@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
-
-
-
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
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
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
New 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
-
-
-
shades of that "the colour pink doesn't exist" shitshow from a few years back
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 -
-
-
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
-
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.