i heard somewhere that broglie bohm theory is a natural consequence of the equations in the probabilistic model

but i do agree its less usefull and statisticly identical

i do think its intresting tho

bohm theory is deterministic but scientificly identical to the standard probabilistic model

Broglie bohm isn't a natural consequence of (I'm assuming by probabilistic model you mean quantum mechanics), it is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It also isn't an aether theory if that's what you're implying

never said it was an ether theory

Then I don't see the relevance

i state it so you get a better idea whats going on in my head

by giving a similar thaught

what i ment by natural consequence is i mena its a derived consept from the same equations

maybe slightly modified

but i havent lkooked into it to know if thats right or not

Wait are you two having a productive debate? In Ice Wall? <:ohheck:485078351162376202>

kinda

he disagrees with me that ether is consistent with special relativity

lorentz ether theory is mathematicly identical to special relativity in its predictions

lorents ether theory is the theory that space is a motionless medium that follows the wave equation

Yeah this is all above me tbh

then he argues that its the propogation of waves not the medium

i dont see the difrence

I know aminals I don't know physics

Wait but wasn't the aether theory dropped way back in the 1900s

im sure you know what i mean by that when i say it

No, this is not a productive debate, sigma 5 just keeps saying nonsense and lying about what I'm saying

it is becasue its useless now

e.g. ``he disagrees with me that ether is consistent with special relativity`` I have said completely explicitly literally 4 times that the aether is consistent with special relativity

skip the derivations and get right to the point

you explicitly said many times that its not

I have not said a single time that it is not.

ok

I have on the other hand, repeatedly, said that it is. e.g. ``Moist MayonnaiseToday at 11:26 AM
No, it is not at all, it is identical to special relativity (and also incredibly convoluted). It is not at all identical to relativity in general``

birds are reptiles

I'm just happy to read some non Kevin content tbh

@Σ5 hecc off that's wrong

@Yoda Yes the aether theory was dropped because it was shown to not be valid

birds are by definition reptiles, according to phylogenic classification

@Σ5 as are mammals

false

mamals are an earlier branch

There's a reason we have more specific classifications

like phylogenic clasification

in fact you need a reptile liscence to own certian types of birds

crocodiles and turtles are more closely related to birds than to lizards

@Σ5 nooo stop the biology debate....

Noo biology

Birds are closely related to old reptiles but they are a differnt, they aren't reptiles. It's as accurate as saying mammals are reptiles as they both share a common ancestor

We were all born out of god's magical grace lmaoo

they are by deffinition reptiles

in phylogenic clasification

its a choice of clasification

U are defying the goodness of the CREATOR with biology

this is kind of a semantical problem

We were created 6000 years ago

I will not accept any scientific reasoning or any arguments from outside the Bible..and I challenge u to change my mind

See u cant

Ergo God created the universe

Huehuehh

Reptiles don't have feathers, nor wings or warm blooded

im willing to mute if i had mod

Lol nooo

I'm just joking

I'm an atheist lmaoo

crocodiles are semi warm blooded

What does semi warm blooded mean

also crocodile scales have the same protienes and some structural similarities to bird feathers

they generate heat but not as much

Yeah and Kiwis have fur like feathers and bone marrow, doesn't mean they are mammals

You are right about the common ancestor but to say they *are* reptiles is wrong

all reptiles are diapsids

actually some even define all reptiles as diapsids depending on how far back you want to put the branch lable

birds are diapsids

I'm aware of historic species concepts, however since we've moved to DNA we have become much more accurate

diapsid meaning they have 2 holes in the temporal region of the skull

and the dna clasifies birds as reptiles

It literally doesn't

in monophyletic clasification

Take 10 seconds to Google "are birds reptiles"

go to wikipedia

birds are clasified under reptiles

They are under Aves

yes

aves is under dinosauria

dinosauria is under sauria(reptiles)

Modern replies and dinosaurs are much more differnt than you think they would be

as i said i think this is somewhat of a semantical difrence

there is linnaean clasification and there is phylogenic clasification

linnaean clasification clasifies birds as seperate of reptiles

but under phylogenic clasifitaion they are under reptiles

You are right about the common ancestor but to say they *are* reptiles is wrong they are about as related to modern day reptiles as we are.

im sorry but they are by deffinition reptiles

under phylogenic clasification

They aren't tho

you cant argue againsed a deffinition

Show your source please

there is wikipedia

there are a few others but i have to find them

I'm on the wiki for Ornithurae

go up the chain

To the Phylum?

That wouldn't make sense