|
|
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
So what you're saying is, I've made an unprecedented discovery.
What I'm saying is, what you're saying is literally the opposite of both unprecedented and discovery.
Your position on this has its appeal. There is a consistency to it. It also makes predictions. That's a hallmark of good science.
... as many have pointed out before you
However, plenty of those predictions don't hold up to observations, e.g. the existence of dark energy (whatever it may turn out to be).
Which has been discovered by other people, but apparently not you, yet.
I respect that you hold out for when the data shows your assertion doesn't hold up to observations before you yield your position.
It's silly that the data is well and truly in, and you clearly haven't internalized it, yet you persist that your assertions are still correct.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If you don't watch your attitude, I might not mention you in my nobel prize acceptance speech.
I find it great that you are openly skeptical of what I'm dishing out, here.
I find it mostly amusing that you come here to tell me I'm wrong about physics.
Admittedly, I find it mildly irritating that you put forth such brazen confidence in assertions that are demonstrably false.
It would be hubris to assume I hold no misconceptions.
This thread invites challengers to poke holes in what I understand and can explain (as simply and clearly as possible).
You might be amused by my reaction when they made me chase down the rabbit hole of virtual particles. Turns out it's a lot of hand waving and talk about these things which cannot be observed by definition.
If a virtual particle is observed, it is NOT a virtual particle, by definition.
THIS IS NOT WHAT I SIGNED UP FOR!!!
|
Reply With Quote