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

Groups > sci.physics > #592906 > unrolled thread

Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 13:32 -0700
    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: Quantum "Statistics" ( not "Mechanics" ) is a horrible description of nature. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-15 12:10 -0700
          Re: Quantum "Statistics" ( not "Mechanics" ) is a horrible description of nature. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:29 -0700
            Re: Quantum "Statistics" ( not "Mechanics" ) is a horrible description of nature. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-15 13:44 -0700
            Re: Quantum "Statistics" ( not "Mechanics" ) is a horrible description of nature. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-15 16:51 -0700
          Re: Your S.S. check. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-15 13:42 -0700
            Re: Your S.S. check. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-15 17:14 -0700
              Re: Your S.S. check. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-16 13:14 -0700
                Re: Your S.S. check. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-16 13:44 -0700
        Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-15 18:01 -0400
          Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 15:32 -0700
          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. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-16 16:25 -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. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 14:59 -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. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-22 23:30 -0700
                            Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-22 23:54 -0700
                              Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-23 10:36 -0700
          Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 09:37 -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: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 13:57 -0700
                        Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-19 16:37 -0700
                        Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. "Henrietta Testicockles" <invalid@example.com> - 2016-08-19 19:24 -0700
                          Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 04:11 -0700
            Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 23:27 -0700
          Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 23:13 -0700
        Re: Reduce your meds. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-17 11:02 -0500
        Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 09:32 -0700
        Re: Reduce your meds. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-20 11:44 -0700
          Re: MrAA believes in magic; to wit: a HeadsTailsSuperposition. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-21 13:46 -0700
    Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 09:27 -0700
      Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done. LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 09:38 -0700
        Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 10:27 -0700
          Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done. LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 10:41 -0700
            Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 14:35 -0700
              Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done. LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 15:11 -0700
                Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-22 23:26 -0700
                  Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done. LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 10:46 -0700
        Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done. LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 10:44 -0700
        mism noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 16:15 -0700
          Re: mism noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 12:46 -0700
    Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 23:04 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#593592

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]

#593667

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]

#593668

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]

#593777

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]

#593810

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]

#593856

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.

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]

#593972

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]

#594290

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 6:17:39 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
[]
> 
> And don't come into my threads changing 'words' around!
> Do I make myself clear?


Oh did I make little Star cry? I'm sorry.

But you have to learn that you cannot own a thread.
You have to learn to share.

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

#594292

edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 6:17:39 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> []
> >
> > And don't come into my threads changing 'words' around!
> > Do I make myself clear?
> 
> Oh did I make little Star cry? I'm sorry.
> 
> But you have to learn that you cannot own a thread.
> You have to learn to share.


i own this newsgroup.

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

#594330

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:53:09 AM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
[]
> 
> i own this newsgroup.

You funny guy!

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

#593552

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:01:15 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> 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?

because until someone finds a way to TAKE MEASUREMENTS that somehow
goes around the Heisenburg Uncertainty, we cannot know.


> What possible basis could one have to justify it. Superpowers are the 
> only possible way one could know such a thing.

The only way to prove it false is to make the measurement that
shows it to be false.

it is not the scientists that are being absolutists about this issue.

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

#593745

On 8/15/2016 5:01 PM, benj wrote:
> 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.

So this is where Bell's theorem is interesting. What Bell showed is that 
you can tell whether there are hidden variables at work, even without 
knowing what the hidden variables are. There will be a measurable 
difference between certain outcomes if quantum mechanics is right and 
there are no hidden variables at work, and if quantum mechanics is wrong 
and there are hidden variables at work regardless of type. This is very 
non-intuitive, where one is inclined to say "How could one say anything 
at all about outcomes due to hidden variables, unless you know what 
those variables are?" But Bell's theorem stands nonetheless, and this is 
precisely why it is is one of the most important advances in science of 
the 20th century.

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


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

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

#593765

On 8/18/2016 6:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/15/2016 5:01 PM, benj wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So this is where Bell's theorem is interesting. What Bell showed is that
> you can tell whether there are hidden variables at work, even without
> knowing what the hidden variables are. There will be a measurable
> difference between certain outcomes if quantum mechanics is right and
> there are no hidden variables at work, and if quantum mechanics is wrong
> and there are hidden variables at work regardless of type. This is very
> non-intuitive, where one is inclined to say "How could one say anything
> at all about outcomes due to hidden variables, unless you know what
> those variables are?" But Bell's theorem stands nonetheless, and this is
> precisely why it is is one of the most important advances in science of
> the 20th century.

Boinker, I lknow you can't understand the English you just wrote, but in 
fact you just proved my premise that where there was total ignorance, 
proabability can provide some measure of knowledge, but not complete 
understanding.

The Thing about Bell's theorem is that it indicates that either QM is 
true or SR is true, but BOTH cannot be true. So there goes the TOE 
unless of course, Nature does not agree with
Bell.

However since you believe in "spooky action at a distance" that 
obviously means you  believe in ghosts. Does HVAC know you believe in 
ghosts? I wonder if HVAC knows he believes in ghosts too?

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

#593766

On 8/18/16 8/18/16   7:49 PM, benj wrote:
> Boinker, I lknow you can't understand the English you just wrote, [...]

Odd Bodkin is much better at this than you are, because he described it 
reasonably well without saying anything flat-out wrong; your claims here are all 
flat-out wrong.


> The Thing about Bell's theorem is that it indicates that either QM is true or SR
> is true, but BOTH cannot be true.

This is NOT true. You obviously do not know what Bell's theorem actually says.

Clearly you are excessively lazy, as 2-3 minutes with Google would show you how 
comprehensively wrong you are.


> So there goes the TOE unless of course, Nature
> does not agree with
> Bell.

There are now several independent experiments that test Bell's theorem and/or 
EPR-like correlations, and confirm QM.


> However since you believe in "spooky action at a distance" that obviously means
> you  believe in ghosts.

Why do you make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point?


Tom Roberts

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

#593772

On 8/18/2016 9:25 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/18/16 8/18/16   7:49 PM, benj wrote:
>> Boinker, I lknow you can't understand the English you just wrote, [...]
>
> Odd Bodkin is much better at this than you are, because he described it
> reasonably well without saying anything flat-out wrong; your claims here
> are all flat-out wrong.

Clearly Odd is much smarter than I am and certainly knows his science. 
He's got all the establishment dogma down cold. You are a believer too, 
I presume. I'm really not so hot at making wooden toys.

>> The Thing about Bell's theorem is that it indicates that either QM is
>> true or SR
>> is true, but BOTH cannot be true.
>
> This is NOT true. You obviously do not know what Bell's theorem actually
> says.
>
> Clearly you are excessively lazy, as 2-3 minutes with Google would show
> you how comprehensively wrong you are.

Obviously you have all the hand-waving fantasy down and think you know 
it all. Oh sure, you can "explain" how information isn't really 
transmitted by "spooky action at a distance" And some how that makes 
sense to you that only the particles "know" things that they can't tell 
you and me. You think this is science?

I'm glad to see a man of such faith who has all his dogma down cold and 
knows how to stamp out heresy when he hears it. Next you can explain the 
mystery of the "trinity" to me.

>> So there goes the TOE unless of course, Nature
>> does not agree with
>> Bell.
>
> There are now several independent experiments that test Bell's theorem
> and/or EPR-like correlations, and confirm QM.

So this means SR is totally wrong, right? Gentlemen, Start your hands 
waving! Bell's theorem implies that causality is absolute and "free 
will" does not exist (shades of Rolf!) Yet causality also "proves" that 
two simultaneous events separated by ANY distance cannot cause each 
other. Clearly all you true believers after being totally jerked around 
by fantasy are now all wandering around in circles with dazed looks on 
your faces.

>> However since you believe in "spooky action at a distance" that
>> obviously means
>> you  believe in ghosts.
>
> Why do you make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point?

Um because as near as I can tell THIS is they way you and Boinker and 
everybody else of any import does "modern" physics today.

Never forget that physics and science is ALWAYS decided by rhetorical 
combat and in that arena Odd always wins. You should aspire to the level 
of debating skills B oinker possesses. That is the mark of the true 
scientist.

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

#593797

On 8/18/16 8/18/16 - 10:22 PM, benj wrote:
> Never forget that physics and science is ALWAYS decided by rhetorical combat

You don't have a clue.

Tom Roberts

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

#593798

Einstein Dingleberry "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
"benj" <nobodyxx@gmail>  wrote:
>> Never forget that physics and science is ALWAYS decided by rhetorical 
>> combat
>
Einstein Dingleberry T Roberts wrote:
> You don't have a clue.
>
hanson wrote:
TR, do finish you sentence and say:
=== Benj, "You don't have a clue, how TRUE it is what you said" ===
>
All you have to do is to look at the bottom of the barrel,
starting with s.p. and work yourself up into industrials
physics, (wherein you managed to get yourself fired from),
up into the phys. mass media and the phys. R&D labs.
>
Physics, like all sciences, are social enterprises,
which are ruled by what Benj just said. 

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

#593847

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:36:28 AM UTC-4, hanson wrote:
> Einstein Dingleberry "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> "benj" <nobodyxx@gmail>  wrote:
> >> Never forget that physics and science is ALWAYS decided by rhetorical 
> >> combat
> >
> Einstein Dingleberry T Roberts wrote:
> > You don't have a clue.
> >
> hanson wrote:
> TR, do finish you sentence and say:
> === Benj, "You don't have a clue, how TRUE it is what you said" ===
> >
> All you have to do is to look at the bottom of the barrel,
> starting with s.p. and work yourself up into industrials
> physics, (wherein you managed to get yourself fired from),
> up into the phys. mass media and the phys. R&D labs.
> >
> Physics, like all sciences, are social enterprises,
> which are ruled by what Benj just said.

Nice to read you Sir hansonJi.

As a kid, there was this joke. Not me, but nice try. Apparently, at
the annual Comedians Conferences, the performers got so familiar with
the repetitive jokes -- a lot like watching FOX Network -- that all
that was required was to walk up on stage and say the number of the
joke. The newbie exclaims 'I could do that!' So he tries...

The newbie walks up to the microphone. Starts saying out some
numbers. Pin drop silence from the audience. Ashamed he sits back in
his chair next to his friend. The friend says 'Hey, you just don't
know how to tell a joke. Oy vey..., I have to go sit over there now.'

Lesson: Every human endeavor has become a social enterprise. 

Learn to monetize said social enterprises so you can afford some 69!

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

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

#593881

Virdy "Mahipal" <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>  hanson wrote:
> Einstein Dingleberry "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> "benj" <nobodyxx@gmail>  wrote:
> >> Never forget that physics and science is ALWAYS decided by rhetorical
> >> combat
> >
> Einstein Dingleberry T Roberts wrote:
> > You don't have a clue.
> >
> hanson wrote:
> TR, do finish you sentence and say:
> === Benj, "You don't have a clue, how TRUE it is what you said" ===
> >
> All you have to do is to look at the bottom of the barrel,
> starting with s.p. and work yourself up into industrials
> physics, (wherein you managed to get yourself fired from),
> up into the phys. mass media and the phys. R&D labs.
> >
> Physics, like all sciences, are social enterprises,
> which are ruled by what Benj just said.

Virdyji wrote:
Nice to read you Sir hansonJi.
>
hanson wrote:
Likewise, mon cher amiji
>
Virdyji wrote:
As a kid, there was this joke. Not me, but nice try. Apparently, at
the annual Comedians Conferences, the performers got so familiar with
the repetitive jokes -- a lot like watching FOX Network -- that all
that was required was to walk up on stage and say the number of the
joke. The newbie exclaims 'I could do that!' So he tries...

The newbie walks up to the microphone. Starts saying out some
numbers. Pin drop silence from the audience. Ashamed he sits back in
his chair next to his friend. The friend says 'Hey, you just don't
know how to tell a joke. Oy vey..., I have to go sit over there now.'
>
Lesson: Every human endeavor has become a social enterprise.

 [1] Learn to monetize said social enterprises so you can afford some 69!
>
-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”
>
hanson wrote:
[1] : Exactly! That is what the Rio-Swimmer-Winner-Sinners
did: 4 dudes & 2 hookers, which is 71: ... 69 with 2 people
watching... and ROTFLTAO.... ahahahaha... Take care Virdiji.

 

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

#593893

Wrong newsgroup, you retarded mouthload of Hitler's diarrhea.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web