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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #389853 > unrolled thread

Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 10:04 -0500
    Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 18:56 -0500
    Re: Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-14 20:42 -0400
      Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:47 -0500
        Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-15 18:01 -0400
          Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 08:45 -0500
            Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-16 10:31 -0700
              Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 14:34 -0700
                Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-16 16:25 -0700
                  Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 18:47 -0700
                    Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-17 13:35 -0700
                      Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-17 13:37 -0700
                      Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-17 17:52 -0400
                        Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-08-18 13:23 -0400
                          Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 10:25 -0700
                      Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-18 22:17 -0700
                        Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-19 11:04 -0700
                          Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-20 15:18 -0700
                Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:09 -0700
                  Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:17 -0700
                    Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:29 -0700
          Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:34 -0500
            Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 20:49 -0400
              Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-18 20:25 -0500
                Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 23:22 -0400
                  Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-19 10:10 -0500
                    Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-19 08:35 -0700
        Re: Reduce your meds. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-17 11:02 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#389853 — Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.

On 8/12/16 8/12/16 - 4:15 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.

Say, rather, that the probability "waves" of QM are a MODEL, not "physical".

The fact that we must use statistical theories of the fundamental constituents 
of our world is not merely "ignorance" -- as best we can tell that is an 
inherent aspect of their behavior.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#389893 — Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.

On 8/12/16 8/12/16   11:29 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
>> Say, rather, that the probability "waves" of QM are a MODEL, not "physical".
>
> "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality;

NOT AT ALL. "Virtual Reality" means something completely different, and need not 
correspond to reality at all.


>> The fact that we must use statistical theories of the fundamental constituents
>> of our world is not merely "ignorance" -- as best we can tell that is an
>> inherent aspect of their behavior.
>
> Just because something is too complex to _fully_ understand,
> like tomorrow's weather, it doesn't mean that it's _truly_ random;
> in fact, we _know_ that it isn't.

Tomorrow's weather is not at all random; aspects of QM are.


> Randomess is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

Not true. In the case of QM we know from tests of the Bell inequalities that the 
underlying randomness is inherent, and mot mere ignorance.


Tom Roberts

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

#390004

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:04:51 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 8/12/16 8/12/16 - 4:15 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.
>
>Say, rather, that the probability "waves" of QM are a MODEL, not "physical".
>
>The fact that we must use statistical theories of the fundamental constituents 
>of our world is not merely "ignorance" -- as best we can tell that is an 
>inherent aspect of their behavior.
>
>
>Tom Roberts

I tend to disagree about the "constituents of our world" (or universe)
bowing to statistics (a human mathematical invention).

Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

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

#390033

On 8/14/2016 7:42 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> I tend to disagree about the "constituents of our world" (or universe)
> bowing to statistics (a human mathematical invention).

Every theory, including Newtonian, deterministic mechanics, is a human 
invention. I don't think it's a question of nature "bowing to" a human 
idea. I think it's a question about whether the human idea is a good 
description of how nature works. And, from what I know of the scientific 
method, the ONLY way we can determine whether the description is good or 
not is whether experiment supports the idea. I don't think there is 
anything nasty or repellent about statistics where we should say, "But 
this simply cannot be a good description of nature."

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#390085

On 8/15/2016 9:47 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/14/2016 7:42 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>> I tend to disagree about the "constituents of our world" (or universe)
>> bowing to statistics (a human mathematical invention).
>
> Every theory, including Newtonian, deterministic mechanics, is a human
> invention. I don't think it's a question of nature "bowing to" a human
> idea. I think it's a question about whether the human idea is a good
> description of how nature works. And, from what I know of the scientific
> method, the ONLY way we can determine whether the description is good or
> not is whether experiment supports the idea. I don't think there is
> anything nasty or repellent about statistics where we should say, "But
> this simply cannot be a good description of nature."
>
The problem, Boinker, isn't that people use statistics to obtain some 
measure of knowledge where before there was total ignorance. The problem 
comes when one starts saying that such probabilities are ALL that it is 
possible for humans to know. How can any human make such a statement? 
What possible basis could one have to justify it. Superpowers are the 
only possible way one could know such a thing.

Those scientists who take this view should just use the short form: I'm 
a moron.

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

#390114

On 8/15/16 8/15/16   5:01 PM, benj wrote:
> The problem [...] isn't that people use statistics to obtain some measure of
> knowledge where before there was total ignorance. The problem comes when one
> starts saying that such probabilities are ALL that it is possible for humans to
> know. How can any human make such a statement? What possible basis could one
> have to justify it.

By having mathematical theorems that state that certain observable aspects of 
the world cannot be accurately described by models without inherent randomness 
[#]. And then observing those aspects. Look up the Bell inequalities and the 
various tests of them.

	[#] A summary of the theorems, not a statement of them.


> Superpowers are the only possible way one could know such a
> thing.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- 
Arthur C. Clarke.

You need to learn the TECHNOLOGY that underlies what you think requires a 
"superpower". Your GUESSES are wrong.


Tom Roberts

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

#390120

Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> On 8/15/16 8/15/16   5:01 PM, benj wrote:
> > The problem [...] isn't that people use statistics to obtain some measure of
> > knowledge where before there was total ignorance. The problem comes when one
> > starts saying that such probabilities are ALL that it is possible for humans to
> > know. How can any human make such a statement? What possible basis could one
> > have to justify it.
> 
> By having mathematical theorems that state that certain observable aspects of
> the world cannot be accurately described by models without inherent randomness
> [#]. And then observing those aspects. Look up the Bell inequalities and the
> various tests of them.
> 
>         [#] A summary of the theorems, not a statement of them.
> 
> > Superpowers are the only possible way one could know such a
> > thing.
> 
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --
> Arthur C. Clarke.


I looked at your "sufficiently advanced technology", ...I opened up the
IBM PC,
looked inside...and there was no magic. It's junk now. All "sufficiently
advanced technology"
becomes just junk. 

But, but..if you're talking about "sufficiently advanced technology"
created by aliens from
outer space...sorry, i don't read science fiction books.

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

#390141

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:31:00 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> > 
> > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --
> > Arthur C. Clarke.
> 
> 
> I looked at your "sufficiently advanced technology", ...I opened up the
> IBM PC, looked inside...and there was no magic. It's junk now.

So to see ahead of you, you look at your butt?

> All "sufficiently advanced technology" becomes just junk. 

Of course, weirdo, but that's not what Clarke was talking about.  Are you
really do ignorant?

> But, but..if you're talking about "sufficiently advanced technology"
> created by aliens from outer space...sorry, i don't read science fiction
> books.

Then you are the poorer for it:

"What makes Mr. Heinlein a part of the American literary tradition is
that his characters do prevail.  His work represents the fundamental
American optimism that still surprises our friends around the world.
As Mr. Heinlein taught us, the individual can and will succeed.  The
first step in the individual's success is the perception that success
is possible.

"He wrote about the future because the future is where all of us will
live.

"I suppose Mr. Heinlein's most important message to us is that technology
matters less than how we make use of it.  What we become will be determined
not by the tools we hold in our hands, but by the ideals we hold in our
minds.  Not by what we have, but by who we are and what we choose to be."
 -- Tom Clancy

So, Mr. Starfaker, choose to be greater than you are.  This post of yours
makes you look like a doofus and you don't even realize it.

You probably haven't even heard of Tabby's star, KIC 8462852:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/tabbys-star-weird-star-gets-weirder/

Some have proposed that its behavior is caused by an alien civilization.
Maybe, maybe not.  But it is a virtual certainty that we will face that
prospect one day.

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

#390156

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:31:00 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --
> > > Arthur C. Clarke.
> >
> >
> > I looked at your "sufficiently advanced technology", ...I opened up the
> > IBM PC, looked inside...and there was no magic. It's junk now.
> 
> So to see ahead of you, you look at your butt?
> 
> > All "sufficiently advanced technology" becomes just junk.
> 
> Of course, weirdo, but that's not what Clarke was talking about.  Are you
> really do ignorant?
> 
> > But, but..if you're talking about "sufficiently advanced technology"
> > created by aliens from outer space...sorry, i don't read science fiction
> > books.
> 
> Then you are the poorer for it:

"Lest it distort pure science and give people the false illusion of
scientific understanding, he recommended complete abstinence from
 any type of science fiction." -Albert Einstein


> 
> "What makes Mr. Heinlein a part of the American literary tradition is
> that his characters do prevail.  His work represents the fundamental
> American optimism that still surprises our friends around the world.
> As Mr. Heinlein taught us, the individual can and will succeed.  The
> first step in the individual's success is the perception that success
> is possible.
> 
> "He wrote about the future because the future is where all of us will
> live.


"I never think of the future - it comes soon enough." - Albert Einstein 


"A happy man is too satisfied with the present to dwell too much on the future." - Albert Einstein

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

#390159

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:24:52 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > 
> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:31:00 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --
> > > > Arthur C. Clarke.
> > >
> > >
> > > I looked at your "sufficiently advanced technology", ...I opened up the
> > > IBM PC, looked inside...and there was no magic. It's junk now.
> > 
> > So to see ahead of you, you look at your butt?

No comment from the butt-watcher :-)

> > > All "sufficiently advanced technology" becomes just junk.
> > 
> > Of course, weirdo, but that's not what Clarke was talking about.  Are you
> > really do ignorant?
> > 
> > > But, but..if you're talking about "sufficiently advanced technology"
> > > created by aliens from outer space...sorry, i don't read science fiction
> > > books.
> > 
> > Then you are the poorer for it:
> 
> "Lest it distort pure science and give people the false illusion of
> scientific understanding, he recommended complete abstinence from
>  any type of science fiction." -Albert Einstein

Okay for him, but not for you and me.  You have already distorted science
in your head.

> > "What makes Mr. Heinlein a part of the American literary tradition is
> > that his characters do prevail.  His work represents the fundamental
> > American optimism that still surprises our friends around the world.
> > As Mr. Heinlein taught us, the individual can and will succeed.  The
> > first step in the individual's success is the perception that success
> > is possible.
> > 
> > "He wrote about the future because the future is where all of us will
> > live.
> 
> "I never think of the future - it comes soon enough." - Albert Einstein 

Okay for him, but not for you and me.  After all, he had a cushy spot at
Princeton.

> "A happy man is too satisfied with the present to dwell too much on the future." - Albert Einstein

So are you TOO satisfied with the present?  If so, for shame.

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

#390206

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:24:52 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:31:00 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --
> > > > > Arthur C. Clarke.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I looked at your "sufficiently advanced technology", ...I opened up the
> > > > IBM PC, looked inside...and there was no magic. It's junk now.
> > >
> > > So to see ahead of you, you look at your butt?
> 
> No comment from the butt-watcher :-)
> 
> > > > All "sufficiently advanced technology" becomes just junk.
> > >
> > > Of course, weirdo, but that's not what Clarke was talking about.  Are you
> > > really do ignorant?
> > >
> > > > But, but..if you're talking about "sufficiently advanced technology"
> > > > created by aliens from outer space...sorry, i don't read science fiction
> > > > books.
> > >
> > > Then you are the poorer for it:
> >
> > "Lest it distort pure science and give people the false illusion of
> > scientific understanding, he recommended complete abstinence from
> >  any type of science fiction." -Albert Einstein
> 
> Okay for him, but not for you and me.  You have already distorted science
> in your head.


 “I have no reason to believe that there is something real behind the stories of the 'Flying Saucers.'” Source: Einstein Archives 


Okay for him, but not for you and me...and your kids...go ahead, distort your children's mind. Read them tonight H.G.Wells Invasion of the Cookie Monster from Outer Space.

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

#390207

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:24:52 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:31:00 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --
> > > > > > Arthur C. Clarke.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I looked at your "sufficiently advanced technology", ...I opened up the
> > > > > IBM PC, looked inside...and there was no magic. It's junk now.
> > > >
> > > > So to see ahead of you, you look at your butt?
> >
> > No comment from the butt-watcher :-)
> >
> > > > > All "sufficiently advanced technology" becomes just junk.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, weirdo, but that's not what Clarke was talking about.  Are you
> > > > really do ignorant?
> > > >
> > > > > But, but..if you're talking about "sufficiently advanced technology"
> > > > > created by aliens from outer space...sorry, i don't read science fiction
> > > > > books.
> > > >
> > > > Then you are the poorer for it:
> > >
> > > "Lest it distort pure science and give people the false illusion of
> > > scientific understanding, he recommended complete abstinence from
> > >  any type of science fiction." -Albert Einstein
> >
> > Okay for him, but not for you and me.  You have already distorted science
> > in your head.
> 
>  “I have no reason to believe that there is something real behind the stories of the 'Flying Saucers.'” Source: Einstein Archives
> 
> Okay for him, but not for you and me...and your kids...go ahead, distort your children's mind. Read them tonight H.G.Wells Invasion of the Cookie Monster from Outer Space.


Didn't Nikola Tesla invented the Flying Saucer? a hundred years ago?? and filed a patent on it??? which albert einstein looked at????

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

#390212

On 8/17/2016 4:35 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:24:52 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:31:00 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --
>>>>>> Arthur C. Clarke.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I looked at your "sufficiently advanced technology", ...I opened up the
>>>>> IBM PC, looked inside...and there was no magic. It's junk now.
>>>>
>>>> So to see ahead of you, you look at your butt?
>>
>> No comment from the butt-watcher :-)
>>
>>>>> All "sufficiently advanced technology" becomes just junk.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, weirdo, but that's not what Clarke was talking about.  Are you
>>>> really do ignorant?
>>>>
>>>>> But, but..if you're talking about "sufficiently advanced technology"
>>>>> created by aliens from outer space...sorry, i don't read science fiction
>>>>> books.
>>>>
>>>> Then you are the poorer for it:
>>>
>>> "Lest it distort pure science and give people the false illusion of
>>> scientific understanding, he recommended complete abstinence from
>>>  any type of science fiction." -Albert Einstein
>>
>> Okay for him, but not for you and me.  You have already distorted science
>> in your head.
>
>
>  “I have no reason to believe that there is something real behind the stories of the 'Flying Saucers.'” Source: Einstein Archives
>
>
> Okay for him, but not for you and me...and your kids...go ahead, distort your children's mind. Read them tonight H.G.Wells Invasion of the Cookie Monster from Outer Space.
>
I can't believe that Einstein did not know that all Star Trek science is 
absolutely REAL! Just shows you that people who are really smart can 
still be dumb.

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

#390278

In article <57b4dc9d$0$40401$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com>,
benj <benj@nobody.net> said:

[ in reply to some noise from The Starmaker ]

> I can't believe that Einstein did not know that all Star
> Trek science is absolutely REAL!

Yeah! Even the parts that contradict each other!

-- wds

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

#390279

wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:np4qvd$637$1
@panix1.panix.com:

> In article <57b4dc9d$0$40401$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com>,
> benj <benj@nobody.net> said:
> 
> [ in reply to some noise from The Starmaker ]
> 
>> I can't believe that Einstein did not know that all Star
>> Trek science is absolutely REAL!
> 
> Yeah! Even the parts that contradict each other!
> 
Given the typical state of quantum physics knowledge at any given 
moment (meaning we can't know what direction it's moving), I'd say 
*especially* those parts.

-- 
Terry Austin

Tom "The Crap Man" Kratman is my bitch.

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

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

#390345

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:24:52 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:31:00 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --
> > > > > > Arthur C. Clarke.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I looked at your "sufficiently advanced technology", ...I opened up the
> > > > > IBM PC, looked inside...and there was no magic. It's junk now.
> > > >
> > > > So to see ahead of you, you look at your butt?
> >
> > No comment from the butt-watcher :-)
> >
> > > > > All "sufficiently advanced technology" becomes just junk.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, weirdo, but that's not what Clarke was talking about.  Are you
> > > > really do ignorant?
> > > >
> > > > > But, but..if you're talking about "sufficiently advanced technology"
> > > > > created by aliens from outer space...sorry, i don't read science fiction
> > > > > books.
> > > >
> > > > Then you are the poorer for it:
> > >
> > > "Lest it distort pure science and give people the false illusion of
> > > scientific understanding, he recommended complete abstinence from
> > >  any type of science fiction." -Albert Einstein
> >
> > Okay for him, but not for you and me.  You have already distorted science
> > in your head.
> 
>  “I have no reason to believe that there is something real behind the stories of the 'Flying Saucers.'” Source: Einstein Archives


Now, Einstein said:

“I have no reason to believe that there is something real behind the stories of the 'Flying Saucers.'”


The difference between Einstein ...then, and all of the 'scientifci community' TODAY...is that,

Einstein knew what "something real" is.

Today, there is not a single member of the 'scientific community' that understads what "something real" is.


If anyone today says "There is a 'chance' that aliens from another planet in flying vechicles exist somewhere out there." Are
simply not being Real. Have no idea what Real is. 

The 'scientific community' have lost the meaning, (or never learned it) on what is real and what is not real.


Maybe they read too many science fiction books or something...

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

#390386

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:24:52 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:31:00 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --
> > > > > > > Arthur C. Clarke.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I looked at your "sufficiently advanced technology", ...I opened up the
> > > > > > IBM PC, looked inside...and there was no magic. It's junk now.
> > > > >
> > > > > So to see ahead of you, you look at your butt?
> > >
> > > No comment from the butt-watcher :-)
> > >
> > > > > > All "sufficiently advanced technology" becomes just junk.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, weirdo, but that's not what Clarke was talking about.  Are you
> > > > > really do ignorant?
> > > > >
> > > > > > But, but..if you're talking about "sufficiently advanced technology"
> > > > > > created by aliens from outer space...sorry, i don't read science fiction
> > > > > > books.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you are the poorer for it:
> > > >
> > > > "Lest it distort pure science and give people the false illusion of
> > > > scientific understanding, he recommended complete abstinence from
> > > >  any type of science fiction." -Albert Einstein
> > >
> > > Okay for him, but not for you and me.  You have already distorted science
> > > in your head.
> >
> >  “I have no reason to believe that there is something real behind the stories of the 'Flying Saucers.'” Source: Einstein Archives
> 
> Now, Einstein said:
> 
> “I have no reason to believe that there is something real behind the stories of the 'Flying Saucers.'”
> 
> The difference between Einstein ...then, and all of the 'scientifci community' TODAY...is that,
> 
> Einstein knew what "something real" is.
> 
> Today, there is not a single member of the 'scientific community' that understads what "something real" is.
> 
> If anyone today says "There is a 'chance' that aliens from another planet in flying vechicles exist somewhere out there." Are
> simply not being Real. Have no idea what Real is.
> 
> The 'scientific community' have lost the meaning, (or never learned it) on what is real and what is not real.
> 
> Maybe they read too many science fiction books or something...

In otherwords..

Can you name anyone in the 'scientific community' that will say,
“I have no reason to believe that there is something real behind the stories of the 'Flying Saucers.'”
?


You cannot, because...there is no one out there that is in touch with reality, they don't know what 'real' is.


Maybe they read too many science fiction books or something...


The only conclusion I can come up with is...they are stupid. They forgot to take a 'reality' course in skool.



Isn't there any professors that can tell their students..."There are no FUCKIN FLYING SAUCERS!" ?



Or, just keep them stupid...


On the other hand...if you tell people "There is no Life on Mars." how are they going to make money??


How are you going to sell NASA and science fiction books???

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

#390460

edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 2:04:58 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> []
> Replying to yourself may be a sign of mental issues, Star.
> Try to calm down.
> >
> > In otherwords..
> >
> > Can you name anyone in the 'scientific community' that will say,
> > “I have no reason to believe that there is something real
> > behind the stories of the 'Flying Saucers.'”
> > ?
> >
> I think you could find lots of them.
> I certainly take the view that UFOs are exactly that:
> Unidentified lying Objects.
> Did you see something, sure I believe you did.


There is nothing in Einstein's quote that mentions the word... "Unidenified".

It reads "Flying Saucers". It also doesn't mention 'Unidentified flying Objects', ir reads .."Flying Saucers"!


“I have no reason to believe that there is something real behind the stories of the 'Flying Saucers.'” Source: Einstein Archives


Any two year old knows Einstein is talking about "Flying Saucers" from outer space. Are you one years old???




So that makes all your other comments...irrevelant.


Get real, will you? Real! 



And don't come into my threads changing 'words' around! Do I make myself clear?





> 
> Do I then leap from that to visitors from outer space?
> Well, applying Occam's razor seems to put a stop to that for me.
> There's just not enough credible evidence we have been visited.
> 
> On the other hand, the likelihood that other life is out there
> just seems to have high odds. The fact that we have not yet
> been able to visit them, is another argument for why they
> might not be able to visit us. It just might take resources
> that aren't available to mortal beings.
> 
> >
> > You cannot, because...there is no one out there that is
> > in touch with reality, they don't know what 'real' is.
> 
> Repeating your argument is not logical proof of your point.
> I named myself and invite you to talk to those you accuse
> of ignoring reality to find out what their views.
> []
> >
> > The only conclusion I can come up with is...they are stupid.
> > They forgot to take a 'reality' course in skool.
> 
> You draw conclusions without investigating the facts.
> Another sign of sloppy logic.
> 
> >
> > Isn't there any professors that can tell their
> > students..."There are no FUCKIN FLYING SAUCERS!" ?
> >
> Well, knowing that there have been experimental models
> and even toy "FLYING SAUCERS", I think you will have a
> hard time finding such a science teacher.
> 
> > Or, just keep them stupid...
> >
> Insults are not a good logical tool.
> 
> > On the other hand...if you tell people
> > "There is no Life on Mars." how are they going to make money??
> > How are you going to sell NASA and science fiction books???
> 
> Conspiracy theories. Now you have reached the bottom.
> If you are willing to listen, we may be able to help you
> out of that pit you got yourself into.
> ed

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

#390331

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 4:34:55 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:31:00 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > 
> > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --
> > > Arthur C. Clarke.
> > 
> > 
> > I looked at your "sufficiently advanced technology", ...I opened up the
> > IBM PC, looked inside...and there was no magic. It's junk now.
> 
> So to see ahead of you, you look at your butt?
> 
> > All "sufficiently advanced technology" becomes just junk. 
> 
> Of course, weirdo, but that's not what Clarke was talking about.  Are you
> really do ignorant?
> 
> > But, but..if you're talking about "sufficiently advanced technology"
> > created by aliens from outer space...sorry, i don't read science fiction
> > books.
> 
> Then you are the poorer for it:
> 
> "What makes Mr. Heinlein a part of the American literary tradition is
> that his characters do prevail.  His work represents the fundamental
> American optimism that still surprises our friends around the world.
> As Mr. Heinlein taught us, the individual can and will succeed.  The
> first step in the individual's success is the perception that success
> is possible.
> 
> "He wrote about the future because the future is where all of us will
> live.
> 
> "I suppose Mr. Heinlein's most important message to us is that technology
> matters less than how we make use of it.  What we become will be determined
> not by the tools we hold in our hands, but by the ideals we hold in our
> minds.  Not by what we have, but by who we are and what we choose to be."
>  -- Tom Clancy
> 
> So, Mr. Starfaker, choose to be greater than you are.  This post of yours
> makes you look like a doofus and you don't even realize it.
> 
> You probably haven't even heard of Tabby's star, KIC 8462852:
> 
> http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/tabbys-star-weird-star-gets-weirder/
> 
> Some have proposed that its behavior is caused by an alien civilization.
> Maybe, maybe not.  But it is a virtual certainty that we will face that
> prospect one day.

There are geometries that will lead directly to advancement. We don't have to beat around the bush here. Human advancement it primarily dependent on how we manipulate nature. This has been going on for millions of years. To deny this fact is to deny our existence.

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

#390333

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 10:09:22 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 4:34:55 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:31:00 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --
> > > > Arthur C. Clarke.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I looked at your "sufficiently advanced technology", ...I opened up the
> > > IBM PC, looked inside...and there was no magic. It's junk now.
> > 
> > So to see ahead of you, you look at your butt?
> > 
> > > All "sufficiently advanced technology" becomes just junk. 
> > 
> > Of course, weirdo, but that's not what Clarke was talking about.  Are you
> > really do ignorant?
> > 
> > > But, but..if you're talking about "sufficiently advanced technology"
> > > created by aliens from outer space...sorry, i don't read science fiction
> > > books.
> > 
> > Then you are the poorer for it:
> > 
> > "What makes Mr. Heinlein a part of the American literary tradition is
> > that his characters do prevail.  His work represents the fundamental
> > American optimism that still surprises our friends around the world.
> > As Mr. Heinlein taught us, the individual can and will succeed.  The
> > first step in the individual's success is the perception that success
> > is possible.
> > 
> > "He wrote about the future because the future is where all of us will
> > live.
> > 
> > "I suppose Mr. Heinlein's most important message to us is that technology
> > matters less than how we make use of it.  What we become will be determined
> > not by the tools we hold in our hands, but by the ideals we hold in our
> > minds.  Not by what we have, but by who we are and what we choose to be."
> >  -- Tom Clancy
> > 
> > So, Mr. Starfaker, choose to be greater than you are.  This post of yours
> > makes you look like a doofus and you don't even realize it.
> > 
> > You probably haven't even heard of Tabby's star, KIC 8462852:
> > 
> > http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/tabbys-star-weird-star-gets-weirder/
> > 
> > Some have proposed that its behavior is caused by an alien civilization.
> > Maybe, maybe not.  But it is a virtual certainty that we will face that
> > prospect one day.
> 
> There are geometries that will lead directly to advancement. We don't have to beat around the bush here. Human advancement it primarily dependent on how we manipulate nature. This has been going on for millions of years. To deny this fact is to deny our existence.

I often ask myself, "are we smart enough to survive for more millions of years? I often think that our true isolation (the fact that we are stuck on this planet with no vision for our future) will implode us and we will kill each other to the point where "advancement" stops. Hmmm. Makes me further attempt to define who we are. I know this sounds like a cliché- maybe I'm caught in a never ending cliché. 

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web