gamelord
Registered Senior Member
Ok so a bit of a background right now. Background is, my house is like 120 degrees hot n humid feels like hell. Fan on me so I can't hear my music, sweating, feeling a little bit fainty. It should be an american crime to not give air conditioning to the poor. Computer laggin', makin me go loco. I imagine, if this was a movie, and we were on Mars base and all hell is breaking loose, and I am the scientist writing in my journal entry, my hand desperately clawing on to the computer and I push the button to save the journal log.
So I watched this video, 15 minutes was all I could take, the woo is strong in this one. I actually agree with her and believe we live in a simulation, but her reasoning just seems like a bunch of woo to me. And something about the woo just makes me feel numb and drained of energy, like I am watching some silly cartoon like ed edd and eddy. The longer it goes on the more woo I feel.
And this brings me to theoretical physics, I feel the same woo feelings when I hear theoretical physics. For instance, in the video she said "science proved" that the universe is made up of tiny-tetrahedrons. I dont believe this, it sounds absurd and woo. Second she says that planks constant is the universal "frame-rate". I had heard that before, I didn't believe it then and I dont believe it now. Then she says string-theory was finally made woo, because the equations never proved anything and dont add up. But string theory was woo to begin with, when was string theory not woo, when were strings actually observed in a lab with evidence? And she goes on to say that "Einstein proved" that the universe is like a movie, all time is connected, the future effects past, woo.
Now you may believe you are some how removed from the woo but cmon. Even the date they give for the origin of the universe is woo, if the universe is only 13.8 billion years old that means space stretched faster than 3x the speed of light. Furthermore I watched the documentary of the LHC, it is very advanced science. When something is that complicated the margin of error becomes easy.
For example, when you are programming a game, and the program is not working, you have to debug the game. Usually you are going about it from a state of ignorance, that is, you don't know what the actual problem is, so you dont even know how to begin to solve it. So you are in the dark, you make theories, based on observations, as to what the problem is. I have done this before, and some of my theories were so great and fit together so perfectly, I thought for sure I had figured out what the problem was, only to find out later, the problem had absolutely nothing to do with my theory at all. So theoretical science, could be making theories that "seem" to fit, based on equations that mostly fit, but then down the road they might realize that the explanation was something different entirely. The LHC documentary showed, they cannot physically "see" subatomic particles, they are in the dark, so they just analyze data all based on theories of what the data should mean, when in actuality it might very be a large wild goose chase of woo. And to protect the woo, most of these scientists tell you "I spent 10 years going to universities to understand these equations, you didn't put in the work, you don't have the right to call it woo till you go to university for 10 years" as a sort of protective bubble shield against anyone who might feel skeptical about the woo.
So, the video in question, it would be nice if anyone could tell me that she actually knows what she's talking about, and is not woo.
And this brings me to theoretical physics, I feel the same woo feelings when I hear theoretical physics. For instance, in the video she said "science proved" that the universe is made up of tiny-tetrahedrons. I dont believe this, it sounds absurd and woo. Second she says that planks constant is the universal "frame-rate". I had heard that before, I didn't believe it then and I dont believe it now. Then she says string-theory was finally made woo, because the equations never proved anything and dont add up. But string theory was woo to begin with, when was string theory not woo, when were strings actually observed in a lab with evidence? And she goes on to say that "Einstein proved" that the universe is like a movie, all time is connected, the future effects past, woo.
Now you may believe you are some how removed from the woo but cmon. Even the date they give for the origin of the universe is woo, if the universe is only 13.8 billion years old that means space stretched faster than 3x the speed of light. Furthermore I watched the documentary of the LHC, it is very advanced science. When something is that complicated the margin of error becomes easy.
For example, when you are programming a game, and the program is not working, you have to debug the game. Usually you are going about it from a state of ignorance, that is, you don't know what the actual problem is, so you dont even know how to begin to solve it. So you are in the dark, you make theories, based on observations, as to what the problem is. I have done this before, and some of my theories were so great and fit together so perfectly, I thought for sure I had figured out what the problem was, only to find out later, the problem had absolutely nothing to do with my theory at all. So theoretical science, could be making theories that "seem" to fit, based on equations that mostly fit, but then down the road they might realize that the explanation was something different entirely. The LHC documentary showed, they cannot physically "see" subatomic particles, they are in the dark, so they just analyze data all based on theories of what the data should mean, when in actuality it might very be a large wild goose chase of woo. And to protect the woo, most of these scientists tell you "I spent 10 years going to universities to understand these equations, you didn't put in the work, you don't have the right to call it woo till you go to university for 10 years" as a sort of protective bubble shield against anyone who might feel skeptical about the woo.
So, the video in question, it would be nice if anyone could tell me that she actually knows what she's talking about, and is not woo.
