Jump to content
Tobes

General Politics Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, legendaryshotz said:

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

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.

3 hours ago, akaWest said:

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

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post

Entanglement doesn't change their characteristics but does observation?

I'm sure you know way more about this than I do but I'd like to learn.

If characteristics of a particle can change based on observation is it possible that at it's smallest form it's simply information waiting to be rendered?

Share this post


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

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.

Most scientists would use dictionary definitions, yes. They wouldn't go the creationist route there. Never got corrected with specific terminology during bio lab, chem lab, orgo chem lab, etc. in college, because with everything they use specific textbook definitons that each person can understand and abide by. If you can't even agree to a dictionary defition of a word with your collagues you're going to have serious issues establishing anything in the science field.

Share this post


Link to post

Getting Vietnam-style flashbacks over "quantum consciousness" with the double-slit experiment being brought up. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, akaWest said:

Entanglement doesn't change their characteristics but does observation?

I'm sure you know way more about this than I do but I'd like to learn.

If characteristics of a particle can change based on observation is it possible that at it's smallest form it's simply information waiting to be rendered?

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.

8 hours ago, legendaryshotz said:

Most scientists would use dictionary definitions, yes. They wouldn't go the creationist route there. Never got corrected with specific terminology during bio lab, chem lab, orgo chem lab, etc. in college, because with everything they use specific textbook definitons that each person can understand and abide by. If you can't even agree to a dictionary defition of a word with your collagues you're going to have serious issues establishing anything in the science field.

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.

1 hour ago, Cursed Lemon said:

Getting Vietnam-style flashbacks over "quantum consciousness" with the double-slit experiment being brought up. 

Yeah I got nervous for a second but it turned into a Q&A session instead which is always welcome in my book.

Share this post


Link to post

"Observation" is synonymous with measurement. The precept is that you can't measure something without affecting it to some degree or in some form. This becomes most significant on the nanoscopic level where you are affecting subatomic particles by measuring them - if the particle in question is in a state of superposition, then measuring it (bouncing a photon off of it, whatever) will collapse the wavefunction and determine a precise location. 

Share this post


Link to post

This is where I get stuck - Does the chair in my room exist if the electrons/subatomic particles behave as though they aren't being observed? 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, akaWest said:

This is where I get stuck - Does the chair in my room exist if the electrons/subatomic particles behave as though they aren't being observed? 

Yes

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

There isn't a fundamental difference from the macroscopic perspective between a particle in superposition and a particle that is not. That's what makes quantum physics so hard to understand, because our brains work around the idea of classical physics governing everything - all matter is just little billiard balls being knocked around the cosmic table. Also, measuring the particle doesn't stop exhibiting wave-particle duality once you measure it, so nothing actually changes going forward. 

Share this post


Link to post

Getting back to politics for a moment, I do not and never will understand how right wingers can be so caught up in vapid conspiracy theories against the Clintons, yet they absolutely and steadfastly refuse to draw their big red circles around shit like this and play connect-the-dots for El Fatso de Naranja. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html

Quote

Manafort Shared Trump Campaign Data With Russian Associate, Prosecutors Say

 

Share this post


Link to post

Congnitive bias makes It hard to believe something negative about somebody you like or consider part of your tribe. The same people would easily believe in pizza gate, because they hate the Clintons. On the other side you have people believing Trump peed on a prostitute or that he is a Nazi. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Cursed Lemon said:

Getting back to politics for a moment, I do not and never will understand how right wingers can be so caught up in vapid conspiracy theories against the Clintons, yet they absolutely and steadfastly refuse to draw their big red circles around shit like this and play connect-the-dots for El Fatso de Naranja. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html

 

Manafort is a career lobbyist with connections around the globe. Sharing polling data (not known whether it even came from the Trump campaign) is not a crime. 

The crimes he was convicted of are not related to the Trump campaign. Manafort was found guilty of five tax fraud charges, one charge of hiding foreign bank accounts and two counts of bank fraud. During the time these crimes were committed he was working with The Podesta Group (has since been dissolved) which puts his crimes in closer proximity to Hillary and Obama than they do Trump.

Manafort served as Trump's Campaign Chairman for 99 days. I personally think he was a plant. A Clinton plant or a Russian plant...I'm not sure yet, lol

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, akaWest said:

Manafort is a career lobbyist with connections around the globe. Sharing polling data (not known whether it even came from the Trump campaign) is not a crime. 

The crimes he was convicted of are not related to the Trump campaign. Manafort was found guilty of five tax fraud charges, one charge of hiding foreign bank accounts and two counts of bank fraud. During the time these crimes were committed he was working with The Podesta Group (has since been dissolved) which puts his crimes in closer proximity to Hillary and Obama than they do Trump.

Manafort served as Trump's Campaign Chairman for 99 days. I personally think he was a plant. A Clinton plant or a Russian plant...I'm not sure yet, lol

 

 

1. Hillary Clinton was convicted of zero crimes after being investigated twice - by the man who probably cost her the election. 

2. It's (clearly) not about what is illegal, it's about what people choose to infer from limited information. Trumpers go off the rails on shit like Seth Rich, but they don't bat an eye at Maria Butina because t3H D33P ST4T3 

Share this post


Link to post

Some of you might've already heard this song 

I feel like it's taking a shot at Christian conservatives but I like it anyways. 

Share this post


Link to post

Best youtube comment ever:

LISTED BELOW are several of the arguments that have been used by misguided people to try and justify illegal immigration. Next to each is the reason why that argument has no merit.
 
1) "They are an economic necessity" - Not true. The idea that a bunch of desperately poor, uneducated, unskilled, non-English speaking foreigners are an economic necessity is ludicrous. In fact, when you compare cost vs. benefit, it is obvious that they are not only NOT a necessity, they are not even an asset. Rather, they are a liability and a huge one at that.
 
2) "They do work Americans won’t do" - Not true. They do work Americans won’t do for $7 an hour (especially if Americans can collect welfare and unemployment instead). Of course, if you got rid of the illegals, the jobs wouldn’t pay $7 an hour. The people who wanted the work done would have to pay a wage that was attractive enough to get Americans to do the work. And it might even be enough to get Americans off the unemployment and welfare dole and back into the taxpaying workforce!
 
3) "We benefit from all that “cheap” labor" - This is nonsense. The only people who benefit from the cheap labor are the unscrupulous people who hire illegal immigrants. Taxpayers are left holding the bag. Ultimately, it is they who must pay to support all the Americans who have been put out of work by illegals and must also provide billions of dollars in services and benefits to the illegals themselves.
 
4) "They are just trying to make better lives" - Aren’t we all? The difference is that most of us understand that we DO NOT have a right to acquire by illegal means those things that we find difficult to acquire by legal means. And we certainly don’t have the right to do it in a foreign country.
 
5) "It is impossible to round up and deport the illegals" - We don’t have to. All we have to do is remove the incentives that brought them here in the first place. No jobs. No housing. No taxpayer financed services or benefits (including education). Once we remove the incentives that brought them here, they will leave on their own.
 
6) "Immigration control is racist / xenophobic" - This is just another play of the race card by people who have no other cards to play. Immigration control is the world-wide status quo. There is nothing racist about it. Furthermore, the USA welcomes LEGAL immigrants of all races and ethnicities from all over the world who have gone through the legal immigration process. This is not just a bad argument, it is an attempt to create racial hatred and division.
 
7) "We are a nation of immigrants" - This is the “BIG LIE”. The vast majority of Americans are native-born. I am not an immigrant. Nor were my parents. Nor were my grandparents. We are a nation that has, historically, allowed and even encouraged LEGAL immigration. And we continue to do so. The issue at hand is illegal immigration, which has nothing to do with legal immigration.
 
8) "They are people. We must treat them humanely" - Yes and yes. But lets not pretend like they are victims who were dragged here kicking and screaming against their will. Nothing could be further from the truth. They came of their own free will and for their own benefit and they broke the law to do it. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR BREAKING LAWS AND COMMITTING CRIMES. SENDING THEM HOME IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. There is nothing “draconian” or “mean-spirited” about it.
 
9) "It is wrong to break up families" - Yes. Unfortunately, families are often broken up by criminal activity. If you don’t believe it, just drop by any prison or jail on visiting day. We can’t keep families together if some family members choose to participate in criminal activity.
 
10) "They work contribute to our society" - So do I. And if I break the law and commit crimes, I can expect to pay a penalty of some kind. Anything from a small fine to the death penalty. I do not receive a reward. WHY SHOULD WE TREAT FOREIGN CRIMINAL
 


 
  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, akaWest said:

 

I feel like it's taking a shot at Christian conservatives 

 

We're used to it :tear:

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/8/2019 at 2:53 PM, pharmassists said:

Yes

how can you be so certain? 

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Scalzo said:

how can you be so certain? 

I can turn around really fast, so when I'm not looking I can quickly look again so fast, not giving the chair the chance to reappear. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, legendaryshotz said:

When you get so desperate for a wall you put it in a YouTube comment section...lol my goodness

Hey, it reached someone.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, pharmassists said:

I can turn around really fast, so when I'm not looking I can quickly look again so fast, not giving the chair the chance to reappear. 

But you've already observed it, therefore it's been measured. If it's acting as though it hasn't been observed/measured wouldn't it just be a probability of potential particles? 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Scalzo said:

how can you be so certain? 

Classical mechanics works better than your mind games.

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.