Love as well. Please.

I thought it was money. Fuck.

@someguy - I've got a degree of sympathy for you since you were really only clarifying your views in terms of what revel had said about them. But if I was making a specific objection and it was misinterpreted as a wider disparaging as the subject as a whole, I'd probably have replied with something like "No you clown, I'm specifically on about x which contradicts itself because of y and z and therefore is bullshit, plus there are many other examples I can give". Instead we're going round in this weird holding pattern where you need to know the participant's knowledge before you can even explain yourself. Surely its simpler to just go ahead. If I don't understand it I can look it up, ask for clarification or just concede its above my head. 

Despite the bickering up to this point, I haven't actually put forward any position in favour or against specific theoretical interpretations, just the efficacy of the subject as a whole, which isn't even under debate, so I've got nothing to lose or gain here whatever your arguments might be.  

As for the general misinterpretation, I wasn't the only person to read your comments as a "Quantum mechanics, what a bag of shite eh?" post of the type practiced by ignoramuses. In fact, a comment of that nature could easily have been worded almost identically to what you did say. And my initial comments were a response to your statements. I wasn't answering any questions as you hadn't asked any. Essentially you posted some very vague criticisms, and have yet to expand on them when challenged.  

@Face - As far as I could tell (and still can), someguy's lack of sense comment can still be due to a lack of understanding of the subject area or some other mistake on his part, in which case it is entirely subjective to him. He didn't specifically state that, but he wouldn't necessarily do that would he? Its an opinion. He could be talking about a formal logical proposition but still be wrong about it.

monkey wrote:

@someguy - I've got a degree of sympathy for you since you were really only clarifying your views in terms of what revel had said about them.

@monkey I dunno what I said that meant he had to clarify?

revelthedog wrote:

I understand the basics of stuff.  In fact I understand quite a bit because I studied chemistry at uni.  But some of these guys just take it too far. Its hypothesis based on theory based on another theory based on one that can be proved.  As far as I can see.

Unless you mean this.  But that wasn't about @someguy  

It was about that bastard '@someoftheguys'.

you know, him...  He does that thing and said that other thing and posted that stuff..

git.

@Revel - Think it was actually space gazelle, not you. Apologies. You probably said something else somewhere along the line though so go away and have a think about that. 

@someguy - Huzzah! We have successfully established conditions under which I am happy to participate further. 

I've got some basic level of understanding of all those things. But I'm really not going to be able to do them justice without a bit of further thought (and probably reading). I'll pick one and post more for the sake of exploring the issue. This may not happen quickly. 

In general I'm all for the creation of explanatory frameworks, since these provide launchpads for further research, theories,knowledge. If a theoretical framework is unable to be extended or explain new phenomena, it usually fails. So the strength of any one particular idea doesn't necessarily have to be linked to how good and coherent it is in itself but how much it can explain. edit: This is a sort of modified Thomas Kuhn viewpoint. 

That's a dangerous game because then you get the stuff adkm was on about where you get ropey theories layered on top of each other. But taking an either / or approach the alternative is scientific stagnation, where you are waiting to have the technological means to prove something before you can think about it further. 

But then, technology and theory doesn't really progress in a linear way but disjointedly and sporadically, by pushing out in all available directions simultaneously and having one advance from a disparate discipline inform and develop others. 

That might not make sense. What I'm trying to say is even an illogical theory can have merit and value as its only a model for explaining something and may be useful indirectly. For these specific cases, I'd need to look into some actual real world developments that can arise from eg, many-worlds rather than just a vague 'its all part of the greater scientific endeavour' type stuff. Also the exact extent of its inner coherence. Afaik, there's no well-defined mechanism for action for how each reality branches*. Which is probably quite a fundamental thing to have laid down.  

*Mathematically this would almost definitely be beyond me anyways.

Dunno.


Know any good jokes?

though they fell out because the electron seemed to be negative about everything.

Q: What do chemists call a benzene ring with iron atoms replacing the carbon atoms?
A: A ferrous wheel


Q: Why do chemists like nitrates so much? 
A: They're cheaper than day rates.

A neutron walked into a bar and asked, "How much for a drink?" 
The bartender replied, "For you, no charge."

Have you heard that entropy isn't what it used to be?

...and it's goodnight from me.

I think you should all go away and have a good think about why an electron doesn't repel itself and explode, over a nice cup of tea.

But do you know why?

You'd be surprised by how many physics graduates are satisfied with that answer.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

You'd be surprised by how many physics graduates are satisfied with that answer.

Is it wrong?

That answer.

An electron's made of negative electricity held together by magic.