What really pisses you off? please no posts about nexus lol

[gregathit]

6 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

No, if you're incapable of being afraid, you won't have a fight or flight response. Quoted from the wiki article: During the reaction, the intensity of emotion that is brought on by the stimulus will also determine the nature and intensity of the behavioral response.

Says you.  What studies document this?  Fight or flight is, just as you said, a "response" to some stimuli and not dependent strictly on a particular emotion.  You aren't afraid of a finger, and yet if one streaks towards your eye, your going to try to move out of the way or blink.  But again, this has nothing to do with science.  

9 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

They are separate because you can't control what you are feeling at any given moment, but you can choose to not act on said feelings. It's the lizard brain vs. the prefrontal cortex, the unconscious vs. the conscious. You don't will emotions into or out of existence, they're ever present.

You are killing me.  Seriously.  You can't control your feelings, but you can choose to suppress them......?  Um....suppressing them IS CONTROLLING THEM.  And you can overcome how you feel about particular stimuli.  You just banged on about that in the last post.  Pick a side and stick with it.  Oh, and I clearly already said emotions are always present.  See:

11 hours ago, gregathit said:

Again, the point is emotions are obviously present in all of us, they just are not the central driving force for every decision.

Kinda silly to pretend to embrace my side of the argument to prove your own.........unless of course you picked an unwinnable position.

17 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

The idea is to not make a decision at all but to continue like you've learned. Making a decision costs valuable time. If you end up thinking about whether it's really justified to pull the trigger on someone you'll end up dead because the dude on the other end won't. Whether you want to handwave that away by calling it psychology or not doesn't really matter because it's how reality operates.

Wait, you stated that fight or flight is driven by emotions, so that means you WILL end up thinking and thus by your own admission you'll be killed.  Sorry about that.

By deciding what you are going to do and training to do it you won't freeze and you will pull that trigger.  Sorry, but I've been there and done that and clearly I lived to talk about it.  Still, none of this is science.  But hey, clearly you guys gave up on that one didn't you.

21 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

No, I said it isn't a magical black hole but still somewhat of a black box. A black hole isn't the same as a black box.  The concept of a black box is that of a device or structure where you can measure the input and output but have a poor (if any) understanding of the inner workings of said device. A black hole is a singularity that devours any information, there's nothing ever coming out of it. Probably.

The black box metaphor is silly.  Sorry, but that is what it is.  People are far more complex than a gumball machine.  Just because you stick your quarter in doesn't mean anything will happen.

 

A black hole is far more appropriate.  We can see what goes in, but we don't always see what comes out, if anything at times.  Go back to poker for example and the term "poker face".  Definitely stimuli is going in, but what can you measure coming out? If it is a good poker player, then very little if anything.  As for black holes, yes, they do emit things:  https://interestingengineering.com/nasa-sees-for-the-first-time-ever-something-coming-out-of-a-black-hole-while-it-feeds

source of study:  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aacff5/pdf

39 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

We are talking about emotions, not entire thought processes or reading minds.

If you can read emotions then you damn well should be able to read minds and thought processes.  They are inextricably linked. 

42 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

I don't know what your understanding of science is but generally, science is always concerned with things we don't yet know about reality and not so much about things we know, of which there are actually quite few if you really get into it.

 

Science is science and psychology is psychology.  What I mean by science is:  the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

54 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

There still isn't a single theory out there that can desribe physical reality in its entirety.

Who freaking cares!  Seriously.  This is utterly irrelevant to what we are talking about.  Stay on topic.

[KoolHndLuke]

12 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Stay on topic.

[Darkpig]

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

You didn't address being paralyzed "by fear", ie neither fleeing or fighting.

Because humans suck at it. Your brain is confused and unsure what to do. Fear is a great tool for those who have the training or instinct for it. Not so great for humans in environments with little to no natural predators.

Quote

  

Wait.  You claimed it is an emotional response and now you are interjecting logic and reasoning (processing) into the mix.  You can't keep adding ingredients.  This is just getting silly.  Are we baking a cake?????  ?

Only if you jump into the incinerator. Logic is the end result not the beginning.

Quote

Nice try, but you need to read the fine print.  Another way of saying Neuroscience is neurobiology.  They are the same thing.  Google it up and what you will find is this is the study of the biological aspect of the nervous system.  Which is not the same thing as Psychology.

Emotions are measured by neuroscience or more more specifically neurochemistry. Chemicals in the brain can be quantified. Didn't grim just say that?

Quote

ROFL!!!  Absurd rubbish.  Just because you may have a bomb phobia doesn't mean everyone does.  I certainly don't.  I read a book, felt sorry for the protagonist and then went on.  To do anyone more than that means you have some mental issues that you probably should see someone about.

You should be afraid of bombs. Those things are dangerous. As for what you felt it is standard for people to feel empathy even for a fictional character. Even if bombs aren't present death is very real and it could happen to anyone for a myriad of reasons. Come to think of it maybe I do have mental issues because your frustration is giving me a boner. Maybe we should finish up before I ejaculate.

Quote

WTF???  No it isn't.  Just because you can say it has similarities to a muscle doesn't it make it a muscle.  Biology says you are wrong.  I'm sorry.

Not in the literal sense dumb dumb. Its a fucking metaphor. Use your brain or lose it. I seriously mean that. People spending too long in solitary confinement leads to permanent, semi-permanent brain issues or even death just like sensory deprivation. Wiki that shit.

1 hour ago, gregathit said:

Trigger Warning for those who are hooked on the coof fear porn:

This is Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD a board certified neurosurgeon who goes into a huge amount of detail on the nonsense of masks.  The vid is well over an hour as he goes into great detail on all aspects of mask wearing.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Weren't you going on about quantifiable proof earlier? How is this quantified?

[gregathit]

22 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

Emotions are measured by neuroscience or more more specifically neurochemistry. Chemicals in the brain can be quantified. Didn't grim just say that?

ROFL!!!  Dude, just throwing more words at the wall isn't going to do jack crap for your position.  You aren't measuring emotions via chemicals, you are measuring the emotional response.  I'll say it one more time, no one can predict what a person feels or thinks to any degree.  You have to rely on subjective data.  This throws emotions solidly into the discipline of psychology.  

29 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

You should be afraid of bombs. Those things are dangerous. As for what you felt it is standard for people to feel empathy even for a fictional character. Even if bombs aren't present death is very real and it could happen to anyone for a myriad of reasons.

This is cracking me up.  I'm not scared of bombs.  Sorry.  Yes, death can come at any time, so why the freak should care?  If it happens it happens.  Being paranoid about it isn't logical.  Again, it has nothing to do with "science".  

32 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

Come to think of it maybe I do have mental issues because your frustration is giving me a boner. Maybe we should finish up before I ejaculate.

I'm sorry to let you down as I'm not frustrated.  I just feel a tiny tinge of pity that something is so simple isn't being understood.  But hey, think as you will and blow that load.  Just remember which little piggy will have to clean up afterwards.  ?

36 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

Not in the literal sense dumb dumb. Its a fucking metaphor. Use your brain or lose it. I seriously mean that. People spending too long in solitary confinement leads to permanent, semi-permanent brain issues or even death just like sensory deprivation. Wiki that shit.

You didn't identify it as a metaphor.  That is on you not me.  Say what you mean.  

[AKM]

It's official, I hate people.  The shear idiocy is mind boggling.  And then, of course, it's someone else who's the asshole when things don't go exactly to plan.

Oh, piss off!

Ugh.

[gregathit]

1 hour ago, Darkpig said:

Weren't you going on about quantifiable proof earlier? How is this quantified?

Watch the video.  That is a certified expert who clearly articulates both his experiences and various studies that have been done recently and back over the course of his career.  

New studies are coming out that show the virus is mutating and becoming more contagious.  Those masks may soon, if not already, be irrelevant:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/23/houston-coronavirus-mutations/?arc404=true  and while they recommend wearing masks (going on the assumption that it is better to be safe than sorry ideology) they admit they have no proof that they do much if anything:  https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/medical-masks-lower-risk-of-infection-in-some-settings-quebec-researchers

Influenza, which is similar to covid, had a study done that concluded masks did not have a substantial impact on the spread:  https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article?fbclid=IwAR21FVILWjj0MqCV2j1OgspKcglxt1CXJmG_zZSiGD8bwo1IIwa5ORFew7k

And scientists are challenging the droplet theory:  https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-07-04/coronavirus-airborne-spread

Oops, folks wore masks and still got covid:  https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/new-cdc-study-finds-majority-of-those-infected-with-covid-19-always-wore-masks/

Another article citing a study from south korea that masks are not all that effective:  https://www.fastcompany.com/90487327/will-your-cotton-mask-prevent-coronavirus-spread-new-study-casts-doubt

Article highlighting that scientist are still battling back an forth (hint, this is a novel virus): https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/controversy-covid-19-mask-study-spotlights-messiness-science-during

Another study:  https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-and-mask-mandates-do-not-lead-to-reduced-covid-transmission-rates-or-deaths-new-study-suggests/

 

[27X]

56 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Watch the video.  That is a certified expert who clearly articulates both his experiences and various studies that have been done recently and back over the course of his career.  

New studies are coming out that show the virus is mutating and becoming more contagious.  Those masks may soon, if not already, be irrelevant:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/23/houston-coronavirus-mutations/?arc404=true  and while they recommend wearing masks (going on the assumption that it is better to be safe than sorry ideology) they admit they have no proof that they do much if anything:  https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/medical-masks-lower-risk-of-infection-in-some-settings-quebec-researchers

Influenza, which is similar to covid, had a study done that concluded masks did not have a substantial impact on the spread:  https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article?fbclid=IwAR21FVILWjj0MqCV2j1OgspKcglxt1CXJmG_zZSiGD8bwo1IIwa5ORFew7k

And scientists are challenging the droplet theory:  https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-07-04/coronavirus-airborne-spread

Oops, folks wore masks and still got covid:  https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/new-cdc-study-finds-majority-of-those-infected-with-covid-19-always-wore-masks/

Another article citing a study from south korea that masks are not all that effective:  https://www.fastcompany.com/90487327/will-your-cotton-mask-prevent-coronavirus-spread-new-study-casts-doubt

Article highlighting that scientist are still battling back an forth (hint, this is a novel virus): https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/controversy-covid-19-mask-study-spotlights-messiness-science-during

Another study:  https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-and-mask-mandates-do-not-lead-to-reduced-covid-transmission-rates-or-deaths-new-study-suggests/

 

 

In terms of transmissibility, you don't have to watch the video. Standard disposable masks in most American venues almost all have a 19 micron mesh. The virus + liquid orb from a cough or sneeze is on average 9-10 microns. The chances of this type mask saving your ass in a clutch is "dubious at best".

[gregathit]

Exactly.  They even print it on the box of those types of masks:

Spoiler

 

[Darkpig]

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

ROFL!!!  Dude, just throwing more words at the wall isn't going to do jack crap for your position.  You aren't measuring emotions via chemicals, you are measuring the emotional response.  I'll say it one more time, no one can predict what a person feels or thinks to any degree.  You have to rely on subjective data.  This throws emotions solidly into the discipline of psychology. 

Position on the internet? What do I look like Dr. Darkpig? You asked I answered. My job here is done.

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

This is cracking me up.  I'm not scared of bombs.  Sorry.  Yes, death can come at any time, so why the freak should care?  If it happens it happens.  Being paranoid about it isn't logical.  Again, it has nothing to do with "science".

Throwing more words at the wall.

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

I'm sorry to let you down as I'm not frustrated.  I just feel a tiny tinge of pity that something is so simple isn't being understood.  But hey, think as you will and blow that load.  Just remember which little piggy will have to clean up afterwards.  ?

Liar.

2 hours ago, gregathit said:

You didn't identify it as a metaphor.  That is on you not me.  Say what you mean.  

Its a metaphor. Now what's your complaint?

[gregathit]

5 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

Liar.

I mean it.  You'll need to clean up your own mess. 

Spoiler

 

6 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

Its a metaphor.

Metaphorical or Metapsychological?  Careful.......think about it first.  ?

[Darkpig]

5 hours ago, gregathit said:

I mean it.  You'll need to clean up your own mess. 

  Hide contents

You would know. Its your house. WOOB WOOB WOOB!

Then again I may have overdone it. Maybe I should clean up. Should I remove the dead body too?

5 hours ago, gregathit said:

Metaphorical or Metapsychological?  Careful.......think about it first.  ?

Metaphor. If I read any of Sigmund Freud's works I could give you a more accurate answer but I didn't.?

[Ernest Lemmingway]

13 hours ago, 27X said:

In terms of transmissibility, you don't have to watch the video. Standard disposable masks in most American venues almost all have a 19 micron mesh. The virus + liquid orb from a cough or sneeze is on average 9-10 microns. The chances of this type mask saving your ass in a clutch is "dubious at best".

 

13 hours ago, gregathit said:

Exactly.  They even print it on the box of those types of masks:

  Hide contents

 

Masks aren't about protecting the wearer. They're about protecting others from the wearer. Otherwise you're both right. Masks are pretty useless with COVID. That's where distancing, avoiding touching the face, and washing or using alcohol-based sanitizer comes in. I'm not going to bother arguing whether the fluids they do catch help because I don't know for sure if that does anything or not. Don't bother quoting micron sizes, please. I've heard the same arguments so many times--with and without any evidence one way or the other--I just tune it out.

 

Lame stream and sociopathic media hyping up COVID like the next Black Death is driving me insane. COVID has a 99.7% survival rate among kids, teens, and adults; 95% among seniors. That's before any comorbidity like obesity, diabetes, compromised immune systems, etc. In over 99% of the deaths of the infected, the actual cause of death was not COVID itself but those very things I listed. But does anyone hear about any of that? Hell no! And neither do we hear about the one thing that will truly help advanced cases: blood donations! Ventilators are an absolute last resort; blood that hasn't dumped its iron due to COVID helps more than forcing oxygen into someone.

[gregathit]

6 hours ago, Darkpig said:

Then again I may have overdone it. Maybe I should clean up.

[GrimReaper]

19 hours ago, gregathit said:

Says you.  What studies document this?  Fight or flight is, just as you said, a "response" to some stimuli and not dependent strictly on a particular emotion.  You aren't afraid of a finger, and yet if one streaks towards your eye, your going to try to move out of the way or blink.  But again, this has nothing to do with science. 

 

I've already linked the wikipedia article, which has sources. A fight or flight response goes hand in hand with an emotional response and while you might not be afraid of a finger, people are startled by sudden movements. Besides, blinking isn't a fight or flight response.

19 hours ago, gregathit said:

 

You are killing me.  Seriously.  You can't control your feelings, but you can choose to suppress them......?  Um....suppressing them IS CONTROLLING THEM.  And you can overcome how you feel about particular stimuli.  You just banged on about that in the last post.  Pick a side and stick with it.  Oh, and I clearly already said emotions are always present.  See:

 

 

Sigh. You can't control what emotions appear but you can control your response. You can't randomly decide that you're now afraid of spiders when you previously were not, can you? If you are afraid of spiders, you can't decide that you're simply not anymore. But you can try to calm yourself down and desensitize yourself, however - which is a perk of having a well-developed prefrontal cortex.

19 hours ago, gregathit said:

Wait, you stated that fight or flight is driven by emotions, so that means you WILL end up thinking and thus by your own admission you'll be killed.  Sorry about that.

By deciding what you are going to do and training to do it you won't freeze and you will pull that trigger.  Sorry, but I've been there and done that and clearly I lived to talk about it.  Still, none of this is science.  But hey, clearly you guys gave up on that one didn't you.

 

Emotions have nothing to do with thinking. I don't know why you're trying to say that having or not having an emotional response to a stimulus is a conscious decision. It's simply not. If someone kicks you against the shin unprovoked, you don't stay there and ponder whether this should make you angry or not. You simply are angry.

 

19 hours ago, gregathit said:

 

The black box metaphor is silly.  Sorry, but that is what it is.  People are far more complex than a gumball machine.  Just because you stick your quarter in doesn't mean anything will happen.

 

 

A black hole is far more appropriate.  We can see what goes in, but we don't always see what comes out, if anything at times.  Go back to poker for example and the term "poker face".  Definitely stimuli is going in, but what can you measure coming out? If it is a good poker player, then very little if anything.  As for black holes, yes, they do emit things:  https://interestingengineering.com/nasa-sees-for-the-first-time-ever-something-coming-out-of-a-black-hole-while-it-feeds

source of study:  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aacff5/pdf

If you can read emotions then you damn well should be able to read minds and thought processes.  They are inextricably linked. 

 

Science is science and psychology is psychology.  What I mean by science is:  the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Who freaking cares!  Seriously.  This is utterly irrelevant to what we are talking about.  Stay on topic.

 

The concept of a black box says nothing about the complexity of any device, simply that observing the inner workings is conceptually or practically impossible, extremely hard to do or simply not needed. And with the black hole, that article you posted is extremely misleading - the ray didn't come out of the black hole itself, but formed from the corona of super heated plasma surrounding the black hole. It is generally believed that black holes do eventually evaporate by emitting something we call hawking radiation but this is the field of theoretical physics, it's purely mathematical for the moment.

 

Emotions are something that developed earlier than conscious thought, which is self-evident given the fact that most animals are capable of feeling emotions yet not capable of conscious thought processes. A cat can't lie, for example.

 

I do think you're advocating for scientism instead of science, because if I understand you correctly, it's only considered science if we are 100% certain its true. Which is circular reasoning and not how science works. Science works by formulating theories and testing them. Over and over again. Newton's idea of gravity wasn't wrong but incomplete, then Einstein came along and provided a better theory with his relativity theory. Yet, by your logic, nothing we can say about gravity can be considered science because we aren't 100% certain we've figured it out completely. Falsification is what drives science onward. You make theories better by proving them false.

 

 

[Grey Cloud]

11 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

and while you might not be afraid of a finger,

Nor am I but I am afraid of damage to my eye so I jerk back my head.

I'm not afraid of bombs either but then again there are no bombs falling where I live. When I was a soldier in Northern Ireland way back when . . .

[gregathit]

40 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

Besides, blinking isn't a fight or flight response.

Oops.  Should have google that first.  It so happens that it is:  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/let-their-words-do-the-talking/201405/just-the-bat-eye

40 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

You can't control what emotions appear but you can control your response. You can't randomly decide that you're now afraid of spiders when you previously were not, can you? If you are afraid of spiders, you can't decide that you're simply not anymore.

Wrong.  Yes, you can decide to not be afraid.  I used to be afraid of things under my bed when I was a child.  I decided that was silly, so I grabbed my pillow and crawled under my bed each night and slept there.  It only took a few nights and I never was afraid of anything under my bed again.  The will is a powerful thing that can overcome the worst of fears.  Love is another.  But this is all academic.  

40 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

Emotions have nothing to do with thinking. I don't know why you're trying to say that having or not having an emotional response to a stimulus is a conscious decision. It's simply not. If someone kicks you against the shin unprovoked, you don't stay there and ponder whether this should make you angry or not. You simply are angry.

Wrong.  If this was true, we would be nothing more than animals.  When a child strikes his mother or father do they become angry and kill the child?  Obviously not.  They may be disappointed, and may even discipline the child.  YOU decide how you will react.  If you let emotions rule you, then you will live a terrible life and will be the puppet of all who desire to pull your strings.  Humans can be more than this.  Again, this is all simple stuff that I would hope you'd have figured out by now.  Ah well.

40 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

And with the black hole, that article you posted is extremely misleading - the ray didn't come out of the black hole itself, but formed from the corona of super heated plasma surrounding the black hole. It is generally believed that black holes do eventually evaporate by emitting something we call hawking radiation but this is the field of theoretical physics, it's purely mathematical for the moment.

The article is one of many that recorded the event and merely proof that we don't have the slightest freaking clue about black holes.  We have a lot of theories for them, just like we have a lot for the human brain.  Unfortunately we just don't know enough about either one yet.  Clearly you missed the point, which was that we don't know much about black holes or the human brain.  Sure, we know a few things, but much is still a mystery.

40 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

A cat can't lie, for example.

How do you know?  They can't speak, so obviously it would be harder to catch one in a lie.  But cats are sneaky and deceitful.  

40 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

I do think you're advocating for scientism instead of science, 

That would be you.  I defined what I meant by science.  You have clearly demonstrated you are pushing emotions and that is Psychology.  But whatever.

40 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

because if I understand you correctly, it's only considered science if we are 100% its true. 

You don't.  Where you pulled that gem from is beyond me.  I never once stated that.  I never even came close.  Science has had more failures than successes.  Many folks mistakenly think failures are a bad thing.  They are only if you refuse to learn from them.  If you do decide to learn from them, they are a key to success and happiness. 

40 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

Yet, by your logic

Again, this is nonsense.  I never stated anything of the sort and your desperation is showing.  You can't win the argument on the merits, thus you introduce strawmen and outright falsifications.  Typical.  Science is science.  Psychology is psychology.  Each is separate for reasons that make logical sense.  Each has very intelligent people driving their discipline forward.  The people in these two fields are not interchangeable.  The disciplines are two different for that.

[27X]

5 hours ago, Ernest Lemmingway said:

 

Masks aren't about protecting the wearer. They're about protecting others from the wearer. Otherwise you're both right. Masks are pretty useless with COVID. That's where distancing, avoiding touching the face, and washing or using alcohol-based sanitizer comes in. I'm not going to bother arguing whether the fluids they do catch help because I don't know for sure if that does anything or not. Don't bother quoting micron sizes, please. I've heard the same arguments so many times--with and without any evidence one way or the other--I just tune it out.

 

Lame stream and sociopathic media hyping up COVID like the next Black Death is driving me insane. COVID has a 99.7% survival rate among kids, teens, and adults; 95% among seniors. That's before any comorbidity like obesity, diabetes, compromised immune systems, etc. In over 99% of the deaths of the infected, the actual cause of death was not COVID itself but those very things I listed. But does anyone hear about any of that? Hell no! And neither do we hear about the one thing that will truly help advanced cases: blood donations! Ventilators are an absolute last resort; blood that hasn't dumped its iron due to COVID helps more than forcing oxygen into someone.

You're repeating what I already repeated; point being they don't even do that.

 

A cat can't lie

 

The hell they can't.

[ChrisHPZ]

If anything, it pisses me off when someone asks for advice on how to do something. Then summarily rejects such advice. That's time out of an advice giver's life that they'll never get back.

[TheOzoneHole]

1 hour ago, ChrisHPZ said:

If anything, it pisses me off when someone asks for advice on how to do something. Then summarily rejects such advice. That's time out of an advice giver's life that they'll never get back.

Student: I need tutoring!

Tutor: So we do it like this....

Student: But this way is BETTER!

[ChrisHPZ]

14 minutes ago, TheOzoneHole said:

Student: I need tutoring!

Tutor: So we do it like this....

Student: But this way is BETTER!

Boy you said it TheOzoneHole. Of course, I think we're all guilty of that scenario at one point of another. By that logic, I've pissed myself off ?

[steelpanther24]

3 hours ago, 27X said:

You're repeating what I already repeated; point being they don't even do that.

 

 

 

 

The hell they can't.

The size of the virus particle itself is not relevant to any discussion of mask filtration. This is because virus particles never float freely in the air, but are always at least suspended in a droplet nuclei ten times larger than the virus itself. A droplet containing a single particle will on average start out 270 times larger than the virion, and will evaporate to nuclei of 50 times larger than the virion. [1]

The size of the weave of the fabric is also not directly comparable to the size of the droplets or droplet nuclei, due to the three dimensional nature of many types of material, the indirect route taken by small particles in brownian motion, and the electrostatic effects in many materials. So if you’ve seen those claims that masks can’t possibly stop COVID-19 because the virus is too small, now you know why they’re totally wrong. [1]

 

I cannot attest to the veracity of the first paragraph, but the second is accurate based on several different models and fields of study in shielding, heat transfer, etc.   I have not heard of Brownian motion, though, as we simply called it a "tortuous path based on defection of neutrons hitting other particles."

 

Now as we always want source citation:

[1] Fast.ai;  https://www.fast.ai/2020/06/26/particle-sizes/  ;26Jun20; " Particle sizes for mask filtration";  Fast.ai is a research institute dedicated to making deep learning more accessible.  The Author is He is also a Distinguished Research Scientist at the University of San Francisco, the chair of WAMRI, and is Chief Scientist at platform.ai.

[Darkpig]

9 hours ago, gregathit said:

[gregathit]

40 minutes ago, steelpanther24 said:

The size of the virus particle itself is not relevant to any discussion of mask filtration. This is because virus particles never float freely in the air, but are always at least suspended in a droplet nuclei ten times larger than the virus itself. A droplet containing a single particle will on average start out 270 times larger than the virion, and will evaporate to nuclei of 50 times larger than the virion. [1]

The size of the weave of the fabric is also not directly comparable to the size of the droplets or droplet nuclei, due to the three dimensional nature of many types of material, the indirect route taken by small particles in brownian motion, and the electrostatic effects in many materials. So if you’ve seen those claims that masks can’t possibly stop COVID-19 because the virus is too small, now you know why they’re totally wrong. [1]

 

I cannot attest to the veracity of the first paragraph, but the second is accurate based on several different models and fields of study in shielding, heat transfer, etc.   I have not heard of Brownian motion, though, as we simply called it a "tortuous path based on defection of neutrons hitting other particles."

 

Now as we always want source citation:

[1] Fast.ai;  https://www.fast.ai/2020/06/26/particle-sizes/  ;26Jun20; " Particle sizes for mask filtration";  Fast.ai is a research institute dedicated to making deep learning more accessible.  The Author is He is also a Distinguished Research Scientist at the University of San Francisco, the chair of WAMRI, and is Chief Scientist at platform.ai.

There are studies that contradict the virus "only" being spread by droplets.

On 10/15/2020 at 8:36 PM, gregathit said:

Watch the video.  That is a certified expert who clearly articulates both his experiences and various studies that have been done recently and back over the course of his career.  

New studies are coming out that show the virus is mutating and becoming more contagious.  Those masks may soon, if not already, be irrelevant:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/23/houston-coronavirus-mutations/?arc404=true  and while they recommend wearing masks (going on the assumption that it is better to be safe than sorry ideology) they admit they have no proof that they do much if anything:  https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/medical-masks-lower-risk-of-infection-in-some-settings-quebec-researchers

Influenza, which is similar to covid, had a study done that concluded masks did not have a substantial impact on the spread:  https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article?fbclid=IwAR21FVILWjj0MqCV2j1OgspKcglxt1CXJmG_zZSiGD8bwo1IIwa5ORFew7k

And scientists are challenging the droplet theory:  https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-07-04/coronavirus-airborne-spread

Oops, folks wore masks and still got covid:  https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/new-cdc-study-finds-majority-of-those-infected-with-covid-19-always-wore-masks/

Another article citing a study from south korea that masks are not all that effective:  https://www.fastcompany.com/90487327/will-your-cotton-mask-prevent-coronavirus-spread-new-study-casts-doubt

Article highlighting that scientist are still battling back an forth (hint, this is a novel virus): https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/controversy-covid-19-mask-study-spotlights-messiness-science-during

Another study:  https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-and-mask-mandates-do-not-lead-to-reduced-covid-transmission-rates-or-deaths-new-study-suggests/

 

And here is a board certified practicing neurosurgeon walking you through both the studies and and all the details.

On 10/15/2020 at 5:32 PM, gregathit said:

Trigger Warning for those who are hooked on the coof fear porn:

This is Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD a board certified neurosurgeon who goes into a huge amount of detail on the nonsense of masks.  The vid is well over an hour as he goes into great detail on all aspects of mask wearing.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Do masks work?  As of today, folks don't honestly know.  To say otherwise is silly.  More studies are needed, which are underway.  Real science takes time unfortunately.  Rushing things does no one any good.  Facts are now starting to bubble up, but the nonsensical blocking of information and paranoia on a virus that for healthy folks under the age of 70 is less deadly than the flue is just mind boggling.  This must stop.  Everyone needs to look at this with an open mind and clear parameters so we can come up with logical and reasonable actions and policies.  God forbid if this virus was as deadly as the media pushes it.  The confusion that this has generated lessens the general public from trusting government, media and now medicine.  This is a recipe for an actual real epidemic virus to kill a staggering number of folks.

[Mr. Otaku]

1 hour ago, ChrisHPZ said:

Boy you said it TheOzoneHole. Of course, I think we're all guilty of that scenario at one point of another. By that logic, I've pissed myself off ?

"You haven't lived until you've made yourself wanna punch yourself hard sometimes"

 

- Albert Einstein.

[steelpanther24]

1 hour ago, gregathit said:

There are studies that contradict the virus "only" being spread by droplets.

And here is a board certified practicing neurosurgeon walking you through both the studies and and all the details.

Do masks work?  As of today, folks don't honestly know.  To say otherwise is silly.  More studies are needed, which are underway.  Real science takes time unfortunately.  Rushing things does no one any good.  Facts are now starting to bubble up, but the nonsensical blocking of information and paranoia on a virus that for healthy folks under the age of 70 is less deadly than the flue is just mind boggling.  This must stop.  Everyone needs to look at this with an open mind and clear parameters so we can come up with logical and reasonable actions and policies.  God forbid if this virus was as deadly as the media pushes it.  The confusion that this has generated lessens the general public from trusting government, media and now medicine.  This is a recipe for an actual real epidemic virus to kill a staggering number of folks.

My point is that the effectiveness of a mask should not be solely based on the smallest particle that it can filter, but many other issues.   As you say, more research is needed.    I, too, am worried that far too many people are convinced that the "gov't is lying", especially when we have the chief executive suggesting "Osama is still alive."  

 

Did Rockstar influence a whole generation of people??

 

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZLr2BtsP3U&ab_channel=PerfectCombetEVER