PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-26, 22:42:15
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Humour  (Read 8165 times)

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 321
Be the change you wish to see in the world
 8)
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
 ;D


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
 :P


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
@Hakasays

One can perfectly well take g=10 or sin(x) = x for small values of x, if one only wants the order of magnitude of the result or a sufficient approximation for the intended application.
Why should we take 9.81 instead of 10, and not 9.806 65 instead of 9.81? It all depends on the desired precision and it cannot be arbitrarily fixed. A constant like g is never known with an infinite number of decimals, so this kind of approximation is always made.
The physicist is aware of the margin of uncertainty in the result and he is able to justify his approximations, that is why he can model a penguin by a cylinder. The basic FE researcher will model a coil by an inductance, but he will not be aware that there is also a capacitance between the windings or between the coil and the ground or that its impedance will vary with frequency if the frequency is too high. The trick is to understand what you are doing and to justify your approximations.






---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
@Hakasays

One can perfectly well take g=10 or sin(x) = x for small values of x, if one only wants the order of magnitude of the result or a sufficient approximation for the intended application.
Why should we take 9.81 instead of 10, and not 9.806 65 instead of 9.81? It all depends on the desired precision and it cannot be arbitrarily fixed. A constant like g is never known with an infinite number of decimals, so this kind of approximation is always made.
The physicist is aware of the margin of uncertainty in the result and he is able to justify his approximations, that is why he can model a penguin by a cylinder.

It's more of a subtle jab to the modern scientific belief that precision is equivalent to understanding.

* That extrapolating the age of the universe to within a few billion years gives us no better understanding of the mechanics of the Genesis known as 'Big Bang'.
* That we could know exactly how many neurons and synapses are in the brain and yet still have almost no clue how memories are formed and stored within them.
* That we could know the radioactive decay rate of every element in the periodic table yet not be able to predict the decay of any individual atom.
* That "Schroedinger's Cat" is as much a theological/philosophical observation as it is a scientific one.  (for the Universe to exist it must have an observer?)
* That even with vast centuries of medical knowledge there is still room for occasional miracles to sneak in (spontaneous regression of cancers).


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
@Hakasays

Rather than a jab, when you're upset, you calm down and think.
You are claiming that what we know can be wrong, because we don't know everything. Complete nonsense.

Contrary to these followers of the FE who claim to know the secrets without ever producing it, scientists have never claimed that their knowledge was complete. Science will probably never be a total knowledge.
Worse than the religious who try to see God where science has not yet the answer, as in the origin of the big bang, you try to see the possibility of FE not only in the unknowns but in everything we know too since scientists would have everything wrong. This is really nonsense.

The Big Bang does not refer to an "initial instant" in the history of the Universe, it only says that the Universe has known an extremely dense and hot period, and this is only common sense: you just have to replay the evolution of the Universe in reverse, and you will find the Big Bang, in the same way that if you play a video in reverse you can see again the debris of an explosion that gathers.

Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, not an assertion that we can ever have a cat in this state. In quantum mechanics, the maintenance of superposition states becomes impossible with macroscopic objects.

Scientific theories are obviously unknown to you except in name, like "big bang" or "relativity" or "quantum mechanics". Your interpretations of poor or misunderstood popularizations of science have nothing to do with scientific facts and theories. There is no logic in what you say, only appositions. And on top of that you use your misinterpretations to accuse scientists who know considerably more than you about all the subjects, including their own limitations.




---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
hakasays
Your joke about sustainable warfare pretty much sums up the contradictions were seeing everywhere.

I also like your dig on gravity. It's strange that some would want to calculate gravity to countless decimal points but still have literally no idea what gravity is. There would seem to be a complete lack of interest in what the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic and Gravic) are.

We claim to be scientifically and technologically advanced and yet apparently nobody has any idea what a field is. I mean, the Primary Fields are only the phenomena which dictate the actions thus energy of everything in the know universe. Nothing to see here, lol...

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
The Big Bang does not refer to an "initial instant" in the history of the Universe, it only says that the Universe has known an extremely dense and hot period, and this is only common sense: you just have to replay the evolution of the Universe in reverse, and you will find the Big Bang, in the same way that if you play a video in reverse you can see again the debris of an explosion that gathers.

The joke being that knowing the date of the Big Bang down to the year still tells us nothing about the action(s) that led to it.


I also like your dig on gravity. It's strange that some would want to calculate gravity to countless decimal points but still have literally no idea what gravity is.
AC

Gravity is an even better example.  Despite knowing the gravitational constant to 18 significant digits we know roughly as much about gravity as Newton. ;D


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
The joke being that knowing the date of the Big Bang down to the year still tells us nothing about the action(s) that led to it.
...

The scientific theses do not tell anything to the ignorant, they would have to study them, and they already struggle to understand the popularization that is done.

When Mendeleïev realized his periodic table of elements, he was missing atoms, unknown at his time. But when you have a solid theory, you can question whether the observations are complete or correct. And you can predict realities. This is what Mendeleev did, aware of his intelligence, predicting still unidentified materials, besides specifying some of their properties. And these new atoms were found later.

Concerning the dark matter, I do not know the future, if it is the theory to be revised or if it really exists, but we doubted even the Higgs boson, and scientists have finally found it. So your comic doesn't hold up. On the other hand, with much more relevance, we can easily apply it to the FE!




---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Concerning the dark matter, I do not know the future, if it is the theory to be revised or if it really exists, but we doubted even the Higgs boson, and scientists have finally found it. So your comic doesn't hold up.

Finding (or synthesizing?) subatomic particle does almost nothing to explain the mathematical placeholder known as dark matter.  Rolls back to the same theme of the joke, that numerical precision can often feel like understanding. ;D

Of course the more recent discoveries is that the mathematical cludge doesn't even work consistently anymore:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2021/mystery-of-the-galaxys-missing-dark-matter-deepens/


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Finding (or synthesizing?) subatomic particle does almost nothing to explain the mathematical placeholder known as dark matter.  Rolls back to the same theme of the joke, that numerical precision can often feel like understanding. ;D
...

I am not comparing subatomic particles with dark matter, but the method! this method consisting in saying since scientists have not found it, they will not find it.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072




---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Sometimes you find words of wisdom in the weirdest places ;D ;D


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Hakasays
Quote
Finding (or synthesizing?) subatomic particle does almost nothing to explain the mathematical placeholder known as dark matter.  Rolls back to the same theme of the joke, that numerical precision can often feel like understanding.

Indeed and it feels like a kind of childish variation on the bandwagon fallacy.
To suppose that more of something such as popularity somehow makes something more correct. You see, I can add all these extra digits or equations which seems much more impressive therefor it's probably even more correct.

Thankfully science hasn't fallen into the same strange nonsense as the church with there...
1)Special white dress and fancy hat.
2)Own strange language with special terms, incantations and magical symbols few can understand.
3)Rely on populism and the perpetual victim hood of always being oppressed.
4)Hey and let's not forget the trillion dollar for profit industry related to something supposedly not for profit.

Oh wait, apparently I was wrong and the only thing science is missing is the funny hat. Perhaps we could have a hat contest for the scientists. Science the hell out of it like the multi million dollar toilet?.

AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
The days go much better when your wife does not wake up to yell at you for tapping the aloe vera plant.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
 :P


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Have you noticed that when you reproduce a FE setup, it never works?
That's because you don't use the magic formulas!
But I got the secrets from the inventors, here is the list. Try them, shout those charms loudly, and the OU will appear!





---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Ohm my god ;D


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 152
Saw this on another forum.

Physics teacher just made his PHD and travelling home in the middle of the day, Happy, Relaxed.
In the middle of nowhere he sees a guy on the pasture, on his side of the highway, obviously in distress
doing something behind a animal, He stops, climbs the fence, goes to the farmer and ask if he can help.
The farmer says "If You could grab the cow on the collar and hold her down until I finish, the calf got stuck."
The fresh Prof says "I hold a PHD in Physics, I am sure I can hold a Cow!"
"Thanks good man", the farmer said.
After 3 minutes of pulling and sweating, the calf is out, the cow licks the now standing calf, the farmer says to the guy, who takes notes in his notebook,
"Please stay back a bit so the cow can calm down. Thanks again, You was a real help. Do You have any questions?"
"Everything is clear Sir! Just one question, How fast was the calf moving when it crashed into the cow?"


Kinda depends on your perspective doesn't it?



---------------------------
'Tis better to try and fail than never try at all
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 321
Be the change you wish to see in the world
Made me LOL
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Made me LOL

Ya, losing internal metrical consistency means a constant's value can be more difficult (or impossible) to falsify. C.C


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Those who make measurements to worse than 10%... when they make them, make fun of those who neglect the 0.0033% that 10 km/s is compared to the speed of light?

It is indeed very funny.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Those who make measurements to worse than 10%..

Referring to Dayton Miller or Michaelson-Morley's work?   10% sounds like a number pulled from thin-air. ^-^


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 22:42:15