PASabreFan Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 I'm not sure if you're being serious, or what this means in general A dog pawing at a calculator is not going to figure out Tyrod's QB rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 (edited) A dog pawing at a calculator is not going to figure out Tyrod's QB rating. Are we talking about a multiverse theory? I can't say it's not true, because those are not falsifiable at this point, which is why there is a stretch between calling string theories that predict multiverses "science" or even "theories". If "y'all" is physicists, there's a huge difference between the mathematical development that is done by high energy theorists and, for example, the electrodynamics textbook I'm working through right now, a subject with which I WOULD be able to falsify an unsubstantiated claim about. And if you're just poking at me for the snark I displayed in my response, I just didn't like the "there are" part of that post. That is most certainly not known to be the case. Edited May 9, 2017 by Randall Flagg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 ...of the bills Told ya Bills appoint Brandon Beane as GM https://www.thescore.com/news/1297915 (via http://thesco.re/theScore_app ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 Are we talking about a multiverse theory? I can't say it's not true, because those are not falsifiable at this point, which is why there is a stretch between calling string theories that predict multiverses "science" or even "theories". If "y'all" is physicists, there's a huge difference between the mathematical development that is done by high energy theorists and, for example, the electrodynamics textbook I'm working through right now, a subject with which I WOULD be able to falsify an unsubstantiated claim about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kas23 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 Are we talking about a multiverse theory? I can't say it's not true, because those are not falsifiable at this point, which is why there is a stretch between calling string theories that predict multiverses "science" or even "theories". If "y'all" is physicists, there's a huge difference between the mathematical development that is done by high energy theorists and, for example, the electrodynamics textbook I'm working through right now, a subject with which I WOULD be able to falsify an unsubstantiated claim about. And if you're just poking at me for the snark I displayed in my response, I just didn't like the "there are" part of that post. That is most certainly not known to be the case. It's extremely hard to prove something doesn't exist. Heck, it's even hard to prove something period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 I like toitles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 It's extremely hard to prove something doesn't exist. Heck, it's even hard to prove something period. Try "proving" the null, and you will know true publication hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 Good god this thread has let itself go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 Good god this thread has let itself go. That's what usually happens when you hit a certain age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 (edited) That's what usually happens when you hit a certain age. There is a separate thread for Josh Gorges... please use proper decorum and post accordingly.???? Edited May 10, 2017 by North Buffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabills Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 Hopefully we can lock this thread tomorrow and pretend it never existed at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 I could get jiggy widdat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kas23 Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 Try "proving" the null, and you will know true publication hell. Trust me. Been there, done that. Horrible. Rejecting the null is hard enough. It reminds of this article I read that quoted a CERN particle physicist who was claiming particle physics proves ghosts can't exist. Geez, all the crap he current studies was believed not to exist 20-30 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFanInRochester Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 Are there any ties between Botterill and Housley? I am not sold on Tocchet, but I wouldn't be angry if he came in, like I was with DB. But I have to agree with WGR that how can the Pegula's preach character and allow Tocchet to come in after his troubled past. Forgive and forget -- I don't know. If the coaching search opens up, I just wonder if Botterill has done much with USA Hockey where he would be familiar with Housley, or if they played together, or have any connection. I really want Housley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 Trust me. Been there, done that. Horrible. Rejecting the null is hard enough. It reminds of this article I read that quoted a CERN particle physicist who was claiming particle physics proves ghosts can't exist. Geez, all the crap he current studies was believed not to exist 20-30 years ago. Do you recall the name of that physicist? I'm aiming to get some time at CERN in the next few years. Which "crap" are you referring to? Because The Standard Model as we know it has been around longer than that, and quantum theories have been in development for even longer. Also, ghosts don't exist regardless of any zany quote from an unnamed physicist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-90 W Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 Are there any ties between Botterill and Housley? I am not sold on Tocchet, but I wouldn't be angry if he came in, like I was with DB. But I have to agree with WGR that how can the Pegula's preach character and allow Tocchet to come in after his troubled past. Forgive and forget -- I don't know. If the coaching search opens up, I just wonder if Botterill has done much with USA Hockey where he would be familiar with Housley, or if they played together, or have any connection. I really want Housley. Me too. Ruff or Housley those are my top choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 I just had a thought. I know what you guys are thinking, so just spare me with the first time for everything stuff, OK? With the Penguin and Washington series being decided tonight, or maybe early tomorrow, what are the chances that the Pegula Festa on Friday could turn into a 2 for the price of 1 doubleheader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFanInRochester Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 Me too. Ruff or Housley those are my top choices. I don't think I want Ruff back. I loved him while he was here and when he left, I was bummed, but I turned the page. I liked that Ruff was adaptive -- let's not forget after the lockout he switched to a system that would work without all the clutching and grabbing. Ultimately, the playoffs started and consistent reffing went out the window. But, why I don't like him for a recycled coach -- I never liked some of his choices. He seemed to be infatuated with Derek Roy, and I never saw it. I wasn't happy with the way some of the younger players were developed under Ruff. Myers, Grigorenko, and I am sure I could come up with many more. Just seemed to either never give them a chance or mismanaged their play. I just had a thought. I know what you guys are thinking, so just spare me with the first time for everything stuff, OK? With the Penguin and Washington series being decided tonight, or maybe early tomorrow, what are the chances that the Pegula Festa on Friday could turn into a 2 for the price of 1 doubleheader? It's possible. They picked Friday for the press conference. Why? The GM is named, and unless he cannot get to town, the presser is almost always the next day, right? I wish I had more than just my memory to go off of. I could see two press conferences as I do not see them working together: One in the AM and one in the PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 It's more likely Botterill is announced tomorrow with the Presser on Monday Morning. Florida is waiting for Housley to be able to be interviewed, hopefully the Sabres do the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 It's more likely Botterill is announced tomorrow with the Presser on Monday Morning. Florida is waiting for Housley to be able to be interviewed, hopefully the Sabres do the same Consider that time is an illusion. Everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen is all occurring at the same time.... so technically the announcement and presser are happening at the same time... right now in fact, and yesterday, and tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 (edited) Consider that time is an illusion. Everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen is all occurring at the same time.... so technically the announcement and presser are happening at the same time... right now in fact, and yesterday, and tomorrow. Good batch of Shrooms??? Edited May 10, 2017 by North Buffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kas23 Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 (edited) Do you recall the name of that physicist? I'm aiming to get some time at CERN in the next few years. Which "crap" are you referring to? Because The Standard Model as we know it has been around longer than that, and quantum theories have been in development for even longer. Also, ghosts don't exist regardless of any zany quote from an unnamed physicist. Don't remember. True, the Higgs Boson has theorized to exist from the 60's, but wasn't shown to exist until 2012. But, I'm not big on theories, but more interested on what the data shows But as a scientist, or from a scientific point of view, how can you say ghosts don't exist? All you can say if there is no evidence that supports the existence of ghosts. As for the GM search, I really like Housley as a pick and think Botterill should be spelled Blahtterill. Edited May 10, 2017 by kas23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 Do you recall the name of that physicist? I'm aiming to get some time at CERN in the next few years. Which "crap" are you referring to? Because The Standard Model as we know it has been around longer than that, and quantum theories have been in development for even longer. Also, ghosts don't exist regardless of any zany quote from an unnamed physicist. How can a scientist with a young, fertile mind such as yours rule that out? Is it the semantics of the word "ghost"? I always heard energy can't be destroyed. So where does our energy go after death? Also, Ghost does exist. /mindblowing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 How can a scientist with a young, fertile mind such as yours rule that out? Is it the semantics of the word "ghost"? I always heard energy can't be destroyed. So where does our energy go after death? Also, Ghost does exist. /mindblowing But why would that energy not being destroyed become suddenly sentient? Your house isn't haunted. You're lonely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 (edited) Don't remember. True, the Higgs Boson has theorized to exist from the 60's, but wasn't shown to exist until 2012. But, I'm not big on theories, but more interested on what the data shows But as a scientist, or from a scientific point of view, how can you say ghosts don't exist? All you can say if there is no evidence that supports the existence of ghosts. As for the GM search, I really like Housley as a pick and think Botterill should be spelled Blahtterill. The two play back and forth. Science is building models that best match the data is gathered, and then go one step further and predict measurements that haven't happened yet. If those predictions are correct, we keep using those models. If they aren't, then adjustments are made as necessary. "Theories" are these models. The one we're talking about in particular, the Standard Model of Particle Physics, has an extraordinary track record of predicting particles and their properties, like the Higgs, and then finding them a long time later. That's why we enjoy and use them. The model also fails in some spots (I believe neutrino mass is one of those spots) and so physicists work incredibly hard to see what more there is to the model, to see what tweaks can be made, to see if something different entirely is needed to describe what we see. This is all of science - in the same way that the Standard Model faltered with neutrinos, Newtonian mechanics ###### up Mercury's orbit. We didn't just throw up our arms and say "meh, see they're just theories anyway", people worked very hard and years later we had General Relativity, which both matched Newtonian predictions for motion AND described Mercury's orbit among many other things to stupendous accuracy. And even then, the notion that science lives and dies by these theories is misplaced. They are constantly under attack and scrutiny, ready to be tossed aside or remade if a weakness is shown. It's a beautiful process. Exactly. We sit on earth, having never seen what is described as a "ghost" in a reliable setting. All we know is that someone says "ghost" and we say "Where? evidence, data, proof please" and we don't get that, we get a "how can you be so sure they don't exist?" or a "prove they don't". I can't be certain that many many many things, which don't exist, don't, in fact, exist, which is why they say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How can a scientist with a young, fertile mind such as yours rule that out? Is it the semantics of the word "ghost"? I always heard energy can't be destroyed. So where does our energy go after death? Also, Ghost does exist. /mindblowing I don't think a ghostless death violates any conservation laws. All of our mass is certainly accounted for, and decays according to the known rates of the atoms that make it up. *sploosh* :P Edited May 10, 2017 by Randall Flagg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts