Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #231662
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.30--5.09am.Seattle.2018> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <ptofee$19m3$4@gioia.aioe.org> <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.29--6.19am.Seattle.2018> <ptp05p$a34$1@gioia.aioe.org> <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.29--8.31am.Seattle.2018> <ptr5to$1skp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics, alt.checkmate |
| Subject | Kensi's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. |
| Organization | blocknews - www.blocknews.net |
| Date | 2018-11-30 05:09 -0800 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Kensi replied:
> > "Shut up and calculate" and the cosmological constant are mainstream.
>
> So was geocentrism, once.
You're making useless, unfalsifiable assumptions ( bullshit worlds ),
and you're straying far from accepted science ( Lambda, CDM ).
> > You should edit the WikiPedia entry, then,
> > as if being 120 orders of magnitude off were better.
>
> Where are you getting that from? You keep harping on it, kO0k,
> without actually explaining WTF you're burbling about.
From " Dark Energy and the Preposterous Universe "
by Sean M. Carroll, Enrico Fermi Institute
( YouTube.COM/user/seancarroll/videos ):
...the potential energy of the Higgs field...
...the condensate of quark bilinears...
...zero-point vacuum fluctuations...
This is the famous 120-orders-of-magnitude discrepancy
that makes the cosmological constant problem such a glaring embarrassment.
WikiPedia: <<
If the cosmological constant is positive,
-- as appears to be the case in recent observations --,
the temperature will asymptote to a non-zero positive value,
and the universe will approach a state of maximum entropy. >>
Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ?
Gravity is residual exergy, entropy ( negative pressure ) is killing it off.
> > qBism is a combination of AgreedUpon (SI) probabilities and
> > "Shut up and calculate"; as such, it's far more economical
> > and effective than hiding in bullshit worlds, as you do.
>
> Get real. It's one of those interpretations that says there's something
> magical about blobs of carbon atoms if they happen to be arranged in a
> manner sufficiently resembling brains.
"magical blobs" ? ! Where did you hear that, Twitter ?
Maximal consumption has been programmed into us ( by nature ).
Ways to do it:
1. Live Fast ( consume more now ), Die Fast.
2. Live Slow, Die Later ( consume longer ).
3. Sacrifice yourself for the tribe, so they can consume more, longer.
Either way, the (PreProgrammed) objective is the same: consume.
We ( you, me, and the stars ) consume what we can, given our options.
"Shut up and calculate" works best because it doesn't conjure up bullshit worlds
nor bullshit SuperPositions. Our ignorance ( not the cat's "randomness" )
is _ REAL; we don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive.
> A quick run-down makes it clear that the only *rational* choices are
> MWI, Relational, Cosmological (if they can figure out how that can
> produce wave interference, that is), and *maybe*, as dark horse
> candidates *at best*, the nonlocal hidden variable ones like Transactional.
The Copenhagen Interpretation was right; and it still is.
Back to alt.checkmate | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: By definition, geniuses are rare. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-27 05:16 -0500
Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-27 06:33 -0800
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 06:08 -0500
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-28 09:51 -0800
Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-28 06:37 -0800
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 07:44 -0700
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 09:48 -0500
99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-28 07:39 -0800
Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 12:00 -0500
Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 10:03 -0700
Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:37 -0500
Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:36 -0500
Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:35 -0500
The graviton, string theory, and bullshit worlds. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-29 06:19 -0800
Re: The graviton, string theory, and bullshit worlds. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 10:21 -0500
We don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-29 08:31 -0800
Re: We don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 06:11 -0500
Kensi's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-30 05:09 -0800
Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 11:29 -0500
Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-30 21:00 +0000
Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 07:27 -0500
Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-11-30 13:46 -0800
Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-11-30 16:41 -0600
Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 07:28 -0500
Kensi is the KoOky one. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-01 06:28 -0800
Re: Kensi is the KoOky one. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 09:33 -0500
See ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-01 06:48 -0800
Re: See ? ! kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 09:55 -0500
I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-01 07:04 -0800
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:27 -0500
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 12:13 -0500
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-02 02:09 +0000
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-01 22:18 -0800
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-02 09:31 -0500
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. % <%@%> - 2018-12-02 07:35 -0700
Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-02 14:47 -0800
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 08:51 -0700
Re: See ? ! kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:27 -0500
Re: See ? ! "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-01 11:47 -0500
Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 10:48 -0700
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:43 -0700
Re: See ? ! Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-02 02:10 +0000
Re: See ? ! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-03 07:17 -0600
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-03 08:05 -0700
Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 10:48 -0700
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:44 -0700
Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 12:49 -0700
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:54 -0700
Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 13:02 -0700
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:10 -0700
Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:22 -0700
Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 18:43 -0700
Re: Kensi is the KoOky one. Bob Robertson <bobrobertsontsy66@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 21:52 -0600
Re: Kensi is the KoOky one. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 12:09 -0500
Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 08:51 -0700
Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-12-01 11:48 -0600
Re: Kensi's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 12:28 -0500
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-28 15:23 -0800
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-11-28 12:33 -0600
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-11-28 15:54 -0500
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-28 18:51 -0800
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-11-28 13:54 -0800
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 14:57 -0700
Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-28 20:26 -0600
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-29 06:45 +0000
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-29 05:17 -0800
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-11-29 09:43 +0000
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:49 -0500
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 09:08 -0700
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-11-29 17:40 +0000
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-29 16:15 -0600
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 09:08 -0700
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-29 16:17 -0600
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-11-29 17:22 -0500
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-30 07:46 +0000
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-30 00:55 -0700
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-11-30 09:49 +0000
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-30 08:50 -0700
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-30 09:59 -0600
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:49 -0500
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-29 20:08 +0000
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 13:19 -0700
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 12:09 -0800
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 12:48 -0800
Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 18:48 -0700
csiph-web