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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#593926

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 10:24:31 PM UTC-4, Henrietta Testicockles wrote:
> Wrong newsgroup, you retarded mouthload of Hitler's diarrhea.

Well... a good morning to you to Hairy TestiCock's LoverLess.

Yes, you are habitually stalking me in the wrong newsgroup. Stop it.

BTW... Who is this Hitler person that you have tasted diarrhea of? 
Would Hitler be the guy that Indiana Jones got an autograph from?

This Stalker stalks me, and mostly only me. Must be me accent.
My Stalker has no discussion to contribute. Past is predicate.
Is Stalking a right or a privilege on Usenet? Neither, it's stupid.

No matter how many user handles this Asshole Stalker uses, the posts'
headers all link back to the same insane hateful annoyance. Example:


-Received: by 10.28.54.215 with SMTP id y84mr1060894wmh.6.1471659871601;
        Fri, 19 Aug 2016 19:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: sci.physics@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.28.26.76 with SMTP id a73ls1464292wma.15.gmail; Fri, 19 Aug
 2016 19:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.134.65 with SMTP id pi1mr1527630wjb.6.1471659869310;
        Fri, 19 Aug 2016 19:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Path: h131ni21521wmd.0!nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Henrietta Testicockles" <inv...@example.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 19:24:10 -0700
Organization: Stop reading my headers you retarded faggots.
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <np8f0o$kkm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Reply-To: "Henrietta Testicockles" <inv...@example.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lpcpe8XQVfDU7p3pl5L2XQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: ab...@aioe.org

Btw, and all Usenet Stalkers already know this, filing a complaint at
aioe.org is a complete waste of both time and bits. Bring it StalkingBitch.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”
                          /\  "If the line between science fiction and 
                            /   science fact doesn't drive you crazy, 
 /\                         \   then you're just not tr(y)ing!" 
 \           /\/\  /  \   \/                    Mahipal Virdy 
 /   ==    \  /  \/\/                         The |meforce> Paradox 
 \/                            http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/ 

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

#593788

בתאריך יום שישי, 19 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 01:34:09 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> 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.
> 
>================================
P D is not a moron
he is a shameless pig hired gangster 
----

Y.P
========================================
>

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

#593787

בתאריך יום שלישי, 16 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 01:01:15 UTC+3, מאת benj:
> 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.
=============================
right !!
now the anonymous crock Paul Draper PD
forget that 
EVEN EXPERIMENTS ARE SUBJECTED TO 
SELECTIVE
**INTEERPRETATIONS !!!

we see 'experimentally' that 
the sun is orbiting our globe etc etc .......

ATB
Y.Porat
=====================================

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

#593546 — Re: Reduce your meds.

On 8/17/16 8/17/16 - 7:05 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Quantum "Mechanics" should be called Quantum "Statistics"
> because it models mere correlations, not cause and effect.

Not true. It provides a dynamical model for the mechanics of atomic systems. 
There certainly are causal effects included. Your ignorance is showing.


 > [... further nonsense based on ignorance]

(The "example you give for "entanglement" is a CLASSICAL example; quantum 
entanglement is much more subtle.)

You need to LEARN something about the subject before attempting to write about it.


Tom Roberts

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

#593551

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:47:27 AM UTC-4, 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."
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Excellent point! Worth repeating and hence this reply.

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

#593953 — Re: Reduce your meds.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 5:06:00 AM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Quantum "Mechanics" should be called Quantum "Statistics"
> because it models mere correlations, not cause and effect.
> Sadly, correlations can be wrong and/or misleading.
> 
> "Entanglement" works like this:
> 
>   You buy a pair of shoes.
> 
>   You ship one shoe to Becky and the other to Sam.
>   Should Becky find that she got the left one,
>   she'll _instantly_ know that Sam got the right one.
> 
>   The pair was "entangled", naturally; no tachyons required.
> 
> Quantum Statistics sucks, but it's the best we can do.
> Sadly, people _spin_ it; i.e. they lie, lie, lie.
> 
>   "Virtual Particles" and "Probability Waves" _are_ intrinsically random;
>   nature, however, is not.
> 


No.  You're wrong about your interpretation.  When Becky gets her box, it contains both a virtual right show and a virtual left shoe interposed.  When she opens the box, the virtual show crystallizes into a real shoe.  Whether it becomes a right or left shoe is unpredictable, but statistically a 50% chance.  At the same moment, the shoe Sam received crystallizes into the other shoe!  

FTL action at a distance at its finest!

Double-A

P.S.  Oh, I almost forgot, the packing order of which shoe went in which box must have been determined by some quantum event, such as the decay of an atom.

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

#594086 — Re: MrAA believes in magic; to wit: a HeadsTailsSuperposition.

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:57:54 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( MrAA ) replied ( to me ):
> > > "Entanglement" works like this:
> > > 
> > >   You buy a pair of shoes.
> > > 
> > >   You ship one shoe to Becky and the other to Sam.
> > >   Should Becky find that she got the left one,
> > >   she'll _instantly_ know that Sam got the right one.
> > > 
> > >   The pair was "entangled", naturally; no tachyons required.
> > 
> > No.  You're wrong about your interpretation.  
> > When Becky gets her box, it contains both a virtual right shoe
> > and a virtual left shoe interposed.  
> 
> How do you _know_ ? !  Did you peek ? !
> Or are you simply saying you don't know,
> because you had no chance to peek ?
> 
> > When she opens the box, 
> > the virtual shoe crystallizes into a real shoe.  
> 
> Only if it was Penn and Teller that sent the shoe.
> Again: How do you _know_ ? !  Did you peek ? !
> 
>   Quantum "Mechanics" should be called Quantum "Statistics"
>   because it models mere correlations, not cause and effect.
>   Sadly, correlations can be wrong and/or misleading.
> 
> > Whether it becomes a right or left shoe is unpredictable, 
> > but statistically a 50% chance.
> 
> Sure, like a thousand coin tosses, it averages out.
> A single coin toss, however, can't be a HeadsTailsSuperposition.
> 
> Not even Penn and Teller could do that.
> 
> > At the same moment, the shoe Sam received 
> > crystallizes into the other shoe!  
> > FTL action at a distance at its finest!
> 
> Sure, you believe in magic.  I don't.


Maybe you might have a point!

Double-A

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

#593549 — Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 12:29:07 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
> > > The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.
> > 
> > Say, rather, that the probability "waves" of QM are a MODEL, not "physical".
> 
> "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Randomess is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

It is not the complexity that makes it random.
Even the simplest system appear random at plank scale.
We do not know if it is truly random, or
if it is a complex underlying layer.
Unless we can measure below plank scale, we cannot know.

You can claim it is our ignorance. but right now we
have to treat it as if it is truly random.

it would be interesting to KNOW the universe is
deterministic. Since you make that claim,
you need the proof. let us know when you have it.

I hope to hear about it soon.

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

#593553 — Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 9:27:27 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 12:29:07 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
> > > > The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.
> > > 
> > > Say, rather, that the probability "waves" of QM are a MODEL, not "physical".
> > 
> > "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Randomess is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> It is not the complexity that makes it random.
> Even the simplest system appear random at plank scale.
> We do not know if it is truly random, or
> if it is a complex underlying layer.
> Unless we can measure below plank scale, we cannot know.
> 
> You can claim it is our ignorance. but right now we
> have to treat it as if it is truly random.
> 
> it would be interesting to KNOW the universe is
> deterministic. Since you make that claim,
> you need the proof. let us know when you have it.
> 
> I hope to hear about it soon.

The universe is probabilistic simply because there is no time dimension. Thus all interactions have the same durations because nature cannot calculate their durations. The problem is that this would break conservation laws because they call for interaction times to be commensurate with the energies involved.

Since nature time interactions, it is forced to use probability to ensure that conservation laws are obeyed in the long run. This is why particle decay is probabilistic. This truth escapes the physics community because physicists have their noses stuck so far up Einstein's dead ass, they've gotten used to the smell of bullshit.

You heard it here first.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

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

#593557 — Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:38:55 PM UTC-4, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
[]
> 
> The universe is probabilistic simply because there is no time dimension.
[]> 
> You heard it here first.
> 
> ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

if you think you are the first to suggest this, you are sadly mistaken.
:)

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

#593558 — Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:38:55 PM UTC-4, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> []
> > 
> > The universe is probabilistic simply because there is no time dimension.
> []> 
> > You heard it here first.
> > 
> > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> 
> if you think you are the first to suggest this, you are sadly mistaken.
> :)

I don't care if I'm the first. But since you seem to have a donkey in this race, put your money where your mouth is. Let's have your references. And let's see if they can beat mine. I've been saying this for years.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

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

#593853 — Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 1:41:34 PM UTC-4, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:38:55 PM UTC-4, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> > []
> > > 
> > > The universe is probabilistic simply because there is no time dimension.
> > []> 
> > > You heard it here first.
> > > 
> > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> > 
> > if you think you are the first to suggest this, you are sadly mistaken.
> > :)
> 
> I don't care if I'm the first. But since you seem to have
> a donkey in this race, put your money where your mouth is.
> Let's have your references. And let's see if they can beat mine.
> I've been saying this for years.
> 
> ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

I have no donkey. But you claimed primacy,
so I am just calling you on it.

I suggest you read the literature. There have been
hidden variable theorists since the introduction of
quantum theory. here's a quote from one that you just
might recognize:

Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner
 voice tells me that this is not yet the right track.
 The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer
 to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced
 that He does not play dice.

I did not find the date of the quote, but it was 1927 or earlier.

Can you beat that?  :)

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

#593859 — Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 2:35:25 PM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 1:41:34 PM UTC-4, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:38:55 PM UTC-4, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> > > []
> > > > 
> > > > The universe is probabilistic simply because there is no time dimension.
> > > []> 
> > > > You heard it here first.
> > > > 
> > > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> > > 
> > > if you think you are the first to suggest this, you are sadly mistaken.
> > > :)
> > 
> > I don't care if I'm the first. But since you seem to have
> > a donkey in this race, put your money where your mouth is.
> > Let's have your references. And let's see if they can beat mine.
> > I've been saying this for years.
> > 
> > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> 
> I have no donkey. But you claimed primacy,
> so I am just calling you on it.
> 
> I suggest you read the literature. There have been
> hidden variable theorists since the introduction of
> quantum theory. here's a quote from one that you just
> might recognize:
> 
> Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner
>  voice tells me that this is not yet the right track.
>  The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer
>  to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced
>  that He does not play dice.
> 
> I did not find the date of the quote, but it was 1927 or earlier.
> 
> Can you beat that?  :)

Man, what is wrong with you? This is a fucking non-sequitur. Are you sure you're not high or something? Go back and re-read what you are replying to. You don't make a lick of sense. Not that I expected anything else on usenet, mind you.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

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

#594289 — Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:11:05 PM UTC-4, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 2:35:25 PM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 1:41:34 PM UTC-4, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:38:55 PM UTC-4, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> > > > []
> > > > > 
> > > > > The universe is probabilistic simply because there is no time dimension.
> > > > []> 
> > > > > You heard it here first.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> > > > 
> > > > if you think you are the first to suggest this, you are sadly mistaken.
> > > > :)
> > > 
> > > I don't care if I'm the first. But since you seem to have
> > > a donkey in this race, put your money where your mouth is.
> > > Let's have your references. And let's see if they can beat mine.

I have yet to see any references from you.

> > > I've been saying this for years.
> > > 
> > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> > 
> > I have no donkey. But you claimed primacy,
> > so I am just calling you on it.
> > 
> > I suggest you read the literature. There have been
> > hidden variable theorists since the introduction of
> > quantum theory. here's a quote from one that you just
> > might recognize:
> > 
> > Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner
> >  voice tells me that this is not yet the right track.
> >  The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer
> >  to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced
> >  that He does not play dice.
> > 
> > I did not find the date of the quote, but it was 1927 or earlier.
> > 
> > Can you beat that?  :)
> 
> Man, what is wrong with you? This is a [beep] non-sequitur.

Another claim without proof, just something you seem to do. 

Quick reminder:
You claimed
> > > > > You heard it here first.

I pointed out the idea was old.
And I'll add the implication that you missed:
I hear it elsewhere LONG before you said it here.

I'd say, don't go away mad, but I'd be lying. ;)

ed

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

#594333 — Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:26:13 PM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
>[crap]

Man, fuck you and the ugly mule you sleep with.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

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

#593559 — Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 9:38:55 AM UTC-7, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 9:27:27 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 12:29:07 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > > You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
> > > > > The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.
> > > > 
> > > > Say, rather, that the probability "waves" of QM are a MODEL, not "physical".
> > > 
> > > "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.
> > > 
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Randomess is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.
> > 
> > It is not the complexity that makes it random.
> > Even the simplest system appear random at plank scale.
> > We do not know if it is truly random, or
> > if it is a complex underlying layer.
> > Unless we can measure below plank scale, we cannot know.
> > 
> > You can claim it is our ignorance. but right now we
> > have to treat it as if it is truly random.
> > 
> > it would be interesting to KNOW the universe is
> > deterministic. Since you make that claim,
> > you need the proof. let us know when you have it.
> > 
> > I hope to hear about it soon.
> 
> The universe is probabilistic simply because there is no time dimension. Thus all interactions have the same durations because nature cannot calculate their durations. The problem is that this would break conservation laws because they call for interaction times to be commensurate with the energies involved.
> 
> Since nature time interactions, it is forced to use probability to ensure 

This should have been: Since nature cannot time interactions, it is ...

>that conservation laws are obeyed in the long run. This is why particle decay is probabilistic. This truth escapes the physics community because physicists have their noses stuck so far up Einstein's dead ass, they've gotten used to the smell of bullshit.
> 
> You heard it here first.
> 
> ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

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

#593601 — mism

yes, that is how Laczos used quaternions,
with t as teh canonical scalar variable, since
time is the canonical scalar quantum, although
certainly not very much akin to space,
as in Einstein's minkowski-ism

> The universe is probabilistic simply because there is no time dimension. Thus all interactions have the same durations because nature cannot calculate their durations. The problem is that this would break conservation laws because they call for interaction times to be commensurate with the energies involved.
> 
> Since nature time interactions, it is forced to use probability to ensure

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

#597592 — Re: mism

Eisntein's secreatary at one time,
I finally read about, but
his treatment of s.r is in _Variational mechanicS,
Dover P.

> yes, that is how LaNczos used quaternions,
> with t as the canonical scalar variable, since
> time is the canonical scalar quantum, although
> certainly not very much akin to space,
> as in Einstein's minkowski-ism
> 
> > The universe is probabilistic simply because there is no time dimension. Thus all interactions have the same durations because nature cannot calculate their durations. The problem is that this would break conservation laws because they call for interaction times to be commensurate with the energies involved.
> > 
> > Since nature time interactions, it is forced to use probability to ensure

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

#593785

בתאריך יום שישי, 12 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 18:05:01 UTC+3, מאת Tom Roberts:
> 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

shameless pig crock 
a criminal against mankind 
=========================
nature is not playing the dice'

only crocks  hired gangsters like you  
do not admit it or not cleaver enough to admit it 
and that is crime against mankind  !!!
Y.Porat
====================================
Y.Porat
==========================================

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web