<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]forscher 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I won't believe it: as you already knew.

But i really like your style, your effort not to mention.

This is one nut now ain't it ?

What'cha tell me if just we both had to sit in small room for seven days ?

Only a blackboard there.

Oh i know: Because i did this already. We'd be soon be debating null-sets and their non-appliances.

Still, i'd like it.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for answer, but I think it needs a little more argumentation than: "sure as hell" / "admit the truth here".

Here is a more in depth discussion of this model:
https://saidit.net/s/Physics/comments/18rz/nullhypothesis_quantum_mechanics_shows_that_there/

Why is there PTFE in masks? Is it in both surgical and KN95 masks? After reading this I m considering using my cloth one more often now by infocom6502 in AskScience

[–]forscher 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I always "handle" myself, you know, when entering my sanctuary, which is my lab.

I'm more generous on the cleaning time time, cleaning my forearms and shit: You know.

But still: There is one fungus following me where ever i go.

We basically have come to a friendship. He won't spoil my experiments and i'll let him live.

Since i know his genome to a t this isn't hard actually.

But it should tell a lot to any labworkers out there.

<PHD> How do I make coffee? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]forscher 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Brew it.

<EX5>Why are is there a difference in intelligence between people? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]forscher 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Why is it so hard to criticize science or scientists? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]forscher 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In fact it isn't hard. You just gotta put some effort and time (and a whole lot of knowledge which implies more time being invested here) into it.

Science can crush "science" easily.

Just believe me, because i'm bored even now.

And don't get my engine started on statistics. :-D

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]forscher 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There only is one interpretation of quantum dynamics and sure as hell: It ain't yours.

You need more dimensions, if you like it or not. You can't fold all this stuff in four dimension with a determinant that is positive.

Clearly this isn't possible, so i hope you finally grab your balls and admit the truth here.

Otherwise we go into Calabi-Yau-Manifolds -which for themselves - surely are fascinating but impossible to apply on any real-world-problem.

Math is like that: Either you come forward with any application or you and my will scratch our forehead two hundred years again to come.

So far.

Why does everything have the same face? by Nooice in AskScience

[–]forscher 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wrote a paper on this. Long story short: Youtube.

Why is there PTFE in masks? Is it in both surgical and KN95 masks? After reading this I m considering using my cloth one more often now by infocom6502 in AskScience

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not a shill, and I'm not an idiot. Please don't drag down the discussion.

Zerohedge are spinning those papers quite a lot.

The first one they correctly quote that "no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks", but the central estimate of the analysis still favours mask use, with a risk ratio of 0.78: (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25)

But the better key is the paper I link to above, especially the note that An increasing number of ecological studies have also provided persuasive evidence that universal mandatory mask wearing policies have been associated with reductions in the number or rate of infections and deaths

Why is there PTFE in masks? Is it in both surgical and KN95 masks? After reading this I m considering using my cloth one more often now by infocom6502 in AskScience

[–]mongre 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, kids...we found a shill!

See part VI and best of luck with your shilling, idiot.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/30-facts-you-need-know-covid-cribsheet

Why is there PTFE in masks? Is it in both surgical and KN95 masks? After reading this I m considering using my cloth one more often now by infocom6502 in AskScience

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You assume first that viruses are "bad" and that they haven't been coexisting with us for millennia and second that masks actually help.

COVID-19 is "bad".

Masks help.

Read the ACTUAL research on the subject

You found a paper for which the margin of error is greater than the effect. Congratulations. We should therefore conclude that there is no effect?

Or should we look around for other papers, or better yet, an analysis of many papers looking at the subject.

TL/DR: mask mandates reduce new diagnoses on a state level by a percent or so. Wearing a mask reduces chance of being infected by something more like 70%.

Why is there PTFE in masks? Is it in both surgical and KN95 masks? After reading this I m considering using my cloth one more often now by infocom6502 in AskScience

[–]infocom6502[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I go on fundamentals. In this case it's physics and fluid mechanics. You are attenuating expulsion of droplets and thus decreasing (not eliminating) risks of contamination, thus reducing the range of the radius of moderate risk.

This fluid mechanics effect is also why these are used in surgeries.

SARS2 is not a natural virus. And even if it were natural, not all natural viruses are harmless. Some definitely are horrible as eff**.

Why is there PTFE in masks? Is it in both surgical and KN95 masks? After reading this I m considering using my cloth one more often now by infocom6502 in AskScience

[–]mongre 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You assume first that viruses are "bad" and that they haven't been coexisting with us for millennia and second that masks actually help. Read the ACTUAL research on the subject and you will see masks are being used as a tool for fear and do next to nothing to promote heath.

Why is there PTFE in masks? Is it in both surgical and KN95 masks? After reading this I m considering using my cloth one more often now by infocom6502 in AskScience

[–]infocom6502[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I disagree. Masks are critical for public indoor spaces.

They attenuate viral debris one exhales, reducing the range and probability of infecting others. It also partially filters intake air, reducing your own risk significantly. If you take in under a certain amount of viruses per day the risk of infection is very low (I think the number is somewhere between 10 and 100 live viruses), especially with a working immune system (enough vit D, C, trace metals, and avg to above avg body temperature).

i don't want to have the above link be taken as an anti-masker statement. But it is good to see both sides. I think both sides have some valid points.

Eg., down sides to masks as well (one just needs to be aware of these): For instance, treat the outside of a recently heavily used mask as a potentially highly contaminated surface. Avoid touching it or getting food on it. Rotate and disinfect masks periodically.

Anyway, I may reduce use of surgical masks that have a funny smell to them, and switch to KN95 and cloth.

Still am very curious what hte function of the teflon is in these masks. That specifically is my main science question to this board (since it is the ask science forum). If anyone knows or can guess, fire away.

Why is there PTFE in masks? Is it in both surgical and KN95 masks? After reading this I m considering using my cloth one more often now by infocom6502 in AskScience

[–]mongre 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you're wearing a mask, especially now, you're an idiot.

Why is there PTFE in masks? Is it in both surgical and KN95 masks? After reading this I m considering using my cloth one more often now by infocom6502 in AskScience

[–]infocom6502[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I do notice my surgical ones have a funny smell to them which I don't notice on my N95 mask.

Do you know of any other scientists that were severely attacked because they discovered something new and conflicting? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]ancapsaicin 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Today Semmelweis would have been banned from FaceBook and lost his job and bank accounts for spreading medical misinformation but it’s still slightly better than getting institutionalized and killed I guess.

Hello, I am a chemist. It's been over a decade since I got my B.S. and I actually switched to project management after a brief period working in a lab, but I'll try to be helpful where I can be! by AnotherClosetAtheist in AskScience

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh wow. I can't believe I made that mistake. My dog of 13 years died yesterday night at 2AM, that must be the explanation for a state that allows that kind of stuff to happen.

Hello, I am a chemist. It's been over a decade since I got my B.S. and I actually switched to project management after a brief period working in a lab, but I'll try to be helpful where I can be! by AnotherClosetAtheist in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not deuterium, that is a hydrogen isotope.
And there are some other minor mistakes.

Hello, I am a chemist. It's been over a decade since I got my B.S. and I actually switched to project management after a brief period working in a lab, but I'll try to be helpful where I can be! by AnotherClosetAtheist in AskScience

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Triple-deuterium ozone? Weird stuff, I bet. And rare as pope's turds, I think.

"Stability" is like socialism: it's very variable - between a little and a lot. Nitroglycerine is stable. Until you knock it. So while Nitroglycerine is chemically "stable", it is a lot less so than, say trinitrotoluene.

Many times I feel like I would have preferred going into that field. Oh yeah, now I remember: when I feel like being drugged out of my mind on various hard-to obtain things. XD

Hello, I am a chemist. It's been over a decade since I got my B.S. and I actually switched to project management after a brief period working in a lab, but I'll try to be helpful where I can be! by AnotherClosetAtheist in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Great. We have no rules of being professor or something.
That makes some questions and answers more interesting and sometimes controversial.

In chemistry already have some questions:
Like NO and NO2 are chemically stable, but they have different valences. O= -2 and N=+3. Why do they give a stable structure?

Did you know that O3 has different stabilities (or how do I call it?) depending on the isotopes.
Certain isotopes connect better than others.
I learned that many years ago, but maybe there is some new research.

Also feel free to post some questions yourself. I added options to make the questions funny, because sometimes we can all use some humor.

Maybe you can explain what you did for your B.S. as a <MAD> scientist? ;-)

What causes a person to need a sex change? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]AnotherClosetAtheist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Total hypothesis by me below. I do have to admit that I do have a gene-centric bias as influenced by the arguments in The Selfish Gene. Not all of these bullets come from that book, but are influenced by it.

  • Genes are replicating entities whose sole purpose is to make copies of themselves.

  • Genes use multiple tactics [I apologize for personifying them, it's just handy to employ the language] to outcompete other genes in a resource-constricted environment. Some of these tactics include creating bodies to carry them, and combining with other genes, etc.

  • As far as mammals are concerned, we typically have a female part of the species that makes large, immobile, nutritive eggs, and a male part of the species that makes multiple, mobile, non-nutritive sperm.

  • Mammals create their sperm and eggs through recombination of each copy of the DNA they inherited from their parents.

  • There are multiple regions of the brain, each developed by natural selection

  • There is a region of the brain where our consciousness is "located." Whether that consciousness only resides on one section, a few, or is the result of the interplay of them all is another debate entirely. For now, I will only say that we have consciousness, that it is a function of our brain, which again is the result of natural selection.

  • Animal bodies are driven by natural selection. The body is not the true unit of selection, but rather the genetic variations and recombinations that make that body. These genes' ability to make a body for the purpose of replicating themselves is how they are selected.

  • There has been observed in the wild, and described in evolutionary terms, certain runaway feedback loops in mate attraction. Specifically, the story of the peacock's plumage and other exaggerated, and seemingly-unnecessary bodyparts on other animals, is one of these stories. There is a balance that peacocks must strike between attracting a mate and not getting eaten before they can. Large tails inhibit their ability to avoid predation, but the off-set occurs with how often they get to mate. Peacock genes which produce very large peacock tails tend to replicate themselves more genes that make small peacock tails, even though those peacocks may not get eaten as often.

Okay, let me synthesize those bullets.

Genes control your body, what you look like. Genes control what you are attracted to. Genes recombine as well.

As far as being attracted to one sex or another, genes for being attracted to males may only exist in female genes, and genes for being attracted to females may only exist in male genes. However, there may exist a mechanism where those genes for attraction get flipped in the recombination process for making eggs and sperm. Or perhaps it could be the result of a mutation. This could account for both the existence of homosexuality, and why it is in a minority of cases.

As far as identifying as one gender or another, I'd reference my bullets on consciousness, because my gut tends to trend that direction -- that genes control the development of the brain hardware, and consciousness and the concept of identity and social interaction might be manifestations of firmware or software.

I think that genes still are the dominating force in self-identity. Most people just "feel" it rather than "learn" it.

What science questions and/or science answers were you banned for? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I usually don't look at the names of the scientists whose research I read, because I am much more interested in the facts, or lack thereof, in their research. But yes, I am very much aware that the Earth warms and cools quite a bit over the centuries, and quite a bit more over the millenia.

What science questions and/or science answers were you banned for? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Tetrahedron 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Have you dove into any of Randall Carlson's research? He has a whole lot of evidence complied of just how dynamic the earth's climate really is. It shows that the warming that we are seeing now is well within the normal that the earth is used to.

Why does everything have the same face? by Nooice in AskScience

[–]v3r3na 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It makes sense that the mouth is located near the eyes (and if existent, the nose) so you can see (and smell) what you eat and directly rule out that it's poisonous or otherwise unhealthy. It also makes you more efficient at getting the food before someone else does or before the prey swims/runs/flies away. Imagine if your eyes and nose were located on your ass. You see something that you know is edible, grab it and raise it to your mouth, out of your side. No a poisonous insect sits down on the food you're about to eat, but you have no idea and when you eat it and notice it's already too late.

What causes a person to need a sex change? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]v3r3na 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just a few more theories from my impressions:

  • They have a set of character traits atypical for their sex and don't want to belong to a group that seems to made up mainly of people with traits they dislike. Instead of just accepting that they have unusual interests and preferences compared to people of their sex, they choose to deny that they are female/male.
  • I've seen many photos of transwomen who use tons of makeup and dress like an exaggerated caricature of a woman. I don't think this is only overcompensation. With their flamboyance they seem to have a very strong desire to be seen by other people. Maybe that's also why some are so insistent on other people to address them by specific pronouns: they care too much how others see them.

What causes a person to need a sex change? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Newmug 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Great post!

What causes a person to need a sex change? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Newmug 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nobody "needs" a sex change. Since when did changing someones genitalia ever have an impact on how much food and water they need to survive?

What causes a person to need a sex change? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Insanity and grooming from the trans community.

Insanity in the form of no sense of identity, which is the "door wide open" for all kinds of psychoses. The trans kind is just the easiest for young people to "catch".

You know, there used to be this thing called "bad thoughts" or "thoughts inspired by" evil/satan/whatever. And people would push back on such thoughts, acknowledging their foreign, troublesome and ultimately destructive origins.

But now people self-identify to thought, which nothing has ever demonstrated originates from the being itself. It could all be a huge telepathic prank played by extradimensional beings and we would never know it. Actually, we might, given that the current social freakshow is starting to make it look like precisely that.

What causes a person to need a sex change? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]C_Mot 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Insecurity and grooming from the trans community

What science questions and/or science answers were you banned for? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I got banned from /r/science for asserting that co2 as a greenhouse gas rests on unproven hypotheses - which is of course, a fact.

I got banned from /r/sciencenews (or something like that) for stating that the case for anthropogenic climate change is FAR from settled.

What science questions and/or science answers were you banned for? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was banned from /r/space - for criticizing the magnetohydrodynamics. Because it is mostly pseudo-science. based on a special case that does really happen in nature. They create magnetic fields out of thin air. (I used friendlier words.)

I was banned from /r/askphysics - for explaining the Maxwell equations. You can explain them in different ways, with different levels of complexity.

I was banned from /r/philosophyOfScience - for discussion a very basic interpretation of quantum mechanics, invented by Max Planck.

Never went into /r/science and /r/askscience and such, because they are very Technocratic. Which means that you can not discuss anything that may conflict with the official consensus.

Addition:
Was banned from /r/lastStageCapitalism about agreeing that Billionaires should not influence the elections. Because I named Soros. Lol.

Why does everything have the same face? by Nooice in AskScience

[–]useless_aether 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

i think it might have to do with the proximity of the brain, so the info from the eyes, ears, nose, etc travels as fast as possible to it. two eyes are usually for depth perception.. nature is pretty perfect.

How bad are mobile phones for us and our future generations? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]lumberjohn 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

"Screenteen Takes Powerselfie & Succombs To Pity Fit"

Why is it so hard to criticize science or scientists? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because everything that calls itself "science" is in fact nothing else but pure human presumptuousness and arrogance.

Why is it so hard to criticize science or scientists? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have found quite a lot of problems with certain theories or conclusions. But many scientists claim them to be true.

In reality, with some deeper research, the scientists are often not so sure about the theories at all.

Yet, it is often not even possible to criticize the theories or conclusions. The people involved start attacking me using all kinds of logical fallacies. And if I show that I actually understand the matter, they just try to ban me from the discussion.

Like I am very against the way astronomers use Magneto Hydro Dynamics. It breaks too much with actual observable physics. If you look at the EM-dynamics in a different way, everything becomes simpler. But somehow it is forbidden to change a theory that is being promoted by so many, even when it clearly does not work well. (Most promote it as magic).

Other people might have similar experiences with asking people about climate, or whether the immune system is weakened by vaccines. It seems that almost every interesting question is taboo.

While if I discuss similar problems with programmers, they are often very open in discussions. And they are often eager to find problems with the information systems that they have build. I only find similar reactions with PhDs that try to promote their theories. Discussions about OOP versus functional can become heated, but very often people can give examples and somehow understand each side.

For some reason many scientists are really much more aggressive and deconstructive. Does anyone know or understand why this is?

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just in:
Chemistry Papers Are Retracted Mostly Due to Plagiarism, Data Manipulation
https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/05/28/chemistry-papers-are-retracted-mostly-due-plagiarism-data-manipulation-14054

What will be the next invisible thing that astronomers come up with? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Virtual particles - They are mainly a theoretical placeholder.

What will be the next invisible thing that astronomers come up with? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good answer.
String theory gives us indeed lots of invisible dimensions.

What will be the next invisible thing that astronomers come up with? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]roc 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Dark matter and dark energy are not undetectable. They are the names for something that clearly influences matter in the galaxy through gravity. For dark matter there are even maps where it is calculated to be more and less dense. This is mostly at the same place as galaxies and clusters. But dark matter and dark energy do not interact through electromagnetism, this is why they are called dark.

Black holes can be very visible through their accretion disks. The black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy has not been photographed yet because the center of the galaxy is full of many stars that are a lot brighter than this black hole's accretion disk. But since 10 April we have a picture of a black hole with an accretion disk in the galaxy Messier 87.

About your question: if string theorists are to be believed, there are many hidden dimensions on a very small scale. I don't think string theory is a useful development in theoretical physics, because it has not provided any observable predictions.

<Uni/Wiki> What are some extra-ordinary skills by certain people or certain tribes? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are a couple of penis stretching mystics in India.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

+3

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I feel honored :D

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That sounds like the answer of a Zen master.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fate manifests itself through coincidences.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. So in that sense the threshold model is the only theory.

And that is why I promote it. It can give us more insights into the workings, even if it were incorrect

We may be able to determine:
1) whether there are hidden variables in the detector. An energy buffer, or clock-phase.
2) whether other phenomena are influenced by this.
3) whether particles are real or just an energy buffer.
etc.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It was my understanding that testability is a requirement for any theory?

I mention this, because this differentiates the theory that you're biased for, as it's the only validly testable theory.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The theory is also completely testable

It was my understanding that testability is a requirement for any theory?

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

In peer-reviewed articles, this would be explained with gravity after an explosion. And of course some invisible dark matter to top it off.

Yep. They teach this at Hogwarts.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]wendolynne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You cannot observe something without affecting it. Like wildlife photography, in order to get that picture of the heron chicks, you had to invade their nesting site. Or debugging software, to see the value of the variable you had to interrupt the operation. there is no passive observer. Everything you observe is changed because you saw it.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]hennaojisan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The cat is dead after being in that box so long. But seriously, quantum computers apparently don't use only zeros and ones but other values that are neither ones nor zeros. So is quantum computing the wave of the future or the particle? As one female Indian physicist said in a Ted Talk: If you think you don't understand quantum physics very well, you're getting it. Apologies in advance for this nonsense.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No I've not, but appreciate the book title.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Have you read the book Occult Chemistry?
It is the Theosophy system of atoms and sub-particles. They kind of predicted the Quarks, which are all build from 3 particles in their system.

It is all very different from the Quantum mechanics that we know, and I don't know how that would connect.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The Simplest interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is not even known well:
The Threshold Model.

It is the FIRST and simplest interpretation of quantum physics as proposed by Planck. Using Occam's razor, it would certainly win.

I like it because it is the simplest interpretation that still matches with all observations that I know of. It can also be tested well, and leaves room for adaption or expansion.


Because it is hard to find good information on it, I will explain it fully:

The threshold model (Plank, modified)

It places hidden variables in the detector. If the "energy" received at the detector reaches a certain threshold, the detector sees it as a quantum-change. The detector can be anything (even atoms), as long it stores the energy in some way. All particles can be treated as energy in this model.

Like the light that is received by an camera, energy needs to be enough to trigger the CCD-cell or CMOS-cell of the camera. The hidden variables are in the receiver, where it is unknown how much light each cell has received.

The starting conditions are kind of random or hidden. Plank dismissed his own model, because he thought that the starting condition was always zero. He did not take random start conditions in account. This logical correction is the only one needed to make it work and make it match with many observations.

Example:

Detector energy-levels before receiving 1 photon:    
00% 20% 40% 60% 10% 40% 90% 30% 20% 50%   
 Detector reads:
 0      0      0      0      0      0     0      0     0    0

After detection, light energy spreads over all positions:   
10% 30% 50% 70% 20% 50% 100% 40% 30% 60%
 Detector reads:
 0      0      0      0      0      0     1      0     0    0
                                               X
Photon found at X, where threshold level has been reached

Detector converts the energy to electric energy, 
This resets the cell again.

This interpretation makes some things a lot simpler. In antenna-technology, we can measure the phase of the incoming EM-waves. I think this mean that we are measuring parts of photons. Static EM-fields also become simple. We need no photons at all and certainly no virtual photons.

In QM we have to use non-existing virtual particles, to explain static fields. With this interpretation this is not necessary. Everything becomes simpler.

The interpretation does not need weird concepts like: multiple worlds, nor other dimensions, nor a conscious observer, no time-travel, no invisible pilot-waves. It brings energy back to waves that work exactly as EM-waves. The reason that we encounter particles, in this model, is because the particles are a result of a threshold that is reached.

The model can easily be expanded. Like different thresholds, resonating energy-waves, etc. But it already works well from the start. So for science, and using Occam's Razor, I propose to roll back all the weird theories that EM has produced, and start with thresholds first.

The theory is also completely testable, which brings the power of experiments back into science. In some experiments the detectors sometimes find 2 "particles", for only one being transmitted. Or sometimes no "particle" is detected. This is often ignored as noise, but it can also justify this very simple interpretation.

It is partially compatible with the zero-worlds interpretation (simplified MWI), but much easier to understand and use. Also similar to Pilot-wave interpretation, but with no particles.

Here is a website of a laboratory-scientist that is about this interpretation:
http://www.thresholdmodel.com/
He is not a good communicator at all, but shows some interesting experiments. But after reading my explanation, it is now a lot easier to understand his writings and talks.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've never really looked into quantum mechanics, or physics, but I've looked into theosophy, and it sure seems like Blavatsky, and those she sites in her books, definitely felt it was the real workings of the universe; I mean it's close.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The multiple world interpretation of quantum mechanics is my least favourite. It makes the real world seem schizophrenic.

The reason why this is liked, seems to come from particle physics, where particles can have multiple interactions with each other. The QED diagrams describe such interactions.

But I think this way of thinking is flawed, because all possible interactions take place simultaneously. Including those with virtual particles. This would give an infinite amount of possible interactions with an almost infinite amount of particles. While mathematically interesting, it seems to me that all these interactions can be compressed into a single field of possibilities.

<Uni> What do you think of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I like the interpretation where consciousness can somehow influence the randomness of quantum mechanics. But I do not think that it is realistic. But for those interested see this video

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Moderator: Sorry. I appreciate your comment, but it started with a masked personal attack. I try to keep the forum friendly. ;-)

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As Moderator: Don't add new items to your text. Please make a different reply for "moon landing" or a different post. ;-)

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is in interesting formation.

There is a clear distribution of materials. I don't know the cause of that, I would really need to study it more. More information could be visible in the radiowaves and ultraviolet/x-ray range.

My first idea is that this matter was produced by some explosion or a plasma beam in the past. That might explain the cloud-shapes.

The matter itself might be compressed via electromagnetic forces. We should check for the stark/zeeman effect and polarisation effects. That would give us more information about the electromagnetic activity. There also should be vague plasma bridges between the dense stars.

In peer-reviewed articles, this would be explained with gravity after an explosion. And of course some invisible dark matter to top it off.

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]UmamiTofu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

planetary formation.

Aggregation simply doesn't work. Small clusters self-annihilate back into dust without something to keep them in place. Vorticies.

Which means planets are... hollow

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Materials emit different frequencies of light based on temperature. And you are clearly knowledgeable. Do you know what the current explaination for the "Pillars of Light" material formations?

If energy in space is dominated by gravity and nuclear reactions, then how are these clouds radiating light? The event that preceded their formation was eons ago, so they definitely should be relatively cooled.

Why do you suppose this cloud continues to radiate, and isn't instead freezing in space (Ort Cloud coldish)?

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think it is an intentional "hoax". Many scientists actually believe in global warming.

The propaganda was done by a technocratic group. I think that original group had environmental concerns and wanted to push against the oil industry. But that was more than 50 years ago. Now it has mixed with many political people.

To make the propaganda impressive, they falsely stated that the science was settled. And were warning us against a catastrophic warming (hockey-stick graph). One theory that was clearly not based on science, but on fear and logical fallacies. But sadly many scientists are not able to go against a false authority and a claimed majority.

Now with better tools and better measurements, we see that over a longer time period the earth is not clearly warming. 25 Nasa scientists question the sanity of the global warmists The yt channel has lots of this.

And this proofs that climate science was not settled, but based on wrong data, wrong parameters and fantasy. Some of the data was falsified, and other data cherry-picked, criticism became forbidden. Due to the politics, it became a big lie.

The climate itself clearly follows the solar activity.
The fatal flaw in climate change science

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[Archeology/History]

  • We find remains of reasonably advanced cultures that seem to have lived more than 10,000 years ago. Based on carbon-dating and based on geology. Mainstream history thinks that humanity always grew more advanced, but that would not work if there was a natural disaster. link

  • History is written by the winners. A lot of history has been modified or changed from the perspective of the winners. Evidence shows that WW1 started differently Link

  • A lot of Historians had huge prejudice against older or innate cultures. We call them "primitive" by default, but they often lived happy and had a very peaceful life. Unlike "advanced" cultures.

  • Depending on the region, the health of ancient people was much better. As long they had enough food and were living in small groups. They did a lot more physical exercise. Forced labour in slavery, agriculture and industry decreased life-expectancy enormously. And they could also not care well for disabled people.

  • We sometimes find weird remains of other races of humans. Maybe we had as many human races as dog races at one time. link1. link2 We simply don't know much, due to the resistance against these subjects.

  • Certain ancient technologies were very advanced for their time. 1. A pillar that does not rust. 2. Concrete technology in ancient buildings and statues. 3. Stone pillars that are tuned exactly to music

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Climate Science:

  • "Man made global warming" is a hoax.
  • The climate isn't warming (any more than centuries old trends).
  • Needs more physics (meterology).
  • Needs less pseudoscience (climate "modeling").

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have seen Robitaille's videos on it.
Here is his video on the Cosmic Microwave Background

And the video about the antenna that did not detect the CMB, because it can not detect nearby water.

It would be nice to put the spectrum of the MBR and that of the ocean next to each other. Maybe Robitaille has already done that?

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am all for better safety in the medicine industry, and making all people involved responsible.

I think that removing and extremely limiting patents would make it better. Maybe then it would be easier for companies to admit that certain solutions are not working or have bad side-effects. Now they are over-hyped, or pushed politically. It would also make good medicine cheap and easy available. And natural medicine should not be forbidden or put under pressure as it is now.

I should add that mother-milk is a natural vaccine that works well. As far I know, it has no side effects, assuming the mother is healthy.

<HS> So the solution is to suck boobies!

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Can the continuous spectrum can also come from a liquid?

Yes. An example of this is molten steel, which emits a full thermal spectrum which is dependant upon it's temp. It won't be a perfect blackbody spectrum.

The same is with the background radiation. It is supposed to come from hydrogen plasma, but the spectrum continuous (not gas/plasma).

I'm not sure that the cosmic microwave background radiation is real. Water is known to absorb and emit microwaves.
The evidence for this "experiment" was only recorded during the GE experiment, which was literally miles from the ocean and just above sea level.

I'm not sure it should be classified as an experiment, as it was identified on accident, and no test was really performed.

The microwave "noise" was likely caused by the telescope's proximity to the ocean, which emits microwaves.

Gases simply cannot emit a full spectrum. Gaseous materials can only emit light frequencies based on their election orbital shell configurations.

Redshift - can also be caused by interstellar plasma. In that case, light of high frequencies moves slower.

This is an interesting point.

I doubt that the big bang happened.

<EX5> Why doesn't the moon fall down? Why doesn't it fall apart like meteors? by wizzwizz4 in AskScience

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Great explanation! You're missing the word "escape", though.

<EX5> Why doesn't the moon fall down? Why doesn't it fall apart like meteors? by wizzwizz4 in AskScience

[–]roc 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because molecules in a gas all move with some speed. This speed can be high enough to a body's gravity. Rocks on the other hand do not move around but lie in one place.

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Vaccination Industry:

  • Vaccines did not end the plague of diseases. Public sanitation was the solution, and it was implemented before vaccines for most diseases were invented.
  • Vaccines are not effective in eliminating transmission. Vaccinated people can carry diseases without showing symptoms.
  • Vaccines are not safe, or harmless. Vaccines activate the epigenome, which is the system that governs which genes are activated, etc. We do not understand this system, and there are serious unforeseen consequences.
  • The aluminum adjuvant is a dangerous compound and stays in the brain of young developing children.
  • Thimerosal (mercury compound) in vaccines is toxic. This mercury does not leave the body. It collects in the brain of the patient.
  • As many as 30 million Americans were infected with a cancer causing virus called SV-40 during the polio vaccinations during the 60's. This is the root cause of the modern cancer epidemic. They should be working on a SV-40 vaccine, however this is being curiously ignored.
  • AIDS was introduced into the human population through the vaccination programs (Merck).

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Can the continuous spectrum can also come from a liquid?

The same is with the background radiation. It is supposed to come from hydrogen plasma, but the spectrum continuous (not gas/plasma).

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[Astronomy]

  • Stars are formed from condensed matter (liquid or solid). Only condensed matter with a lattice structure can emit a continuous spectrum.
  • Stars do not behave as gas clouds. Gasses cannot emit a continuous spectrum.
  • Many astronomical equations violate the laws of thermodynamics (intensive vs. extensive properties). They are not physically plausible.

The basics of astronomy are a complete mess. 90% of astronomy classes still teach that the sun is a gas cloud, which is physically impossible. This science is in need of a thorough fundamental reexamination.

Moon Landing Hoax. - honorable mention.

<EX5> Why doesn't the moon fall down? Why doesn't it fall apart like meteors? by wizzwizz4 in AskScience

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why do gases drift away, but stones not? Doesn't everything fall down?

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[Astronomy]

Magnetohydrodynamics - Omitting the electric field and other over-simplifications create false models. Things like like "Magnetic reconnection" do not really exist. Alfven already warned us.

Temperature of the sun's photosphere. - The electromagnetic activity gives a false impression. Neutral elements show normal low temperatures. link

Dark matter - Most of the papers are wrong, even if it does exist.

Redshift - can also be caused by interstellar plasma. In that case, light of high frequencies moves slower. link. Could interfere with inflation and dark energy. Dark energy is already spread like gas/plasma.


The problem with astronomy is that we have to build theoretical models on top of other theoretical models. And only fractions of it can be tested. We simply can not travel that far or look back in time. If we find a problem, it is too hard to revise the underlying models, so we add another theory.

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[Computer Science]
Artificial intelligence - most is hyped.
Quantum Computer - does not work as in theory.
Type theory - hard to apply.

<uni> A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers in Genetics. How bad are other areas? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Psychology and Psychiatry: we still don't know the real cause behind many psychiatric problems (like depression, as in article)

<EX5> Why doesn't the moon fall down? Why doesn't it fall apart like meteors? by wizzwizz4 in AskScience

[–]roc 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The moon doesn't fall apart because it has enough mass to create significant gravity. At the surface of the moon the gravitational acceleration is 1/6 of Earth, which means that pieces of the Moon cannot just drift away into space. Gases however can easily escape with 1/6 gravity, which is why the Moon has no atmosphere.

<PHD> How does mating work in the Human world? [Biology] by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Not a real scientist, but I think you have to make a tiny labcoat and put it on an actual bird and then show her. 🐦

<EX5> Why doesn't the moon fall down? Why doesn't it fall apart like meteors? by wizzwizz4 in AskScience

[–]UmamiTofu 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Moon is moving at a very high speed. It tries to keep going forward past the Earth, but the Earth's gravity pulls it downwards. These balance out to keep it falling in a circle around the Earth.

<EX5>Why are is there a difference in intelligence between people? by zyxzevn in AskScience

[–]Afor 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Know how there's smart dogs and less smart dogs? Know how dogs with proper trainers knows a bit more than the average dog and how that makes them seem smart? It's a bit of both, but people are still arguing about what's most important.

<EX5> Why doesn't the moon fall down? Why doesn't it fall apart like meteors? by wizzwizz4 in AskScience

[–]Afor 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What? No, that's not how it works. It balances nearly perfectly between "falling to earth" and "getting slung into space".

<EX5> Why doesn't the moon fall down? Why doesn't it fall apart like meteors? by wizzwizz4 in AskScience

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

<EX5>The moon falls down continuously. It just happens that the Earth also moves away from it, just to avoid any collision.