The greatest success story in physics

[Cypress]

The work of art you displayed is not a standard model!

^^^
Having demostrated his ignorance of the Standard Model, he now wants to claim it is NOT ALLOWED to represent scientific theories with pictures and images --->

@Everyone, Cypress believes that he has falsified chemistry.

Begs other posters to come to his rescue

 

[Cypress]

I am so glad you "went there." How would you argue this, exactly?

You wouldn't be so befuddled if you actually knew what the Standard Model (SM) is and if you had ever read any science journalism about high energy physics.

If you had this rudimentary knowledge you would be aware that the SM is the framework that uniquely allows us to understand the elementary constituents of matter, all the fundamental forces of nature except gravity, and how all the interactions of these particles and forces are meditated by quantum field theory.

Apparently, all you about science is what you can frantically google from climate science denier websites. I intended this thread as a trap to expose your scientific illiteracy and it succeeded beyond my wildest expectations!

What do you mean by "the standard model"?

There is no such thing as a 'standard model' (of particle physics).

​

You CAN'T represent a scientific theory with an image, picture, or diagram!!!

--->

Now, start begging again for other posters to ride to your rescue!

@Everyone, Cypress believes that he has falsified chemistry.

​

 

[IBDaMann]

Perhaps it seems that [artwork does not make for a science model] to the scientifically illiterate. People who are scientifically literate and understand the important theories of modern science have a good grasp on the theories an image represents

Too funny. There could be no greater admission of your scientific illiteracy than this stupid comment. Thank you for the candid look at your desperate desire to appear thmart.

Your artwork is not a model. It does not predict nature in any way. Engineers cannot use it to develop technology. You are a scientifically illiterate moron.

 

[IBDaMann]

[IBDaMann] now wants to claim it is NOT ALLOWED to represent scientific theories with pictures and images

I never made this claim.

I am an advocate of graphic languages, such as UML and SysML. I recognize the need for graphical depictions in specifications for the engineering of complex systems through formal models.

Your particular artwork is not a science model; it is not usable by humanity and is not value-added in any way ... and you have no idea why not because you are a scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent moron.

 

[IBDaMann]

I am so glad you "went there." How would you argue this, exactly?

You wouldn't be so befuddled if you actually knew what the Standard Model (SM) is and if you had ever read any science journalism about high energy physics.

I have no intention of reading disinformation and media propaganda intended for the gullible. I simply learn the science, and discard all booooolsch't that is erroneously presented as science. I can do this because I know what is required of a science model. You wouldn't be so much of a moron if you were to learn this for yourself and you'd earn yourself a hearty laugh over all your past gaffes, some of which are real doozies.

... you would be aware that the SM is the framework that uniquely allows us to understand the elementary constituents of matter, all the fundamental forces of nature except gravity, and how all the interactions of these particles and forces are meditated by quantum field theory.

You just described chemistry + classical physics ... except that classical physics enables humanity to predict gravity to the extent that we successfully operate spacecraft, and chemistry enables humanity to successfully engineer such spacecraft.

What you have yet to explain is how your artwork manages to accomplish all of what you describe while simultaneously falsifying chemistry and classical physics.

Did you bite off more absurdity than you can chew?

 

[Cypress]

I have no intention of reading disinformation and media propaganda intended for the gullible. I simply learn the science, and discard all booooolsch't that is erroneously presented as science. I can do this because I know what is required of a science model. You wouldn't be so much of a moron if you were to learn this for yourself and you'd earn yourself a hearty laugh over all your past gaffes, some of which are real doozies.


You just described chemistry + classical physics ... except that classical physics enables humanity to predict gravity to the extent that we successfully operate spacecraft, and chemistry enables humanity to successfully engineer such spacecraft.

What you have yet to explain is how your artwork manages to accomplish all of what you describe while simultaneously falsifying chemistry and classical physics.

Did you bite off more absurdity than you can chew?

Thanks for confessing your only experience with 'science' is by visiting climate science denier websites and memorizing what they say.

That explains your scientific illiteracy in other areas of science, and your ignorance of the standard model.

Classical physics and chemistry do not provide our modern understandings of fundamental matter, forces, and fields. Our modern understandings come from high energy particle accelerators, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, and the other elements of the standard model framework

If you spent five hours a year reading legitimate science journalism, this might ring a bell.

But you just keep your nose glued to climate science denier blogs.

An important scientific theory is not defined by how many technological gizmos result from it. The big bang, black holes, and the paleoanthropological discoveries of Louis Leekey did not turn into monetized consumer gadgets.


Hall of Fame scientific illiteracy -->

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

What do you mean by "the standard model"?

​

science doesn't explain anything about nature!

​

 

[IBDaMann]

Thanks for confessing your only experience with 'science' is by visiting climate science denier websites and memorizing what they say.

What a shocking surprise ... you are insulting me with an entirely bogus position that you are assigning to me. I never expressed or implied what you claim.

That explains your scientific illiteracy [...] and your ignorance of [my artwork].

You have no idea what science even is. Everything you believe is just a regurgitation you lifted off science-denier websites, basically of that which you accuse me preemptively.

Classical physics and chemistry do not provide our modern understandings of fundamental matter, forces, and fields.

Well, they certainly don't provide your understanding, or lack thereof, because you don't understand them. You get 100% of your "understanding" from science-denier websites.

Our modern understandings come from ...

Your misunderstandings come from scientifically illiterate morons. Engineers use chemistry and classical physics to develop technology.

Your artwork expresses nothing that can be tested by the scientific method (a requirement for science) much less anything that can be of any use to humanity. Why do you think you cannot identify any prediction of nature that can be made by your artwork? Why do you think you cannot identify any technology that has been developed based on your artwork, or any contribution that your artwork has made to humanity?

... high energy particle accelerators, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, and the other elements of the standard model framework

Your artwork expresses no useable model or framework. I get the strong impression that you don't know what a "framework" would be or look like.

If you spent five hours a year reading [the same disinformation that I read], this might [become your delusion as well].

I don't want to be delusional. That might be your escape drug of choice, but I prefer hard, cold reality. I'll stick with science and remain content to mocking you and your open science denial.

An important scientific theory is not defined by how many technological gizmos result from it.

Yes, it is. Science is measured by its usefulness, just like any tool. Your artwork is not even science, or any sort of tool, or anything of any usefulness in any way. Your artwork is completely unimportant/insignificant.

The big bang, black holes, and the paleoanthropological discoveries of Louis Leekey did not turn into monetized consumer gadgets.

The Big Bang is a theory, but it is not science. If you weren't scientifically illiterate you would know this. Science cannot speak to the past. Theories can, but science cannot. Science, as a prediction of nature, details cause->effect relationships, which are temporal and adhere to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Survival of the scientific method is a minimum requirement for science, and there are no time machines to apply the scientific method to events of the past. Ergo, theories of past events cannot be science. This holds for Darwin's theory of evolution as well.

Now, I already know how you are going to respond ... because I know that you seek delusion confirmation from science-denial websites. You are going to find a website that states "We don't need time machines to know what happened in the unobserved past!" ... and that's what you will insist.

... so, get to it. I'll hold off on picking you apart until you've had an opportunity to do that.

 

[goat]

The Big Bang is a theory, but it is not science. If you weren't scientifically illiterate you would know this. Science cannot speak to the past. Theories can, but science cannot. Science, as a prediction of nature, details cause->effect relationships, which are temporal and adhere to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Survival of the scientific method is a minimum requirement for science, and there are no time machines to apply the scientific method to events of the past. Ergo, theories of past events cannot be science. This holds for Darwin's theory of evolution as well.

Now, I already know how you are going to respond ... because I know that you seek delusion confirmation from science-denial websites. You are going to find a website that states "We don't need time machines to know what happened in the unobserved past!" ... and that's what you will insist.

... so, get to it. I'll hold off on picking you apart until you've had an opportunity to do that.

The science of psychology explains your need to ruin every thread you're on. Pop psychology such as Transactional Analysis (TA) makes the ego state easy to understand.

 

[Cypress]

What a shocking surprise ... you are insulting me with an entirely bogus position that you are assigning to me. I never expressed or implied what you claim.


You have no idea what science even is. Everything you believe is just a regurgitation you lifted off science-denier websites, basically of that which you accuse me preemptively.


Well, they certainly don't provide your understanding, or lack thereof, because you don't understand them. You get 100% of your "understanding" from science-denier websites.


Your misunderstandings come from scientifically illiterate morons. Engineers use chemistry and classical physics to develop technology.

Your artwork expresses nothing that can be tested by the scientific method (a requirement for science) much less anything that can be of any use to humanity. Why do you think you cannot identify any prediction of nature that can be made by your artwork? Why do you think you cannot identify any technology that has been developed based on your artwork, or any contribution that your artwork has made to humanity?


Your artwork expresses no useable model or framework. I get the strong impression that you don't know what a "framework" would be or look like.


I don't want to be delusional. That might be your escape drug of choice, but I prefer hard, cold reality. I'll stick with science and remain content to mocking you and your open science denial.


Yes, it is. Science is measured by its usefulness, just like any tool. Your artwork is not even science, or any sort of tool, or anything of any usefulness in any way. Your artwork is completely unimportant/insignificant.


The Big Bang is a theory, but it is not science. If you weren't scientifically illiterate you would know this. Science cannot speak to the past. Theories can, but science cannot. Science, as a prediction of nature, details cause->effect relationships, which are temporal and adhere to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Survival of the scientific method is a minimum requirement for science, and there are no time machines to apply the scientific method to events of the past. Ergo, theories of past events cannot be science. This holds for Darwin's theory of evolution as well.

Now, I already know how you are going to respond ... because I know that you seek delusion confirmation from science-denial websites. You are going to find a website that states "We don't need time machines to know what happened in the unobserved past!" ... and that's what you will insist.

... so, get to it. I'll hold off on picking you apart until you've had an opportunity to do that.

^^^ Now we are getting to the angry and triggered phase, which is always characterized by excessively long and verbose compositions; explosions of verbal diarrhea.

Thanks for the opportunity to reveal your scientific illiteracy!


CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other posters have already had for many years

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

What do you mean by "the standard model"?

​

science doesn't explain anything about nature!

​

 

[IBDaMann]

The science of psychology

The art of psychology isn't any science. Learn what science is.

explains your need to ruin every thread you're on.

Have you considered that you are just intellectually incapable of appreciating discussion that rises above the level of "air is good"?

You really should be posting on YAP. They ban, and have banned, all who try to provide stimulating discussion and independent thinking. You'd be right at home.

 

[BidenPresident]

The art of psychology isn't any science. Learn what science is.


Have you considered that you are just intellectually incapable of appreciating discussion that rises above the level of "air is good"?

You really should be posting on YAP. They ban, and have banned, all who try to provide stimulating discussion and independent thinking. You'd be right at home.

you are a fucking idiot

 

[IBDaMann]

you are a fucking idiot

You are the reigning champ in the idiot category. I truly believe there isn't anything that you know, except how to write "fuck you" and "go kill yourself."

 

[Cypress]

As a testament to human intellectual and creative achievement, the standard model is every bit as important as the collective work of Shakespeare or the artistic heritage of Michelangelo.

Work on the Standard Model has led to 55 Nobel prizes (so far) in physics since the theory began to coalesce in the 1960s.

What do you mean by "the standard model"?

There is no such thing as a 'standard model' (of particle physics).

​

 

[Walt]

explains your need to ruin every thread you're on.

You have been doing this more and more. I did not say that, nor anything similar. You can go to the link and see I did not say that.

 

[IBDaMann]

You have been doing this more and more. I did not say that, nor anything similar. You can go to the link and see I did not say that.

You have my sincere apologies. I had just responded to you in the post prior and I had the text "

" in the buffer. As I began responding to goat, I forgot to copy his header information into the buffer and your header information, which was still in the buffer, was pasted ... and I didn't catch it.

I'll take a two stroke penalty on that one.

 

[goat]

The art of psychology isn't any science. Learn what science is.


Have you considered that you are just intellectually incapable of appreciating discussion that rises above the level of "air is good"?

You really should be posting on YAP. They ban, and have banned, all who try to provide stimulating discussion and independent thinking. You'd be right at home.

Transactional Analysis (TA) will show your ego state is incapable of stimulating discussion. A well written argument makes a hypothesis easier to understand, so that's why you spend so much time on long-winded gibberish.

You didn't know the name of the Pythagorean theorem, or that it has been proven, so you spent an entire paragraph on high school math. It showed me that you may have built a house or fabricated something square, but you don't know the science behind it.

 

[IBDaMann]

A well written argument makes a hypothesis easier to understand,

... but when certain members of the audience can't ever find it easier to understand no matter how much it is dumbed down, there reaches a point when one must identify said certain members as the problem.

That would be you, by the way.

You didn't know the name of the Pythagorean theorem, or that it has been proven,

You have me confused with someone else. I teach children how to prove the Pythagorean theorem. I would be pessimistic about being able to teach you, though.

... so you spent an entire paragraph on high school math.

I'll spend an entire paragraph explaining whatever I wish to whomever I wish.

You have a rather strong aversion to credibility, don't you?

 

[goat]

... but when certain members of the audience can't ever find it easier to understand no matter how much it is dumbed down, there reaches a point when one must identify said certain members as the problem.

That would be you, by the way.


You have me confused with someone else. I teach children how to prove the Pythagorean theorem. I would be pessimistic about being able to teach you, though.


I'll spend an entire paragraph explaining whatever I wish to whomever I wish.

You have a rather strong aversion to credibility, don't you?

We should talk about TA and your ego state. I can show you why you insist on posting on thread topics you know nothing about.

 

[IBDaMann]

We should talk about TA and your ego state.

We should talk about your inability to grasp simple concepts. We should talk about your compulsion to post on topics about which you know nothing.

 

[BidenPresident]

You are the reigning champ in the idiot category. I truly believe there isn't anything that you know, except how to write "fuck you" and "go kill yourself."

I truly believe you are retarded.