@gravity_levity this might make a good case for a sequel to your Bohr atom thing. More accessible too.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
That’s not what I mean. It’s actually a well written pop science/philosophy of science article of its genre. The silliness is broader, in general culture around scientific explanations.
End of conversation
-
-
-
well you know what they say, "It's easy to explain how a rocket works, but explaining how a wing works takes a rocket scientist"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I had a professor who was very adamantly on the vortex side of this 'debate' and never let us forget it
-
everyone else didn't care
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think lift, light (wave-particle duality), quantum mechanics (superposition, entanglement), many drugs, and artificial neural networks have in common that we can make them useful without understanding them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Technically, we don't know how a transistor works (ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_field-effect_transistor …, which are quantum to say the least). And that's what separates engineers from scientists. Engineers don't care about a complete explanation; we just aggressively trial and error to build what works.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
New career: for a fee I will write a pop-sci article "Here's why we don't understand X", where X is any generic well-understood phenomenon that you want to clickbait people about. Will reduce everything to the cosmological constant problem if necessary.
-
You're on... come back to ribbonfarm and write a regular column along those lines :D
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.