23 Oct 22
@shallow-blue saidHe is struggling with his cognitive dissonance again. If I am right about this (which I am) he has to consider I am right about other things unrelated to this.
And what, pray, does PUTIN have to do with Metal's magic number, again?
https://happymag.tv/137-the-most-important-number/
Sonhouse is losing his mind over it. He thinks I am Russian simply because he doesn't know me. The only reason he is not calling Roger Waters Russian is because he knows Roger Waters is British.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
@sonhouse saidWhy, in this thread? All you're doing is giving him more excuses to claim you're an idiot.
@Shallow-Blue
Sorry, I was just commenting on MB's mentor.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
23 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidIt's the same as the number of letters in the alphabet - this proves that Latin, and only Latin, is the real language of physical and scientific proof! *eye-roll*
26. That is way too many to be a mere coincidence.
@Shallow-Blue
He does that no matter what. He is always right and we are always wrong.
This obsession with 137 is just the latest example.
That number could be 138 or 136 as instrumentation to measure it gets better.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
25 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidAnd a pocket calculator is smarter than you, because it knows the difference between 137 and 137.0360-and-a-bit.
@sonhouse
Feynman was smarter than you. Wolfgang Pauli was smarter than you. Dirac was smarter than you.
@soothfast saidThere is no reason at all why a constant should be an integer or anywhere near an integer. The universe has no stake in making our computations easy. If it had, pi would be 3.
Seems to me that it's not unlikely for a physical constant to be "close" to an integer, if by "close" we mean "within one tenth of a unit." There only needs to be a 0 in the tenths place, which is one chance in ten.
26 Oct 22
@shallow-blue saidWe all do. The link I provided in my OP provides the exact number as you well know. Why are you trying to mislead people here? There is nothing political about this. Are you bringing your political baggage from the debate forum to the science forum?
And a pocket calculator is smarter than you, because it knows the difference between 137 and 137.0360-and-a-bit.
The only way to prove me wrong about this is to prove a bunch of world famous prominent physicists wrong. Why are you even trying? Do you aspire for failure for some strange reason? Shav is the same way. After proving him wrong countless times he keeps begging for more failure. He never learns and neither do you or sonhouse.
You might very well prove me wrong one day, but you are going to have to be far more patient than you are right now.....and stop spreading vaccine disinformation. You are a tool of big pharma.
@metal-brain saidJust about anyone with a relevant degree who believes that vaccines work and anthropogenic climate change is real is smarter than you.
@sonhouse
Feynman was smarter than you. Wolfgang Pauli was smarter than you. Dirac was smarter than you.
Your point?
@Soothfast
He wants to equate HIMSELF with those dudes. HE thinks he is MUCH smarter than all of us here put together. I guess his chess rating here proves that.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
03 Nov 22
@metal-brain saidAgain: no, all I have to do is that you consistently misinterpret their words. I don't even have to go into any details any more, because we all know your derangement already.
The only way to prove me wrong about this is to prove a bunch of world famous prominent physicists wrong.
04 Nov 22
@soothfast saidReal vaccines work. mRNA vaccines and other gene vaccines are not real vaccines. They do not prevent the spread.
Just about anyone with a relevant degree who believes that vaccines work and anthropogenic climate change is real is smarter than you.
Your point?
Most people with a relevant degree in climate science know there is no evidence CO2 causes global warming. It just is not good for their careers to openly say so. If you are looking for funding that is not where the money is.
All claims of a consensus are misleading. People often assume when something says " most scientists agree" means climate scientists. It doesn't. That means they are including all scientists. Scientists who don't know anything about climate science.
Now try to find evidence of a consensus of climate scientists and be very clear just what that consensus is. Partly man made? Mostly man made? I am waiting.
07 Nov 22
@Metal-Brain
We really don't give a rats ass if you stay befuddled like you are all the time, we don't need to answer your leading questions.
07 Nov 22
@sonhouse saidNobody is asking you to answer questions you are not capable of.
@Metal-Brain
We really don't give a rats ass if you stay befuddled like you are all the time, we don't need to answer your leading questions.
Go to another thread. Nobody is forcing you to troll on here.