced with "given the information that have now", blah blah blah.

>>10043588
>Established scientific theories of which we've clearly established the domain of validity can be taken as fact and will never be overthrown.
This has already happened, numerous times.

Related, but turning in a different direction: do you think that new physical quantities can be discovered? There was a time when we didn't know about charge.

>>10043701
If you're talking about a fifth force, that is definitely possible.

> Approved vaccines are safe and effective.
Ah yes, so safe we don't even need a working injury reporting system or studies to check for long-term vaccine damage.
>A: Observing vaccinated children for many years to look for long-term health conditions would not be practical,
>Although 25% of
ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events
and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.
> Former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/tools/parents-guide/parents-guide-part4.html
https://www.congress.gov/106/crpt/hrpt977/CRPT-106hrpt977.pdf
https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

>>10040376
>> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
>mostly caused by humans
lel no

>>10043856
Yep, that's probably part of what goofed me all up. I'm not autistic, but there's quite a lot that just isn't quite right in there, and I've always felt it on some level.

I'm 24 and pretty much crumbling at this point.

>>10043881
You know how they say vaccines and autism isn't related? They've only looked at 1 ingredient in 1 vaccine, thats all the CDC has ever looked at a whistle blower came out saying that it did in fact have a relationship they omitted.

How can anyone honestly say vaccines and autism are unrelated when the ONLY thing looked at in relationship to vaccines is the thimerosal in MMR on a controversial topic with Wakefield that was backed by a whistle blower and NEVER replicated by the CDC.

>>10040446
red line should be going down

>>10043891
People don't and won't think. They take what they're given, they do what their neighbor does, they live through the manufactured cultural narrative, and they die accordingly. That's about all there is to it, when you boil it down. Most large changes in societies are brought about by less than 5% of the population in question. Man has a unique propensity for highly vertical control structures.

When you look at a thing like that, you have to figure maybe the average person in realistic terms, -cannot- think. Guess you just have to keep trying or do your best to keep from getting swept along by the herd.

>>10040446

>>10043894
Honestly, I normally wouldn't care what anyone else thinks but it's annoying because they are literally pushing for forced vaccinations on adults. It's not a fight against vaccines, it's a fight for freedom of choice and that makes me sad that people want to give up the right to their own body, COMPLETELY trusting the government with injecting something they themselves admit they don't understand and that the doctors "know better".

>>10043856
im glad someone here isnt retarded
>oy vey goym dont be so anti science now take this experimental injection into your blood for me

>>10043910
Unfortunately you often have to care, even if it's not being forced. You have to live with people and the "fruits" of their labors. If they're all fucked up, it's going to come to you eventually.

This should have a stop put to it a long time ago. Probably too late now. I've also been thinking about vaccines as implantation of a kill switch of some sort. Or affording some sort of fine grained remote control over health and certain parameters of behavior.

>>10043910
I would agree, but there is a snag, and that snag is public health. Every unvaccinated person, adult or otherwise, is at increased risk of infectious diseases, which means an increased risk of infecting others, and breeding disease outbreaks. Past a certain point -- and I don't really know where that point should lie, and what the numbers are on this topic -- the right to your own body does not include the right to be a health hazard to those around you.

If you live on your own in the wilderness out of contact with society, you have the right to risk whatever infectious diseases you like, period. If you live in a society and are therefore a vector for spreading diseases to other people, it's not that simple, and there is more of a tradeoff. Just like I can't drive a car with broken brakes on the public road, it is reasonable for a society to set some limits to the health risk you pose to others when you live in a public town.

>>10043939
>breeding disease outbreaks
We're not in a pre-sanitation world anymore. For better and worse.

>>10043923
Have you read J.B handley's new book?

Amazing read, it goes over much of what I've already said in many of my posts in much better detail.

Hell, in the book theres even quotes and major pharmaceutical giants who admit vaccines are untested and can cause autism.

Honestly, the "pro-choice" movement is so large they literally cannot be ignored.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anti-vaxxers-italy-vaccine-measles-epidemic-europe-us-vaccination-global-health-security-agenda-a8560021.html?amp&utm_source=reddit.com

>Take a look at the vaccination rate: look at the percentage of unvaccinated kids, and you’ll know how big our numbers are -Anna Pettinarolli,

>But in 2015, Italy’s paediatric measles vaccination rate was around 85 per cent for the first dose and 83 per cent for the second dose.

People are aware of the dangers of vaccines and are opting out, Italy removed the mandatory vaccines they were having issues with. I can only hope California, and Mississipi follow, West-virginia actually removed mandatory vaccines for preschool recently after a mother filed a foia request for documentation on some vaccine info and changed the list of "required" vaccines to "recommended" on the official site for pre-k immunization.

Now, I'm not advocating for trump being a good president, the only real reason I like him is because he has spoken out against vaccines, he tried to get a 3rd party to oversee the vaccine industry and bill gates was freaking out going "NONONO DON'T DO THAT, THATS BAD, WE DEFINITELY AREN'T DOING ANYTHING SO DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME"

>>10043939
And my counter argument to that is
1. the disease are MILD, measles death rates were an almost statistical 0 before the vaccine was introduced in the 1950's, it was such a joke people had measles parties.
2. Viral shedding, the whooping cough vaccine has been proven to spread the disease to the IMMUNOCOMPROMISED, you're risking others lives by getting vaccinated!!!.

>>10043943
That is true, and it affects the risk numbers and tradeoffs. But that's a matter of degree, it doesn't change the basic calculus. There are still outbreaks of infectious diseases, and risks per person vulnerable to particular diseases. The numbers are different than in the middle ages, certainly, but they still exist.

>>10043946
Not to mention the increased severity of polio infection coming coincidentally after the introduction of the typhus and diphtheria vaccines. Probably because the immune system was weakened and prevented from developing proper cellular-mediated immunity.

quarrantining the infected is the best option. just let them die. sorry not sorry. its for the best.

also no i dont read because thats for nerds i just automatically know whats true by my gut.

also maybe this is the optimal asshole solution: get no vaccines but try to make sure everyone else does.

Also, I heard an interesting idea the other day. A good number of people have already developed classical microwave sickness, but with the deployment of 5G, millimeter waves will rapidly make people sick in a quite novel way, in part because ~60GHz is the resonant frequency of divalent oxygen.

Not to distract from the less speculative aspects of vaccines present use, but this new wave of sickness will be blamed on a new pathogen that'll be dreamed up. Money will be made for a while, lot of media hype, lot of fear. A vaccine will follow soon after. They don't need to force vaccination, most people will truly believe and they'll get it.

5G will then switch over to less harmful modes of operation, and the symptom severity will greatly decrease. Seems like a decent strategy.

>>10043939
For proof of vaccines causing viral-shedding and spreading diseases to the immunocompromised, you are the ones causing the diseases to spread, most people will avoid them because they KNOW they have the sickness, I.E cough/spots, whereas you are literally a silent killer and are more likely to have been in contact with a baby/immunocompromised person.

On the furthering of babies did you know a mother who has gotten measles or another disease as a child herself can pass on that immunity temporarily to the child to protect them? Essentially they are given immunity through the breast milk, which can boost protection greater than a vaccine could with NO potential side effects.

Heres the problem with mothers who are choosing to not vaccinate now, they no longer have that immunity to pass on because they've been vaccinated against it and cannot pass on that immunity, so we're setting up for children to be heavily exposed with no protection whatsoever and the blame is going to be the lack of vaccines, which is factually wrong, when it was the vaccines initially given to the mother that caused the baby to be vulnerable in the first place.

We are living in a world where our children's lives are solely dependent on a manufactured product, an industry is more responsible for your child's life than you are on that first day and first baby-well checkup.

It's scary how I post these things like the lack of injury reporting system, lack of studies done on vaccine-autism and yet nobody can give a real claim to them. You guys boast about "science" but the moment it comes to vaccines, that "science" is thrown out the window in the name of your cult.

What kind of pharmaceutical product that is GIVE TO DAY 1 OLD BABIES does not look at long-term adverse health effects or even have a reporting system for it?

Literal blind medicine.

Y'know, I've been noticing for a while that the people who are most with it, and have the best conception of what's going on and how bad things really are, tend to be hyper-religious. Very religious. Or perhaps the dire ssituation brings the religion out harder, don't know. But it hit me the reason for that, they believe in evil. It's plain to see because they don't have any hangups with the existence of evil and its conscious organization.

It's a strange place to be in, not being religious. They'll say things like "anyone who denies Christ is suspect", and indeed, I look within and I kind of feel relief at the idea of most of the human race dying and this madness coming to an end. I don't like people. I want us to die.

>>10040376
All of those are wrong and Trump is my president.

>>10044037
some vaccines, such as that for botulism, have so many adverse affects that they're pretty much never used. it's weird, then, to see so many "i fucking love science" types refusing to entertain the idea that extensive research into side effects of more common vaccines may be necessary

there's no room for faith in science

>>10040376
Earth is flat

>>10043688
Rainbows simplified.

Light refracts in the rain sheet, reflection is then done behind the rain NOT by some triple bounce inside raindrops.

The reflected light returns to the sheet of rain. It projects the image of the sun in the sky.

Like this.
1-refraction by raindrops
2-reflection in distance
3-projection of sun image
4-???
5-profit

>>10044590
Prisms can reflect light, and prisms can refract light, but they cannot reflect and refract at the same time. The current theory on rainbows is dead ass wrong. I blame Descartes.

>>10044595
I wonder how tinted windows work.

>>10044598
They work very differently than what current rainbow theory says is going on in a raindrop.

>>10044590
Why do rainbows curve?

>>10043688
Please don't. If they can't find it themselves they deserve to remain ignorant.

>>10044398
People like to always spout "But vaccines saves lives! Don't you want to make sure EVERYONE survives even if it's literally going against nature?"

We have a vaccine that could save an estimated 1 person for the low, low price of 23billion dollars, why aren't we using it?

>>10044398
>some vaccines, such as that for botulism, have so many adverse affects that they're pretty much never used. it's weird, then, to see so many "i fucking love science" types refusing to entertain the idea that extensive research into side effects of more common vaccines may be necessary
That doesn't follow at all. The reason that botulism vaccines are rarely given isn't because "vaccines are dangerous", it's because we know from testing that particular vaccine has significant side effects.

>>10046385
It would also be a waste of money since the main threat from botulism is the toxin.

>>10040376
>The earth is round.
yes, oblate spheroids are round.
>the moon landings happened
wasn't alive for this but most likely true
>newtonian mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
correct but newtonian mechanics does not intend to be a complete theory explaining "reality"
>quantum mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
correct
>special and general relativity are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
correct but yet to be experimentally proven under exceptional cases (hence incomplete)
>the lambda-cdm model is a correct and incomplete description of reality
correct
>darwinian evolution is a correct and incomplete description of reality
true but also not a theory of reality
>faster-than-light communication is impossible
depends on the completeness of the theory of quantum mechanics.
>perpetual motion machines don't exist
true assuming all our incomplete theories of reality are correct
>impossible to extract work from zero-point energy in vacuum
any nontrivial work, yes
>climate change is real and a threat
mix of human factors and natural climate change. correct and probably what we'll die from in the next 300 years if we don't leave earth
>approved vaccines are safe and effective
correct except for vaccines with thiomersal given to infants that are susceptible to mercury poisoning
>"don't understand" is not a criticism of any theory
categorically correct
> Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform current scientific theory.
ethical question, out of scope

Newtonian mechanics is literally wrong... An object could never leave orbit

>>10045965
I think I found it.

Miles Mathis is a crackpot, therefore this rainbow bullshit is all lies.

>a psa, a basic fact, if you disagree with this you are intellectually dishonest.

From Wikipedia;
>A rainbow is a meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. It takes the form of a multicoloured circular arc. Rainbows caused by sunlight always appear in the section of sky directly opposite the sun.


Serious question. If the mainstream theory behind rainbow formation is wrong, who is stupid enough to believe the rest of the bullshit (((they))) spout.

>>10046931
>>10044838
>>10046914
>>10045965
>>10044595
>>10044590
>>10043688
>>10042151
>>10043567

>>10046631
The fact that you suck at applying the theory does not make the theory wrong.

>>10041089
>Quantic perturbations from the void are needed to explain some gamma decay... so why not a generator ?
They release energy that is already there, no work is extracted.

>>10043081

>How would a guy get dozens of leading bacteriologists
>Biologists
>Pretending they wouldn't just clap and not know what the fuck they are looking at
>He must be right, biologists agree

>>10046931
This rainbow stuff blew my mind. It is so obviously a rear projection image of the sun.

>>10046914
I honestly can't tell whether this is satire or not. If it isn't, then your IQ is at least 30 points lower than MM's.

>>10040376
It is possible to extract heat from the air. Prove me wrong.

>>10047519
Imitation is the sincerest form of insultery.

>>10042536
brainlet here, i mean, velocity has a signededness, like, don't be a brunk and send faster than light communication backwards

>>10048723
"The light is going straight, it's just that space is curved."

Trippy and unintuitive, right!

>>10048812
False and misleading, right!