ITT: Scientific ideas that are today considered "fact" but will be regarded as absolutely retarded 100 years from now

World is round

I don't think the modern socially acceptable idea of race is a scientific "fact" at all; it's much more a political and sociological "fact", i.e. bullshit backed up by changing the meaning of words when it suits them. But the sooner we can change that narrative the better.

>light is both a wave and a particle

quantum mechanics
copenhagen interpretation

>are today considered "fact"

Time goes slower the faster you move

real numbers

if by fact you mean most accepted interpretation of QM, then yes.

no I mean fact, as in proven by compelling evidence rather than what it could be more likely with no evidence.

Lead is bad for you

I'm surprised, most people blindly accept the nonsensical QM. This eases my rage.

shut the fuck up, retarded faggot
people don't "blindly accept QM", they take physics classes and learn it

something you clearly never did

which of following will be rejected as a reasonable concept ever:
>totally ordered sets
>complete orders
>fields

Mental illness exists

I have unified QM with GR. You know nothing of what you are talking about. Now get the fuck out.

End it dude

But our theory of QM DOES WORK, up to a point.
Just because the theory isn't perfect doesn't give you the right to basically say it's wrong.

HAHAHAHAH HOLY SHIT ARE YOU THE DAFT SCIENCE GUY? THE ONE WHO DOESN'T EVEN KNOW BASIC CALCULUS?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HOLY FUCK YOU'RE THE BIGGEST LULZ COW IN Veeky Forums

youtube.com/watch?v=Z-5awsdMrHE

CALCULUS LIKE, TOTALLY BLOCKS OUR CHAKRAS MANNNNN

nope
YES IT DOES IF I HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION.
Go fuck yourself pleb

Nah dude, just you wait and see, 20 years from now he'll win a Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking work. Us Veeky Forums plebs will watch sheepishly from the sideline as he says "I told you so"

not that one? someone else is that level of retarded?

show me some of your work please I need this

Yeah it's likely there is a better solution to the problems between QM and GR, but I'd say our theory of QM successfully describes most of the quantum world.

LINK TO YOUR CRAZY WEBSITE PLEASE

I'll keep it simple because I'm tired of pissing in an ocean.

The future already exists. Our perception of time is the result of entropy which states organisms must collect energy from when it is available (present) to survive the future (cognitive abilities, prediction etc).
I could explain how the double slit experiment, entanglement, dark energy, big bang and other subjects related to QM are better described via predeterminism, but I'll let you figure that out or yourself. But I doubt you or any of the other retards here could.

user I'M GOING TO BE FUCKING MAD AT YOU IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CRAZY WEBSITE FULL OF YOUR NONSENSE. GIVE ME THE LINK AND STOP WASTING MY TIME.

>ask him to show work
>posts two lines of pseudo philosophical babble
you really are retarded

>predeterminism
>big bang, dark energy and QM

intothetrash.jpg

>another autistic Veeky Forums poster throws a barrage of buzzwords

Thank you all for proving that you are indeed retarded.

>tfw schizo doesn't have a flashy website
way to ruin my night

Victor, is that you?

If you honestly think QM lends itself to predeterminism you truly don't understand QM.
YOU CAN LITERALLY CHANGE THE RESULTS OF AN EXPERIMENT BY MERELY OBSERVING

>Our perception of time is the result of entropy which states organisms must collect energy from when it is available (present) to survive the future (cognitive abilities, prediction etc).

>you can literally change the results of an experiment by interacting with it

wow, who'd have thunk?

I would never associate myself with an identity.
I am nothing more than a unity of cells. Adopting an identity as a survival mechanism is a thing I have no appreciation for, simply because most people claiming such an identity are wrong in their ideas. There is no integrity there, only another rung on the ladder of evolution.

Well, you'd probably make a good Pragmatist. Leaving ethos and pathos out as emotional and instinctual "convincing" of the consistency of any narrative through rhetoric, you are left with logos, but that gets to be tricky as well if you are not careful.
But, regardless of any narratives consistency, it has to reflect the world at least for the intent of the narrative.
Maths are fun, and surely can be "useful to be believed" but one of its strongest points is this:

All we ever have is a story, and the story is never the world, but the way we approach it is by making the pathways (narratives) in our brain first (connecting diverse narratives as consistently as possible if you are a mathematician, and by your feels if you are everyone else), then we check them against the other pathways (narratives) for consistency. But ultimately for them to be useful we have to see if they reflect the world, which assumes the narrative comes first. In reality, it is a recursion, and our givens are just recursions in equilibrium, not some magical platonic forms. The fault is that we only know our narratives and we always mistake them for the world.
The world is not the picture in our heads. It is out of conveneience that we think so.

So, I feel your frustration. Cutting out the informal first is noble, but necessary. Finding consistency in narratives not readily accessible to your senses, however, is where the effort pays off.

That takes sobriety, and it is no fun to be around a bunch of drunks.

So supreme

This is exactly what I am talking about. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

The fact that observing can change results is unique to QM though, you don't expect the act of observing to have an effect on a classical system, do you?

Please enlighten me

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>if I keep saying they have no idea what they're talking about I'll obviously look smart
jesus christ man