/sci/ - Science and Mathematics

Go James Randi on her ass and try to test those claims. Try to come up with experiments which would confirm or deny her crackpot ideas.

>>2185

If they keep on bringing up quantum physics ask them if they believe in the big bang

>>2186

Ok, I dont know jack shite about quantum physics or physics in general what would that prove lol,

>>2189

If they believe in quantum physics that means they would also believe that the big bang theory is wrong, Laura Mersini-Houghton did the math on singularities and proved that they could not exist, and since the big bang theory was described as a singularity that began to rapidly expand into the universe, of course I am not saying it was created by God, but the big bang is not what happened

>>2199

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/29/black-holes-dont-exist_n_5885940.html

>"Non peer reviewed paper"

in the trash it goes.

>>2199

Oh come on this is something we disposed back on 4/sci/.

I could probably dig through the archives and find it.

>>2210

>>2206

I am not saying she is right, but the women who wrote about the flaw with black holes also was big proponent in the multi-verse theory

>>2217

>also was big proponent in the multi-verse theory

What does that have to do the varsity of the big bang?

>>2199

I know a RL cosmologist who said that before the universe was 1 planck length wide, we have no goddamn idea what happened.

If she is emotionally invested in her beliefs, no amount of evidence is going to affect her. If she does not care about being correct, then there's nothing you can do to convince that she's wrong until you've made her value reality over fantasy. Emotions either impede logical processes or they don't make a difference to them.

>>2236

>before the universe was large enough to describe with physics, physics doesn't describe it

>Update

she always says "That really resonates with me" and she implies things on the macroscopic oevel behave as a wave (I know, fucking retarded)

example, go to dairyqueen, she orders icecream "vanilla really resinates with me" (Feel like scratching my eyes out)

>Pretends to be "enlightened" and "on a higher state of conciouseness", realizes the book she ordered ("conversations with god") wasnt the first edition

>"FUCK SHIT DAMNIT FU K ASS WAAHHH ARRGGG FUCK FUCK FUCK

>Constantly brags about how educated and formal she is

>Insults and brings other people down for being more eloquent or well dressed or well mannered or simply just better looking

>Complains about how "muh life sucks and nobody needs me waah" c8nstantly talks about suicide

"Why do t you just kill yourself then?

>I have children who need me!

All of her children are adults and have moved out of the house

>>2459

Explain the particle wave nature of light, get her to talk about the particles of vanilla interacting with her. Problem solved, she has accepted that she likes vanilla for normal reasons.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

Kinda off-topic…

What are her political views, much can be explained if you answer what we think you will

sounds like these bitches need to learn about the double slut experiment

You don't.

Language from these people most often can be reduced down to feelings or intentions about the world.

>"My daughter is a wise of soul"- I want my daughter to be valuable/worthy of respect.

>"Words hold special powers"- I want words(Only power I'm guessing this women has) to be significant.

>"Everything is a wave"- I have a good grasp of the world I live in.

If you say "everything isn't a wave", they hear "You don't have a good grasp of the world you live in.". Thus, it's very difficult to talk with them.

>>3083

I dislike this explanation. First, in order to observe anything one must interact with it (as far as we know) so a better depiction of the observer might be to put some kind of photosensitive film in front of the slits to detect which slits the electrons go through. When illustrated this way (instead of the misleading and inaccurate way of the video) it is obvious why the electrons might be affected by the detector. Also, I dislike the "collapse the wavelength" explanation of quantum mechanics. Who "collapses the wavelength" of the universe and the observer? I prefer to interpret the situation as that the probabilities of the observer and the observed become tied together at the point of observation.. In other words, the probabilities of where the electrons are don't collapse to a single point once observed but only collapse in to a single point from the point of view of the observer. In the alternate possibility where you did not observe the electrons the possibilities did not collapse.

I guess this sort of fits with multi-verse theory but I guess I sort of intuit the idea more as each particle is its own multi-verse of possibilities and that at certain points in time and sequences of choices that the possibilities synchronise.

Why is being on the pill not smart?

>>3096

hurrr durrr multiverse

fucking wall of text and you still said nothing

>>3381

As someone whose understanding of epigenetics comes purely from embryology, I can't even imagine why.

>>3384

The reasoning goes, "stressed out mothers have worse babies/genes, and liberals are more stressed out, but religion removes stress for people making better genes, and since conservatives are more religious they have better genes. Biohistory explains it. Also, if your kids can inherit dna that changes faster with your actions, evolution theory is wrong. Maybe the Earth is only 6,000 years old after all."

>>3391

Well that's a huge load of shit that betrays a very misgudied understanding of epigenetic effects. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from people who don't "believe" in evolution though. Epigenetics in humans amounts mostly to stuff like sexual development and sexual orientation.

>>3391

>stressed out mothers have worse babies/genes, and liberals are more stressed out, but religion removes stress for people making better genes, and since conservatives are more religious they have better genes

I think that's a causation fallacy at work there