|
Guavanaut posted:Why doesn't he take that to it's logical conclusion and claim that 1 + 1 might be 1.999...9998 or 2.000...0001? You can read the conservapedia thread if you hate yourself, but the short reason is: Andy Schlafly wants to disprove Einstein's general relativity because he thinks it has something to do with moral relativism, in other words a plot to make kids stop believing in God's laws and turn gay. His solution to the problem of calculating Mercury's orbit is to say "well what if the square term in Newton's theory is really 1.99999 or 2.00001 or whatever fudge number it takes to make Mercury's orbit agree with observation?" Commenters on his own site pointed out that this had already been proposed, back in the 18th century, and abandoned immediately because it gave wildly incorrect predictions for every other planet. His response was "you can't ever know that, be more openminded" so a physicist used a simulator to show him earth would crash into the sun if the exponent were different, and I think he just ignored that but didn't retract his claim that he could solve gravitation by fudging an exponent and therefore relativity is both unnecessary and certainly a liberal satanic plot against Jesus.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:All pilots are in on the conspiracy and will fly you in circles to keep up the charade. That makes sense. Taxi drivers have been doing that for centuries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Thank you for teaching me a new google trick (and for FOLLOWING THE MONEY), this bolsters my theory even more, just look at this poo poo! It's not just Big Globe or Big Map, it's Big Gov and Big Paper(paper money anyone?) too. My grandpa was born in St. Petersburg, went to school in Petrograd, lived in Leningrad , and died in St. Petersburg. Soooo much paper work/docs. Also Big Copyright/IP, the gently caress is up with paper towns/streets? What if we're a paper planet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 08:04
|
|
PEARL HARBOR WAS A FALSE FLAG FOR BIG GLOBE!
|
VitalSigns posted:You can read the conservapedia thread if you hate yourself, but the short reason is: Andy Schlafly wants to disprove Einstein's general relativity because he thinks it has something to do with moral relativism, in other words a plot to make kids stop believing in God's laws and turn gay. And before all the rest of the stuff that gets covered, this is the stupidest point. The Theory of Relativity is centered around how light isn't relative to frame of reference, meaning that his main issue is the name. And again, Schlafly has an engineering degree, so he studied this stuff at least at a basic level and should know better. I'm actually surprised that he went this way and not the usual religious attack on Set Theory's multiply-sized infinities. At least he gets points for being stupid in a novel way, same as his attack on complex numbers. If I didn't know any better, I'd think he was trying to keep his students from going into anything resembling STEM, and educating them very poorly on those areas makes sure of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
Imaginary numbers get some weird hate from people who don't understand what it means but are suspicious of anything they're too incurious to study. I saw a guy ranting on a friend's facebook about how imaginary numbers prove that science is just another religion and scientists don't know anything. I almost posted it in this thread but it wasn't explicitly political. Like okay dude that's cool, I'm going to go to bed now because tomorrow at work I'm going to use imaginary numbers to calculate the response of the RF filters that will go in the kind of phone you're using to post about how stupid mathematicians are for talking about imaginary numbers. Although unlike conservapedia dude, that random idiot at least had the excuse that he'd never studied any of the topics he was ranting about and had no idea what their applications are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Imaginary numbers get some weird hate from people who don't understand what it means but are suspicious of anything they're too incurious to study.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I saw a guy ranting on a friend's facebook about how imaginary numbers prove that science is just another religion and scientists don't know anything. I almost posted it in this thread but it wasn't explicitly political. I'd think this kind of thing is fine for the thread. If we're mocking flat earthers (who aren't political unless "stupid" became an ideology) than other crazy anti-science/math types are on the table too. Basic technical and science competency has become political since certain policy concerns are informed by them, and a decent amount of the right has taken that to mean that attacking science is on the table. This is beyond the level of the creationism debate, since the mathematical stuff is axiomatic rather than scientifically theoretical. You basically can't build complicated circuits involving things like radio waves without complex numbers, as you mentioned. The basic stuff could be done with a lot of trig, but once you get into circuits that aren't simply series or parallel, I'd think this method falls apart. And in any case is an order of magnitude more work at a minimum-- there's a reason these shortcuts and mathematical sleights of hand were developed. Guavanaut posted:Also from Carl Gauss, who at least was chiefly opposed to the nomenclature. He said that calling numbers positive, negative, and imaginary imbues them with human notions of value likely to cause later confusion. Considering we have to have this conversation, he's not wrong. Though at least in some electrical engineering, real means something since that component is often the directly observable one. But again, that depends on what you mean by directly observable. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Jul 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
I think a lot of people would have an easier time if we just called them perpendicular numbers or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
Looking it up, his proposal was direct, inverse, and lateral units (replacing positive, negative, and imaginary). He didn't have a suggested replacement for real, as it wasn't much used as the counterpoint to imaginary, it was 'numbers' and 'imaginary numbers'. People used to have as much of a problem with negative numbers as with imaginary ones. "How can you have -3 of a thing?" etc. I guess living in a debt based economy has made people more comfortable with negative numbers.  He also hated the sin2 notation. Gauss posted:sin2 φ is odious to me, even though Laplace made use of it; should it be feared that sin2 φ might become ambiguous, which would perhaps never occur, or at most very rarely when speaking of sin(φ2), well then, let us write (sin φ)2, but not sin2 φ, which by analogy should signify sin (sin φ). I'm glad someone else thought that was BS way before I did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 10:05
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I'd think this kind of thing is fine for the thread. If we're mocking flat earthers (who aren't political unless "stupid" became an ideology) than other crazy anti-science/math types are on the table too.. Have you heard of who the President is?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:He also hated the sin2 notation. Feynman had a similar issue - particularly with sin-1 for arcsine, and even saying sin x looked like it should be the same thing as s*i*n*x to him, so he made up and used his own notation. (He self-taught himself a lot of maths out of a book, and didn't go back to standard notation until he started having to hand in work). He also never liked d/dx because he was tempted to cancel the d's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
ponzicar posted:I'm surprised a flat earther hasn't started a Kickstarter campaign for an expedition to the edge of the world. Which is probably a good thing, since their expedition planning skills are probably as bad as their notion of geography. That would probably be a great scheme though, because you could just siphon off all the money and then blame the failure of the expedition on sabotage by Big Globe. Bonus if you fake an expedition launch that never returns or make a series of increasingly desperate and incoherent updates before going silent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Thump! posted:Have you heard of who the President is? I don't give President Trump a lot of credit, but he is marginally less dumb than flat earthers. Now see what you made me do. Hobnob posted:Feynman had a similar issue - particularly with sin-1 for arcsine, and even saying sin x looked like it should be the same thing as s*i*n*x to him, so he made up and used his own notation. (He self-taught himself a lot of maths out of a book, and didn't go back to standard notation until he started having to hand in work). He also never liked d/dx because he was tempted to cancel the d's. After a certain point, you get down to very dumb objections like the sine issue or Liebnitz notation. The latter is really nice because it helps reinforce the chain rule so long as you are only doing single variable calculus. I think it being intuitive was the main reason the math community chose it over Newton's notation method.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Hobnob posted:Feynman had a similar issue - particularly with sin-1 for arcsine, and even saying sin x looked like it should be the same thing as s*i*n*x to him, so he made up and used his own notation. (He self-taught himself a lot of maths out of a book, and didn't go back to standard notation until he started having to hand in work). He also never liked d/dx because he was tempted to cancel the d's. For calculus, d/dx was Leibniz's notation and did originally imply a division of infinitesimals, and there are advantages to Newton's dot notation or Euler's D-notation. I don't know how Leibniz ended up the standard for education. Ashcans posted:That would probably be a great scheme though, because you could just siphon off all the money and then blame the failure of the expedition on sabotage by Big Globe. Bonus if you fake an expedition launch that never returns or make a series of increasingly desperate and incoherent updates before going silent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Asiina posted:The idiots on Top Gear went to the North Pole in cars. Trucks, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Looking it up, his proposal was direct, inverse, and lateral units (replacing positive, negative, and imaginary). He didn't have a suggested replacement for real, as it wasn't much used as the counterpoint to imaginary, it was 'numbers' and 'imaginary numbers'. Nonsense, sin sin x is clearly 2 sin x.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:That would probably be a great scheme though, because you could just siphon off all the money and then blame the failure of the expedition on sabotage by Big Globe. Bonus if you fake an expedition launch that never returns or make a series of increasingly desperate and incoherent updates before going silent. Back in the mid-90s, my middle school social studies teacher had us watch a flat earth video where they told of such an expedition. Some lady went solo on a snowmobile deep into Antarctica to find the edge (I guess a big drop off instead of a wall) and was never seen again. A few weeks later they found the snowmobile, along with her camera and a journal with an entry stating that she had seen the edge and took photos to prove it. And then of course one of the guys that found the snowmobile decided to open the camera to see if there was actually film inside and ruined the whole roll. I don't think my teacher was a flat-earther (she was a nun, not sure where Catholics fall in that debate), but the fact that we watched that video at all has gotten weirder and weirder to me the older I've gotten. I can't remember the context at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Hobo Clown posted:
As a whole, Catholics are pretty accepting of science. After the whole Galileo thing the position of the Vatican is usually to accept scientific discoveries, including things like evolution. At worst they'll take a non-committal stance if the subject is fraught for their members. They also have religious orders like the Jesuits who are all about education and teaching; Pope Francis was one, though he's also the first Jesuit ever picked so take that as you will. At the local level, especially in the U.S., you get all level of crazies, from anti-evolution borderline homeschoolers to Young Earth Creationists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:That would probably be a great scheme though, because you could just siphon off all the money and then blame the failure of the expedition on sabotage by Big Globe. Bonus if you fake an expedition launch that never returns or make a series of increasingly desperate and incoherent updates before going silent. Big Globe!  Hobo Clown posted:Back in the mid-90s, my middle school social studies teacher had us watch a flat earth video where they told of such an expedition. Some lady went solo on a snowmobile deep into Antarctica to find the edge (I guess a big drop off instead of a wall) and was never seen again. A few weeks later they found the snowmobile, along with her camera and a journal with an entry stating that she had seen the edge and took photos to prove it. And then of course one of the guys that found the snowmobile decided to open the camera to see if there was actually film inside and ruined the whole roll.  They've got agents everywhere!
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Is there a split in the flat earthers over whether the earth is static, spinning, accelerating upward, supported by a turtle, or supported by a world tree?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:As a whole, Catholics are pretty accepting of science. After the whole Galileo thing the position of the Vatican is usually to accept scientific discoveries, including things like evolution. At worst they'll take a non-committal stance if the subject is fraught for their members. They also have religious orders like the Jesuits who are all about education and teaching; Pope Francis was one, though he's also the first Jesuit ever picked so take that as you will. And even the Galileo thing was about politics rather than science, because Galileo had his Dumb and So Goddamn Crazy character "Simplicio" quote the Pope extensively and make him look like an idiot. The Pope had liked Galileo before that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Is there a split in the flat earthers over whether the earth is static, spinning, accelerating upward, supported by a turtle, or supported by a world tree? Do you see that alien mothership in 1997?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
 Here's your crazy political social media for the day. Some orange jackoff who somehow pussygrabbed himself into the highest executive office in America just told thousands of servicepersons that their services are no longer required, purely on the basis of their gender.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Shangri-Law School posted:And even the Galileo thing was about politics rather than science, because Galileo had his Dumb and So Goddamn Crazy character "Simplicio" quote the Pope extensively and make him It's healthy to be skeptical of errors introduced by new equipment, but there comes a point where people use the same arguments to claim every photo of the Earth from space is suffering from non-rectilinear camera distortion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
jivjov posted:
And to put a cherry on top, the White House was completely fine confirming that it was a 100% political decision https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/890202683721863168 They even made the announcement while SecDef was away on vacation. Scruff McGruff fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:As a whole, Catholics are pretty accepting of science. After the whole Galileo thing the position of the Vatican is usually to accept scientific discoveries, including things like evolution. At worst they'll take a non-committal stance if the subject is fraught for their members. They also have religious orders like the Jesuits who are all about education and teaching; Pope Francis was one, though he's also the first Jesuit ever picked so take that as you will. Yeah, the general rule is that the Catholics are loving terrible about anything related to sex, but usually okay on science other than that. The guy who first theorized the Big Bang was a Catholic priest, and it actually got a bit of pushback from people because of how it could be seen to resemble a "let there be light" moment of creation. And yet somehow they managed to end up with Rick Santorum as their public face in the US for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Scruff McGruff posted:And to put a cherry on top, the White House was completely fine confirming that it was a 100% political decision Hear that members of the military? The Republicans are happy to throw you to the wolves if it's politically advantageous, and then they'll ridicule the Democrats if they take a principled stand to defend you. This time it was transgender service members, last time it was a POW. Maybe next time it'll be atheist service members. The message is clear, Republicans are fair weather friends to the troops who gladly wave flags around and spout patriotic platitudes, but the experience for many service members is that when they've really needed support, the only support they got was in the form of "I support the troops" bumper stickers on cars in the parking lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
I sincerely hope that every single trans serviceperson just stands up and walks out. What are their COs gonna do? The Commander in Chief just kicked them out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Is there a split in the flat earthers over whether the earth is static, spinning, accelerating upward, supported by a turtle, or supported by a world tree? https://youtu.be/qzMQza8xZCc 
Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Hear that members of the military? The Republicans are happy to throw you to the wolves if it's politically advantageous, and then they'll ridicule the Democrats if they take a principled stand to defend you. When I was growing up, the side that didn't want to send The Troops into a pointless war without proper armor was the side being accused of hating them. I've just accepted that The Troops is its own entity, totally unrelated to the actual people serving in the military.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I sincerely hope that every single trans serviceperson just stands up and walks out. What are their COs gonna do? The Commander in Chief just kicked them out. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/20/538338758/the-navy-gets-its-first-female-seal-candidate quote:Female candidates aren't the only change to come to the Navy's elite operations. Walton confirmed that SWCC now includes one transgender person. We've already got trans special warfare operators.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:When I was growing up, the side that didn't want to send The Troops into a pointless war without proper armor was the side being accused of hating them. I've just accepted that The Troops is its own entity, totally unrelated to the actual people serving in the military. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
i like how polite the live chat for this is
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Hear that members of the military? The Republicans are happy to throw you to the wolves if it's politically advantageous, and then they'll ridicule the Democrats if they take a principled stand to defend you.  This image still infuriates me, and their fake patriotism hasn't changed one bit since then. gently caress them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
"Chemistry, what's that?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
With regards to Trump summarily firing thousands of military servicepersons...I keep seeing people say stuff to the effect of "The military is not the place for a social experiment". What's the etymology of "social experiment" as a phrase to describe trans people? This is the first I've seen it...but the phrase seems really widespread for it to just be some random thing someone came up with this morning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
jivjov posted:With regards to Trump summarily firing thousands of military servicepersons...I keep seeing people say stuff to the effect of "The military is not the place for a social experiment". What's the etymology of "social experiment" as a phrase to describe trans people? This is the first I've seen it...but the phrase seems really widespread for it to just be some random thing someone came up with this morning. It's the same argument that comes up during arguments about gay people adopting kids. From Marco Rubio, “They shouldn't be forced to be part of a social experiment.” It's nothing unique to trans issues, it's just an old conservative standby for trying to sound reasonable when your only actual argument is "it's different." Or from Heritage Foundation on gay marriage, "With any luck, the justices will uphold our laws as written and completely reject the administration’s social experiments." poo poo here it is from 2003 about divorce and marrying for love (in the context of gay marriage, admittedly), "And the crisis revolves precisely around the historic function of marriage not as a celebration of romantic love, but as the forge in which intact families are created and society reproduces itself. ... Andrew Sullivan needs to explain why this is a good time for a radical social and legal redefinition of marriage as unisex celebration of love. How again is this vast, unprecedented social experiment a conservative idea?" edit: For the hell of it, here's one Ben Carson describing loving busing: "Remember busing, that brilliant social experiment that was to usher in a new era of racial utopia in America?" TGLT fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
I haven't seen that one. I have seen "how can we let people who can't even decide their gender make important life or death decisions" from a couple people. I also saw one person, in the same facebook conversation, talk about how the military owes people nothing and it's not their responsibility to take care of veterans, then immediately 180 as soon as the context wasn't about trans people to "god its so lovely how our country doesn't do anything to help our veterans".
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
jivjov posted:With regards to Trump summarily firing thousands of military servicepersons...I keep seeing people say stuff to the effect of "The military is not the place for a social experiment". What's the etymology of "social experiment" as a phrase to describe trans people? This is the first I've seen it...but the phrase seems really widespread for it to just be some random thing someone came up with this morning. I believe it comes from when Truman desegregated the military in the 40s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
Chimera-gui posted:"Chemistry, what's that?" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:21
|
|