Reminder: A list of basic facts, disagreeing equals intellectual dishonesty

[Anonymous No.11039369]

> The Earth is round. (Yes oblate spheroids are round.)
> The Moon landings happened and space travel is real.
> Newtonian Mechanics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> Quantum Mechanics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> Special and General Relativity are accurate and incomplete descriptions of reality.
> The Standard Model of particle physics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> The Lambda-CDM model is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> 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.
> More generally, if you disagree with thermodynamics, you are wrong.
> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
> Approved vaccines are effective and much safer than the diseases they prevent.
> "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.
> Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give accurate answers and be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform the current theory.

For those who will start arguing about "accurate and incomplete":
"Accurate": The theory accurately predicts the outcomes of experiments and does not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity, which is large enough to be useful.
"Incomplete": The theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe.
If you want to argue this, first read > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

[Anonymous No.11039372]

Based. Schizos btfo.

[Anonymous No.11039390]

>>11039369
>an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
Personally I would have used BUT not AND.

[Anonymous No.11039397]

Cooming

[Anonymous No.11039401]

>>11039369
name?

[Anonymous No.11039407]

>>11039369
tl;dr
how do I score with a 9/10 like that?

[Anonymous No.11039413]

>>11039401
No clue, sorry, found the picture without sauce. Would like to know as well.

[Anonymous No.11039417]

>>11039401
>>11039413
>what is images.google.com

[Anonymous No.11039420]

>>11039417
not working

[Anonymous No.11039421]

>>11039407
You become a porn actor/rich enough to buy her (probably not that expensive, honestly)

[Anonymous No.11039422]

>>11039407
In my personal experience, take care of yourself physically (make sure you dress in a style that suits you, that your clothes are taken care of, that you take care of your personal grooming (doesn't need to be excessive), work out).

Then, be comfortable with yourself. You don't need to be perfect or an asshole, if you're comfortable you will come across as spontaneous and confident, which is a big deal in attraction.

Lastly, treat women as people. When you have a conversation, actually listen to her and talk like you would anyone else. You can get to the sexy times later, and they're usually much better once you've gotten trust and communication down so you can actually tell each other what you like. She wants a finger up her pooper while you slap your cock across her face? She'll tell you if you treat her respectfully and allow her to open up to you.

[Anonymous No.11039425]

>>11039420
https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZivUFmYBRVkU7KZxeIo-qwkrnub1mOWDmfAj8UMxtdpMDlkl_1-idlroh-4OP9IEMEL3ytwCrEDia6fr-T72Z1pJ97OzE6L4p85h76ngyu3r7VC5XAYHGobUnd900pG8VPyiVwGoFloH3tAIQSAt6bsCoOOgCa6ob6fm6dbVso3PQlHEavejegbvy2M5W278TyaZMGigkWWlt8SP0iyXlH2ASk-g7wX0o787ck9FosMRK6CoB7do9vzM-snH5eGoS0QXPKX7g-L-ugKbj-M6zyUGjbeVIAA_1brmw3MgWV18zoQ5H5w_1vdpZ9G_1RsdagiBmjWjqrFiPtDYvtB9pTlZMdAThgYF-A&hl=en-SE

I can tell it's not computer /science/, that's for sure

[Anonymous No.11039428]

>>11039422
>take care of yourself physically
done
>be comfortable with yourself
done
>treat women as people
fuck, difficult to do

[Anonymous No.11039433]

>>11039369
>science is settled
fuck off kid, back to redddit

[Anonymous No.11039439]

>>11039433
Science isn't settled, but if you're trying to have a sensible conversation about the parts that aren't settled, you should at least agree on the basics that are.

[Anonymous No.11039816]

> Faster-than-light communication is impossible
How about same-second communication?

[Anonymous No.11039844]

>>11039816
That doesn't seem to be a thing? If so, please explain.

[Anonymous No.11039850]

>>11039433
>pic of a guy with facts written on his shirt
?

[Anonymous No.11039857]

>>11039369
you forgot one

>human biodiversity, particularly of the brain, is not only real but has significant and far reaching consequences for multicultural societies and the world more broadly

[Anonymous No.11039860]

>have taken vaccines
>have autism
Explain that one OP.
>inb4 muh coincidence
There are no coincidences in science.

[Anonymous No.11039866]

>>11039369
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
FUCKING QUITTER
IT WILL BE DONE

[Anonymous No.11039894]

>>11039866
Then why does every other paper come up with new ways how quantum instabilities will immediately destroy that bubble and everything inside? Also, it requires negative mass density, which has never been proven to exist and almost certainly doesn't.

[Anonymous No.11039935]

>>11039433
But chemtrails are real and there are at least a dozen declassified us programs that tried to manipulate the weather

[Anonymous No.11039940]

>>11039401
chloe toy

[Anonymous No.11039971]

>>11039369
>The moon landings happened and a metric fuckton about them was covered up as we moved onto black space programs.
>Approved vaccines are routinely used to conduct epidemiological studies on human populations, not everyone is given the same batch, there's more than just the vaccine in them otherwise another method of delivery would be preferable, and the anti-vax narrative is designed to make anyone who questions being injected with biologically-active materials look like a kook so that they can treat entire populations like cattle.
>They do not cause autism.
>The climate change narrative is a boogeyman hoax perpetuated by the powers that be in order to usher in socialist economic policies and a one-world government, as well as to control trade and finance on a smaller scale.
>Pollution is still pretty bad, and human activity does affect the climate. It's just that they only care for economic reasons.
Rest looks good until experimental evidence says otherwise loudly enough.

[Anonymous No.11039972]

>>11039369
ehm .... gentlement.

>math is not a complete and accurate description of reality

there just killed all your shitty theories pleb, you cant math out the quantum and the quantum is the core of the reality, math is just a weak ass pretend understand that breaks at the smallest and largest scales

[Anonymous No.11039974]

>>11039369
>> Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
Explain entanglement.

[Anonymous No.11039988]

>>11039974
Preservation of universal angular momentum via non-local correlation in which information passing is impossible

[Anonymous No.11040009]

>>11039988
Have you tried?

[Anonymous No.11040021]

>>11040009
I'm still busy trying to build a perpetual motion machine. Then I'll get right to it. :^)

[Anonymous No.11040022]

>>11040009
It's not about trying. It's about the mathematical structure of entanglement and observation making this impossible. The correlation is non-local, but there is no way to pass a message between two points faster than c.

[Anonymous No.11040029]

>>11040022
What if you put a dot on the spinning quantum entangled particle and then look at the dot for the information? Have you tried that?

[Anonymous No.11040037]

>>11040029
Have you tried not being retarded?

[Anonymous No.11040043]

>>11039390
Based and syntaxpilled

[Anonymous No.11040046]

>>11040037
Ad hominem, that means my argument was better than yours

[Anonymous No.11040052]

>>11040046
Ha! I bet you win a lot of arguments!

[Anonymous No.11040054]

>>11040046
Your "argument" was so stupid any sensible reply would have necessarily been a non sequitur.

[Anonymous No.11040068]

>>11039422
>take care of yourself physically
What if I can't build muscle

[Anonymous No.11040069]

>>11039369
good list

[Anonymous No.11040070]

>>11039422
>She wants a finger up her pooper while you slap your cock across her face?
tautology

[Anonymous No.11040166]

>>11039369
this girl is from a pantyhose fetish site
>t. used to be a subscriber

[Anonymous No.11040177]

>>11040166
>>11039369
you can tell she has quite the nose on her even from that angle. also fake blond.

LOL

[Anonymous No.11040238]

>>11040177
I find her nose quite hot.

[Anonymous No.11040330]

>>11039894
don't be a party pooper, we bald apes will find a way to make meme magic travel possible

[Anonymous No.11040334]

>>11039971
This desu

[Anonymous No.11040643]

>>11039971
Don't understand how the powers that be, which benefit from capitalism, would want to usher in socialist policies.

[Anonymous No.11040661]

>>11039369
>Newtonian Mechanics is an accurate

[Anonymous No.11040675]

I feel comfortable with most of it, but as someone who doesn't know shit about physics, I have to say I would be more iffy about FTL travel, "Lambda CDM" because I don't know what it is, or zero-point energy and anything generally pertaining to quantum fields.

[Anonymous No.11040677]

>>11040661
Newtonian Mechanics is, in fact, an extremely accurate model of reality

[Anonymous No.11040678]

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

Is it really that much of a threat? I think you're just being hysterical.

[Anonymous No.11040681]

>>11040677
Nobody said otherwise, but wrong it is all the same

[Anonymous No.11040683]

>>11040675
>>11039369
Also, regarding the last point, I would say that "alternative theories", insofar as they entail the same statements regarding the target phenomenon of the theory are epistemologically and ontologically on an even playing field. That being said, most (but def not all) people working in physics or any math-intensive field would generally agree with that.

[Anonymous No.11040685]

>>11040681
>t. doesn't know about the relativity of wrong

[Anonymous No.11040687]

>>11040675
Do not mistake ongoing debates about the interpretation of quantum mechanics (a philosophical issue) for any doubt or uncertainty about the validity and accuracy of quantum mechanics (the physics of it). It has been very well tested for about a century now and stands up to all empirical scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.11040689]

>>11040685
First I’ve heard but I’m not surprised

[Anonymous No.11040691]

>>11039433

[Anonymous No.11040692]

>>11039369
>thermodynamics
The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment disagrees with thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.11040694]

>>11040689
Saying Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" is misleading and dishonest.

[Anonymous No.11040697]

>>11040692
>if I get to choose a detector i'm special!

[Anonymous No.11040702]

>>11040692
If you think that, you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.11040704]

>>11040694
It’s as accurate as a statement can be. If we’re speaking of truths

[Anonymous No.11040707]

>>11040704
What I am saying to you is going straight over your head.

[Anonymous No.11040709]

>>11040704
In that case every statement is wrong and you cannot discern the reliability of anything and are left wandering in the darkness of ignorance without nuance.

[Anonymous No.11040716]

>>11040702
>what is entropy?

[Anonymous No.11040735]

>>11040687
Yeah I understand that, and I certainly feel comfortable talking about stuff like basic quantum mechanics or relativity up to about what youd meet at the undergrad level. The reason I mention quantum fields and zero points and say I feel more iffy about them is not because I doubt them to any extent - if a physicist says something about some type of field theory and tells me the verdict is in, then I would vertainly believe him all I mean is that I myself literally don't know enough about the subject to say that I recognize that "extracting energy from zero points is impossible" because I myself am not familiar enough eith the vocabulary to even say I know what this means. I do have some vague and hazy intuitions about these terms, but the only thing I really fully understand about quantum fields is that (1) they come equipped with a conservation law, and (2) they're not the same as a field in number theory - with which I am a bit more comfortable.

[Anonymous No.11040741]

>>11040735
Basically, zero-point energy is the kinetic energy a particle obtains by being trapped. If it's trapped its spatial extent becomes limited, which means it gains kinetic energy through Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. You cannot exploit that energy because it's the energy you put in in the first place by trapping the particle.

Roughly the same argument holds for quantum fields, though it gets a bit more abstract.

[Anonymous No.11041036]

>>11039369
>faster than light
I love how 3d this post is.

[Anonymous No.11041324]

>>11039369
we have this thread every day. it’s all so tiresome.

[Anonymous No.11041332]

>>11039401
Chloe Toy I think

[Anonymous No.11041347]

>>11039369
You are a transsexual.

[Anonymous No.11041428]

>>11039369
>If you want to argue this, first read > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
All this time I never opened one of these bait threads before, but this was actually a good read, based op

[Anonymous No.11041431]

>>11039433
>I fucking hate science
Based and basedpilled
You're what you claim to hate

[Anonymous No.11041449]

>>11039369
congrats, you're a sane one.

[Anonymous No.11041731]

>>11041428
Unironically wanted to create something every based anon can agree on. After going through several iterations, I think I pretty much have it down.

[Anonymous No.11041772]

>>11040691
Science says there is no such thing as race

[Anonymous No.11041818]

>>11040166
>pantyhose
>not stockings
You've got the fetish of the gays.

[Anonymous No.11041820]

>>11041347
Not even an insult

[Anonymous No.11041826]

>>11040068
"Being physically in shape" is not a function of your biceps circumference. Work out for your own sake, then approach women well-knowing that you are in shape.

[Anonymous No.11041827]

>>11040704
But by far most mechanical processes we can observe in our lives are described by Newtonian mechanics. It is not wrong, it is incomplete.

[Anonymous No.11042366]

>>11040694
>If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.
Richard Feynman

[Anonymous No.11042371]

>>11042366
I disagree with Richard here. The degree to which the experiment differs from your hypothesis does, in fact, matter

[Anonymous No.11042395]

>>11041827
It's wrong 100% of the time. The amount it is wrong by is usually insignificant, but it is always wrong.

[Anonymous No.11042398]

>>11039369
To first claim " *** is an accurate and incomplete description of reality."
And then "Faster-than-light communication is impossible." "it is impossible to extract work from the zero-point energy of the vacuum."
is self-contradicting. At best you could claim it's probably impossible.

>>11039433
This.

[Anonymous No.11042403]

>>11042395
Which, as has been stated repeatedly, is a stupid and useless definition of wrong, since it classifies every single statement ever as wrong, wiping all nuance and leaving you unable to decide anything.

[Anonymous No.11042406]

>>11039439
Nothing is 100% settled. That doesn't mean it's productive to have discussions about whether the earth is round or not.

[Anonymous No.11042407]

>>11042398
Also, read the Asimov essay linked in the OP.

[Anonymous No.11042442]

>>11042395
Within a certain domain (ranges of distance, velocity, energy, mass, etc) Newtonian mechanics is completely indistinguishable from reality. In that sense, Newtonian mechanics is perfectly correct within that domain of validity.

[Anonymous No.11042444]

>>11039369
More elementary, decades old facts to add to the list:

> nature is continuous, not discrete
> nature is inherently stochasitc/probabilistis/random
> nature is local
> nature is non-realist
> "interpretations of quantum mechanics" are overwhelmingly bullshit and not science, but as much as some of them can be said to be correct, it is Copenhagen or it's upgrade, Consistent (Decoherent) Histories
> String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity (and also other forces)

Thank you for listening.

[Anonymous No.11042451]

>>11042403
The hypothetical Theory of Everything would be right. Everything else is an approximation, to varying degrees of accuracy. There's plenty of nuance to be had, discussing the limitations of the various models that exist. You decide things based on which model works best for the application.

>>11042442
Define indistinguishable. Because that is just a limit of the accuracy of our instruments. We can see how it is wrong mathematically quite easily.

[Anonymous No.11042473]

>>11042444
> nature is continuous, not discrete
That seems a vague/ill-defined statement, can you clarify? I think you're right, but I'd like to hear more detail on what exactly you're claiming is continuous.

> nature is inherently stochasitc/probabilistis/random
Most likely true.

> nature is local
> nature is non-realist
Possible, though I am convinced that nature is realist and non-local. I am willing to be proven wrong on this.

> "interpretations of quantum mechanics" are overwhelmingly bullshit and not science, but as much as some of them can be said to be correct, it is Copenhagen or it's upgrade, Consistent (Decoherent) Histories
They are not science, they are philosophy. Many are bullshit, some are not bullshit. I am agnostic with a slight preference for decoherence.

> String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity (and also other forces)
Beyond my expertise, but from what I've read I can definitely believe this.

[Anonymous No.11042474]

>>11039860
>I read this post
>It gave me not only cancer but AIDS too.
Explain that one, coincidence nibba.

[Anonymous No.11042535]

>>11039369
What a vapid Enlightenment ontology you have here. Dumb guy, plain and simple

[Anonymous No.11042964]

>>11042444
>"interpretations of quantum mechanics" are overwhelmingly bullshit and not science
Never in the history of man has anyone (who knew what they were talking about) talked about interpreting QM as science and not as philosophy.

>as much as some of them can be said to be correct, it is Copenhagen or it's upgrade
Nah m8

[Anonymous No.11043103]

>>11039369
only flaw
>is a real threat
I live in Canada if we were smart and rejected all climate refugees, a +3.5°C global warming scenario would dramatically increase the habitable area in Canada

If you like, live near the Sahara, you're already dead

[Anonymous No.11043144]

>>11043103
You'd then have to deal with all the climate migrants and the effects on the global economy, like rising food prices as all the food producing regions get fucked

[Anonymous No.11043150]

>>11043103
Sounds like you want to be annexed by the US.

[Anonymous No.11043168]

>>11043144
Shoot them

>>11043150
Develop nuclear weapons

Canada isn't threatened by global warming, Canada is threatened by our cuck government not having the balls to ride it out. We'll drown in migrants not because it's good policy, but to make woketards feel good.

[Anonymous No.11043170]

>>11043168
Yeah not going to even slow the US down when the midwest is no longer capable of producing crops, if you surrender nicely they might let you keep some of your own crops though.

[Anonymous No.11043171]

>>11043168
oh and I was going to add rising food prices shouldn't affect Canada because in the +3° scenario Canada is a fucking breadbasket from Banff to Fort McMurray and on east to Hudson's Bay. But that would require a restriction on exports to keep Canadian food in Canada.

[Anonymous No.11043174]

>>11043170
If Canada developed nuclear weapons and America invaded anyways there wouldn't be any Americans left to feed. It's literally a five minute flight time from silos in the Canadian shield to New York.

[Anonymous No.11043180]

>>11043174
American air superiority, and close proximity, means even the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet wouldn't be able to do a thing if the US attacked.

[Anonymous No.11043213]

>>11043180
You vastly underestimate the problems of intercepting depressed trajectory ballistic missiles. Close proximity works against the defense systems by dramatically reducing engagement time.

[Anonymous No.11043246]

>>11043213
Having the luxury of a first strike is an incredible advantage, a US first strike would begin by simultaneously obliterating every possible potential missile site, with hundreds of planes on station for interception, predictable flight paths, and more than enough time to install interceptor systems along said flight paths. Even if against all odds a few missiles somehow manage to make it, a few thousand lives is completely acceptable risk, fewer mouths to feed after all.
The only possible way Canada doesn't become America's fuckpet in a scenario with significant warming is if you spent every spare cent of your GDP for the next 50 years on defense, and even then you probably wouldn't even manage to scrape together enough to make a difference.

[Anonymous No.11043250]

>>11040643
I was using their own words. To be fair, it's really just selective application of protectionism and regulations.

[Anonymous No.11043253]

>>11043213
>leaf thinks that we won’t glass any state that comes between us and the grain god

[Anonymous No.11043267]

>>11039369
https://youtu.be/rWbn-W23qZM

https://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2001/ARL-TR-2352.pdf

[Anonymous No.11043276]

>>11043267
You do realize that that pdf explicitly uses "flat Earth" as a simplification over short distances, where the Earth can be considered flat enough to make the math easier, right?

Also the pressurized atmosphere in vacuum meme is so stupid it is not worthy of a response, and I'm not killing any more braincells watching retarded youtube videos.

Gtfo, flat earth retard. You are a disgrace to humanity.

[Anonymous No.11043283]

>>11039369
>>The Ear...

Stopped reading right there, you stupid cunt face.

[Anonymous No.11043289]

>>11043276
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHKvUFhkxAchttps://youtu.be/54xutVJIxUg?t=185
BBC Earth LabPublished on Jan 24, 2017Flying to 70,000 feet, James May gets to see the curvature of the Earth as he reaches the edge of spacehttps://youtu.be/8OnJCqtTxsA?t=153

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yefscjx9EFY
14 October 2012 when Baumgartner landed in eastern New Mexico after jumping from a then world-record 38,969.3 metres (127,852 feet)[12][32][33] and falling a record distance of 36,402.6 metres (119,431 feet); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner#Main_jump

Only aircraft flying much higher (commercial jets sometimes climb above 40,000 ft or 12,192m) offer an easy view of the curvature.
https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2014/11/photographing-the-curvature-of-the-earth-trickier-than-you-think.html
https://youtu.be/VCW-kis5yyA

[Anonymous No.11043306]

>>11043276
Los Angeles 40 miles
1000+ feet missing curvature

A rule-of-thumb for line of sight problems such as this, where the distance is small in comparison to the size of the earth is

c = (2/3) times x2, where x is distance in miles and c is curvature in feet.
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.02/shirley3.html

[Anonymous No.11043311]

>>11043306

[Anonymous No.11043470]

>>11040643
It's more about suppresion of bourgoise mentality with is emphasis on low time preference and moderation.

The powers that be want a mass of indistinguishable low time preference blobs that live to consume product and get excited for next product. You need to socialize the negative externalities associated with the creation of these blobs for the whole strategy to be feasible.

[Anonymous No.11043509]

>>11043276
>>11043267
>>11043289
>>11043306
>>11043311

[Anonymous No.11043529]

>>11040692
>Note in particular that an interference pattern may only be pulled out for observation after the idlers have been detected.

>The total pattern of all signal photons at D0, whose entangled idlers went to multiple different detectors, will never show interference regardless of what happens to the idler photons.

Thought experiments are such bullshit

[Anonymous No.11043565]

>>11039369

Almost nothing is truly impossible. We don't know the difference between difficult and impossible at our power-level.

In the past century, we derived energy from atomic decay, something that used to be non-existant and then impossible. We developed radio (something that wasn't even imagined 200 years ago).

Wait till we've had millennia of technological stasis before you bring out the 'impossibles'. Wait until our understanding of the universe explains more than 3% of its mass. Wait until we can unify quantum physics and relativity. Wait until we develop GAI, even if it takes a thousand years. Let's see what superhuman intelligence has to contribute to our understanding of the universe.

You would've felt just the same way about the aether theory being 'accurate and incomplete' in the 1890s. It's moronic to claim absolute surety when there are many obvious questions yet to be answered.

[Anonymous No.11044120]

>>11043565
>You would've felt just the same way about the aether theory being 'accurate and incomplete' in the 1890s.
Did the aether theory make and testable predictions other than that one prediction which was falsified?

[Anonymous No.11044149]

>>11043565
You're talking about technological limitations, I'm talking about fundamental limitations inherent in the structure of the universe. To break these is akin to breaking logic itself. Faster than light communication breaks causality. Over-unity devices break either the concept of the universe having laws or the concept of the universe being describable. It's not about building better technology, if you live in this universe these are the constraints, there is no way around them.

[Anonymous No.11044209]

>>11044149

>Fundamental limitations inherent in the structure of the universe

Which we understand about 3% of.

Can you not imagine some hack that messes with distance or time to achieve communications that are effectively FTL? Alcubierre drive? Wormholes?

>hurr, still only a theory, no way to test whether it works

Exactly. We DON'T YET KNOW! Even if we need a Jupiter-mass of exotic matter, that's still possible with stellar engineering. Saying something's impossible is saying that it could never happen, no matter how much energy and brainpower is poured into it.

Perhaps quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and so on positively forbid overunity devices. Perhaps quantum mechanics is wrong in various ways. I don't know how to make a perpetual motion machine and would be very skeptical about any proposed plans. Still, we should reevaluate our priors with new information - which can't happen if you just state things are impossible. You can't multiply a prior of 0.

Imagine how silly you'd feel if FTL and perpetual motion machines were possible, through some yet unimagined trick and you'd just ignored them.

[Anonymous No.11044224]

>>11044209
If the universe is causal, there is no ftl. No hacks, no tricks. If there is a function that describes the information content of a system, that system must obey the laws of thermodynamics. So if the universe can be described, there is no over-unity. You fail to understand how fundamental these statements are. They are unrelated to any physical model of the universe, they apply to reality no matter how physics evolves. So not only is it not a question of better technology, it's not even a question of better physics. All of that is irrelevant. You're battling pure logic just because you don't like the outcome.

[Anonymous No.11044263]

>>11044224

It's pretty clear you don't understand what we're talking about, typical for /sci/ these days. Please read into a field before you claim global knowledge of whats possible or impossible. Learn some epistemology, take a look at previous predictions of impossibility.

Our knowledge of physics simply isn't complete enough to categorically deny these theories. It won't be complete for a long time. Every axiom is fundamental until it becomes obsolete.

Using causality as a buzzword is not an argument. If you define it in such a way that FTL is impossible, then you're just spouting tautology. You're not wielding logic, you're just bending words into a pathetic argument.

[Anonymous No.11044267]

>>11039369
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
It's only impossible through physical means :^)

[Anonymous No.11044271]

>>11040068
Strength and definition is more important than size. Climbing, swimming, cycling, sprinting, and rowing are good. All you have to do is keep doing it.

[Anonymous No.11044272]

>>11039369
Thermodynamics are statistical tendencies, not facts. Singularities blow the shit out of half of your list and they exist, factually.

[Anonymous No.11044277]

>>11044149
How can you know the fundamental limitations if you don't have a theory of everything? Get out of here, retard.

[Anonymous No.11044280]

>>11044224
>if the universe is causal
it's correlational
>if the universe can be described
with a equation? it can't

[Anonymous No.11044282]

>>11044267
what other means are there? metaphysical? xD

[Anonymous No.11044285]

>>11044282
Where is the entanglement information?
Where do waves of probabilities exist?
The metaphysical is not a theory. It's already part of the models you love oh so dear.

[Anonymous No.11044289]

>>11039369
saying that any disagreement is automatically intellectually dishonest is what's actually intellectually dishonest

[Anonymous No.11044290]

>>11041772
Science says whatever the hell the investors, the researchers and the publishers want it to say

[Anonymous No.11044294]

>>11039857
>And how we choose to sort those brain function features into distinct, monolithic groups is purely a matter of political grandstanding
Completed it for ya champ.

[Anonymous No.11044301]

>>11044285
>Where is the entanglement information?
No communication theorem: "during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer".

>Where do waves of probabilities exist?
The only ones that carry information travel at velocities below the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.11044318]

>>11039369
>> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
Based retard. At least that explains why Soros keeps paying faggots to shill climate change.

[Anonymous No.11044894]

If zero-point energy is impossible, why are companies like Earth Tech Inc spending billions trying to tap into it? Just a scam to collect gov contracts?

[Anonymous No.11044904]

>>11044318
Climate change is real, but is the fault of brown people in 3rd world countries, not Swedes who use plastic instead of paper or whatever

[Anonymous No.11045178]

>>11040681
The post he was replying to was absolutely implying it was not

[Anonymous No.11045571]

>>11039369
> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
nice thread kike
climate change is real
climate change is not caused by humans at a macroscopic level
pollution is real
pollution is mainly caused by third world countries and china

[Anonymous No.11045608]

>>11045571
>climate change is not caused by humans at a macroscopic level
yes it is
>pollution is mainly caused by third world countries and china
The top producers of atmospheric CO2 per capita are
>USA
>Austrailia
>Canada
>Saudi Arabia
>South Korea
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html
>kike
go back

[Anonymous No.11045625]

>>11039369
Science can never tell us with certainty if something is True, only whether something fits all our current observations so far. Science is an unending task that leads us closer and closer to knowledge of a truth but never quite reaches it. We may have models that predicts with 100% accuracy so far (and likely for the foreseeable future) but we never KNOW if the model mimics reality for all of the infinite cases.

This isn't even related that much to your post just some autistic shit I thought about.

[Anonymous No.11045716]

>>11044904
>Something bad
>Blame the brown people
Life as a brainlet must be so easy breezy

[Anonymous No.11046008]

[Anonymous No.11047774]

Is there a term for a religion that portrays itself as rational yet uses various logical fallacies and weasel like arguments to force implausible, bizarre, or generally retarded ideas into the minds of the general population?

>accurate and incomplete
Yet or if are better choices than and, here. You might also define accurate.

[Anonymous No.11047862]

>>11045608
>China, India and Africa have literal billions of starving bumfucks living in the sticks lucky to even have electricity.
>China still leads over the USA by almost twice the amount.
One would expect most of the pollution in a country to be industrial in nature, with only a small percentage coming from the actual population, but I'd still be interested in the per capita data if it were adjusted for densely populated, developed zones.

[Anonymous No.11047912]

>>11039369
Almost. The moon landings did indeed happen, but the footage of them is fake. They found something up there that we aren't supposed to know about yet.

[Anonymous No.11047916]

>>11039369
This list should be pinned.

[Anonymous No.11047954]

>>11047916
I agree, but I doubt it will happen.

[Anonymous No.11047986]

>>11039369
>propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
This hasn't been ruled out by current models.

[Anonymous No.11047999]

everything he said is right and will be until it's proven wrong, stuff as critical and central to our understanding of the universe as OP's list can only ever be replaced, not disproved. If any of these aren't correct, it's going to be right under our noses until literally the moment it's discovered. We'll never see it coming, (if it comes at all)

[Anonymous No.11049309]

>>11045716
We should blame yellow people instead

[Anonymous No.11049774]

>>11047986
Except it has. You can't win from noether's theorem, no matter how badly you misunderstand quantum field theory.

[Anonymous No.11050114]

>>11040068
Eat more, nerd

[Anonymous No.11050150]

>>11041772
Race is an informal term for something that is obviously real. Science could easily classify humans into different subspecies. Literally the only reason it doesn't is because of academic politics.

[Anonymous No.11050176]

>>11039369
I believe FTL and perpetual motion is impossible based on our current knowledge, but of course until we have a "complete description of reality" I can't make a claim that it is indeed impossible.

[Anonymous No.11050179]

>>11045608
Why per capita? If we increase the number of people, CO2 per capita will drop, but will it stop global climate?

[Anonymous No.11050191]

>>11050150
>Science could easily classify humans into different subspecies.
You could easily classify anything into different subspecies because there's no formal definition.

[Anonymous No.11050706]

>>11050191
Because scientists are afraid of the implications of defining them. There's no measure that wouldn't put some races in different categories.

[Anonymous No.11050728]

>>11041347
>smug anime grills
this is my fetish

[Anonymous No.11050733]

>>11039369
based basic facts guy BTFOing the /pol/ schizos on a daily basis

[Anonymous No.11050813]

>>11050150
Race != species

[Anonymous No.11050815]

>>11050706
Not how speciation works, you're ebin infographics have no effect.

[Anonymous No.11050962]

>>11050706
>North American Wolf
>Uses the data on the similarities between the Red Wolf and Coyote population in Carolina
The Red Wolf is also an almost extinct species that is getting Neanderthal'd into the Coyote population due to interbreeding. Even the 36 remaining members of the species have Coyote parents. Of course its going to be ridiculously genetic similarities between the two groups. A good chunk of scientists also are advocating for the remaining Red Wolves to just be lumped into the coyote population because they're already so genetically diluted as is.
Not only that, but you used fixation indexes wrong. Jesus, this image is horrible, just like all the charts /pol/lacks make off of cherry picked data from private "studies"

[Anonymous No.11051719]

>>11039369
>Climate change is real,
Agreed.
>is happening right now,
Agreed.
>is a real threat
Show me an accurate climate model to pull that projection from.
>and is mostly caused by humans.
Show me an accurate climate model to pull a baseline for comparison from.

[Anonymous No.11052275]

>>11051719
It is simple thermodynamics. More co2, more heat retention. The co2 increase we have caused by industrial activities is unprecedented in the earth's history, and so is a warming this quickly. If you disagree you are just being willfully ignorant, excessively stubborn or will simply keep moving goalposts whenever your eternal demands for more evidence have been met.

[Anonymous No.11052289]

>>11039433
This. These lists of "facts", shoehorn contentious and dubious information in. Case in point climate change. It's only real in so far as our limited period of observation indicates.

[Anonymous No.11052290]

>>11050815
retard

[Anonymous No.11052292]

>>11041772
Imagine being this stupid.

[Anonymous No.11052320]

>>11052289
>It's only real in so far as our limited period of observation indicates.
What is extrapolation?

[Anonymous No.11052327]

>>11052320
>extrapolating from n = 200 concluding drastic predictions and ascribing definitive cause and effect.

[Anonymous No.11052332]

>>11039369
Nice work, mate. Of course, when you attempt to disabuse tards of the garbage in their head, it merely reinforces the garbage.

[Anonymous No.11052343]

>>11052332
Well ackshually...
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/backfire-effect-not-significant/

[Anonymous No.11052347]

>>11052327
The causal relation between CO2 and temperature rise has been long established. We have been drastically increasing the average CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and have measured the increase and identified the increased CO2 as being from human activity. We are also measuring extremely rapid increase in the average global temperature. How is any of this speculative?

[Anonymous No.11052849]

>>11052275
>the temperature is higher than it should be
>what should it be?
>that doesn't matter quit being stubborn
OK dude.

[Anonymous No.11053093]

>>11039422
>She wants a finger up her pooper while you slap your cock across her face? She'll tell you if you treat her respectfully
Lol
If she wants that she is not asking for respect

[Anonymous No.11053205]

>>11052849
considering the entirely of human civilization has only existed within the range of that flat blue line, it's probably the best for everyone to keep things within that range.

[Anonymous No.11053251]

>>11052347
post modernism has rotted his brain, he now believes everything is relative, and climate change "isn't his truth"

[Anonymous No.11053319]

>>11039369
>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.
As far as we know. Also time crystals.


>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
Nope, the equilibrium is affected mostly by human activity, but the entirety of the change is to a great degree natural. Still a threat, but shit will happen regardless. We have to work towards mitigation, adaptation and whatnot to the extent of our technological power.

[Anonymous No.11053800]

>>11053319
>but the entirety of the change is to a great degree natural.
citation needed

[Anonymous No.11053838]

>>11039369
> established science seems to give accurate answers

But it often doesn't.

> LDL is the risk factor for heart disease
Except it has almost no predictive power. Half the people who have heart attacks have normal/low LDL.

> Saturated fat causes heart attacks
Except that this is a hypothesis repeatedly disproven but not given up on due to ego.

> Industrial seed oils ("Vegetable oils") are good for you
Except study after study shows otherwise

> Epidemiological/observational study shows red meat is bad for you
Weak effects with multiple confounders you cannot control for shows nothing.

> Economists say
When did an economist last make an accurate prediction?

[Anonymous No.11053848]

>>11042964
>interpreting QM
I think this is a legitimate scientific question to ask:

> Can we do better than Copenhagen, which just postulates "measurement" as an unexplained process

The relative state interpretation, is in this sense, a better scientific theory, because it explains, at least to some degree, ow measurement works.

inb4 muh decoherence.

The thing that interests me most about this is the nonlocality of *all* quantum theories.

[Anonymous No.11053860]

>>11053838
If there is that much uncertainty about the causality or even the correlation, then it is not established science. If you want to ague against established science, please argue against any of the examples in the OP.

[Anonymous No.11053939]

>>11039369
>> Quantum Mechanics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.

Taken at face value, Quantum mechanics says reality doesn't even exists (because the "set of all possible configurations of the world", discovered through "experiments" relabeled as "observables", is discarded and replaced by the algebra of closed linear subspaces of a complex Hilbert space; see e.g. C.Piron, foundations of quantum mechanics).

[Anonymous No.11053994]

>>11040068
>>11050114
This.

I was a skinny nerd for most of my life. I spent a summer lifting and making myself eat until I couldn't eat any more and then I ate some more. I gained about 50 pounds of muscle or more. It kinda sucks when you are going through it but the results are worth it I promise.I have an illness that causes mal-absorption so it was extra hard for me. If i can do it anyone can

[Anonymous No.11054092]

>>11043276
what? are you fucking retarded? if you have nothing to say, dont say anything. no one cares if you think its stupid, its a fucking anonymous board.

[Anonymous No.11054454]

>>11039369
>He needs a list of dogmas to brand everyone else a heretic
Most of the things you mentioned don't matter, in the sense that accepting them or denying them doesn't actually affect your life.

[Anonymous No.11054520]

>>11041332
>>11039940

[Anonymous No.11054853]

>>11054454
1. These are not dogmas, they are established truth due to dilligent empirical verification.
2. They very much matter when you are trying to talk about science, as one does on a science board.

[Anonymous No.11054863]

>>11039369
You forgot one fact:
>OP is a faggot

[Anonymous No.11054885]

>>11041772
Then science is wrong.

[Anonymous No.11054904]

>>11054885

[Anonymous No.11054906]

>>11054904

[Anonymous No.11054909]

>>11054906

[Anonymous No.11054911]

>>11054909

[Anonymous No.11054912]

>>11054885
>>11054904
>>11054906
>>11054909
>>11054911
Redpill me baby YEAH. I hope it's a suppository.

[Anonymous No.11054921]

>>11054885
>science is wrong
/pol/ in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.11054925]

>>11054904
oooo that's spicy

[Anonymous No.11055261]

>>11054909
Average IQ is 100. It's a relative scale nailed to that statistic.

[Anonymous No.11055311]

>>11054911
Just looked up a few of those SNPs and couldn't find anything about increased/decreased intelligence so presumably that info comes from the references.
I DID find someone posting this image but in text form (with the same references) where they said these genes affect various things in the brain, although they didn't say how they affect it or what they actually do.

The second reference is just a big catalog of gene occurrence so doesn't say much about gene effects.

Now the first reference. They did a 'genome-wide association study' looking at the total number of years of education for each individual, looking at number of years in education and test scores for European descent individuals. From this they found some leading candidates for SNPs that might explain the differences in EduYears/scores between these individuals.

The pic says 'with genome-wide levels of significance'; failing to mention that 'genome-wide' means exclusively Europeans.
Hopefully anyone reading this with some scientific literacy knows that this does not mean that those SNPs are 'known to increase/decrease intelligence' (as measured by years in education) for all humans everywhere. Furthermore, the effects of SNPs on phenotypes can be affected by the environment. Both these facts are acknowledged in that reference:
"Because educational institutions vary across places and time, the effects of specific SNPs may vary across environments. Consistent with such heterogeneity, for the lead SNPs, we reject the joint null hypothesis of homogeneous cohort-level effects."
"Due to gene-by-environment interactions, the heritability of EduYears could also differ depending on the institutional environments faced by cohort respondents. We found some evidence of this in the cross-cohort analysis, as income inequality (measured with top income shares) was associated with increasing heritability. "

Why am I not surprised that this image was being dishonest?

[Anonymous No.11055315]

>>11039971
Shhhh, you're not supposed to tell them this.

>>11040643
It would be more about control than profit.

[Anonymous No.11055322]

>>11042444
good post

[Anonymous No.11055332]

>>11054906
>The kids that are malnourished and don't go to school worse at IQ tests

[Anonymous No.11055348]

>>11055332
>and don't go to school
That has nothing to do with IQ.
It predicts your capacity for learning but says nothing about the current extent of your learning.

[Anonymous No.11055349]

>>11054853
>science that only uses TSI and basically ignores particle forcing and has questionable prediction history is settled
What's next? Are you gonna claim that the dark matter model is settled science?

[Anonymous No.11055352]

>>11055332
>malnourished
This however is a /very reasonable/ point to bring up.

[Anonymous No.11055361]

>>11055348
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180621112004.htm
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797618774253
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3258640/

[Anonymous No.11055369]

>>11041772
>Science says there is no such thing as race

Nope. Modern science, based on whole genome sequencing and statistical analysis of the resulting large amouts of data, confirms the existence of what are basically human races. Except that they overlap a little and are called a different, more fancy and accurate word. Pic related.

The only question that remains is how significant the genetic differences between these clusters are, especially when it comes to highly polygenic traits such as intelligence. Or whether it is insignificant and the measured differences are due to environmental factors. Basically Nature vs. Nurture. This is still largely an open question, despite both rabid racists and anti-racists pretending otherwise.

[Anonymous No.11055370]

>>11055349
There is something there that's screwing with the gravity. By all accounts it behaves as invisible matter, hence there is dark matter. The fact that we don't know what it is yet doesn't mean we don't have enough evidence to conclude that it exists.

[Anonymous No.11055375]

>>11055311
this. well put, anon.

[Anonymous No.11055438]

>>11055311
Nothing in your post contradicts the notion that:
>gap in intelligence between Europeans and Africans is caused party by genetic factors

You just state that effects of SNPs can be affected by the environment. As if that contradicts the genetic hypothesis. Yet it does not.

[Anonymous No.11055505]

>>11040643
>money as a middle-man to power.
>allowing competition.

[Anonymous No.11055511]

>>11039369
>groupthink and appeal to authority, the post.
you should never be ashamed to admit a lack of knowledge. Or let someone use that shame to shut you up.

[Anonymous No.11055522]

>>11055370
Yeah, and all billions of $ trying to detect it in any of the proposed forms have returned FUCKING NOTHING, the model is incapable of explaining that formations, galaxies or phenomena that should not exist (even with the help of dark matter) do, or that they existed before they should have.

[Anonymous No.11055796]

>>11055438
I wasn't trying to contradict that hypothesis at all.

I was pointing out that the image that was posted and the data it uses does nothing to support the hypothesis, and presenting this data as though it did IS dishonest.
Either the person who made that image didn't understand what they were reading, or they did understand but made that image anyway; safe in the knowledge that some people would take it as fact and repost it without fact checking it.

>>11055522
>have returned FUCKING NOTHING
Null results are not nothing.

>the model is incapable of explaining that formations, galaxies or phenomena that should not exist
The lambda-CDM model is literally our best cosmological model for explaining a shitload of phenomena, including large scale structures of galaxies and many features of the CMB. It's not perfect but few scientific models are.
What alternative explanations for rotation curves and whatever else do you prefer?

[Anonymous No.11055935]

>>11055796
There are models that propose that electricity and plasma play a significant role on larger scales, not just gravity, and from what I gathered they're gaining some momentum lately.
With all the data we've been getting lately, a number of stuff was discovered that is hard to explain with the current models, like large scale structures whose shape seems to be more consistent with basic laws of electromagnetism than gravity and there are stars which contradict the popular model of how stars work.
There's some videos on it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G48V-Fmh4uc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4pWZGBpWP0
I'm a tad skeptical, but they do refer to actual scientific papers and apparently they did get a significant amount of positive responses from the scientific community.

[Anonymous No.11055967]

>>11055369
You don't understand PCA. Stop spamming images that don't relate to what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.11057928]

>>11055935
Electric universe is not a model or a theory. They just say "there is electricity in space" and childishly start digging for images that kind of look like the result of electricity or plasma flow if you squint hard enough.

It's people playing at science without any notion of what science is or how it's done.

[Anonymous No.11057956]

>>11039369
Yes x7
Probably, but it's only predicted to be impossible by your admitted incomplete model.
Almost definitely, but again, limits of empiricism
Probably
It's almost certainly correct, but yadda yadda
Inconclusive and no amount of crying FAS babies suing the world will change that. The field is way too political and rife with lack of rigour to be certain right now.
Yep, 100%
Agreed
Agreed

[Anonymous No.11058030]

>Approved vaccines are effective and much safer than the diseases they prevent.

except for the flu vaccine lol

[Anonymous No.11058034]

>>11055967

>i dont understand therefore you dont!
>race dont real
>you fucking racist

[Anonymous No.11058039]

>>11058030
Flu vaccine included, though I will admit its effectiveness is limited.

[Anonymous No.11058140]

>>11058034
>nou
Sick burn

[Anonymous No.11058471]

>>11055511
There are plenty of things that I am ignorant about. But any conversation about science should have a common ground of generally accepted facts. The list in the OP is such a list. Sure, there can be debate about the veracity of these claims, but they should include a lot of empirical evidence and an explanation why they have worked so well in the past (cfr the last point).

[Anonymous No.11059031]

>>11057928
I didn't refer to "electric universe" specifically for a reason, the theories that put more importance on plasma are a separate matter, in some ways more in line with mainstream cosmology. Among other things, they propose that at least some of the seemingly missing matter can be explained by plasma and other normal matter, rather than some magical and virtually undetectable particles.

[Anonymous No.11059037]

>>11039369
You forgot
>Blacks are less intelligent than Whites and East Asians.

[Anonymous No.11059135]

>>11059037
I didn't.

[Anonymous No.11059164]

>>11055796
>I was pointing out that the image that was posted and the data it uses does nothing to support the hypothesis

Then you are wrong. SNP analysis supports the genetic hypothesis. It is just not a conclusive proof, because you can always throw your hands up and pretend it is due to environment.

[Anonymous No.11059166]

>>11055967
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.11059179]

>>11039369
> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
Can I add this:
> It is easier to deny climate change than to argue about the policies we should take to address it. Especially if you think that no government action is the correct course of action.

[Anonymous No.11059183]

>>11059179
>Especially if you think that no government action is the correct course of action.
I see oil running out before the apocalyptic spooks that keep getting presented can happen so I'll agree to that.