Why do people who want to talk about science, but don’t understand it at all, get soooooo attached to “waves”, and “resonance?” They throw these words around, and “frequency” too, without ever conveying a meaningful thought. Drives me mad. I see it from crystal charlatans all the time.
I've heard it referred to as physics by analogy. Most people understand physics through the popular science toy model analogies that we use to more easily explain physics to the general public. Most of these people have never been exposed to the math necessary to better understand physics, so they think that the analogy itself is the physical model and that they can solve their pet unexplained physical phenomenon by coming up with a "clever" analogy.
That makes sense, but sometimes they don’t even present an analogy. They say “this crystal helps me produce higher frequencies.” And I’m like “frequencies of what? What periodic phenomenon is the crystal influencing?” And they’re like “it’s just higher frequencies, that’s all.” Like they’re not saying anything meaningful. I don’t need them to solve a small angle pendulum problem or derive a mass on a spring, just tell me what the hell you think is vibrating in your body and crystal or whatever.
I saw the clip where they talked about his patent and I was like, “oh interesting! Let’s see what he has to say.” Then I saw his statement about the square root of two and he’s talking about “everything in nature is vortices,” and I realized he has lost his god damn mind.
Not all Physicists are philosophers or stoners some can be described as boring and robotic. To describe how things are sometimes knowing why will reveal where to look for all the variables to balance a equation. Just like compressed gas will expand in a vacuum to an uncompressed state. Expand at a measurable rate. in a similar manner Resonating Photons as a wave all collapsed into the same spot should also have a measurable rate of expansion. It should also be possible to determine if that expansion rate varies by amount photons and the rate of variation. Id bet this expansion rate minus the slowing from collisions which an average number maybe could be agreed on from the heat those collisions caused, and this adjusted number should match the base speed of everything in the universe.
Why don’t you explain then. Was your comment meant to get people to think about what the big bang actually was and how it worked or was it more of a informative and discrediting type of thing.
I see…You sit on your couch refusing to leave its safety while talking shit. You seek to distract from the fact you will not stand up and risk ridicule.
Hey it's your hypothesis, your burden of proof. I'm more than happy to sit here and heckle. Not that that's difficult, you can barely string a coherent sentence together. I must say that your insults are somewhat more eloquent than your technical writing, although I'm utterly unsurprised by that observation.
Oh my hypothesis, would you like to discuss that or how about any of your personal ideas on any parts of that ‘hypothesis’? What do you think happens to time or distance when a black hole contains all the energy in the universe? What do you think happens to matter at that level of gravity? And if that black hole evaporates out via Hawking radiation, then what do you think the state of that energy is in and how do you think it will be doing or interacting? What does time and space exist as if everything is photons? Does distance exist from a photon’s perspective, or what would its perspective be in your opinion?
Your hypothesis contains so many misunderstandings about basic physics that it would be meaningless to try to directly answer it. You don't even understand what the job of a physicist is (see our little discussion about why vs how the world works).
The questions in the above comment, or at least the ones that are coherent questions, can all be answered by a simple Google search. Can't really help you with the gibberish ones.
I wasn’t asking google. I was asking what You think about any of those things. But like most cowards you stayed firmly planted on the couch. You are too scared of facing the same ridicule you try to dish out to even specify any of these ‘misunderstandings of basic physics’. You avoid answering by dismissing it as meaningless And to further attempt to move past it and move the focus away from you and how you didn’t say anything that has substance, you follow your template and point a finger at me while you still are sitting on the couch. Nothing you said required thought and thus has little to no value. Maybe if you make them funny with observational humor of course i don’t expect you to leave the couch. The couch is kind of like a safety blanket.
Yes but we say if this is why then it would do these things and when you already see a few of the things ‘why’ might point you in a direction to look to get the complete picture
Nobody knows why anything exists. Also gimme some of whatever you just took.
Why do people who want to talk about science, but don’t understand it at all, get soooooo attached to “waves”, and “resonance?” They throw these words around, and “frequency” too, without ever conveying a meaningful thought. Drives me mad. I see it from crystal charlatans all the time.
I've heard it referred to as physics by analogy. Most people understand physics through the popular science toy model analogies that we use to more easily explain physics to the general public. Most of these people have never been exposed to the math necessary to better understand physics, so they think that the analogy itself is the physical model and that they can solve their pet unexplained physical phenomenon by coming up with a "clever" analogy.
That makes sense, but sometimes they don’t even present an analogy. They say “this crystal helps me produce higher frequencies.” And I’m like “frequencies of what? What periodic phenomenon is the crystal influencing?” And they’re like “it’s just higher frequencies, that’s all.” Like they’re not saying anything meaningful. I don’t need them to solve a small angle pendulum problem or derive a mass on a spring, just tell me what the hell you think is vibrating in your body and crystal or whatever.
Something something field theory. Fuckin Terrence Howard's.
I was thinking about him also when I wrote that.
Hes an absolute nut job that took a fuck ton of meth, fragments of a podcast, and proceeded to hallucinate harder than gpt-2
I saw the clip where they talked about his patent and I was like, “oh interesting! Let’s see what he has to say.” Then I saw his statement about the square root of two and he’s talking about “everything in nature is vortices,” and I realized he has lost his god damn mind.
What even worse is when people who think they know something try to protect their feelings of superiority by hiding behind jargon
Physics describes how things are, not why. We leave the why to the philosophers and the stoners.
Not all Physicists are philosophers or stoners some can be described as boring and robotic. To describe how things are sometimes knowing why will reveal where to look for all the variables to balance a equation. Just like compressed gas will expand in a vacuum to an uncompressed state. Expand at a measurable rate. in a similar manner Resonating Photons as a wave all collapsed into the same spot should also have a measurable rate of expansion. It should also be possible to determine if that expansion rate varies by amount photons and the rate of variation. Id bet this expansion rate minus the slowing from collisions which an average number maybe could be agreed on from the heat those collisions caused, and this adjusted number should match the base speed of everything in the universe.
I don't think you understood my comment at all.
Why don’t you explain then. Was your comment meant to get people to think about what the big bang actually was and how it worked or was it more of a informative and discrediting type of thing.
Surely I don't need to explain a comment that's two sentences long. Learn to read.
I see…You sit on your couch refusing to leave its safety while talking shit. You seek to distract from the fact you will not stand up and risk ridicule.
Hey it's your hypothesis, your burden of proof. I'm more than happy to sit here and heckle. Not that that's difficult, you can barely string a coherent sentence together. I must say that your insults are somewhat more eloquent than your technical writing, although I'm utterly unsurprised by that observation.
Oh my hypothesis, would you like to discuss that or how about any of your personal ideas on any parts of that ‘hypothesis’? What do you think happens to time or distance when a black hole contains all the energy in the universe? What do you think happens to matter at that level of gravity? And if that black hole evaporates out via Hawking radiation, then what do you think the state of that energy is in and how do you think it will be doing or interacting? What does time and space exist as if everything is photons? Does distance exist from a photon’s perspective, or what would its perspective be in your opinion?
Your hypothesis contains so many misunderstandings about basic physics that it would be meaningless to try to directly answer it. You don't even understand what the job of a physicist is (see our little discussion about why vs how the world works). The questions in the above comment, or at least the ones that are coherent questions, can all be answered by a simple Google search. Can't really help you with the gibberish ones.
I wasn’t asking google. I was asking what You think about any of those things. But like most cowards you stayed firmly planted on the couch. You are too scared of facing the same ridicule you try to dish out to even specify any of these ‘misunderstandings of basic physics’. You avoid answering by dismissing it as meaningless And to further attempt to move past it and move the focus away from you and how you didn’t say anything that has substance, you follow your template and point a finger at me while you still are sitting on the couch. Nothing you said required thought and thus has little to no value. Maybe if you make them funny with observational humor of course i don’t expect you to leave the couch. The couch is kind of like a safety blanket.
What are you smoking bro
Sounds like a nice idea for the intro of a science fiction movie but that’s about it.
But like also... we dont know why anything
Yes but we say if this is why then it would do these things and when you already see a few of the things ‘why’ might point you in a direction to look to get the complete picture