Right - you read the paper and can explain it? Go ahead. The default position of science is skepticism, and for good reason. Kindly fuck off. At least I fucking took quantum mechanics. Edit: it’s also evident that you have spent zero time trying to reproduce the academic literature and have no understanding of the vast quantities of bullshit.
In my experience, people with rational reasons for rejecting claims can articulate said reasons, rather than simply calling them bullshit and telling other people to fuck off. I’m not convinced of the article’s claims, but I’m also not convinced you know what you’re talking about either. The difference is that the article admits its claims are speculative and hypothetical, while you’re just slinging insults.
Rejecting causality IS the rational reason. It is you who is irrational. When one scientist brings forth a claim that breaks ALL of physics, it is not the ones who doubt that are likely to be wrong.
It read to me like they provided a reason for denying causality though: that the associative breakdown in entropic state suggests causality can be violated. I don’t have the expertise to evaluate that claim, but if you do, why don’t you just explain to me why it’s wrong? Or is that demanding too much of a random person on the internet?
And you’re the arbiter of what constitutes “popsci bullshit” rather than the quantum physics professor? Such hubris.
Right - you read the paper and can explain it? Go ahead. The default position of science is skepticism, and for good reason. Kindly fuck off. At least I fucking took quantum mechanics. Edit: it’s also evident that you have spent zero time trying to reproduce the academic literature and have no understanding of the vast quantities of bullshit.
In my experience, people with rational reasons for rejecting claims can articulate said reasons, rather than simply calling them bullshit and telling other people to fuck off. I’m not convinced of the article’s claims, but I’m also not convinced you know what you’re talking about either. The difference is that the article admits its claims are speculative and hypothetical, while you’re just slinging insults.
Rejecting causality IS the rational reason. It is you who is irrational. When one scientist brings forth a claim that breaks ALL of physics, it is not the ones who doubt that are likely to be wrong.
It read to me like they provided a reason for denying causality though: that the associative breakdown in entropic state suggests causality can be violated. I don’t have the expertise to evaluate that claim, but if you do, why don’t you just explain to me why it’s wrong? Or is that demanding too much of a random person on the internet?
Uh, because the entire field of physics is completely fucked if causality is violable? I’m really done with you.
That’s good, because I’m pretty sick of you too. What an arrogant POS.