Expansion of Ignorance

[speakertoanimals]

There are unfortunately a few topics in science that are the perennial favourites when it comes to (honest) misunderstandings or mistaken claims that science has no idea. A few ones from these boards:

Big Bang: expanding space (how can emptiness expand), curved space (how can nothing curve), the CMB and so on.

Quantum theory: Probably the RICHEST source of nonsense, and on the web, any weird and wonderful claim you like can have the word quantum attached. Seems that the perception here is that quantum theory is so wacky that ANY seeming nonsense can be argued as bieng possible, if you claim that quantum does it!

Usual target of those who think they can just apply argument from incredulity. Or those who want to sell their own particular brand of quantum nonsense (ie the consciousness does magic line).

A new one to here that has just popped up -- misunderstanding the second (or even the first law) of thermodyanmics. Another rich source, since most thermodyanmics isn't intuitive anyway.

Usually, on the web, to be found by those trying to sell perpetual motion machines, creationists trying to claim evolution couldn't happen, and other nut-jobs. Although the free-energy merchants have now to add the quantum tag as well when trying to sell their nonsense, because the zero-point energy and quantum wierdness seems to offer a much better way round the gullible and into their pockets.

Just odd how the SAME bits of physics keep coming in for the attention of idiots on the web, I presume because they are almost totally non-intuitive and hard to understand. Hence easiest target when it comes to trying to increase common ignorance and misunderstanding in order to further your own nefarious ends!

Any other good examples?

[Progenitor A]

Mar 26, 2011 15:58:32 GMT 1 speakertoanimals said:

Any other good examples?

Certainly meine kleine kartoffel!
radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=gensci&thread=490&post=6673 ;D

[speakertoanimals]

Also note this strange symbol E = \sum_{i}

Might I point out that this ISN'T A strange symbol, just standard LaTeX for a summation.

Hence not mis-posted from WIki at all, just that those of us that write papers in LaTeX tend to use LaTeX when trying to put maths in ordinary emails of on message boards that don't support LaTeX.

If it was sigma (as NM mistakenly assumed), then that would be \Sigma anyway (capital greek sigma). But you don't use it like that, since LaTeX sorts out the greek letter stuff for you, and \sum appears differently for in-line equations, as opposed to fully typeset equations. Plus allows the usage of the \sum\limits_{a=1}^{\infty} form for upper and lower limits of summation.

Might I also point out an ' idiocy' from NM which is slightly worse than a bit of stray LaTeX. He wrote:

Entropy = -(Probability of event 1 + Log Probability of event 1)

It should of course be Probability of event 1 TIMES Log Probability of event 1 -- which is what happens when you try to write maths in words without taking enough care! An error which is worse than \sum where anyone could have a reasonable stab of guessing what it meant..................

[Progenitor A]

Mar 28, 2011 13:13:20 GMT 1 speakertoanimals said:

Also note this strange symbol E = \sum_{i}

Might I point out that this ISN'T A strange symbol, just standard LaTeX for a summation.

Hence not mis-posted from WIki at all, just that those of us that write papers in LaTeX tend to use LaTeX when trying to put maths in ordinary emails of on message boards that don't support LaTeX.

If it was sigma (as NM mistakenly assumed), then that would be \Sigma anyway (capital greek sigma). But you don't use it like that, since LaTeX sorts out the greek letter stuff for you, and \sum appears differently for in-line equations, as opposed to fully typeset equations. Plus allows the usage of the \sum\limits_{a=1}^{\infty} form for upper and lower limits of summation.

Might I also point out an ' idiocy' from NM which is slightly worse than a bit of stray LaTeX. He wrote:

Entropy = -(Probability of event 1 + Log Probability of event 1)

It should of course be Probability of event 1 TIMES Log Probability of event 1 -- which is what happens when you try to write maths in words without taking enough care! An error which is worse than \sum where anyone could have a reasonable stab of guessing what it meant..................

You rea right my dear!
It should be -(Probability of event 1 x Log Probability of event 1)........
silly mistake!

Wonder if you will ever admit to error? ;D

[speakertoanimals]

Wonder if you will ever admit to error?

You should know, you're the one with the sad fascination for saving and later quoting out of context every line of mine that you can find.....................

[carnyx]

Hm.

" saving and later quoting "?

The scientific explanation is that asperity breeds hatred, and revenge is a dish best eaten cold.

I recommend you read-up the works of the inventor of science.