Jump to content
Tobes

General Politics Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Yeah but guys, what's the scientific causality rate of the variable that uncovers the patters that describe all the different kinds of correlations within the theorum relating to the hypothesis?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Mr Grim said:

Also, there's something very important that you guys are missing here:

 

The highest round in zombies that you get genuinely is different than the highest round you'd get if you cheesed it. Like I've gotten to round 100 but it was total cheese. Highest I've gotten genuinely is like 27 or 28 alone on Der Reise. I got to 21 in Nocht Der Untoten on split screen genuinely. 

What map did you get to round 100 on? And I’ve gotten to round 42 on bus depot solo. Anyone that can get to round 20 on that map has my respect so I consider it my best zombies round. Not tranzit, the survival map where it’s just the depot. Nacht Der Untoten is similar but not nearly as difficult since you can use Tgun. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, pharmassists said:

I don't know how you prove something that happened billions of years ago, but it's a good explanation for the expansion of the universe.

 

Astronomy is mind blowing. When we look at the stars we are looking at the past. 

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.

3 hours ago, legendaryshotz said:

I know you’re trying to be the next Galileo and all, but you can fuck right off with this. You’re seriously starting to get worse than flat earthers. Saying there’s no proof is an absolutely mind boggling take considering there’s background radiation in space still from it, how particles behave in space, and quick maths...you just like ignoring astrophysicists and other scientists findings lol?

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.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, gporter said:

What map did you get to round 100 on? And I’ve gotten to round 42 on bus depot solo. Anyone that can get to round 20 on that map has my respect so I consider it my best zombies round. Not tranzit, the survival map where it’s just the depot. Nacht Der Untoten is similar but not nearly as difficult since you can use Tgun. 

Der Reise. Modded lobby and shit like that. Also the Ray gun sucks on the first map. You're likely to kill yourself with it. The best strategy is to have the Browning and mg42 and alternate between them to conserve anmo.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, RVG E Nomini said:

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.

What if the universe and everything in it is simply information rendered into existence by our observable consciousness which exists beyond this reality?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, RVG E Nomini said:

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.

No. Saying theres no proof, no evidence is flat out wrong. That is not the correct take. We know up to 10^-43 seconds after the big bang as to what happend with our universe.

 

This is like saying someone committed a crime, you have literally 99.99999999999999999999999% evidence to convict them except literal video of the event taking place but saying that theres no proof. Absolutely ludacris.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, akaWest said:

What if the universe and everything in it is simply information rendered into existence by our observable consciousness which exists beyond this reality?

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.

2 hours ago, legendaryshotz said:

No. Saying theres no proof, no evidence is flat out wrong. That is not the correct take. We know up to 10^-43 seconds after the big bang as to what happend with our universe.

 

This is like saying someone committed a crime, you have literally 99.99999999999999999999999% evidence to convict them except literal video of the event taking place but saying that theres no proof. Absolutely ludacris.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, RVG E Nomini said:

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.

Are you familiar with double slit theory and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment? Particle function based on observation? 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, bman said:

sam harris is the worst btw

Sam Harris is another islamaphobic cunt.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Why is it ok for an atheist to attack every religion sans Islam, where suddenly they are labeled islamophobic? 

Share this post


Link to post

Islamophobia is typically racism against Middle Easterners dressed up in skeptic's clothing. 

That's why the skeptic community doesn't care about Christianity anymore, because that entire movement has been co-opted by assholes. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, RVG E Nomini said:

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.

You just said there’s no proof. Look up the definiton since you like taking words so literally. Here I’ll do it for you:

Proof: 

1. 
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

 

Saying scientific proof literally doesn’t change anything. There is evidence. Therefore you cannot say there is zero proof, because if that were the case the Big Bang theory wouldn’t exist to begin with. The big God bang theory has indeed, zero proof. There is no evidence to establish the theory that a magical man spawned us into existence.

 

Also, you keep saying I’m not doing science...which again is hogwash. Study of structure (universe) which is experimented with some of the highest degrees of mathematics humanity has ever formulated, and observed through cosmic radiation studies, behavioral studies of how the universe works, so on and so fourth to ultimately get the Big Bang theory. 

 

Also for your first paragraph, we have to assume no matter what the our conscienceness does indeed exist in order to make any such claims about our universe, even your own that you’re currently making. That’s one of the fundamental assumptions of science, that your conscienceness existence isn’t a mere mirage. 

Share this post


Link to post

You're fired! 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46787840

Trump is going after the banks. I know some of you hate him but he's going to need all of our support.

Notice how Judge tries to spin this to mean a bailout. Trump said nothing about a bailout, he said "wave goodbye" to the money.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, akaWest said:

Are you familiar with double slit theory and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment? Particle function based on observation? 

I am very familiar, what about em? Particle function based on observation? Is there a typo in that, it makes no sense.

8 hours ago, legendaryshotz said:

You just said there’s no proof. Look up the definiton since you like taking words so literally. Here I’ll do it for you:

Proof: 

1. 
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

 

Saying scientific proof literally doesn’t change anything. There is evidence. Therefore you cannot say there is zero proof, because if that were the case the Big Bang theory wouldn’t exist to begin with. The big God bang theory has indeed, zero proof. There is no evidence to establish the theory that a magical man spawned us into existence.

 

Also, you keep saying I’m not doing science...which again is hogwash. Study of structure (universe) which is experimented with some of the highest degrees of mathematics humanity has ever formulated, and observed through cosmic radiation studies, behavioral studies of how the universe works, so on and so fourth to ultimately get the Big Bang theory. 

 

Also for your first paragraph, we have to assume no matter what the our conscienceness does indeed exist in order to make any such claims about our universe, even your own that you’re currently making. That’s one of the fundamental assumptions of science, that your conscienceness existence isn’t a mere mirage. 

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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, RVG E Nomini said:

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.

Ah yes, I’m not a professional Big Bang theorist therefore I cannot commentate on the discussion. Silly me. Why don’t we bring in some videos from actual astrophysicists on the subject manner? That don’t make weird contrarian takes like you do all the time? That actually have put in the work and understood to the full degree (admittedly even I get lost on some of the math equations and how they are formulated because I’m not 200 IQ) of the universe and essentially how it formed.

 

That is what science is, no? You don’t let people make baseless claims without evidence? I don’t get where you’re getting that science HAS to be falsifiable. It certainly does not. You may discover something that eventually does get debunked or refined or hell it may stand the test of time for all eternity, no one can really make that absolute claim or change without evidence and peer review.

 

edit: dictionaries don’t matter? Ha. Haha. Yeah right. In the current political climate we may need to add another assumption that not only that our conscience is real but so are dictionaries and definitions. Can’t just change them to fit your ideals.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, legendaryshotz said:

Ah yes, I’m not a professional Big Bang theorist therefore I cannot commentate on the discussion. Silly me. Why don’t we bring in some videos from actual astrophysicists on the subject manner? That don’t make weird contrarian takes like you do all the time? That actually have put in the work and understood to the full degree (admittedly even I get lost on some of the math equations and how they are formulated because I’m not 200 IQ) of the universe and essentially how it formed.

 

That is what science is, no? You don’t let people make baseless claims without evidence? I don’t get where you’re getting that science HAS to be falsifiable. It certainly does not. You may discover something that eventually does get debunked or refined or hell it may stand the test of time for all eternity, no one can really make that absolute claim or change without evidence and peer review.

 

edit: dictionaries don’t matter? Ha. Haha. Yeah right. In the current political climate we may need to add another assumption that not only that our conscience is real but so are dictionaries and definitions. Can’t just change them to fit your ideals.

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.

Share this post


Link to post

Lol @ legendary completely misunderstanding your post. That cumprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, RVG E Nomini said:

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.

I guarantee with almost complete confidence that if you walked up to any scientist that studies space and asked them “is there proof for the Big Bang theory?” A vast majority would say yes. You know why? Because proof in that context is evidence for the Big Bang theorm, as from a dictionary, not your own made up term used to describe what the word means.

 

its not fake scientists, that’s the definition. 

 

Edit: and yes I hate those commercials

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scalzo said:

Lol @ legendary completely misunderstanding your post. That cumprehension.

Don’t you have a wife to comfort wut u doin here

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, akaWest said:

You're fired! 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46787840

Trump is going after the banks. I know some of you hate him but he's going to need all of our support.

Notice how Judge tries to spin this to mean a bailout. Trump said nothing about a bailout, he said "wave goodbye" to the money.

Trump eased regulations on the banks so they can continue to scam consumers like they did before the GFC. His reason was 'my friends need money'.

 

Love how you Trumpists spin reality to your favour.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RVG E Nomini said:

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.

According to double slit and delayed choice does an entangled photon have wave and particle characteristics based on observation and measurement? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, legendaryshotz said:

Ah yes, I’m not a professional Big Bang theorist therefore I cannot commentate on the discussion. Silly me. Why don’t we bring in some videos from actual astrophysicists on the subject manner? That don’t make weird contrarian takes like you do all the time? That actually have put in the work and understood to the full degree (admittedly even I get lost on some of the math equations and how they are formulated because I’m not 200 IQ) of the universe and essentially how it formed.

 

 

Speaking of 200 IQ 

Did you know Christopher Langan (190-210 IQ) is a Trump supporter? 

https://steemit.com/informtionwar/@froyoempire/some-political-opinions-from-christopher-langan-man-with-a-200-iq

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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