Shit normalfags say that pisses you off

>There are things that science can't explain
Of course, every formal system is incomplete, but your magical mumbo jumbo can't explain that things either (or any)
>But science was wrong sometimes in the past
Science is a method, not an entity or a person you dumbfuck
>But X theory is just a theory
I can't even answer to that most of times because i'm too busy controlling myself to not kill the one who is talking

I weep for you burgers that have to live in a country where people still believe this.

>every person in yurope is of great intelligence
This meme is getting old.

>>But X theory is just a theory
This one really freaks me out.
It's partially our own fault though.
We should have a different word for "scientific theory".
In layman's English, a theory is a vague, ill-formed notion supported by one person's desire to believe something in particular.
In science, a theory is an idea that's widely accepted by the scientific community because it's been thoroughly tested, and also fits well with other scientific knowledge.
We really need a different word.

Burgers? I have never been in america, I have been living in many places of europe and met people who believe this things.
And the worst about it is that many times they are intelligent people, education is the problem

>literally my mom
My mom once heard someone who once heard someone else talking about GR treating time like a spatial dimension, so now she's convinced that "all time is simultaneous".
Never mind that "simultaneous" means at an equal point along the "t axis".

... and another one:
"I don't believe in evolution".

Bitch, evolution isn't subject to your belief any more than algebra is.

>the point of life is X
>y is the root of all evil
>stereotypes exist for a reason (whilst ignorant of that reason)

Oh the point of life, that one makes me mad

>there was a time when everyone thought airplanes were impossible, and they were wrong, therefore strong AI and the technological singularity is also possible

I don't think that's what he's implying. I think that the general impression people have is that Americans are generally more gullible and prone to wishful thinking than Europeans are. In the US, it is more acceptable to openly hold ridiculous beliefs, whereas in Europe you'll end up a public laughing stock for holding the same beliefs.

It might also just be a cultural issue; Americans are perceived to be more open and talkative, which would mean that their crackpot population is also more open and talkative than their European counterparts.

Obviously I can't talk for Europe as a whole or even my own country as a whole, but seriously, "it's just a theory" is a completely retarded thing to say, and I've never heard this phrase uttered outside of the American media. I have never heard of a non-American trying to use said phrase as an actual argument on film.

In the end, maybe it boils down to Europeans not placing all their self-worth on their beliefs. Most of us would admit our mistake by dealing with reality, correct our beliefs and go on about our day, whereas (hopefully and probably a small minority of) Americans will close their eyes, plug their ears and scream in opposition, as if wishing it was so would make it so.

Long post was long. Guess I'm bored.

>Why should I learn this shit if it's written on the book?

This is the worst.
My boyfriend hasa friend who does this exactly and even tries to pull up videos to prove his "knowhow" I just want to smack the shit out of him.

We are talking about science, not engineering.

It's possible that FTL is possible, though.

Now using airplanes as an analogy for why is faulty because even before flight it was known that flight was physically possible; we just didn't know technologically how to meet the physical requirements to get it done.

FTL on the other hand has been deemed physically impossible regardless of how much better our technology gets, and it'll require a revision of h ow we view the universe to think otherwise.

>I could probably understand x concept, but it would require thinking and I don't like thinking so it must not be real because it's too hard

>boyfriend
Out of interest, you gay or a grill?

Underated

No, we need to teach the savages what a hypothesis is. We shouldn't dumb down or change our language for their benefit.

Got something opposite.
Someone needs something and I provide the answer. They disapprove, seek a professional, they tell them the same thing. Accepts their answer.

Sure, I understand a professional has more credit. But why spend 300$ at bestbuy when I can fix your computer for free?

This is mostly towards friends or my girlfriends parents. My family trusts me

Its like when you were younger and you knew how to multiply two numbers in your head but had to use a calculator just to check.

good job m8 scared off puss puss

but something i hate is how recently some cunt tried to argue that theories and scientific theories are the exact same thing
it just twisted muh nips a little bit

>FTL on the other hand has been deemed physically impossible regardless of how much better our technology gets, and it'll require a revision of h ow we view the universe to think otherwise.

I'd say that depends. If by FTL you mean accelerating an object to velocities above that of light, then yes, FTL travel is impossible.

There are workarounds, though, i.e. other methods of travel that don't require acceleration of mass, e.g. Alcubierre drives and other theoretical means of FTL travel that are in concordance with our current understanding of physics.

>magical mumbo jumbo
Kek
Btw. skincolor implied

>We shouldn't dumb down or change our language for their benefit.
It's really more for our benefit.

>There are workarounds, though, i.e. other methods of travel that don't require acceleration of mass,
Funny you should post that in this thread.
:^)

Here's some reading for you:
google.com/#q=relativity of simultaneity
According to GR, *all* FTL violates causality.
So even wormholes, warp drive, etc would still require us to be really, really wrong about physics.

The sad thing is that we do. Every science class I've been in since 5th grade has taught us the difference between science theory and regular theories, they teach us what a law is and what a hypothesis is, they teach us all of that shit. It's just that nobody gives a fuck, it's too ''boring'' to them. They've been stimulated to their phones and computer, and living up to social stigmas and shit that school is just some thing they have to endure now, instead of a gift. It's sad really.

topkek

math isn't science so this comparison is kind of shit

but yes, science doesn't have "belief" involved

I listened to some guy telling his high school daughter that:

>the thing about math is it's like Christianity
>you just have to take it all on faith
>you have to believe in all these laws
>it's not like you can prove that any of it works

In it's more pure and autistic form, it is. However there are logical and clear reason why we choose to believe some shit and then prove the rest, it's not all blind.

We don't take anything in math in faith, no matter how "autistic" you want to be. Mathematicians decide what they want to be true, and there's no fear of it being false when you make up the rules.

>"prime numbers are random"

>"my physics/math degree is harder than your engineering degree!"

More of an /n/ thing but...
I'm in a parking lot in the park, just finished a bike ride, putting my bike on the carrier, when I overhear...
"Yeah, a regular speedometer needs to know your wheel size, but my GPS speedometer doesn't need to know that because it can sense my wheel size by how far it's off the ground."

>what are axioms

>infinite sets contain everything
Occurs in various forms -- examples: pi, multiverse theory. really grinds my figurative gears.

Jesus Christ. There's so much wrong with that.

>According to GR, *all* FTL violates causality.

I fail to see how GR comes into this, but that's beside the point. A quick google search would elucidate why you're wrong.

Special relativity states that no particles with rest mass can be accelerated to c, and that electromagnetic and gravitational waves travel at c. That's it. There are no other known restrictions.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Upper_limit_on_speeds

There are even things that can move faster than c, e.g. collections of photons, a shadow or two objects moving in opposite directions.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Faster-than-light_observations_and_experiments

>Most of the universe we can see is already racing away at faster than the speed of light.

Source: phys.org/news/2015-10-galaxies-faster.html

This sentence implies that space can expand faster than the speed of light, which is precisely the mechanism that many FTL hypotheses use to theoretically allow FTL travel (but it isn't the only one).

I guess I did the googling for you.

>- examples: pi, multiverse theory. really grinds my figurative gears.
arrrrrrrgh! me too

>a shadow or two objects moving in opposite directions.

Neither of those have anything at all to do with moving FTL.

>worm holes are like this
*pokes hole in paper and bends it*
>see its just that easy

>gee I sure hope these axioms aren't false!
They're always true. That's what an axiom is. We aren't hoping it's true; we're declaring that some statement is unequivocally true.

>I guess I did the googling for you.
And yet you still didn't read anything about relativity of simultaneity.
Instead, because "shadows can move faster than c", your make-believe spaceship can too.

So here's what Google has to say:
>In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

If you read further, you'll learn that ANY form of FTL creates a situation where (in some frame of reference) you arrive at your destination before you leave your point of origin.
And while you can't necessarily use this to go back in time and kill your grandfather before you're born, it would mean you can send messages to yourself before you start your trip.
It's worth noting that GR itself is fine with this, but it still violates our axiomatic beliefs about cause and effect.

I'm sorry English isn't your mother tongue, there's not much I can do about that. If you try to explain what it is you don't understand, I'll do my best to explain.

>the number infinity

Keep digging that hole you're putting yourself in, dumbfuck.

Saying a shadow can go "faster than light" is retarded because the shadow isn't a thing, or moving. All it is is an area that light isn't reaching because something is blocking it at the moment.

It's like saying if you point a laser at the moon and wave it back and forth and it covers the width of the moon in less time than it would take for a photon to travel the length of that path, the laser is going FTL. It's not. None of the photons in the beam went FTL at all. Some were just emitted in different directions at different times and struck the moon in a line.

Saying two things going past each other in opposite directions means they're moving "FTL" is fucking retarded too. If you drive past an oncoming car and you're both going 60mph, your closing speed is 120 but neither of you are going 120. NOTHING in that situation is going 120mph.

I'm waiting for him to bring up Cherenkov radiation next.

Or the plane on a treadmill "problem."

Protip for the terminally retarded: it takes off just fine.

So what exactly is your point? Judging from your post, it looks to me that you're proficient enough at English to fully understand what I'm communicating, which is really confusing because the contents of your posts imply the complete opposite. Maybe you should read again and reevaluate what you're saying.

>Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Upper_limit_on_speeds
Sweet Jesus-tittyfucking-Christ...
Did you even read your own linked article?

>More generally, it is normally impossible for information or energy to travel faster than c.
>One argument for this follows from the counter-intuitive implication of special relativity known as the relativity of simultaneity.
>If the spatial distance between two events A and B is greater than the time interval between them multiplied by c then there are frames of reference in which A precedes B,
>others in which B precedes A, and others in which they are simultaneous.
>As a result, if something were travelling faster than c relative to an inertial frame of reference, it would be travelling BACKWARDS IN TIME relative to another frame, and CAUSALITY WOULD BE VIOLATED.[Note 5][37]

Literally the link you provided actually contradicts what you're saying.
> There are situations in which it may seem that matter, energy, or information travels at speeds greater than c, but they do not.

Unless you mean something other than "matter, energy, or information" for "things," in which case you should check your English skills. Nobody cares about sweeping laser pointers or shadows when they talk about FTL.

lol, this is pathetic.

Just to humor you, what about my English (which is my first language, by the way) was so confusing for your widdle bwain you couldn't figure out what I meant?

The concepts are extremely simple, I understood them as a child. What exactly is moving faster than light with a shadow, "groups of photons" or two objects moving in opposite directions? Because it certainly isn't the photons or the two objects.

>reevaluate what you're saying.
FYI user, you're arguing with at least two people., maybe three.
I'm this guy:

Alright, I'm just going to recap because this became a clusterfuck and I no longer know who I'm talking to.

This was my first post: . I later wrote , which in hindsight was too elaborate. I should've just stated that there are galaxies moving away from us at velocities greater than that of c, and thus either proven 's statement or causality wrong.

replies to me but still shows no signs of understanding apparent FTL, which was my retort to .

informed me that I was being too lazy by not reading the link in , and that the relativity of simultaneity states that all forms of FTL travel will enable some form of time travel. He concedes that FTL travel might be permissible in theory but is extremely unlikely to be viable (which is my stance on this issue).

Next replies to me, and I'm fairly sure it's the same poster as . Again he raves on about apparent FTL travel not really being FTL travel, for some reason unbeknownst to me. At this point I'm fairly sure he's just trolling me.

The rest of the replies to my posts are basically just rehashes of earlier replies to my posts (possibly not from the same anons).

Lastly, informs me that "it is normally impossible for information or energy to travel faster than c", but this outside the scope of e.g. the Alcubierre drive, because the drive doesn't move anything in space superluminally, it alters space itself. There are a host of other problems with the drive, though, but to my knowledge it has yet to be conclusively debunked, even if it is extremely unlikely to work.

I'm going to sleep now, but I'll check in again tomorrow.

Just ignore him. It's a waste of time talking to a terminally retarded NEET. He will just keep responding to have the last word.

I plan on it. I thought he might just be trolling but then he wrote out this .

He's either an extremely dedicated troll or just incredibly stupid, and the latter is way more likely.

>I don't know anything about quantum mechanics but...

Can you prove modus ponens? No, so every logical thought requires faith. And every math demostration is full of logical deductions.

If the human brain is possible, then what makes an AI that can operate on the same level as it impossible?

Then there is your faith, you can't prove that an axioma is true and always true.

I think that strong IA's are possible but that argumentation has no sense

I don't understand how that argument doesn't make any sense.

>you can't prove that an axioma is true and always true
You don't have to, because that's not the point. Axioms exist so we can see what other things would be true given that some basic facts are true. So you list axioms and say "These are the things that are true. What else is true?"

Yes, thats how formal systems work, but you are accepting that axiomas are true without demostration. That user, is faith

>Gender is a social construct because I learned that in my sociology class a a and it's totally scientific

That people are wrong about airplanes dosen't prove anything about IA, well I don't think is that stupid, I'm just explaning why I think the first user considers it stupid

Axioms are assumed, not believed in

>Social construct == "doesn't exist"

>They're calling it climate change now because the earth isn't actually getting warmer

>THE TRIPS OF ANGER AND TRUTH
also
>"man math is just soooo useless when will you use it in your lifetime omggg lmaooo" says the arse that calculates 17+42 on his Iphone

Wow, you retards are growing out of the "[thing I don't like] is a meme" phase. Your arguments are still really fucking stupid, but it's still an improvement.

>Wow, so you're a math guy? I'm terrible at math, haven't done it since high school. My dad was an accountant though. So you could calculate like 1000000+74?

kek'd

>Out of interest, you gay or a grill?

handhover-er detected!

My qt3.14's philosophy professor let this one out recently
>We cannot make an object travel the speed of light because the velocity of an object cannot exceed the speed of light.

>what are matching truth tables

The guy you're talking to is retarded. Axioms are just used as a basis of consistency.
Nobody is saying something like:
1-every set is a subset of itself.
2-if two sets are mutual subsets, then they are equal.
3-hence, every set equals itself.
Really it's more like "if 1 and 2 hold, then 3 holds"

But user, everyone knows that when the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 – major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth – known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minor Time points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown. The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24-hour Days within a single rotation of Earth – equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube.

I might have to screencap this post, this is too funny

There are no girls on the internet so its clearly a queer anyway

I love when ignorant, poorly educated folk put on airs because they believe in 'evolution' or climate change.'

I'll try not to use too many big words:

Evolution is observable and documented phenomena. The part that is not proven is basically a creation story, it tells that life began as single cell organisms and evolved through Darwinian evolution from there. If you have an IQ over 85 you should be able to grasp the two separate concepts at work here- one, Darwinian evolution exists (proven as well as possible, not open to debate) and the second part, that life began as single cell organism and evolved through Darwinian evolution from there. You probably need an IQ of at least 95 to question the 'missing fossil link' that would be needed to prove this part of evolution. We do not have evidence of anything evolving through Darwinian evolution across genus or phylum, let alone species. The term 'missing fossil link' is a brilliant bit of misdirection, it implies that the evidence did exist and has been lost to time. (protip: if you do not have necessary evidence then you do not have necessary evidence, arguing that Darwinian evolution is real does not make the 'missing' evidence magically valid).

Climate change also exists, and covers a wide range of phenomena. Changing temperatures, water shortages, and loss of biodiversity are some of the more important phenomena. There are different causes for these things that are lumped together- water shortages are caused by using too much ground water, and loss of biodiversity is greatly impacted by pesticides used in industrial agriculture. We use ground water (taken from wells) and rain water has to replace the ground water before there can be surface water (lakes and rivers, for example). We use more ground water than rain and snowfall replace, thus there are water shortages. The water shortages are not caused by carbon fuel use. (cont)

Pesticides used in industrial agriculture diminish biodiversity in nearby ecosystems. Insects are needed for some plants to reproduce, and insects feed birds and some animals. Killing the insects leads to loss of some plant species and may reduce bird and animal populations. That has a snowball effect of reducing or eliminating other populations. This is also not caused by carbon fuel use.

The third important, not well known, aspect of climate change is the annual 'warmest year ever.' There are more temperature monitoring stations in desserts and warm areas, so a sample using more dessert and high temperature values produces warmer averages. This probably takes an IQ of at least 100 to grasp. It is worth noting that as of three or four years ago more than 90 percent of news station weather people did not believe in global warming/climate change. People who study climate and temperature for a living are not persuaded by gloom and doom warnings of the end times, and are not persuaded by the cries of 'climate change deniers' when someone points out that Miami is not underwater (as predicted by Al Gore) and that there is still polar ice (according to a peer reviewed scientific journal quoted by Al Gore, all polar ice will be gone by 2014).

In summary, Darwinian evolution is real but that does not prove that all life exists in its current state due to Darwinian evolution. And carbon fuel has negative effects on the environment, but carbon fuel use does not cause water shortages, loss of biodiversity, or the annual warmest year ever.

> mfw sitting with friends in public and someone starts talking about quantum theory which he obviously watched from some exaggerated popsci youtube video instead of reading a book which he eventually tries to tie it to some spiritual beliefs he has and how quantum theory actually proves it

>Connecting evolution to the origin of life

EVERY FUCKING TIME.
This fucking non-argument has been around for 150 years and people continue to use it.

As for faster than light travel, the 'impossibility' of ftl is based on the assumption that the rules of euclidian realspace apply everywhere. The laws of physics we use work in euclidian realspace (a fancy way of saying near a large gravity mass, like a planet or sun). The idea of 'dark matter' came about because, applying the rules of physics found in euclidian realspace, we would need a lot more mass to explain the gravitational pull of galaxies on each other. So we need 85% of the mass in the universe to be comprised of undetectable mass that can't be found- I humbly submit that Newton's laws and the laws of physics at work in euclidian realspace do not apply to the vast spaces between solar systems and galaxies. Dark matter is like the theory of evolution or Al Gore climate change, it may have started as an earnest attempt at science but is a fallacy. If my theory (theory as in possible explanation that needs to be tested) holds, the laws of physics we learn in school do not necessarily apply outside of euclidian realspace and ftl may be possible.

Please, oh learned scholar, explain the theory of evolution to me then.

genetic mutation + survival of the fittest

>chemicals are bad
>"I do computer science and the math is so hard XD"

Only the second part, normal speedos on cars are based on tyre size since they just measure wheel RPM and multiply it by tyre circumference