The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

[Twiler]

Hey, here is the hubbub.

I will buying my next packet of cigerrettes tomorrow morning - money probably that will probably be given to the fundings of the Afganistan War, so that some soldier will have relatively the same cost as the single bullet in his gun. But
what is even more disturbing is that he is probably stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. He can either use that money i gave him to kill himself
in the head because he is about to be captured and tortured, or he can just shoot the next man he see's, despite any statistical difference in numbers.

Worst yet, this is what scientists do. They have a single bullet in their gun, and they can either shoot themselves with it (which is the theory by analogy)
or they can use it to shoot down the next theory that comes their way. Guess what? There is only one bullet, and since the conditions of the universe are not seemingly
willing to change desprately for a very long time, the big bang will go on forever, like some Greek Mythology of Religion, where the real God, is best as
described as being ''Dues Absconditus...'' - -- - a God hidden from man - -- - as much as the final theory will be.

So scientists can only shoot down one theory with their single bullet? Doesn't that contradict the rest of your metaphor? Or is it a magic bullet?

And do you mean all scientists? If so, doesn't that imply you yourself are not a scientist? If so, I must request that you sign all your posts with 'Not a scientist'.

And isn't it redundant to say 'Greek Mythology of Religion'?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

This is like the old days.

*honk! honk!*

It's a sweet ride to Crackpot City, come on everyone!

 

[Twiler]

This is like the old days.

*honk! honk!*

It's a sweet ride to Crackpot City, come on everyone!

You... mean there used to be a higher percentage of madmen than there are now?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

duplicated!

 

[Monketi Ghost]

You... mean there used to be a higher percentage of madmen than there are now?

This place used to be a nightly Creature Feature. Then they boarded up half the screens...

 

[Ziggurat]

Wiki is made by the public for the public, and physics scientists in the general public is far and few between

So? Who else but a physicist is going to bother editing most physics-related wiki pages? And if you've got a problem with the content of any wiki pages I link to, just say what they got wrong. Just as you would if any other source made a mistake.

 

[RussDill]

And if anyone does not understand me, then they should simply ask what i mean. This is just logic, a component most of us homosapians have which you seem to be unfortunately lacking in.

We have, you don't respond. You use all sorts of words, phrases, and definitions that no one has ever heard of.

 

[Singularitarian]

Ok, okay, whatever you say. I obviously don't respond.

I hope i don't need to highlight how much of an oxymoronic statement that was you made.

 

[Singularitarian]

So? Who else but a physicist is going to bother editing most physics-related wiki pages? And if you've got a problem with the content of any wiki pages I link to, just say what they got wrong. Just as you would if any other source made a mistake.

Except the statistical positives of inconstencies arising in the wikipedia are much more probable and never mind frequent than that of a group of scientists working on a paper for the scientific world to refer to.

 

[Twiler]

Ok, okay, whatever you say. I obviously don't respond.

I hope i don't need to highlight how much of an oxymoronic statement that was you made.

In this context, respond means 'To reply to specific questions/statements in an intelligent and coherent manner.'

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

1/10 - Would not recommend this troll to a friend.

And yet here it is already with 7 pages of discussion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Except the statistical positives of inconstencies

See, I don't even know what that means. I presume you meant to write "inconsistencies", but even then, what the hell is a "statistical positive"?

arising in the wikipedia are much more probable and never mind frequent than that of a group of scientists working on a paper for the scientific world to refer to.

I think you're trying to say that errors are more common in wikipedia than in science journal articles. Well, it's not that simple. You see, wikipedia gets revised, so errors get fixed. But once a paper is published, its errors remain forever. Subsequent papers may correct those errors, but they still remain within the original article. Furthermore, peer-reviewed journal articles are much less accessible to most readers, both in terms of the level of prerequisite knowledge they assume and even just the ability to look them up (many articles are only available if you pay or have an institutional subscription). That's a rather major factor in favor of using open sources when available.

 

[Singularitarian]

It is that simple. Wiki is open to any synonymous contributions, whilst published scientific hournals are recorded in the archive of the physics community. Big difference. Only minor similarity is that the community unfortunately goes to the source as a gospal of truth, when it can be flawed at any time. Also out-dated - as i have seen myself.

 

[Prometheus]

What's a 'synonymous contribution'?

 

[Singularitarian]

Like in the example of where one article can be contributed synonymously between two authors, whether or not they have conferred over the work.

 

[rwguinn]

Like in the example of where one article can be contributed synonymously between two authors, whether or not they have conferred over the work.

Either English is not your native language; you are very young; or you have a problem.

 

[Molinaro]

Except the statistical positives of inconstencies arising in the wikipedia are much more probable and never mind frequent than that of a group of scientists working on a paper for the scientific world to refer to.

You are being evasive.

If there is an error in a wiki entry that you are linked to, point it out. It's that simple.

I can guarantee that if Zig or anyone else here links to an erroneous entry on Wiki one of the other members here will point it out.

 

[Ziggurat]

Like in the example of where one article can be contributed synonymously between two authors, whether or not they have conferred over the work.

Here's a hint: when someone asks you to define a word you use, try checking a dictionary first.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't know. It's hugely unorthodox vocabulary, but I kind of like "contributed synonymously". Not easy to read, but still... it kind of makes sense to me in a poetic kind of way.

 

[Wowbagger]

Maybe you missed the part of the infinite density? The universe is constantly expanding, and the CMB does not seem to be diluting due to the process, which means it is quite constant on cosmological standards.

Maybe you missed the micro-fluctuations it has, within its body, now.

(And, that it does not even stay constant over time, as others are pointing out.)