SO, THIS IS A THING. Holist, you around?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This is what Holist not engaging on homeopathy looks like.



I CAN'T HELP MYSELF. 

Okay, I just changed my mind. I read a great deal more, looked at many studies, and decided that homeopathy doesn't work. The "homeopathic encounter", I think can be a particularly effective way of turning on the placebo-effect, depending on practitioner, context and patient...it may have an element of hypnosis to it, even. But the woo is highly unlikely to be real. This feels weird, I tell you. And it will involve re-evaluating and probably changing a number of important relationships. So THANK YOU, PD.   

Congratulations, pursuing more information even if it contradicts your favored hypothesis and changing your mind based on the preponderance of available evidence is pretty damn bipedal.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

As for quantum physics, I know fuck all about it so that is probably more than 60 years out of date, but I don't think I have mentioned it. I mentioned special relativity, of which newtonian mechanics is a limiting case. At relativistic speeds, and macroscopic objects, newtonian mechanics fails.

Can I ask for citations? Because you seem to be talking about quantum mechanics while claiming not to be talking about quantum mechanics. I'm no physicist, I haven't even taken university physics, but this whole post reeks of "makes no goddamn sense".

[Dildo Argentino]

As for quantum physics, I know fuck all about it so that is probably more than 60 years out of date, but I don't think I have mentioned it. I mentioned special relativity, of which newtonian mechanics is a limiting case. At relativistic speeds, and macroscopic objects, newtonian mechanics fails.

Can I ask for citations? Because you seem to be talking about quantum mechanics while claiming not to be talking about quantum mechanics. I'm no physicist, I haven't even taken university physics, but this whole post reeks of "makes no goddamn sense".

This is a good start.
Einstein's own book for the interested public is still great.

[Pæs]

Are those links supposed to be identical?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

As for quantum physics, I know fuck all about it so that is probably more than 60 years out of date, but I don't think I have mentioned it. I mentioned special relativity, of which newtonian mechanics is a limiting case. At relativistic speeds, and macroscopic objects, newtonian mechanics fails.

Can I ask for citations? Because you seem to be talking about quantum mechanics while claiming not to be talking about quantum mechanics. I'm no physicist, I haven't even taken university physics, but this whole post reeks of "makes no goddamn sense".

This is a good start.
Einstein's own book for the interested public is still great.

Wikipedia? 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I would be more impressed if you just admitted that you don't really know what you're on about. Here is a book I suspect you might enjoy or find helpful: http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Equation-Einstein-Relativity-Expanding/dp/0385334850/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1413789647&sr=8-6&keywords=God%27s+theorem

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's not a great book, by any means, but it's very accessible and might help you.

[Dildo Argentino]

Are those links supposed to be identical?

Nope, they weren't. But they are. The first one was supposed to be the Special Relativity article.

[Dildo Argentino]

I would be more impressed if you just admitted that you don't really know what you're on about. Here is a book I suspect you might enjoy or find helpful: http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Equation-Einstein-Relativity-Expanding/dp/0385334850/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1413789647&sr=8-6&keywords=God%27s+theorem

Please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but I am going to quote from Wikipedia:

"A discrepancy in Mercury's orbit pointed out flaws in Newton's theory. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that its orbit showed slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory, but all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) had been fruitless. The issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new theory of general relativity, which accounted for the small discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.

Although Newton's theory has been superseded, most modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations are still made using Newton's theory because it is a much simpler theory to work with than general relativity, and gives sufficiently accurate results for most applications involving sufficiently small masses, speeds and energies."

This is basically the story I remembered from about 29 to 27 years ago. I screwed up, the anomalies with Newton's theory were not resolved by special but by general relativity, which indicates that my knowledge is superficial in the field. But it seems that the basic statement (Newtonian Mechanics fails at macroscopic levels at relativistic speeds) holds true.

[Doktor Howl]

Newton's work was modified by relativity (by removing the assumption of a central point in space).  99% of of Newton's work is still relevent (thermodynamics, gravitational attraction, etc).

MODIFIED, not shitcanned.

[LMNO]

I started to write up something about general relativity and how it relates to Newtonian physics, and how classical mechanics is just a limited case of general relativity, but then I realized how useless that would be.  Pearls, swine, etc.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I would be more impressed if you just admitted that you don't really know what you're on about. Here is a book I suspect you might enjoy or find helpful: http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Equation-Einstein-Relativity-Expanding/dp/0385334850/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1413789647&sr=8-6&keywords=God%27s+theorem

Please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but I am going to quote from Wikipedia:

"A discrepancy in Mercury's orbit pointed out flaws in Newton's theory. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that its orbit showed slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory, but all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) had been fruitless. The issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new theory of general relativity, which accounted for the small discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.

Although Newton's theory has been superseded, most modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations are still made using Newton's theory because it is a much simpler theory to work with than general relativity, and gives sufficiently accurate results for most applications involving sufficiently small masses, speeds and energies."

This is basically the story I remembered from about 29 to 27 years ago. I screwed up, the anomalies with Newton's theory were not resolved by special but by general relativity, which indicates that my knowledge is superficial in the field. But it seems that the basic statement (Newtonian Mechanics fails at macroscopic levels at relativistic speeds) holds true.

Please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but you have so little education in this field that you are completely unable to interpret the words you are parroting.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I started to write up something about general relativity and how it relates to Newtonian physics, and how classical mechanics is just a limited case of general relativity, but then I realized how useless that would be.  Pearls, swine, etc.

The book I linked to, which is essentially the story of Einstein's once-rejected Cosmological Constant, explains the history of non-euclidean geometry and the relationship of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity with Newtonian mechanics in detail, in layman's terms, but I think this is another case of classic Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, in which the victim cannot grasp that is is the limits of his own knowledge that is the major contributor to the disjunct, rather than the ignorance of his conversational partners.

[hooplala]

I started to write up something about general relativity and how it relates to Newtonian physics, and how classical mechanics is just a limited case of general relativity, but then I realized how useless that would be.  Pearls, swine, etc.

The book I linked to, which is essentially the story of Einstein's once-rejected Cosmological Constant, explains the history of non-euclidean geometry and the relationship of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity with Newtonian mechanics in detail, in layman's terms, but I think this is another case of classic Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, in which the victim cannot grasp that is is the limits of his own knowledge that is the major contributor to the disjunct, rather than the ignorance of his conversational partners.

I think that's a much bigger problem in the world at large, than most people are willing to admit.

In fact, one might say this conversation is the micro to the world's macro.

Cough.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I may be missing a something about the homeopathy theory, but I can't see how this would work even assuming the validity of that theory.

So you put a thing in some water that has some property that's supposed to be beneficial for some ailment. Then you dilute that solution down until the beneficial thing is...well...nothing, and the solution is pretty much water, but water that contains the "essence" of whatever the beneficial thing was.

Putting aside the  and assuming that the practice actually works that way, wouldn't we still have to have a thing that actually did something to the Ebola virus before we could disappear that thing and allow its ghost to go right on killing the virus?