Physics open discussion via Google Hangout TONIGHT at 11:59 EST
Hosted on the Youtube channel DraftScience. You can watch the live Youtube video stream+side chatbox, or you can join the Google Hangout and cam up+speak over microphone by clicking the link in the video stream's description box. I will post a link to both the video stream and the Google Hangout at 12 AM EST. You need a Google+ account to join the Google Hangout, but not to watch the stream.
Relevant video: youtube.com
Other urls found in this thread:
inmendham.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
hangouts.google.com
madebyevan.com
thefouriertransform.com
inmendham.com
twitter.com
this not sicence
Excellent
Ok, the room is more about the guy's own views on physics, but it's still an open physics discussion.
>That video.
>Shirtless long haired homeless looking Gary Busey talking about random pop-science topics.
What the fuck?
Should we ask him about race and IQ
No it's only about physics.
He didn't mention pop sci in the video.
Talking? Even rambling would give too much credit.
I would go with prattle and an adjective that illustrates some severe amount of contempt.
I forgot to mention that he will be talking about a certain interpretation of physics called LeSage Gravity Theory. That is the context of which he is talking which is why it sounds like rambling. In the hangout he will explain it in detail.
I won't be on until half past at least
hey you want to post the google hangout location?
That was disproven.
His website:
>At some point in the early 1900s the science of physics committed itself to a confused dualism model of reality where things could be more than one thing. The controversy of wave vs particle became the compromise of particles waving and with that physics waved goodbye to a rationally comprehensible model\description of material reality.
>Ironically the best known defender of a particle based model of the universe Albert Einstein was also the man most responsible for bending the path of physics into the wavy sinkhole of assuming inconstant dimensions of space and time, where the nothing around particles is believed to control their behavior.
>I contend that the particle theory of reality was correct and that the science of physics needs to return to the post Newton, pre Einstein, knowledgebase and reexamine particle based models of the universe's function. ...MORE -- On the correct theory of everything.
Sounds like a crank.
Cool, it should be open for a while
It will appear on this youtube channel at 12 EST
LOL
If you're up for it then you can explain to him why that is
The room is open,
link to watch the stream+join text chat: youtube.com
link to join the Google hangout and talk on microphone (you need to signed into google+): hangouts.google.com
>him
Right now the subject is consciousness.
Right now all I see is two people with no education in physics or other science trying to use entropy to explain the behavior of a living creature.
That's an assumption and an ad homenien. Also a reductium ad absurdium.
Dude doesn't know how to calculate the results of a simple double-slit experiment, so he assumes everyone doesn't know.
>an assumption
No, it's a fact. These guys have no education outside of popsci documentaries. Furthermore, the problems this guys has with quantum mechanics are all focused on the inability of early (pre 1920s) physicists to explain the double slit experiment accurately. He doesn't actually know anything about quantum physics beyond the "weirdness" of the double slit experiment.
t. someone who has a degree in physics
This guy is a fucking idiot, and he's getting angry because of it.
>These guys have no education outside of popsci documentaries.
In this case, specifically the pop science documentaries of Brian Greene.
>Brian Greene
Terrible educator. No wonder this guy has such a hate boner for him.
>hurr durr Eddington has never been repeated
Dude should spend five seconds on Wikipedia fact checking.
Let's start a room with actual educated people and BTFO this room.
>they want to keep it mathematical because that keeps everybody else out of the game you know as long as they can you know keep their equations incomprehensibly complex they can keep everybody else from playin'
Circle jerk of epic proportions.
A Veeky Forums chatroom? I can't see how that could go horribly wrong.
>IQ
>-1/12
>FTL
>etc
The physics community is actively suppressing the truth, which is that everything is made of photons.
Here's a nice online FFT:
madebyevan.com
Up the number of samples to 512 and put in
box(8*(x+1))+box(8*(x-1))
Here's an explanation of how Fourier transforms come out of wave physics:
thefouriertransform.com
Holy fucking shit. Is this the kind of people who post here? This chatroom isn't about science, it isn't about physics, the speaker clearly doesn't know physics or math at all. Supposedly all he has is this informal exposition
and it's fucking absurd. I see now what the kind of schizos posting in shitty popsci threads are like.
This guy is batshit. And he keeps calling me an asshole.
>it's a frisbee moving the speed of light
>theoretically the frisbee sometimes hits the bars and it wont get through
>you really think you can see a single photon from a distance?
If he weren't such a cunt this would be pretty funny.
There's actually surprisingly few people like this guy here compared to Usenet. Possibly because everyone here just assumes such people are trolling instead of arguing with them.
it's really fucking eye opening to be honest
what happens to these people to make them go like this?
Liking physics but not succeeding in learning what's already known.
He seems to hate every working physicist for being shills. It's actually very sad.
>time dilation is your metabolism slowing down because your matter is becoming more dense in the perpendicular direction
oh lordy lord
>light can't even travel faster than the speed of light so obviously matter can't
>matter is light
>i'm a ball of captured light
Lots of people can't learn physics. But they don't end up thinking all of physics is wrong because of it.
Most of those people don't have a strong interest in physics. It would never occur to them to make up their own theories as to how shit works.
And it's a sign of intelligence to be able to look at the simplified descriptions of physics, especially the ones you see in pop science, and notice that there's something wrong with them. But these people who don't go on to the next step of learning the real thing.
To give a concrete example, this guy has seen simplified descriptions of the double slit experiment. Usually the pedagogy is to tackle the double slit first, ignoring the width of the slits, then go on to multiple slits and diffraction gratings, and finally, if the students have learned to integrate, diffraction from a single slit with nonzero width. (A high school level course or pop science treatment will often mention single slit diffraction but generally won't explain it, at least not quantitatively.) Now a real double-slit pattern is, as the guy observes, a combination of the pattern you see from the single slit with the narrower double-slit interference bands. You don't get all that from the toy calculation at the beginning where the width of the two slits is ignored. So he sees that the result of the calculation is flawed, but he doesn't know that the flaws are from simplifying approximations.