Jump to content

RVG E Nomini

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  1. Because Trump is a bad negotiator and tariffs are evil.
  2. I could swear I heard something about party matching in social but maybe it was just ranked only. Gotta take it a day at a time with 343 man. I watched you beat Zyos quite a few times on his twitch stream in 2v2s. Not sure how much you post here but know that most of us appreciate CE's competitive merit above any other halo. The people who don't are still being sorted out and dealt with until they conform. This is one of those cases where independent thinking makes you wrong lol.
  3. Yeah 4s in CE is awful solo because you tend to get matched with poor teammates. Sorry you had to play against us, we handed out steaks for 4 hours straight. I felt bad about some of em but I like playing with my buddies so I'm not sure what to do about it. Maybe 2v2 customs?
  4. I didn't like it for the half a game I tried it in H1, felt like my pistol buttered right over people. Might have to practice more lol.
  5. I agree we need to care for the environment, but it's not an easy argument to make that CO2 is going to be a big problem. Ocean acidification is a much more confident argument than global avg temp but it's still not easy. There's no observational evidence suggesting climate sensitivity to CO2 is as high as what the climate models use. Models say 2-5 degrees C per doubling of ppm, recent temps over the last couple decades say ~1 degree C.
  6. Classical mechanics works better than your mind games.
  7. I've played through the H1 campaign hundreds of times, it's dear to my heart. The rest of the campaigns are awful because they make no sense. Maybe your buddies like that campaign has coop, which can create some of the most memorable moments in the game.
  8. An entangled photon is still a photon so it has to behave like a photon. When you make entangled photons, you do what's called a downconversion, where you split one photon into two using a prism. Each photon has approximately half the energy of the original. Entanglement just means "correlation", it doesn't impart unique properties on any individual photon, it's just a correlation between your downconverted photons in terms of frequency and polarization. With electrons you get correlations between their spins, two electrons that have collided will take on opposite spins to each other, so measuring the spin of one tells you the spin of the other. "Information waiting to be rendered" isn't really a great way to look at it because it's unecessarily vague. Electrons are still doing what electrons do when we aren't looking. It's just tough with quantum mechanics to actually interpret what nature is doing because quantum mechanics is more of a tool for making measurements at microscopic scales. In the quantum world, outcomes are probabilistic instead of deterministic, a feature that would completely ruin your day if our macroscopic world worked the same way. You're the one not agreeing, I agree with myself completely as does every scientist ever. You're welcome to show me where in your textbooks they offered "scientific proof" for evolution, atoms, or whatever other guiding principle they use. This has nothing to do with creationism lol, it has to do with the requirements of the scientific method. Yeah I got nervous for a second but it turned into a Q&A session instead which is always welcome in my book.
  9. Complete confidence, huh? Again, you're clinging to a dictionary definition instead of the context of the scientific method where it actually matters. Your confidence means nothing next to how scientists actually discuss science. Like I said, on the street we won't care that you talk that way, but in the lab when science is being done, you will get corrected immediately if you use that language. You're welcome to heed my advice or carry on acting like proof for any scientific theory exists, when all scientists know it doesn't because that isn't how science is even done. Sort of. Wave particle duality was discarded in the 60's because it's trash. Also, photons are the least particle-like particle. Also, entanglement doesn't change their characteristics. Also, observation and measurement are the same thing.
  10. You'd be wasting your time because I'm not debating the strength of the big bang theory, it has very robust evidence to suggest it describes our universe quite accurately. All I said is there's no proof, which any other scientist would completely agree with. You're not a professional scientist so you should probably avoid putting words into scientists' mouths lol. Lmao, name one thing in science that isn't falsifiable? You do realize why the pinnacle of science is the theory? It isn't called that because it's supposed to be some absolute truth. Theories that aren't falsifiable get rejected as unscientific anyways, because they aren't testable. Theories HAVE to be testable or they get thrown out. You can claim light propagates through a medium unlike the one tested by the michelson morley experiment, but if you don't say what properties that medium has, nobody can test it to verify your claim. Your idea will get thrown out. Dictionaries don't matter, what matters is how science is done by actual scientists. We don't talk about scientific proof, proving theories, or how to prove physical principles, because that language is anti-scientific. It's irrelevant that you found one entry in a dictionary that makes "proof" a synonym of "evidence", it's relevant how that word is rejected by the scientific community at large in the context of discussing actual science. Scientists let non-scientists get away with it because the layman is exempt from the standards scientists hold each other to. If you claimed to be a scientist and presented to other scientists on a topic while using that language, they would know immediately that you were a fake scientist. Have you never watched a commercial where it's said that something is scientifically proven to work, and never had a violent, gustatory reaction to hearing that phrase? I feel for you.
  11. I am very familiar, what about em? Particle function based on observation? Is there a typo in that, it makes no sense. Your scientific literacy is lacking. We don't use "proof" in science because science has to be falsifiable, it's irrelevant what your dictionary tells you, it matters how scientists do their jobs. We don't use proof, so you shouldn't either. Theories in science are never proven, they are never said to have proof they're true, and nobody sets out to prove theories are correct. Theories can only be proven wrong. Disproved. Falsified. Or, they can be improved. That's it. You aren't a big bang theorist and you continue claiming there is proof for the big bang, which no cosmologist would say in a professional setting. So no, you aren't doing or talking science when you talk about proof for a scientific theory, it doesn't matter what words you've strung together there. Science isn't done on a forum so you've somehow made even less sense than before on this. Correct, it's a fundamental assumption that our faculties are reliable to some useful degree. It's so pointless and banal that it's never brought up in scientific education as some kind of rudimentary facet of the discipline.
  12. You'd have to demonstrate something exists beyond this reality, that our our consciousness exists in whatever that is, and that our consciousness is capable of "rendering" a universe into existence, seemingly before the biology necessary to express it can be fostered. I'd say you're completely screwed with your hypothetical there. You aren't reading my words and you aren't talking science. There's a lot of evidence to support the big bang theory, what there's zero of is proof, because proof is unscientific. Proofs are true by definition and scientific theories by definition must be falsifiable. Proofs cannot be falsified. Hence, there's no scientific proof for the big bang. Also, the big bang wasn't the beginning. The theory doesn't even attempt to describe how the universe started, only how it evolved after it already existed. The universe at the beginning of the big bang was much too large to be the beginning of the universe itself, it had already doubled in size around a couple hundred times by that point.
  13. I agree, everyone should own or use a telescope at some point in their life. Saturn will put tears in your eyes and if you get a scope that can resolve andromeda, you'd probably be overwhelmed. It's actually the correct take. If there's proof of the big bang then it's true by definition and no longer science, which must be falsifiable by definition. The big bang is still the best theory we have for how the universe has evolved since shortly after t=0. If you think the big bang is crazy, inflation will really put you on your ass with its elegance and effectiveness. When the day comes that we can look at gravitational wave scales relevant to inflation, that will be truly wild. Still though, through the beauty of all those e-foldings, the higgs field phase change, and almost perfectly flat euclidean geometry across 95 billion light years, there's still no proof of the big bang because it's still a theory and it's still falsifiable, boss.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.