The Science Video Thread

[vurt]

Thanks Celeb. I just got through the first video and look forward to watching the others.

For the people who won't take the time to watch these: fuck em.

[Dildo Faggins]

I work with a genuine pagan who is still pissed off that christains stole the sun day from them. And what the fuck is this, the string theory fanboy club? Space is full of an infinitely viscous fluid, duh. Prove me wrong.

[darksensei]

I don't want to post links to any vids directly because this site gets updated semi-often so instead here is the site.

Streaming Theater

Not all are worth it by any means, but occasionally there are good lectures.

[vurt]

Oh man I got a good laugh when Dawkins quoted a former editor of New Scientist Magazine: "science is interesting and if you don't agree, you can fuck off."

[Eduardo]

Some REAL cosmology. Plasma Cosmology:





edit: this is the 'stuff' I studied, to the point of having influence on some of the thoughts and people in these videos.
These are an interesting introduction to Plasma Cosmology and the world of thought outside of mainstream 'big bang' cosmology.
Hope you enjoy and that it opens some minds if not already opened.

[Dildo Faggins]

Without trying to sound too much like an internet know it all, I'll try and be to the point. All these theories do, and this is all physics theories on the universe, manage to prove is that humans are really good at bullshiting through stuff. Every one of these theories has more akward math than you can shake stick at, and more holes than the New Orleans government accounting office. Study the universe, and hold ourselves to what we can reasonably support. When we start going on gigantic mathematic tangents to try and justify things that were mathematically suggested by theories of things that possibly exist, we are going too fucking far. The scientists all want to understand everything, and throw books of numbers at you, when in reality they dont know what the fuck their talking about. Scientists cant even figure out how fast gravity is, and they are are arguing over the secrets of its inner workings with this shit.

And isnt one of the founders/major supporters of string theory one of those human calculater bastards? Can immediately multiply two 50 digit numbers together in his head and get the answer right. Mathematical savant or what not. I can imagine how debates against his theories go.

... Theorist makes a valid counter arguement to the theory in question.

Savant: 6350389235923858283932x14051053389865323995 is 89229658200392193669833083411613882548340 mother fucker. What were you saying about my math?

I read the theories on wikipedia, so im an expert, k?

[Eomer]

So I suppose that when confronted with a property or experiment or whatever that they can't quite explain properly, scientists are supposed to just throw their hands up and say "fuck it"?

Science has had gravity on earthly and even solar system-wide scales pretty much nailed for 4 centuries. It's on ridiculously large scales that things go goofy. So what if the math used to explain this phenomenon is really complicated? Newton and Leibnitz pretty much invented calculus to explain gravity and other physics problems, and I'm sure calculus looked incredibly complicated to the average person at the time (shit, it still does today). Does that make their conclusions/proofs/theorems any less valid? Nope. Could science have figured out the way our solar system works without calculus? Nope.

The reality is, science will most likely continue to need new mathematical tools to explain ever more complicated things. I fail to see why that is some huge problem, or why that's a good reason to just give up.

[Tuco]

That was probably the worst argument I've seen made today, Dildo.

[Dildo Faggins]

Originally Posted by Eomer

So I suppose that when confronted with a property or experiment or whatever that they can't quite explain properly, scientists are supposed to just throw their hands up and say "fuck it"?

Science has had gravity on earthly and even solar system-wide scales pretty much nailed for 4 centuries. It's on ridiculously large scales that things go goofy. So what if the math used to explain this phenomenon is really complicated? Newton and Leibnitz pretty much invented calculus to explain gravity and other physics problems, and I'm sure calculus looked incredibly complicated to the average person at the time (shit, it still does today). Does that make their conclusions/proofs/theorems any less valid? Nope. Could science have figured out the way our solar system works without calculus? Nope.

The reality is, science will most likely continue to need new mathematical tools to explain ever more complicated things. I fail to see why that is some huge problem, or why that's a good reason to just give up.

This has absolutely nothing, what so ever, to do with my post. I dont disagree at all that new mathematical tools are needed and should be explored. What I am saying is that these scientists are being blowhards on stuff that is unjustifiable. When calculus was invented, it had a purpose. To explain gravity, as you put it. The stuff these people are inventing, has no real purpose other than the explain stuff that exists only in imagination. Scientists need to work on observation before they start figuring out how things work. Im not saying fuck it, im saying they are messing up their order of things.

Basically, their theories are based of fuzzy mathematical possibilities. A good scientist bases their theories off observation. String theory could be completely obliterated in one fell swoop by proving or disproving fundamental assumptions they made in the theory. Basically, the entire foundation for string theory might just not be true. They should work towards figuring out a base before they build their temple. Scientists who dont follow that order are simply writing fiction, and I will never accept their theories for more until we can more substantially prove some of our more relevant things in physics.

I wont argue the details of the theories with you, but you should do yourself a favor and examine the warrants that each of the theories takes. When see how sweeping they are, its fairly hard to deny the fact that the theories are at best, quite shakey.

[Eomer]

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. There's no denying that String Theory is on shaky ground. A lot of physicists dislike it for the same reasons you state.

But what happens if CERN fires up and finds the Higgs boson? I think that's what it's called, by my memory might be off. But what happens if a fundamental particle predicted for years by String Theory is discovered? That means all their theorizing and mathematical masterbation was on the right track, and justified.

I can kind of see your point, but I think it's total bullshit. The same argument could have been made 100 years ago about Einstein and relativity. Lots of things that he predicted couldn't be detected or experimented on when he was doing the theorizing, and in fact some predictions are still to be confirmed. Gravitational waves is one, for example. They haven't been detected, but they should be sooner or later.

So did Einstein just waste his time?

[Tuco]

Your assumption of

A good scientist bases their theories off observation.

Assumes that a scientist cannot advance knowledge by way of first using math to find out about our universe.

Unfortunately, much of our technology and knowledge today was originally based off of 'fuzzy mathematical possibilities'.

[Dildo Faggins]

Originally Posted by Tuco

Your assumption of



Assumes that a scientist cannot advance knowledge by way of first using math to find out about our universe.

Where did I say that math cant be used to represent ideas. Again, i am arguing that the WARRANTS of string theory arguement are unjustified, along with most of the other theories. People who think they are approaching the holy grail of physics with them are delusional.

Unfortunately, much of our technology and knowledge today was originally based off of 'fuzzy mathematical possibilities'.

Math in its very definition is basically putting to paper the observable, and typically the math to explain the working of inventions is created AFTER the observed effect of the invention, but in truth, truely new additions to math are quite rare. Most functions of calculus are actually just a shortcut. They can be solved with simpler math, but the calculus is basically a shorthand to cut out the numerous short steps to reach the same answer, or a more organized way to approach the problem.

I honestly cant think of a single invention that resulted from math with huge warrants in their theories. Inventions dont come from fuzzy mathematical possiblities, they come from creative ideas based on sound mathematical logic. Pleanty of them are just mistakes, too.

Its obvious you dont understand my arguement. Please follow the final line in my last post if you want to continue a conversation with me on the subject. I'll just ignore ya if you dont bother to understand my issues with the warrants these theories take. You seem to think im some closet minded anti-math man, when i just am not.

[Tuco]

Inventions dont come from fuzzy mathematical possiblities, they come from creative ideas based on sound mathematical logic.

Now you just have the problem of determining which mathematical proofs are fuzzy, and which are sound

I'll prefer to just watch the cute animations of planets twirling around to cheap sci-fi effects and a soothing guy's voice.

[Zuuljin]

I agree with what dildo is saying (I think), and I brought it up last time that 10th dimension website or whatever was posted. Basically, if we cant even prove what exactly the 4th, or 5th dimension is, then how the hell can we continue on our merry way of solving things into the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th dimensions? Its like building a skyscraper from the top down, assuming the ground below is solid, only to get there and realize its a swamp.

While yes, it is possible that any one of these theories might be correct, and all this theorizing was not in vain, but wouldnt all of this research and time be better spent solidifying the foundation of one of the base theories, rather then just trusting in it and going off on tangents? Its like modern science is using the "throw shit at a wall and see what sticks" method of discovery.

Although it is possible that we have reached as far as we can with current technology, and the only thing left is to theorize tangents until things like the CERN allow us to create new tests.

I'm very excited to see how the whole CERN thing turns out, although I have a feeling it will be years and years before anything of substance comes out of it.

[Tea on tuesday]

Zuuljin what you have to realize is that the 10th dimension webite in NO way reflects anything begining to resemble actual science.