>le particle has le energy when not in le motion>whoa
yes
>>16933188You take it for granted but such was not obvious at the time. You have the luxury of modernity on your side where you learn such groundbreaking discoveries as if they were common knowledge.
>>16933188>What is a torsor?
>>16933188thing moves when you move move it
>>16933188>things without mass can still have momentum and kinetic energy>whoa
>general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible so at least one of them must be wrong, but it's probably bothwoah
>>16933484they're only incompatible if you assume they can be unified. if you assume there's no unifying theory for them you don't run into problems.
>>16933518What the fuck does that even mean? Reality exists, there has to be a way to explain the patterns of nature. At a fundamental level one or both the theories is wrong, because you can't have two fundamental theories a disagree on the nature of reality, that doesn't make any logical sense
>>16933518unfortunately they both describe the same universe so they have to be unified, if you somehow proved that they can't be then you'd just be proving they're incomplete
>>16933188No such thing as a particle not in motion, though.
>>16933518>>16933520>>16933532>/sci/ discovers the EPR Paradox
>>16933520>The Earth exists >There exist multiple 2D projection models of earth >Wtf do you mean they're incompatible?>There is ONE earth and so a singular correct 2D projection must exist!!!Retard alert lol
>>16933520>>16933532/sci/tards assume feynman was wrong
>>16933520God midwits are dumb
>>16933518>then you don't run into problemsbut what if you encounter a system that can't be properly described without taking both general relativity and quantum mechanics into account simultaneously?
>>16933548Irrelevant >>16933598A 2D projection for is necessarily an incomplete discreption. If that analogy somehow applies here, then both theories are incomplete. In this case a 3D model of the earth is the equivalent of a deeper theory>>16933623retard
>>16933628>ifWhat is such system? Unless such a system has been observed, it's a waste of time to formulate a model for it. Doing such would be schizophrenic
>>16933637All models are wrong. Do you understand that? Do you know what a model is? If an alleged model describes all of reality, then what is wrong with it?
>>16933518>they're only incompatible if you assume they can be unified. if you assume there's no unifying theory for them you don't run into problems.Except for the obvious problem that at least one of them can't be taken to reflect anything fundamental about the structure of reality anymore.
>>16933598if multiple 2d projections of the same earth are incompatible, then at least one of them must be wrong
>>16933598>>There exist multiple 2D projection models of earth >>Wtf do you mean they're incompatible?Yeah, what DO you mean when you say they're incompatible, retard? On one hand, they are all compatible in the aspects intended to reflect reality. On the other hand, they are all wrong because none of them reflect the planet's actual geometric structure.
>>16933598How did this make so many /sci/tards seethe lol
>>16933679>why did people correct an obviously mistaken argumenthmmm
>>16933694There is nothing wrong with the statement. I think /sci/tards, including (You), got btfo so unambiguously with the analogy that there's nothing left to do except double down or seethe. Either a singular model perfectly capitulates reality (at which point it is no longer a model and instead a tautological representation of reality itself) or all of reality is described by different, independent models that covers the blind spots of the others. The latter is a necessary outcome of modeling reality.
>>16933710>There is nothing wrong with the statement.>the statementWhat statement?
>>16933710>Either a singular model perfectly capitulates reality (at which point it is no longer a model and instead a tautological representation of reality itself)>capitulates>tautologicalInteresting proposition, retard. Explain why a model that "capitulates" reality not a model. And make sure you use words you actually understand.
>>16933716You don't know what a model is lol. It's okay to be ignorant. I understand it makes you happy. It however does not make you correct. You can start by asking an AI what the difference is between the law of gravity and a model of gravity. Hint: one is reality and devoid of modeling.
>>16933721I notice he correctly predicted your inability to justify your claim.
>>16933710the analogy is wrong because it uses the word incompatible wrong, if you're imaging earth in different 2d projections and get all of them right then they are all compatible with each other, therefore if you find a genuine incompatibility that you can't reconcile that's hard evidence that you made a mistake somewhere
>>16933722If you know what a model is, you'd see how retarded a question it is. I won't waste time effort-posting for an idiot who doesn't understand the words he's using.
>>16933721Actually AI is also bad at this lol.
>>16933727>>16933721Buddy your entire argument is an obviously trollish "but science isn't trying to figure out the truth anyway tee hee", get the fuck out of here. Your cope is unreal.
>>16933727>If you know what a model isExplain what a model is. Protip: you won't. Nevermind your 70 IQ. You're obviously mentally ill.
>>16933735Something that describes an aspect of something else. All models are wrong.
>>16933735>Nevermind your 70 IQ.Can't make this shit up lol. Never mind is two words, btw. Next time you insult someone's IQ, you should take care to not make such dumb mistakes.
>>16933738>Something that describes an aspect of something else."Your mother's vile cunt" describes an aspect of the thing that spawned you. Is that a model? :^)>All models are wrong.Why? Notice how you start foaming at the mouth and losing your mind with rage over this question.
>>16933730Contextual truths are all science can claim. If you're seeking universal truths, go to church.
>>16933744>>16933747You will never be a scientist.
>>16933738>>16933750>Something that describes an aspect of something else."Your mother's vile cunt" describes an aspect of the thing that spawned you. Is that a model? Are you sure you know what a model is? Because you're clearly having difficulties explaining. :^)>All models are wrong.Why? Notice how you start foaming at the mouth and losing your mind with rage over this question.
>Contextual truths are all science can claim. If you're seeking universal truths, go to church.Mentally ill biological token guessers sure love regurgitating generic talking points in contexts where they are are irrelevant and don't work.
>tfw /sci/ thinks feynman is an ai tech-bro idiotamazing.
>mentally ill biological token stringer posts its training dataTeaching 70 IQs how to read is a total waste of time. They don't grasp anything they read and can't apply it except in the way of regurgitating based on keywords/template matching.
>>16933188Le bald
>>16933748and in the context of the foundations of physics, we can see the truth that we haven't figured them out yet, retard
>>16933904>yetso you know it's true that they're not true, as in you've found a truth without proof? go to church, kid.
>so you know it's true that they're not true, as in you've found a truth without proof? go to church, kid.A product of American leftranny "education".
>>16933944yes, the fact that they're incompatible is hard proof that at least one of them is wrong
>>16933965>incompatibility implies one is wrongno, not even close to true. see>>16933766
>>16933987Putting aside your appeal to pop-sci authorities, nothing in that text contradicts him or supports your delusions.
>>16933988>feynman is a pop-sci authoritylmfao
>>16933989He obviously is. Regardless, I accept your concession that nothing in your text supports your delusions nor contradicts >>16933965.
>>16933992>feynman is obviously pop-sci
>>16933998To be fair to Feynman, he probably never intended intellectually disabled "people" like you as the main target audience for his pop-sci efforts, but every time you post about him you demonstrate my point.
EINSTEIN DIDN’T BELIEVE IN FREE WILLYOUR MISTAKES WERE ALWAYS MEANT TO HAPPENYOU WERE MEANT TO LIVE A SHIT LIFE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-
>>16934009woah
>>16934006YWNBAP
>>16933987notice how he still claims there's one single nature, not multiple of them like your nonsense demands
>>16933598you frfr thought you cooked w/this shiii lmaooo clown moment bruh
Particles are described well by QM. Objects made of many particles are described well by GR. Therefore GR and QM are describing the same thing in different contexts. Therefore GR and QM must be compatible with each other. This has nothing to do with beauty or elegance, it's simply what the universe is observed to be doing. It's okay if one theory is good at describing one level of reality and bad at describing the other, and vice versa. It's not okay if one theory is completely incapable of describing the other's level of reality, because that conflicts with observations of the universe. Clearly the universe knows better how it works than we do. Arguing that the two levels of reality are somehow separate is nonsense. Arguing that the two theories are complete even though they don't measure up to the universe as we observe it is nonsense.
>>16933716A complete and accurate description isn't just a modeling of something, it is a tautological reflection of the thing being completely and accurately described.
>>16933747>>All models are wrong.>Why?Because they aren't complete or 1:1 accurate of the thing being described.
>>16934054>Objects made of many particles are described well by GR.No.
>>16934202Yes.
>>16934700No. The simple word of graviton should be enough to prove you wrong. But it's not because you're a pseud
>>16934713>calls others pseuds while bringing up his preferred type of pseudosciencelolyou better hope someone actually detects a graviton soon, because until that happens you will be perpetually wrong
>>16933188You do not understand a single einstein equation lol.
>>16934724you mouthbreathing faggot, he's arguing against gravitons
>>16934766so he's just randomly hallucinating the recurrence of an argument he's had five years ago or something? that's even more stupid
>>16934713Did you confuse GR with QM? Gravitons are not an argument against GR because they don't exist in GR.
>>16934795>>16934766
>>16934801>>16934700
>>16934820>>16934202>>16934713
>>16934827>>16934700>>16934054
>>16934837>>16933766>>16933750>>16933651
>>16934841>>16934054
>>16933206The bicammeral mind was lost coincidentally when Carthaginian faggots took over the world. What a convenient coincidence is that.
>>16934870>>16933766
>>16934959>>16934054
Start doing this.. muh rest energy
>>16935013i don't have much of that so i'll just keep resting instead
>>16933716It seems so obvious to me that the word he meant to use there was "encapsulates" and yet this thread continues to string along in retarded directions. Wouldn't be surprised if this was some kinda bot fight.
>>16934795The obvious point would have been that GR isn't describing "made of many particles" because particles have nothing to do with GR. The closest association would be gravitons, which is a retarded attempt to make particles and GR mix. At least that seems to be what the argument was, though the person again veered off instead of coherently sticking to the point.
>>16935020That's silly because GR has nothing to do with macroscopic objects either by that logic. What a dumb argument.
GR is about the fabric of space. It has nothing to do with particles or macroscopic objects, unless spacetime is an object in which case you're an idiot
>>16935192It describes gravity which is part of the description of how objects behave on a macroscopic level. To say it has nothing to do with it is retarded.
>>16935627Objects which are not particles
>>16935758QM tells you that they are. You need to complete connections like that, not go in the other direction like a retard.
>>16935835>GR>QMRetard lol
>>16935836They describe the same universe so they need to be compatible or else one of them is wrong. That's the point.
>>16935837Wrong.
>>16935899Retard.
>>16935909>>16935837YWNBAP
>>16935946I accept your concession.
>this thread Woah
>>16935967>Indian debate syntax
>>16938218how's it going buddy
>>16938248Dispirited. Too many Indians in these threads. I gave up early.https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search&search_text=I+accept+your+concession
>>16938373That's common 4chan vernacular. It has been for years. It's not suddenly about indians when anons from the whole world have been saying it for half a decade. Stop being a newfag.
>>16938376>common vernacularIs that like verdant greenery?Maybe time to cut your losses?
>>16938384I accept your concession.
>>16937687Yeah, I'm not finding the words. It's worse than the climate change threads.
>>16938394>Indian debate syntax
>>16933188They knew that shit for thousands of years they just didn't have the ability to observe it.
>>16938616they observed molecular geometry indirectly, which isn't quite the same as observing particles indirectly
>>16933188he's german thoughze Particle has ze Energy venn ze is nein im Motion
>>16938860
>>16934872>The euclidian mind was lost coincidentally when cartesian visigoths took over the world. What a convenient coincidence is that.
>>16938860>german>le parçacığı, LE hareketinde olmadığında LE enerjisine sahiptir>kebab
>>16933188Woah
