America Retreating from Religion

Into the Night said:
No, you just can't answer these questions.

That was once thought of the atom. See the meaning of 'atom'.

Yes they are.

So?

So far. Once the atom itself was thought of as such. Once elements themselves were though of as such, even back to the days when everything was thought to made of fire, water, air, spirit, and earth. I suggest you study the history of what was once considered the 'ultimate constituents of matter'. It's actually an entertaining story, as are most parts of the history of science. You see, I don't just study science, I also study the history of how theories came to be and how they were tested for their null hypothesis. It's also an interesting study on the various models that these theories use.

Remember what we 'know' of atoms and their particles is a model, nothing more. It could all change tomorrow. Theories of science have been falsified before, you know.


No. Energy is not a field. Gravity is not energy. It is a force. Light, which is energy, has no field (according to our current model).

Lame. You couldn't come up with a better insult than that?

You have already made several important mistakes in quantum physics. This is not unusual, most people never even get as far as you have with it.
Click to expand...

Good Lord, I will let you continue having a conversation with yourself, since you obviously are responding to what you wish I said, rather than what I actually said.

For the record, concerning quantum mechanics, you once claimed and complained to me that it was not a branch of physics -- and there are posts to proving you made that foolish claim.
 
Cypress said:
Good Lord, I will let you continue having a conversation with yourself, since you obviously are responding to what you wish I said, rather than what I actually said.

For the record, concerning quantum mechanics, you once claimed and complained to me that it was not a branch of physics -- and there are posts to proving you made that foolish claim.
Click to expand...

It is not a branch of physics. I will say it again, right here, just to be clear. It has more to do with mathematics and modeling than anything else. It is considered it's own branch of science. it is not part of physics.
 
Grokmaster said:
THE ENTIRE THREAD IS BASED ON A POLL. WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN THE DISCUSSION?
Click to expand...

Pointing out once again that polls are completely meaningless.

The problem with polls like this is that they do not follow the requirements of statistical mathematics.

* The raw data MUST be available. The raw data MUST be free of biasing influences. Failure to publish unbiased raw data invalidates the summary.
* A summary MUST be accompanied by the margin of error, or the summary is completely meaningless.
* Data used in the summary MUST be selected from the raw data by randN. Any other method renders the summary meaningless.
* Data MUST be normalized by paired randR. Failure to do so incorporates out of band data, and renders the summary meaningless.
* The variance MUST be declared and justified. Failure to do so prevents calculation of the margin of error value, which is required.
* Statistical math is incapable of prediction, normally inherent in mathematics, due to it's use of random numbers. Even two summaries, performed over the SAME raw data will produce different results.

News polls do NONE of these things. They simply announce some value (and possibly something that looks like a margin of error value) as if it were some kind of decree.

Statistical math has it's uses, but prediction isn't one of them. Simply specifying a summary without showing the data is just making stuff up. Pollsters make a lot of money out of making stuff up. Someone is paying them to do it. The stuff they make up will tend to bend toward whoever is paying the bill. They are not a crystal ball or a set of holy entrails. They cannot predict the future. They cannot show a 'trend' so popular in the Fake News and government today.

I do not even consider ANY raw data as possibly useful without some pretty specific requirements. Too many people spew numbers as 'facts' these days. Among those requirements are:

* The source of the raw data must be known. I must know who collected it, when it was collected, how it was collected, and the purpose of collecting it.
* The raw data MUST be published. The collection method MUST be published.
* If instrumentation was used, I must know what instrumentation it was, its tolerances, when it was last calibrated and how, and how the instrument is maintained and used.

My standards of accepting numbers from people is considerably higher than the average Joe here. They are not unreasonable. I recommend more people adopt these standards at the very least. It would do much to shut out lies and people making shit up.
 
Into the Night said:
I do not recognize Queen Pelosi's authority nor recognize her authority to define words.
Define 'socially regressive'.
Click to expand...

There is no validation or anointing in all of civilization that requires your recognition.
"Socially regressive' requires no further definition for any literate person.
 
Polls are amazingly meaningful. They invariably are correct in forecasting results of all elections which are not flawed by electoral colleges
and Russian interference and James Comey surprises. ;) If you are not measuring reality, it isn't the poll execution that's the problem, it's the poll's substance.
 
Proper poll question for 2016:

If you read a bunch of lies about Hillary from Russia, and James Comey opens an investigation into her use of emails within days of voting,
and you are overrepresented because you live in a state all alone except for you and the sheep you fuck on cold ronery nights, will you vote for Trump?
 
Micawber said:
Polls are amazingly meaningful. They invariably are correct in forecasting results of all elections which are not flawed by electoral colleges
and Russian interference and James Comey surprises. ;) If you are not measuring reality, it isn't the poll execution that's the problem, it's the poll's substance.
Click to expand...

Math errors: Failure to use raw data. Failure to declare variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Use of summary as prediction.
Logic errors (fallacies). Circular argument fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Boundary fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Reality is not quantitative.

Random numbers are not data. Denial of the Constitution of the United States. Denial of statistical mathematics.
 
Micawber said:
Proper poll question for 2016:

If you read a bunch of lies about Hillary from Russia, and James Comey opens an investigation into her use of emails within days of voting,
and you are overrepresented because you live in a state all alone except for you and the sheep you fuck on cold ronery nights, will you vote for Trump?
Click to expand...

Loaded question. Irrelevant. Whataboutism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top