|
WickedsDesire -> RE: Science anarchists (5/15/2017 6:11:52 AM)
|
I’ve never once in my life argued absolutes – over the epochs I sporadically add in I mean probably, more than likely, about as certain as you can be, 95% confidence on the bell end curve (guffaws)is usually enough for me. It is 5 sigma they use now?
In an ideal world I know what is meant by: 1, 1 apple, 1 metre, 1 electron volt, etc.
The harder you try to measure, or define, something absolutely, the harder it becomes to do so.
Not quite sure how to best explain this:
1. How do you define 1 metre and then measure that 1 metre accurately, absolutely, etc to the nearest atom, elementary particle (not that I think we know what those are) and that’s before you factor in the quantum malarkey which in essence is a bit like magic
2. …hmm take 1 apple you will have bits and bobs of that one apple vanishing into the ether, teleported around the universe(s), bits of cosmic malarkey blootering its way through it
3. Take something like absolute zero – we can never truly get there and most people say that now. We can get dammed close, just never all the way there.
4. Gravity and time no-one knows what they are.
5. Infinity – if I got a bit of paper and pencil and stared to write down 1, 2, 3, etc I would eventually run out of atoms. I am not sure if this is true but I think Carl Sagan if you tried to write out a googolplex, or googolplex to the power of googleplex you would run out of atoms too – he probably said it a lot more eloquently
Yet I will still argue against things like the speed of light being constant, and argue that global warming is real.
why are talking orbitals now?
Atomic orbital
Well at least no-one started the double slit experiment thread.
|
|
|
|
