In this thread, science gets disproven
 

Part 1: Gravity
Gravity operates on mass. Mass is a property of matter. Objects with differing masses feel the same effect of gravity.
Using Leibniz law these objects must therefore be the same or gravity must be fictional.


Part 2: Colour
Red and yellow mixed make green. I tried it with paint- it makes brown.

Part 3: Evolution
Intensional fallacy- incorrect use of Leibniz law.
Confusion of "selection of" with "selection for", coexistence of essential traits makes selection for fitness a meaningless concept.

Part 4: Empirical Method
Incompleteness theorum- we cannot establish the rules of the universe, empirical rules we create are only valid in their own self-contained set.

QED.


All theories are wrong. Human history is wrong. I challenge ou with a theorum that cannot be taken apart.

It's blue and yellow. Red and yellow makes orange. I know this works because I went for years to a school where we were only allowed a yellow, two reds and two shades of blue when painting. Likely you got brown instead of orange because of some impurity in the paint or the paper.

But okay. An unassailable theory: Imagination exists. It may in fact be the only thing in the entire universe we know for sure is real.

Yeah IQ is right there dude, see;

http://www.graphic-design.com/Photos...olor_wheel.jpg

Mixing any 2 colours together creates whatever colour is halfway between those colours. brown is closer to orange, so depending on how much red you threw in there, it's gona sway it more that way.

As for gravity, I think that has more to do with how much force gravity applies to the planet as a whole, rather than individual objects. The planet spins through space at what, 1000 mph? And it travels around the sun at around 67,000 mph. That's what causes gravity to make things stick to the surface with a determined amount of force, regardless of the mass of the object.

I know this is all that has been mentioned so far but, seriously, what the fuck man?

Are you saying my method is not scientifically valid? Are you saying that colour in paint is a byproduct of electronic adsorption by d band electrons and htus mixing them is not mixing two colours as such but is the mixing of compounds which will alter the available orbitals in ways they are determined by quantum mechanics with no reference to the final colour? Because that would be a stupid thing to say.

Define imagination. Just so you know, your theory can be taken apart.

Are you saying that gravity has some sort of "equivalence principle" the formulation of which would lead us to discover things like some form of strange, undetectable, perhaps "dark" matter and perhaps relies more upon geometrical effects in spacetime than direct grabbing of the object with invisible hands?
Cause that would also be stupid.


Holy fuck guys, way to kill my buzz.

Except imagination is just the twisting of known ideas into new forms, influenced by your preconceived ideas. Everything you "imagine" is simply a variation on things you know and your prejudices.

Imagination is the process of mixing immaterial objects and subjects into new forms. The process of making things outside of the natural world, if you will.

As for colors, I didn't say anything about electrons or quantum mechanics, just the way mixing paint works when you're painting. Unless you're color blind. Colors in themselves are of course interesting as an example of the subjective nature of reality, how do we know we both see the color blue the same way and what meanings and associations does it have and so on. You probably have a point if I could understand anything you said there.

The more Smarty posts, the less I am convinced that he is not constantly drunk. On Vodka. Communist vodka.

And objects with differing masses actually do feel differing gravitational force. Or, rather, they exert force as well as feeling it, but because of the whole equal-and-opposite-reaction thing, they also feel the force they exert. The force that an object with comparatively low mass exerts on a planet is just insignificant compared to the force of the stellar body this object is probably located on, but there's still a difference between the acceleration that, say, a 1-ton orb experiences and the acceleration that a 1-gram orb experiences, all other things being equal.

As for a theorem...
What would you do if I dared you to take apart Marxism? It's arguably a science.

Everything you think of is composed of structural forms composed of the dialogue of the world of which you live. It is impossible for you to create a thought not already constructed by society.
Basic structuralism backed up by lots of linguistical theories, try harder next time.
Well we know vaguely how the brain processes colour- it is pretty uniform though there is lots of things we don't understand about it.

But yeah, depending on what kind of paint you are using, the final colour you end up with can rely on all kinds of things- it depends on how the pigment particles interact.

But this thread is going in a terrible direction so:
Part 5: Dinosaurs:
Simply too heavy. They would never get enough food to sustain themselves. Fossil records also rely on circular science.

Part 6: Superconducitvity:
Relies upon 0 resistance, to get to superconductivity there is an asymptotic relationship between temperature and resistance- thus superconductivity doesn't exist.

Updated because suggestions:
Part 7:
You are an evil evil man. To take apart the most glorious theory in all of science will take some time- thus I must wait till I'm at home. Placeholder post.

Well, duh.

All vodka is communist. Except here.