Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #871549 > unrolled thread

Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-20 10:56 -0700
    Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-03-20 11:17 -0700
      Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-20 17:25 -0700
        Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-03-21 13:12 +1100
          Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-20 19:43 -0700
          Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-20 19:45 -0700
            Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-20 19:47 -0700
            Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-22 10:28 -0700
              Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-22 10:41 -0700
                Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-03-22 11:24 -0700
                  Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-22 11:43 -0700
                    Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-03-22 11:52 -0700
                      Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-22 12:06 -0700
                        Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-03-22 13:46 -0700
                          Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-22 16:05 -0700
                            Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-03-22 18:11 -0700
                  Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-22 16:13 -0700
                    Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-22 16:19 -0700
                      Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-03-22 18:12 -0700
        Re: Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-03-20 20:43 -0700

#871549 — Uncertainty is why science can never know exactly

QM in its central principle shows how
uncertain science has been. Einstein
knew QM would take a correction...
How can we get anywhere if
measurements are so uncertain?
And he had a God. God was his God.
Personal and impersonal.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#871552

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
> QM in its central principle shows how
> uncertain science has been. Einstein
> knew QM would take a correction...
> How can we get anywhere if
> measurements are so uncertain?
> And he had a God. God was his God.
> Personal and impersonal.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

The measured value of the gravitational constant, which is one of the
most difficult values to measure, has a current uncertainty of 46 parts
per million or 0.0046%.

Many physical values are known to uncertainties that are less by orders
of magnitude than 1 part in 10^10.

So where do you get your idiotic nonsense that "measurements are so
uncertain", moron?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871576

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > QM in its central principle shows how 
> > uncertain science has been. Einstein 
> > knew QM would take a correction... 
> > How can we get anywhere if 
> > measurements are so uncertain? 
> > And he had a God. God was his God. 
> > Personal and impersonal. 
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> The measured value of the gravitational constant, which is one of the 
> most difficult values to measure, has a current uncertainty of 46 parts 
> per million or 0.0046%. 

Doesnt science need to know that constant exact before you could
predict how close to certain it is.
I remember science claiming it knew the gravity constant
to 59%. But that calculation requires knowing it exact.
How is science going to prove it is exact
if it is based on uncertainty of  measurement
as its core principle?

The uncertainty principle of QM shows how
uncertain science has been. How can they
change their own principle for exactitude...?
Science defines itself as uncertain.

Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> Many physical values are known to uncertainties that are less by orders 
> of magnitude than 1 part in 10^10. 
> 
> So where do you get your idiotic nonsense that "measurements are so 
> uncertain", moron?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871579

On 21-Mar-23 11:25 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> QM in its central principle shows how
>>> uncertain science has been. Einstein
>>> knew QM would take a correction...
>>> How can we get anywhere if
>>> measurements are so uncertain?
>>> And he had a God. God was his God.
>>> Personal and impersonal.
>>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>> The measured value of the gravitational constant, which is one of the
>> most difficult values to measure, has a current uncertainty of 46 parts
>> per million or 0.0046%.
> 
> Doesnt science need to know that constant exact before you could
> predict how close to certain it is.

Why would you think that? Get out a metre rule and measure the height of 
your desk. You know the result isn't exact, so you don't know the 
precise height of your desk. But you can still look at the scale of your 
metre rule and conclude that you know the desk height to within a 
millimetre, or about 1 part in 750.
> 
> The uncertainty principle of QM shows how
> uncertain science has been. 

The uncertainty principle relates to how the universe itself works, not 
to our inability to measure it precisely.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871580

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:12:18 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 21-Mar-23 11:25 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote: 
> >> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> >>> QM in its central principle shows how 
> >>> uncertain science has been. Einstein 
> >>> knew QM would take a correction... 
> >>> How can we get anywhere if 
> >>> measurements are so uncertain? 
> >>> And he had a God. God was his God. 
> >>> Personal and impersonal. 
> >>> 
> >>> Mitchell Raemsch 
> >> The measured value of the gravitational constant, which is one of the 
> >> most difficult values to measure, has a current uncertainty of 46 parts 
> >> per million or 0.0046%. 
> > 
> > Doesnt science need to know that constant exact before you could 
> > predict how close to certain it is.
> Why would you think that? Get out a metre rule and measure the height of 
> your desk. You know the result isn't exact, so you don't know the 
> precise height of your desk. But you can still look at the scale of your 
> metre rule and conclude that you know the desk height to within a 
> millimetre, or about 1 part in 750.
> > 
> > The uncertainty principle of QM shows how 
> > uncertain science has been.
> The uncertainty principle relates to how the universe itself works, not 
> to our inability to measure it precisely. 
> 
> Sylvia.

You are dumb. The principle is about all QM measurement.
Precision is what science does not have because of it.
Neither side ever goes accurate. That is not measurable
or knowable in QM.


Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871581

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> On 21-Mar-23 11:25 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
> >> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> QM in its central principle shows how
> >>> uncertain science has been. Einstein
> >>> knew QM would take a correction...
> >>> How can we get anywhere if
> >>> measurements are so uncertain?
> >>> And he had a God. God was his God.
> >>> Personal and impersonal.
> >>>
> >>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >> The measured value of the gravitational constant, which is one of the
> >> most difficult values to measure, has a current uncertainty of 46 parts
> >> per million or 0.0046%.
> >
> > Doesnt science need to know that constant exact before you could
> > predict how close to certain it is.
> 
> Why would you think that? Get out a metre rule and measure the height of
> your desk. You know the result isn't exact, so you don't know the
> precise height of your desk. But you can still look at the scale of your
> metre rule and conclude that you know the desk height to within a
> millimetre, or about 1 part in 750.
> >
> > The uncertainty principle of QM shows how
> > uncertain science has been.
> 
> The uncertainty principle relates to how the universe itself works, not
> to our inability to measure it precisely.
> 
> Sylvia.

How the uncertainty principle universe itself works has made your ability to measure it precisely, ineffective. 

It's in the cards.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871582

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:45:00 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote: 
> > 
> > On 21-Mar-23 11:25 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote: 
> > >> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > >>> QM in its central principle shows how 
> > >>> uncertain science has been. Einstein 
> > >>> knew QM would take a correction... 
> > >>> How can we get anywhere if 
> > >>> measurements are so uncertain? 
> > >>> And he had a God. God was his God. 
> > >>> Personal and impersonal. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> Mitchell Raemsch 
> > >> The measured value of the gravitational constant, which is one of the 
> > >> most difficult values to measure, has a current uncertainty of 46 parts 
> > >> per million or 0.0046%. 
> > > 
> > > Doesnt science need to know that constant exact before you could 
> > > predict how close to certain it is. 
> > 
> > Why would you think that? Get out a metre rule and measure the height of 
> > your desk. You know the result isn't exact, so you don't know the 
> > precise height of your desk. But you can still look at the scale of your 
> > metre rule and conclude that you know the desk height to within a 
> > millimetre, or about 1 part in 750. 
> > > 
> > > The uncertainty principle of QM shows how 
> > > uncertain science has been. 
> > 
> > The uncertainty principle relates to how the universe itself works, not 
> > to our inability to measure it precisely. 
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> How the uncertainty principle universe itself works has made your ability to measure it precisely, ineffective. 
> 
> It's in the cards. 

No. God does not need dice...

> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge 
> the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871653

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 10:22:44 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 03:44:57 UTC+1, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 21-Mar-23 11:25 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
> > > > >> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> QM in its central principle shows how
> > > > >>> uncertain science has been. Einstein
> > > > >>> knew QM would take a correction...
> > > > >>> How can we get anywhere if
> > > > >>> measurements are so uncertain?
> > > > >>> And he had a God. God was his God.
> > > > >>> Personal and impersonal.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > >> The measured value of the gravitational constant, which is one of the
> > > > >> most difficult values to measure, has a current uncertainty of 46 parts
> > > > >> per million or 0.0046%.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doesnt science need to know that constant exact before you could
> > > > > predict how close to certain it is.
> > > >
> > > > Why would you think that? Get out a metre rule and measure the height of
> > > > your desk. You know the result isn't exact, so you don't know the
> > > > precise height of your desk. But you can still look at the scale of your
> > > > metre rule and conclude that you know the desk height to within a
> > > > millimetre, or about 1 part in 750.
> > > > >
> > > > > The uncertainty principle of QM shows how
> > > > > uncertain science has been.
> > > >
> > > > The uncertainty principle relates to how the universe itself works, not
> > > > to our inability to measure it precisely.
> > > >
> > > > Sylvia.
> > >
> > > How the uncertainty principle universe itself works has made
> > Stop fucking. "uncertainty principle" is how
> > physicists work, the universe has nothing to do it.
> 
> The uncertainty principle is about the limitations
> of scientific measurement and why they
> do not ever go accurate.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

The uncertainty principle (the I Don't Know Principle) is not
about the  limitations of measurements, it' about the
limitations of intelligence.

It begins with certaintly...but someone, somewhere moved the dial knob from certaintly to uncertainty.

So, when you read it..it reads 'uncertaintly'.

That is where the control knob is set at, 'uncertaintly'.





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871655

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 10:28:28 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > 
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 10:22:44 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 03:44:57 UTC+1, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > > > Sylvia Else wrote: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 21-Mar-23 11:25 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > > > > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote: 
> > > > > >> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > > > > >>> QM in its central principle shows how 
> > > > > >>> uncertain science has been. Einstein 
> > > > > >>> knew QM would take a correction... 
> > > > > >>> How can we get anywhere if 
> > > > > >>> measurements are so uncertain? 
> > > > > >>> And he had a God. God was his God. 
> > > > > >>> Personal and impersonal. 
> > > > > >>> 
> > > > > >>> Mitchell Raemsch 
> > > > > >> The measured value of the gravitational constant, which is one of the 
> > > > > >> most difficult values to measure, has a current uncertainty of 46 parts 
> > > > > >> per million or 0.0046%. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Doesnt science need to know that constant exact before you could 
> > > > > > predict how close to certain it is. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why would you think that? Get out a metre rule and measure the height of 
> > > > > your desk. You know the result isn't exact, so you don't know the 
> > > > > precise height of your desk. But you can still look at the scale of your 
> > > > > metre rule and conclude that you know the desk height to within a 
> > > > > millimetre, or about 1 part in 750. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The uncertainty principle of QM shows how 
> > > > > > uncertain science has been. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The uncertainty principle relates to how the universe itself works, not 
> > > > > to our inability to measure it precisely. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sylvia. 
> > > > 
> > > > How the uncertainty principle universe itself works has made
> > > Stop fucking. "uncertainty principle" is how 
> > > physicists work, the universe has nothing to do it. 
> > 
> > The uncertainty principle is about the limitations 
> > of scientific measurement and why they 
> > do not ever go accurate. 
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch 
> 
> The uncertainty principle (the I Don't Know Principle) is not 
> about the limitations of measurements, it' about the 
> limitations of intelligence. 
> 
> It begins with certaintly...but someone, somewhere moved the dial knob from certaintly to uncertainty. 
> 
> So, when you read it..it reads 'uncertaintly'. 
> 
> That is where the control knob is set at, 'uncertaintly'.
> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge 
> the unchallengeable.

By science's central principle its very uncertainty is revealed.
Measurement can never go accurate.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871659

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip crap>

> By science's central principle its very uncertainty is revealed.
> Measurement can never go accurate.

Define accurate moron.


> Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871662

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:31:09 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> <snip crap>
> > By science's central principle its very uncertainty is revealed. 
> > Measurement can never go accurate.
> Define accurate moron. 

What science does not have...
Not inaccurate. or precise or certain.
Uncertainty science principle shows
why certainty never applies for scientific
measurement.

Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> 
> > Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871663

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:31:09 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> 
>> <snip crap>
>> > By science's central principle its very uncertainty is revealed. 
>> > Measurement can never go accurate.
>> Define accurate moron. 
> 
> What science does not have...
> Not inaccurate. or precise or certain.
> Uncertainty science principle shows
> why certainty never applies for scientific
> measurement.

As suspected, you haven't a clue what the word accurate means, moron.


> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
>> 
>> 
>> > Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871664

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:31:09 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote: 
> >> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> <snip crap> 
> >> > By science's central principle its very uncertainty is revealed. 
> >> > Measurement can never go accurate. 
> >> Define accurate moron. 
> > 
> > What science does not have... 
> > Not inaccurate. or precise or certain. 
> > Uncertainty science principle shows 
> > why certainty never applies for scientific 
> > measurement.
> As suspected, you haven't a clue what the word accurate means, moron. 
> 

Can you prove science is accurate if its central principle is uncertainty
for measurement?

Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> > Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871670

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:31:09 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote: 
>> >> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >> <snip crap> 
>> >> > By science's central principle its very uncertainty is revealed. 
>> >> > Measurement can never go accurate. 
>> >> Define accurate moron. 
>> > 
>> > What science does not have... 
>> > Not inaccurate. or precise or certain. 
>> > Uncertainty science principle shows 
>> > why certainty never applies for scientific 
>> > measurement.
>> As suspected, you haven't a clue what the word accurate means, moron. 
>> 
> 
> Can you prove science is accurate if its central principle is uncertainty
> for measurement?

And again, you haven't a clue what the word accurate means, nor do you
have the slightest clue what the uncertainty means, moron.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871677

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:16:09 PM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote: 
> >> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> >> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:31:09 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote: 
> >> >> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> >> >> 
> >> >> <snip crap> 
> >> >> > By science's central principle its very uncertainty is revealed. 
> >> >> > Measurement can never go accurate. 
> >> >> Define accurate moron. 
> >> > 
> >> > What science does not have... 
> >> > Not inaccurate. or precise or certain. 
> >> > Uncertainty science principle shows 
> >> > why certainty never applies for scientific 
> >> > measurement. 
> >> As suspected, you haven't a clue what the word accurate means, moron. 
> >> 
> > 
> > Can you prove science is accurate if its central principle is uncertainty 
> > for measurement?
> And again, you haven't a clue what the word accurate means, nor do you 
> have the slightest clue what the uncertainty means, moron.

How accurate are you?
sciences principle shows how imprecise or how uncertain
it has been... you can't know how uncertain you are without
having certainty first. And by QM principle science can not do
that certainty. QM uncertainty principle says all measurement
will remain uncertain. Therefore QM has no certain way
to know uncertainty math. The math of momentum and
position in QM theory is not giving science what it thinks.
Because momentum is a form of position itself.
You are comparing position change with position.
And that doesn't give you anything if they are both the
same thing being compared to itself... position is position 
and it is never known without uncertainty and that is the QM rule.


Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871683

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:16:09 PM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote: 
>> >> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> >> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:31:09 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote: 
>> >> >> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> <snip crap> 
>> >> >> > By science's central principle its very uncertainty is revealed. 
>> >> >> > Measurement can never go accurate. 
>> >> >> Define accurate moron. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > What science does not have... 
>> >> > Not inaccurate. or precise or certain. 
>> >> > Uncertainty science principle shows 
>> >> > why certainty never applies for scientific 
>> >> > measurement. 
>> >> As suspected, you haven't a clue what the word accurate means, moron. 
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > Can you prove science is accurate if its central principle is uncertainty 
>> > for measurement?
>> And again, you haven't a clue what the word accurate means, nor do you 
>> have the slightest clue what the uncertainty means, moron.
> 
> How accurate are you?
> sciences principle shows how imprecise or how uncertain
> it has been... you can't know how uncertain you are without
> having certainty first. And by QM principle science can not do
> that certainty. QM uncertainty principle says all measurement
> will remain uncertain. Therefore QM has no certain way
> to know uncertainty math. The math of momentum and
> position in QM theory is not giving science what it thinks.
> Because momentum is a form of position itself.
> You are comparing position change with position.
> And that doesn't give you anything if they are both the
> same thing being compared to itself... position is position 
> and it is never known without uncertainty and that is the QM rule.

If you count the number of balls in a box, what is the accuracy and what
is the uncertainty?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871678

Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> <snip crap>
> 
> > By science's central principle its very uncertainty is revealed.
> > Measurement can never go accurate.
> 
> Define accurate moron.
> 
> > Mitchell Raemsch

An accurate moron is an oxymoron.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871679

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 4:13:38 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote: 
> > 
> > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > 
> > <snip crap> 
> > 
> > > By science's central principle its very uncertainty is revealed. 
> > > Measurement can never go accurate. 
> > 
> > Define accurate moron. 
> > 
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> An accurate moron is an oxymoron.
> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
> and challenge 
> the unchallengeable.

I upset jim... that is why he follows me around wherever he can...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871684

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 4:13:38 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Jim Pennino wrote: 
>> > 
>> > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> > 
>> > <snip crap> 
>> > 
>> > > By science's central principle its very uncertainty is revealed. 
>> > > Measurement can never go accurate. 
>> > 
>> > Define accurate moron. 
>> > 
>> > > Mitchell Raemsch
>> An accurate moron is an oxymoron.
>> -- 
>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
>> and challenge 
>> the unchallengeable.
> 
> I upset jim... that is why he follows me around wherever he can...

Nope, you are just my moron bitch of the day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#871584

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> > QM in its central principle shows how 
>> > uncertain science has been. Einstein 
>> > knew QM would take a correction... 
>> > How can we get anywhere if 
>> > measurements are so uncertain? 
>> > And he had a God. God was his God. 
>> > Personal and impersonal. 
>> > 
>> > Mitchell Raemsch
>> The measured value of the gravitational constant, which is one of the 
>> most difficult values to measure, has a current uncertainty of 46 parts 
>> per million or 0.0046%. 
> 
> Doesnt science need to know that constant exact before you could
> predict how close to certain it is.

Only a clueless idiot would ask such a blazingly stupid question.

<snip remaining stupidity>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web