After posting the following on physicsforums.com I was banned almost immediately permanently with the following reason: crackpot.
I am appalled that the administrators, supposedly scientific minds exhibited such behaviour. I simply proposed an idea and was met with ultimate ignorance...herein lies the reason that we cannot evolve to a better understanding of such things. Here is my original post from physicsforums.com that resulted with a permanent ban:
"
Points Regarding Quantum Mechanics
After reading quite a bit regarding the what is called “the measurement problem” which states that we cannot know at any given time the velocity and position of any atom at the same time, I have come to the realization that perhaps our efforts to prove such things with “our science” is futile.
As we exist in this universe; we are inevitably bound by the laws that govern it and our existence. Much is said regarding the collapsible wave function when running interference experiments focusing on the point at which the wave function collapses, I believe that we are still “stuck” for lack of better terminology inside our own universe and thereby the wave function is simply a human created tool to attempt to explain phenomena within the confines of this reality. The solution to this issue in my opinion is simple; to fully understand the inner workings of this universe we must first be an observer outside this universe, unbound by the laws that govern this universe. We have perhaps reached an impasse with out current collective intelligence.
These ideas simply remind me of the movie “The Matrix”, as the movie states, while inside the matrix “connected to it” you are therefor bound by its laws. As a computer scientist, the architecture of the universe I believe is similar to this precept. As the main character exits The Matrix, he then has the ability to be faster and stronger than the super agents which pursue him due to the fact that he is know longer bound by its rules.
This of course is a simple albeit primitive assumption but the similarities between our own world and the fantasy world depicted by the “matrix” are striking.
"
I simply cannot believe the arrogance, this was simply a conversational topic and this action coming from so -called scientists.
A special note, I do not claim to be a physicist, simply a computer scientist whom has read plenty of information on the subject. All I am asking is some conversation FROM physicists as to better understand the subject.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Sep 29 2009, 08:46 PM)
The solution to this issue in my opinion is simple; to fully understand the inner workings of this universe we must first be an observer outside this universe.
And how (you jaw-plummeting imbecile) do you propose to manage this feat?
"simple"? - now go ahead and answer, or be forever consigned to the abysmal depths of blithering crackpottery.
And how (you jaw-plummeting imbecile) do you propose to manage this feat?
"simple"? - now go ahead and answer, or be forever consigned to the abysmal depths of blithering crackpottery.
We are bound by the laws of nature whether we know them or not. People didn't float off the ground until the day Newton realised gravity, thus dooming us all to be unable to fly. We fell ill from diseases before we knew what viruses or bacteria are.
Physics is about understanding how things behave. If you could 'step out of the universe' and no longer be bound by its rules you'd still be bound some some kind of rules and then physics would ask "What are those rules?".
Just because, at first glance, such things as the Uncertainty Principle seem unpalatable to people used to the classical behaviour of systems doesn't mean there's something inherently wrong with the result. What if that is just the way the universe is? Saying "That sounds odd, something must be wrong" is not a good method to go about doing science as you rely too much on your intuition and intuition is just another way of saying "I expect things I've not seen before to behave like things I have seen before" and in such a large and complex universe that's naive.
And while you admit you're not a physicist, just a computer scientist whose done a lot of reading I can't help but feel you missed much of the point of what physics is.
Physics is about understanding how things behave. If you could 'step out of the universe' and no longer be bound by its rules you'd still be bound some some kind of rules and then physics would ask "What are those rules?".
Just because, at first glance, such things as the Uncertainty Principle seem unpalatable to people used to the classical behaviour of systems doesn't mean there's something inherently wrong with the result. What if that is just the way the universe is? Saying "That sounds odd, something must be wrong" is not a good method to go about doing science as you rely too much on your intuition and intuition is just another way of saying "I expect things I've not seen before to behave like things I have seen before" and in such a large and complex universe that's naive.
And while you admit you're not a physicist, just a computer scientist whose done a lot of reading I can't help but feel you missed much of the point of what physics is.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Sep 29 2009, 08:46 PM)
The solution to this issue in my opinion is simple; to fully understand the inner workings of this universe we must first be an observer outside this universe, unbound by the laws that govern this universe.
My understanding of the term, "universe," is that it refers to the largest possible set that contains all other elements and sets. Therefore, at least according to boolean logic, there is no such possibility as multiple universes, because there can always be an all-encompassing "universe" defined as containing the other "universes," which should actually be called, "sub-sets."
As for the logic of unbinding from the laws that govern the PHYSICAL universe/subset in order to understand it better, this is a pretty standard method of thought-experimentation in physics, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, professionals). Even if it's not standard, the falsification approach to scientific theory written about by K Popper basically employs the method of using existing scientific theories to deduce propositions that will prove indefensible in observations and/or experiments.
So, by employing a falsification method of deducing propositions from theories, you are able to create "alternate universes" where observational and experimental data from the physical universe do not apply.
If you get skilled enough in developing and falsifying theories, you may end up coming up with one that cannot be falsified by you or anyone else. Then it's jackpot! You could win a prize like a Nobel prize or be awarded a prestigious position in a revered academic department.
My understanding of the term, "universe," is that it refers to the largest possible set that contains all other elements and sets. Therefore, at least according to boolean logic, there is no such possibility as multiple universes, because there can always be an all-encompassing "universe" defined as containing the other "universes," which should actually be called, "sub-sets."
As for the logic of unbinding from the laws that govern the PHYSICAL universe/subset in order to understand it better, this is a pretty standard method of thought-experimentation in physics, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, professionals). Even if it's not standard, the falsification approach to scientific theory written about by K Popper basically employs the method of using existing scientific theories to deduce propositions that will prove indefensible in observations and/or experiments.
So, by employing a falsification method of deducing propositions from theories, you are able to create "alternate universes" where observational and experimental data from the physical universe do not apply.
If you get skilled enough in developing and falsifying theories, you may end up coming up with one that cannot be falsified by you or anyone else. Then it's jackpot! You could win a prize like a Nobel prize or be awarded a prestigious position in a revered academic department.
Did you ever consider that you are a crackpot?
Would top atheletes want to talk to someone who suggests playing sports in bare feet?
Probably not.
So why would scientists want to talk with the equivalent?
Would top atheletes want to talk to someone who suggests playing sports in bare feet?
Probably not.
So why would scientists want to talk with the equivalent?
QUOTE (Dr Fred A Wolf+Sep 30 2009, 09:36 AM)
And how (you jaw-plummeting imbecile) do you propose to manage this feat?
"simple"? - now go ahead and answer, or be forever consigned to the abysmal depths of blithering crackpottery.
"Jaw Plummeting imbecile"...well that's just wonderful, I expected more from a scientist than remedial insults. Nothing else I have to say to you. Dismissing an idea or thought with elementary insult simply proves your own ignorance.
"simple"? - now go ahead and answer, or be forever consigned to the abysmal depths of blithering crackpottery.
"Jaw Plummeting imbecile"...well that's just wonderful, I expected more from a scientist than remedial insults. Nothing else I have to say to you. Dismissing an idea or thought with elementary insult simply proves your own ignorance.
But that 1) presumes Dr. Wolf is not a licensed medical doctor and 2) does not answer the question.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Sep 30 2009, 02:32 PM)
"Jaw Plummeting imbecile"...well that's just wonderful, I expected more from a scientist than remedial insults. Nothing else I have to say to you. Dismissing an idea or thought with elementary insult simply proves your own ignorance.
Your theory explains exactly 0 known phenomena. Your theory makes 0 testable predictions.
How's that?
Your theory explains exactly 0 known phenomena. Your theory makes 0 testable predictions.
How's that?
To the rest of you whom answerer or at least engaged in my statement thank you. I sincerely appreciate your time reading my post.
light in the tunnel: Thank you for your input, makes sense to me.
AlphaNumeric: Perhaps I have, that it why I am here. My understand of what is Physics (and please correct me if I am wrong) which is why I am here:
The study and calculation of matter, energy and force at the micro/macroscopic level?
If by some reason you feel that I have missed the initial meaning of physics, then please enlighten me as I can only interpret what I read from a non-physicist standpoint.
I have also noticed a large degree of arrogance in here (no offence). It was always my contention that scientists were teachers more than arrogant whom put down others for wanting to understand. Those of you whom do this much like Dr Fred A Wolf in this topic is utterly despicable.
I had assumed that the intelligence factor in such a forum would be extremely civil without having to deal with what I can "High School Attitudes" or megalomania.
This is simply an observation I have made after reading countless topics in here prior to posting my own.
How is our society to evolve with this type of attitude. Criticizing someone for an idea is precisely why our society is at a standstill. Everyone thinks they know "the right way" or "know more" than the next guy. If this is the best that the physics community can offer we are in real trouble.
light in the tunnel: Thank you for your input, makes sense to me.
AlphaNumeric: Perhaps I have, that it why I am here. My understand of what is Physics (and please correct me if I am wrong) which is why I am here:
The study and calculation of matter, energy and force at the micro/macroscopic level?
If by some reason you feel that I have missed the initial meaning of physics, then please enlighten me as I can only interpret what I read from a non-physicist standpoint.
I have also noticed a large degree of arrogance in here (no offence). It was always my contention that scientists were teachers more than arrogant whom put down others for wanting to understand. Those of you whom do this much like Dr Fred A Wolf in this topic is utterly despicable.
I had assumed that the intelligence factor in such a forum would be extremely civil without having to deal with what I can "High School Attitudes" or megalomania.
This is simply an observation I have made after reading countless topics in here prior to posting my own.
How is our society to evolve with this type of attitude. Criticizing someone for an idea is precisely why our society is at a standstill. Everyone thinks they know "the right way" or "know more" than the next guy. If this is the best that the physics community can offer we are in real trouble.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 30 2009, 06:39 PM)
Your theory explains exactly 0 known phenomena. Your theory makes 0 testable predictions.
How's that?
Of course it has 0 of both its just an idea, nothing more to illicit feedback from "real physicists" to see if perhaps my thoughts have merit. Nothing more.
How's that?
Of course it has 0 of both its just an idea, nothing more to illicit feedback from "real physicists" to see if perhaps my thoughts have merit. Nothing more.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Sep 30 2009, 06:32 PM)
"Jaw Plummeting imbecile"...well that's just wonderful, I expected more from a scientist than remedial insults. Nothing else I have to say to you. Dismissing an idea or thought with elementary insult simply proves your own ignorance.
I hereby forever consign you to the abysmal depths of blithering crackpottery, you jaw-to-the-floor cretin.
I hereby forever consign you to the abysmal depths of blithering crackpottery, you jaw-to-the-floor cretin.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Sep 30 2009, 06:52 PM)
Of course it has 0
Brain cells in your head?
Brain cells in your head?
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Sep 30 2009, 02:52 PM)
Of course it has 0 of both its just an idea, nothing more to illicit feedback from "real physicists" to see if perhaps my thoughts have merit. Nothing more.
"Real physicists" judge merit by the criteria I mentioned above.
"Real physicists" judge merit by the criteria I mentioned above.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 30 2009, 07:09 PM)
"Real physicists" judge merit by the criteria I mentioned above.
An idea, a discussion; these things do not require your criteria it only requires an open mind and a willingness to teach or learn.
[Moderator: Poster engaged in excessive weaseling by evading question of how to create practical research program of stepping outside universe to observe. To be banned without further notice if obstinate weaseling continues.]
An idea, a discussion; these things do not require your criteria it only requires an open mind and a willingness to teach or learn.
[Moderator: Poster engaged in excessive weaseling by evading question of how to create practical research program of stepping outside universe to observe. To be banned without further notice if obstinate weaseling continues.]
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Sep 30 2009, 07:34 PM)
[Moderator: Poster engaged in excessive weaseling by evading question of how to create practical research program of stepping outside universe to observe. To be banned without further notice if obstinate weaseling continues.]
You are worse than squabbling politicians, you cannot simply have a discussion. Frankly, you have answered my questions entirely. In your constant bickering to prove who is smarter and whom has more wit you completely missed the objective of my post.
I care not, ban me. This is my last visit to such nonsense. You have single handedly obliterated the high intellectual standard that I once held for Physicists.
Good Luck.
You are worse than squabbling politicians, you cannot simply have a discussion. Frankly, you have answered my questions entirely. In your constant bickering to prove who is smarter and whom has more wit you completely missed the objective of my post.
I care not, ban me. This is my last visit to such nonsense. You have single handedly obliterated the high intellectual standard that I once held for Physicists.
Good Luck.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Sep 30 2009, 04:55 PM)
You are worse than squabbling politicians, you cannot simply have a discussion. Frankly, you have answered my questions entirely. In your constant bickering to prove who is smarter and whom has more wit you completely missed the objective of my post.
What exactly were you trying to accomplish? What kind of response did you expect? I don't think that you really thought through what you were saying from a perspective of "how is this useful?".
What exactly were you trying to accomplish? What kind of response did you expect? I don't think that you really thought through what you were saying from a perspective of "how is this useful?".
If he thinks I hurt his feelings, he should meet Newton
I suspect the OP was thinking of something like 'A god's view'. [Yes/No?]
From AGV, let's just say we create a particle - that shouldn't be too difficult.
Is mass optional? [Apparently so]
Is momentum optional? [I'm not sure]
Is size important [Apparently so]
Can we have size=0? [Apparently we can]
How many dimensions should we have? Can we try 7?
A programming exercise for someone with spare programming capacity. You program in whatever you like and test it for stability, absence of futility (and so on).
Selecting a particle with two dimensions, zero size, zero mass and finite momentum:-
...
-C2.
From AGV, let's just say we create a particle - that shouldn't be too difficult.
Is mass optional? [Apparently so]
Is momentum optional? [I'm not sure]
Is size important [Apparently so]
Can we have size=0? [Apparently we can]
How many dimensions should we have? Can we try 7?
A programming exercise for someone with spare programming capacity. You program in whatever you like and test it for stability, absence of futility (and so on).
Selecting a particle with two dimensions, zero size, zero mass and finite momentum:-
...
-C2.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Sep 30 2009, 06:32 PM)
"Jaw Plummeting imbecile"...well that's just wonderful, I expected more from a scientist than remedial insults. Nothing else I have to say to you. Dismissing an idea or thought with elementary insult simply proves your own ignorance.
How would you handle someone's suggestion that the NFL be played barefooted?
That is about the level of your suggestion.
Start at the beginning. Not at the pro level.
How would you handle someone's suggestion that the NFL be played barefooted?
That is about the level of your suggestion.
Start at the beginning. Not at the pro level.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 30 2009, 06:38 PM)
But that 1) presumes Dr. Wolf is not a licensed medical doctor
Correct, the Dr part is simply an acronym for Diminished responsibility.
Correct, the Dr part is simply an acronym for Diminished responsibility.
His theory is right tho... To bad someone already did his theory and figured out every thing worth knowing...
Should basket-weaving be on the menu? (they say it is delicious)
QUOTE
I expected more from a scientist than remedial insults
Your first mistake was assuming that such people are actual scientists.
You see, here is how it works....
Real scientists do real science, while pretend scientists take in online research to turn around and spew it on forums like this. Anyone else them must follow suite or be insulted.
Anyone that isn't part of the group will often get warnings, banning, and/or moderator messages in their post as you just did for simply expressing a personal opinion which you clearly expressed as a personal opinion. Me, I have the disclaimer as a signature. However I provide this link because I think it will explain some things. Not things regarding you idea but regarding your surprised reaction to the "spam" you received.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26556&hl=
An example would be Dr. Fred's insults which, by a few others on here, would have at least been met with warning. Instead it's not even given a first thought, never mind a second one.
[Moderator: Hey! Mo-ron! "Dr Fred A Wolf" did receive a warning and suspension on October 4th, so the bulk of your statements are wrong even before you wrote them. Loony Conspiracy Theories don't make you contribute to science.]
QUOTE
Hey! Mo-ron! "Dr Fred A Wolf" did receive a warning
You present a very nice demonstration of hypocrisy. You warn others for insulting yet who warns you when you do it? Especially when you intentionally go around the censorship provided by the site.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 13 2009, 10:48 AM)
You present a very nice demonstration of hypocrisy. You warn others for insulting yet who warns you when you do it? Especially when you intentionally go around the censorship provided by the site.
It's not an insult, it's the truth. Learn the difference.
It's not an insult, it's the truth. Learn the difference.
QUOTE
It's not an insult, it's the truth. Learn the difference.
I know the difference, allow me to school you on it.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insult
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/truth
And when you consider the insult....
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/*****
and the context in which it was used, it's a pure matter of personal opinion, provably false and therefore an insult and nothing else.
Since I had to make this post as a point to you and the ignorant thing you said and you believe that I am a ***** by definition then that would place you in a far worse situation.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 13 2009, 02:19 PM)
I know the difference, allow me to school you on it.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insult
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/truth
And when you consider the insult....
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/*****
and the context in which it was used, it's a pure matter of personal opinion, provably false and therefore an insult and nothing else.
Since I had to make this post as a point to you and the ignorant thing you said and you believe that I am a ***** by definition then that would place you in a far worse situation.
QUOTE
in·sult (n-slt)
v. in·sult·ed, in·sult·ing, in·sults
v.tr.
1.
a. To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness. See Synonyms at offend.
b. To affront or demean: an absurd speech that insulted the intelligence of the audience.
If it's the truth, how can it be demeaning? How can it display insolence, contempt, or rudeness? It's true....v. in·sult·ed, in·sult·ing, in·sults
v.tr.
1.
a. To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness. See Synonyms at offend.
b. To affront or demean: an absurd speech that insulted the intelligence of the audience.
As for the "Truth"...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| in·sult (n-slt) v. in·sult·ed, in·sult·ing, in·sults v.tr. 1. a. To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness. See Synonyms at offend. b. To affront or demean: an absurd speech that insulted the intelligence of the audience. |
If it's the truth, how can it be demeaning? How can it display insolence, contempt, or rudeness? It's true....
As for the "Truth"...truth (trth)
n. pl. truths (trz, trths)
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
As for the "Truth"...truth (trth)
n. pl. truths (trz, trths)
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
You have repeatedly shown yourself to be a complete mоrоn, so it certainly qualifies as the truth...
As for your mоrоnic attempt to give a link to the definition of mоrоn (only a mоrоn would whinge about rpenner attempting to evade the profanity filters, then completely forget about the profanity filters yourself in short order), well, that merely demonstrates (yet again) the truth of rpenner's categorization of you.
Have a nice day, mоrоn.
As for your mоrоnic attempt to give a link to the definition of mоrоn (only a mоrоn would whinge about rpenner attempting to evade the profanity filters, then completely forget about the profanity filters yourself in short order), well, that merely demonstrates (yet again) the truth of rpenner's categorization of you.
Have a nice day, mоrоn.
Gross insensitivity: "Your mother never loved you -- that's why you are adopted." This I did not say.
Insolence: Not possible since I outrank everyone but physforum.com employees and owners.
Contemptuous rudeness: Not true. You have no idea how much an effort I make to actually read the posts on this forum and the great deal of care I put into every thought I express (although not always in exactly what words my fingers manage to spell). Mo-ron, with the horizontal dash indicating, as in Japanese, a vowel held longer than normal, seemed the the correct form of address for someone using Dr. Wolf as an example of an unbanable friend of the moderator, during the period of his actual suspension by said moderator and with the public indicator of the censure visible on the same page as the post. It is intended to focus the subject on his own shortcomings, and is thus not a princely title like Idiot, or as obscure as Malaprop or Polonius or a character of classical literature who even more accurately embodies your immediate failing. It is the term of address used in the Bronx when addressing a junior electrician about to assay with a moistened fingertip if the mains have been connected yet, and I'm sorry if the typewritten "Hey, Mo-ron" did not immediately evoke that rough brotherhood of men with you.
Insolence: Not possible since I outrank everyone but physforum.com employees and owners.
Contemptuous rudeness: Not true. You have no idea how much an effort I make to actually read the posts on this forum and the great deal of care I put into every thought I express (although not always in exactly what words my fingers manage to spell). Mo-ron, with the horizontal dash indicating, as in Japanese, a vowel held longer than normal, seemed the the correct form of address for someone using Dr. Wolf as an example of an unbanable friend of the moderator, during the period of his actual suspension by said moderator and with the public indicator of the censure visible on the same page as the post. It is intended to focus the subject on his own shortcomings, and is thus not a princely title like Idiot, or as obscure as Malaprop or Polonius or a character of classical literature who even more accurately embodies your immediate failing. It is the term of address used in the Bronx when addressing a junior electrician about to assay with a moistened fingertip if the mains have been connected yet, and I'm sorry if the typewritten "Hey, Mo-ron" did not immediately evoke that rough brotherhood of men with you.
I believe the exact internet spelling is "mo-ran". 
Note: for this exposition, I have liberally translated the proper phrase "teh intrawebs" to "the internet".
Note: for this exposition, I have liberally translated the proper phrase "teh intrawebs" to "the internet".
QUOTE
If it's the truth, how can it be demeaning? How can it display insolence, contempt, or rudeness? It's true....
It's very hypocritical that you would call me a ***** if you can't even answer those questions yourself...
Prove it's true. That by definition of the word that I am a *****...bet you can't. I can prove otherwise as an IQ test could easily do for starters (hell you take one to get into the military and I scored high enough to have every trade open to me, just couldn't enter the one that require degrees).
As for the answer to your question, it's in the manner in which it was implied. The intent or intended use of the word.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If it's the truth, how can it be demeaning? How can it display insolence, contempt, or rudeness? It's true.... |
It's very hypocritical that you would call me a ***** if you can't even answer those questions yourself...
Prove it's true. That by definition of the word that I am a *****...bet you can't. I can prove otherwise as an IQ test could easily do for starters (hell you take one to get into the military and I scored high enough to have every trade open to me, just couldn't enter the one that require degrees).
As for the answer to your question, it's in the manner in which it was implied. The intent or intended use of the word.
Contemptuous rudeness: Not true.
Quite true and your paragraph that follows doesn't explain, show or otherwise prove that it would not be true.
It simple childish name calling and nothing more. Do you have children? Would you want them calling people morons? Regardless if it's clinically true or not? Or how about if you were to have a child that clinically is a *****? It would probably be something you would think twice about calling someone.
That is if you have any level of decency and dignity in you.
Decency and Dignity. Something that lacks severely with a select few on these forums. I'd rather be a ***** than a juvenile delinquent. At least if someone is a ***** it can't be helped, same can't be said for the latter.
A person proposes a "what if" for which they come flat out and say that it is just a "what if" but because it goes against you opinions and views you resort to cyber bullying. Precisely why I made the post about pretend scientist. Your lives are so boring that you have to pretend to be something else on here.
QUOTE
As for your mоrоnic attempt to give a link to the definition of mоrоn (only a mоrоn would whinge about rpenner attempting to evade the profanity filters, then completely forget about the profanity filters yourself in short order), well, that merely demonstrates (yet again) the truth of rpenner's categorization of you.
So sorry your omnipotenceness for assuming that despite filtering the word ***** in the displayed text that it would still link to the site as it does on a gamers forum I help run.
This is a funny site though. Reminds me of a pack of hyenas. Just one is no match for a lion and no match for a group of vultures. So they gang up into packs. Strength in numbers because individually they are just plain weak.
As of late suspensions have been accompanied by some red moderator text in the person's posts. The lack there of led me to assume nothing was done. I would hate to think that a select few receive preferential treatment.
I had originally decided never to visit this forum after the original display of nonsense that followed my original post.
This is how it is:
rpenner I do not care how intelligent you are, what your IQ is or that you have administrative rights to this forum, you simply are childish. This is precisely why people like you should not be given any sort of power in any way, shape or form. You abuse your position and are more than happy to do so.
You have proven my point to the utmost extent regarding the comment I made regarding "squabbling politicians"; you have offered nothing except remedial insults masked by your repeated attempt to sound "witty" which in itself shows the character of you "on-line personality".
Frankly rpenner, you're a joke....There is no response that you can give, witty, intelligent or otherwise that will change these facts.
Now go use your omnipotent forum admin powers and ban.delete, edit to your hearts content, those whom are true to science can see right through you....
I have dealt with people like you as a software engineer for many many years....You seem to have a heightened sense of importance in this forum....the fact is, you are simply lonely and "need something" which is filled by simple on-line bullying.
I have noticed that sooner or later, people like you ALWAYS get what they deserve. No More to say.
This is how it is:
rpenner I do not care how intelligent you are, what your IQ is or that you have administrative rights to this forum, you simply are childish. This is precisely why people like you should not be given any sort of power in any way, shape or form. You abuse your position and are more than happy to do so.
You have proven my point to the utmost extent regarding the comment I made regarding "squabbling politicians"; you have offered nothing except remedial insults masked by your repeated attempt to sound "witty" which in itself shows the character of you "on-line personality".
Frankly rpenner, you're a joke....There is no response that you can give, witty, intelligent or otherwise that will change these facts.
Now go use your omnipotent forum admin powers and ban.delete, edit to your hearts content, those whom are true to science can see right through you....
I have dealt with people like you as a software engineer for many many years....You seem to have a heightened sense of importance in this forum....the fact is, you are simply lonely and "need something" which is filled by simple on-line bullying.
I have noticed that sooner or later, people like you ALWAYS get what they deserve. No More to say.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 11:53 AM)
I had originally decided never to visit this forum after the original display of nonsense that followed my original post.
You never answered the question: How is your theory useful in any way shape or form?
You never answered the question: How is your theory useful in any way shape or form?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 14 2009, 03:56 PM)
You never answered the question: How is your theory useful in any way shape or form?
Observing from outside our currently known reality would allow us to view how the machine works. Pretty useful I think.
I don't believe you can determine how a machine works by using tools built based on the laws of that machine itself.
When I say machine I am referring to our known universe encapsulating what we call reality.
Sounds pretty useful to me to understand how all of this works.
Just a note: I absolutely am NOT referring to a "God View or any superior being" in my opinion, religion is a joke and should be treated as nothing more than a mechanism of controlling the weak minded.
Observing from outside our currently known reality would allow us to view how the machine works. Pretty useful I think.
I don't believe you can determine how a machine works by using tools built based on the laws of that machine itself.
When I say machine I am referring to our known universe encapsulating what we call reality.
Sounds pretty useful to me to understand how all of this works.
Just a note: I absolutely am NOT referring to a "God View or any superior being" in my opinion, religion is a joke and should be treated as nothing more than a mechanism of controlling the weak minded.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 12:06 PM)
Observing from outside our currently known reality would allow us to view how the machine works. Pretty useful I think.
Please explain your method of stepping outside reality.
Please explain your method of stepping outside reality.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 14 2009, 04:15 PM)
Please explain your method of stepping outside reality.
According to Michio Kaku, particles resonate at a certain frequency, if perhaps we were to change the frequency of matter to resonate at a frequency not consistent with normality, perhaps then we will no longer be bound by the laws governing this universe or reality.
According to Michio Kaku, particles resonate at a certain frequency, if perhaps we were to change the frequency of matter to resonate at a frequency not consistent with normality, perhaps then we will no longer be bound by the laws governing this universe or reality.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 14 2009, 04:15 PM)
Please explain your method of stepping outside reality.
TheShadowMaster's technique is clearly a drug related excursion.
TheShadowMaster's technique is clearly a drug related excursion.
QUOTE (Geoff Mollusc+Oct 14 2009, 04:29 PM)
TheShadowMaster's technique is clearly a drug related excursion.
If you say so then it must be true....
If you say so then it must be true....
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 12:21 PM)
According to Michio Kaku, particles resonate at a certain frequency, if perhaps we were to change the frequency of matter to resonate at a frequency not consistent with normality, perhaps then we will no longer be bound by the laws governing this universe or reality.
While I do appreciate the Doctor Who/Star Trek reference, the answer is no.
"Reversing the polarity" or "Changing the resonance frequency" are not viable options.
While I do appreciate the Doctor Who/Star Trek reference, the answer is no.
"Reversing the polarity" or "Changing the resonance frequency" are not viable options.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 14 2009, 04:42 PM)
While I do appreciate the Doctor Who/Star Trek reference, the answer is no.
"Reversing the polarity" or "Changing the resonance frequency" are not viable options.
You failed to explain why as people here are so apt at stating....Are we just supposed to believe you, or do you have any scientific evidence, tests or data to say otherwise....
Seems the shoe is on the other foot now....
The simple fact is that you just don't know.....everyone attempts to dress things up here instead of saying.." I just don't know" because of course no one wants to look incompetent inside an on-line forum, that would just be devastating...
"Reversing the polarity" or "Changing the resonance frequency" are not viable options.
You failed to explain why as people here are so apt at stating....Are we just supposed to believe you, or do you have any scientific evidence, tests or data to say otherwise....
Seems the shoe is on the other foot now....
The simple fact is that you just don't know.....everyone attempts to dress things up here instead of saying.." I just don't know" because of course no one wants to look incompetent inside an on-line forum, that would just be devastating...
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 12:49 PM)
You failed to explain why as people here are so apt at stating....Are we just supposed to believe you, or do you have any scientific evidence, tests or data to say otherwise....
Seems the shoe is on the other foot now....
Those options are IMAGINARY. You might as well ask the magical unicorn to take you on a tour of the solar system. There's no point in testing it if it's not based on reality.
Seems the shoe is on the other foot now....
Those options are IMAGINARY. You might as well ask the magical unicorn to take you on a tour of the solar system. There's no point in testing it if it's not based on reality.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 14 2009, 04:51 PM)
Those options are IMAGINARY. You might as well ask the magical unicorn to take you on a tour of the solar system. There's no point in testing it if it's not based on reality.
Just like the world was ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY FLAT in the 15th century and it was IMPOSSIBLE to fly.
Just as invisibility was IMPOSSIBLE 5 years a go but now scientists have actually BENT microwaves which would apply to normal light..this was proven by the way by bending red light
Just like teleportation was IMPOSSIBLE..which by the way was also proven. Yes photons WERE teleported.
Controlling a computer with your mind was..IMPOSSIBLE..
All fantasies no more than a century ago....Your way of thinking will be the death of us all.
Just like the world was ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY FLAT in the 15th century and it was IMPOSSIBLE to fly.
Just as invisibility was IMPOSSIBLE 5 years a go but now scientists have actually BENT microwaves which would apply to normal light..this was proven by the way by bending red light
Just like teleportation was IMPOSSIBLE..which by the way was also proven. Yes photons WERE teleported.
Controlling a computer with your mind was..IMPOSSIBLE..
All fantasies no more than a century ago....Your way of thinking will be the death of us all.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 12:56 PM)
Just like the world was ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY FLAT in the 15th century and it was IMPOSSIBLE to fly.
Just as invisibility was IMPOSSIBLE 5 years a go but now scientists have actually BENT microwaves which would apply to normal light..this was proven by the way by bending red light
Just like teleportation was IMPOSSIBLE..which by the way was also proven. Yes photons WERE teleported.
Controlling a computer with your mind was..IMPOSSIBLE..
All fantasies no more than a century ago....Your way of thinking will be the death of us all.
There's no point in postulating unless you have a useful way to carry out your theory. If we had a way to "step outside reality" then I'm sure that we would jump at that opportunity. At this point, what you are saying is akin to "The only way to study Jupiter is to study it in person, so we need to ride a magic unicorn through the solar system." Someday we might find a way to travel to Jupiter, and it might even be a magic unicorn, but talking about magic unicorns now is stupid.
Just as invisibility was IMPOSSIBLE 5 years a go but now scientists have actually BENT microwaves which would apply to normal light..this was proven by the way by bending red light
Just like teleportation was IMPOSSIBLE..which by the way was also proven. Yes photons WERE teleported.
Controlling a computer with your mind was..IMPOSSIBLE..
All fantasies no more than a century ago....Your way of thinking will be the death of us all.
There's no point in postulating unless you have a useful way to carry out your theory. If we had a way to "step outside reality" then I'm sure that we would jump at that opportunity. At this point, what you are saying is akin to "The only way to study Jupiter is to study it in person, so we need to ride a magic unicorn through the solar system." Someday we might find a way to travel to Jupiter, and it might even be a magic unicorn, but talking about magic unicorns now is stupid.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 14 2009, 05:15 PM)
There's no point in postulating unless you have a useful way to carry out your theory. If we had a way to "step outside reality" then I'm sure that we would jump at that opportunity. At this point, what you are saying is akin to "The only way to study Jupiter is to study it in person, so we need to ride a magic unicorn through the solar system." Someday we might find a way to travel to Jupiter, and it might even be a magic unicorn, but talking about magic unicorns now is stupid.
"Talking about it now is stupid"
That is the most foolhardy thing I have ever heard....
If no one "talked about things now" we wouldn't have science....
"O The arrogance"....
"Talking about it now is stupid"
That is the most foolhardy thing I have ever heard....
If no one "talked about things now" we wouldn't have science....
"O The arrogance"....
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 01:22 PM)
"Talking about it now is stupid"
That is the most foolhardy thing I have ever heard....
If no one "talked about things now" we wouldn't have science....
"O The arrogance"....
Read: Magic Unicorns are stupid.
That is the most foolhardy thing I have ever heard....
If no one "talked about things now" we wouldn't have science....
"O The arrogance"....
Read: Magic Unicorns are stupid.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 14 2009, 05:22 PM)
Read: Magic Unicorns are stupid.
I am not going to play word games with you.
You implied that "magic unicorn" encapsulated an idea that was imaginary.
The changing around of what you say will not work with me, perhaps on the high school kids.
I am not going to play word games with you.
You implied that "magic unicorn" encapsulated an idea that was imaginary.
The changing around of what you say will not work with me, perhaps on the high school kids.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 01:25 PM)
I am not going to play word games with you.
You implied that "magic unicorn" encapsulated an idea that was imaginary.
The changing around of what you say will not work with me, perhaps on the high school kids.
The method is imaginary. There are realistic methods of getting to Jupiter, but magic unicorns are not among them.
There MIGHT be realistic methods of "stepping outside reality," but the options you suggested are not among them.
Your theory is nothing new, and is not helpful in the least.
You implied that "magic unicorn" encapsulated an idea that was imaginary.
The changing around of what you say will not work with me, perhaps on the high school kids.
The method is imaginary. There are realistic methods of getting to Jupiter, but magic unicorns are not among them.
There MIGHT be realistic methods of "stepping outside reality," but the options you suggested are not among them.
Your theory is nothing new, and is not helpful in the least.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 14 2009, 05:27 PM)
The method is imaginary. There are realistic methods of getting to Jupiter, but magic unicorns are not among them.
There MIGHT be realistic methods of "stepping outside reality," but the options you suggested are not among them.
Your theory is nothing new, and is not helpful in the least.
Precisely why I opted for a discussion in this matter. With my lack of knowledge ragarding particle physics, this comes as no surprise however, that does not mean that what I state is wrong with absolute certainty.
I do not think you could tell me what would happen if particles of matter were to vibrate at a frequency other than that of their design.
There MIGHT be realistic methods of "stepping outside reality," but the options you suggested are not among them.
Your theory is nothing new, and is not helpful in the least.
Precisely why I opted for a discussion in this matter. With my lack of knowledge ragarding particle physics, this comes as no surprise however, that does not mean that what I state is wrong with absolute certainty.
I do not think you could tell me what would happen if particles of matter were to vibrate at a frequency other than that of their design.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 01:30 PM)
Precisely why I opted for a discussion in this matter. With my lack of knowledge ragarding particle physics, this comes as no surprise however, that does not mean that what I state is wrong with absolute certainty.
You are discussing science FICTION at this point.
Are you trying to talk about String Theory? You might as well reverse the polarity of the positron beam if you are going to discuss Sci-Fi physics.
You are discussing science FICTION at this point.
QUOTE
I do not think you could tell me what would happen if particles of matter were to vibrate at a frequency other than that of their design.
Are you trying to talk about String Theory? You might as well reverse the polarity of the positron beam if you are going to discuss Sci-Fi physics.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 14 2009, 05:39 PM)
You are discussing science FICTION at this point.
Are you trying to talk about String Theory? You might as well reverse the polarity of the positron beam if you are going to discuss Sci-Fi physics.
Teleportation was sci/fi a year ago.
At this point I do not think you know the difference.
Are you trying to talk about String Theory? You might as well reverse the polarity of the positron beam if you are going to discuss Sci-Fi physics.
Teleportation was sci/fi a year ago.
At this point I do not think you know the difference.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 01:43 PM)
Teleportation was sci/fi a year ago.
At this point I do not think you know the difference.
Theoretically, teleportation was always possible. It WAS technically impossible to teleport single particles, NOW it's still technically impossible to teleport whole molecules. There is a difference between possible science fiction and TECHNOBABBLE science fiction. You seem to specialize in the latter.
At this point I do not think you know the difference.
Theoretically, teleportation was always possible. It WAS technically impossible to teleport single particles, NOW it's still technically impossible to teleport whole molecules. There is a difference between possible science fiction and TECHNOBABBLE science fiction. You seem to specialize in the latter.
QUOTE
I don't believe you can determine how a machine works by using tools built based on the laws of that machine itself.
Sounds like your talking about some circular logic. Assuming something is true/false then using the assumption to prove it.
reminds me of something that is used that really shouldn't...
the axiom.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/axiom
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 14 2009, 05:48 PM)
Theoretically, teleportation was always possible. It WAS technically impossible to teleport single particles, NOW it's still technically impossible to teleport whole molecules. There is a difference between possible science fiction and TECHNOBABBLE science fiction. You seem to specialize in the latter.
This is generally what happens, I know that teleportation was believed to be impossible by 80% of physicists just 2 years ago, it had nothing to do with technological limitations.
Rather than simply admit perhaps someone may have a point, you persist to dance around the issue doing everything in your power including insults to make your point.
This is not the behaviour of scientists.
I know the facts regarding teleportation and the views of the physics community 100% accurately. Your attempt to state that they thought otherwise is a gross assumption leading to illogical conclusions in order to satisfy your internet "stamina"
This is generally what happens, I know that teleportation was believed to be impossible by 80% of physicists just 2 years ago, it had nothing to do with technological limitations.
Rather than simply admit perhaps someone may have a point, you persist to dance around the issue doing everything in your power including insults to make your point.
This is not the behaviour of scientists.
I know the facts regarding teleportation and the views of the physics community 100% accurately. Your attempt to state that they thought otherwise is a gross assumption leading to illogical conclusions in order to satisfy your internet "stamina"
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 14 2009, 05:58 PM)
Sounds like your talking about some circular logic. Assuming something is true/false then using the assumption to prove it.
reminds me of something that is used that really shouldn't...
the axiom.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/axiom
I make no assumptions, but I do thank you for taking time to post. You seem to be an open minded individual whom will answer simply yet humbly.
I see however what you state regarding circular logic, not to be dismissive but I do not believe that this is the case.
The very fact that I cannot prove it regardless of it wither being true or false negates the "circular logic" theory.
I simply wanted a discussion, and that's what I got.
I am simply saying "what if"....
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 02:00 PM)
This is generally what happens, I know that teleportation was believed to be impossible by 80% of physicists just 2 years ago, it had nothing to do with technological limitations.
Rather than simply admit perhaps someone may have a point, you persist to dance around the issue doing everything in your power including insults to make your point.
This is not the behaviour of scientists.
I know the facts regarding teleportation and the views of the physics community 100% accurately. Your attempt to state that they thought otherwise is a gross assumption leading to illogical conclusions in order to satisfy your internet "stamina"
It was considered impossible up until the discovery of quantum entanglement.
This doesn't make your "theory" any more realistic or useful.
Rather than simply admit perhaps someone may have a point, you persist to dance around the issue doing everything in your power including insults to make your point.
This is not the behaviour of scientists.
I know the facts regarding teleportation and the views of the physics community 100% accurately. Your attempt to state that they thought otherwise is a gross assumption leading to illogical conclusions in order to satisfy your internet "stamina"
It was considered impossible up until the discovery of quantum entanglement.
This doesn't make your "theory" any more realistic or useful.
QUOTE
Rather than simply admit perhaps someone may have a point, you persist to dance around the issue doing everything in your power including insults to make your point.
That's what they do....see
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26556
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Rather than simply admit perhaps someone may have a point, you persist to dance around the issue doing everything in your power including insults to make your point. |
That's what they do....see
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26556
This is not the behavior of scientists.
You want to talk about it with scientists then these forums (as with most forums) is not the place as you simply won't find any real ones.
There have been many advancements that have occurred through history which was thought of as magic, imaginary and/or impossible. Many cases where the impossible has become possible, the imaginary has become reality. Even if the means wasn't exactly what was expected.
I've read something that mentioned the teleportation of light, it also mentioned something about a particle being manipulated at one location and seeing an identical particle behaving as if it was being manipulated in the same manner as the first one but at another location entirely. The idea is that it is the same particle and that it is in two places at once. This (along with what you mentioned) would mean instantaneous transfer of information to begin with. Talk about cutting back on ping times.
As far as stepping out of this dimension, or even existing in this dimension but "out of phase". As of today such is still sci fi but could that change? No one can say, especially those in here. So you'll get nothing but insults from them.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 01:00 PM)
I know that teleportation was believed to be impossible by 80% of physicists just 2 years ago, it had nothing to do with technological limitations.
Bullshit.
Once again, you prove that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/physics-04zi.html
that's a 5 year-old article...
Bullshit.
Once again, you prove that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/physics-04zi.html
that's a 5 year-old article...
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 14 2009, 06:23 PM)
That's what they do....see
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26556
You want to talk about it with scientists then these forums (as with most forums) is not the place as you simply won't find any real ones.
There have been many advancements that have occurred through history which was thought of as magic, imaginary and/or impossible. Many cases where the impossible has become possible, the imaginary has become reality. Even if the means wasn't exactly what was expected.
I've read something that mentioned the teleportation of light, it also mentioned something about a particle being manipulated at one location and seeing an identical particle behaving as if it was being manipulated in the same manner as the first one but at another location entirely. The idea is that it is the same particle and that it is in two places at once. This (along with what you mentioned) would mean instantaneous transfer of information to begin with. Talk about cutting back on ping times.
As far as stepping out of this dimension, or even existing in this dimension but "out of phase". As of today such is still sci fi but could that change? No one can say, especially those in here. So you'll get nothing but insults from them.
I agree with you 100%, it does appear to be the charter of these people.
What you are referring regarding to the light issue where simultaneous photos have the exact same characteristics is referred to as twin photons or the photons twin. I read quite a bit about this phenomena. It was extremely interesting to read such things however it is still being studied. This is not to be confused with super position states where in theory the molecule actually does exist simultaneously in two spaces and times in which the conscious choice to view one will collapse the wave function causing the molecule to appear wholly in the place you are viewing.
Is it said that the actual conscious choice affects the position or better yet the interference of an object whatever that may be acts as a catalyst.
This is very interesting to me.
This also brings me back to what I had originally stated. As we are part of this SYSTEM, how can we not affect the SYSTEM itself.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 14 2009, 06:31 PM)
Bullshit.
Once again, you prove that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/physics-04zi.html
that's a 5 year-old article...
That article has nothing to do with teleportation is has to do with the transfer of information between matter and light at the quantum level dealing with communication bits. You've chosen a software engineer to debate computing with, not a very good idea.
I am not going to follow suit with everyone else I and call you an inordinate number of childish insults I am simply going to point out that you are in error.
Once again, you prove that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/physics-04zi.html
that's a 5 year-old article...
That article has nothing to do with teleportation is has to do with the transfer of information between matter and light at the quantum level dealing with communication bits. You've chosen a software engineer to debate computing with, not a very good idea.
I am not going to follow suit with everyone else I and call you an inordinate number of childish insults I am simply going to point out that you are in error.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 01:35 PM)
That article has nothing to do with teleportation is has to do with the transfer of information between matter and light dealing with communication.
I am not going to follow suit with everyone else I and call you an inordinate number of childish insults I am simply going to point out that you are in error.
Again, you prove your own ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
Quantum teleportation is the only sort of teleportation currently possible. You are an idiot who's too stupid to even know how utterly ignorant you are.
But since you're so stupid, you might want more links...
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/
http://www.physorg.com/news10924.html
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/...html#nj248372s4
http://www.imit.kth.se/QEO/qucomm/DelD19QuComm.pdf
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/teleport.html
Note the date on that last link...
11 friggan years ago you idiot!
I am not going to follow suit with everyone else I and call you an inordinate number of childish insults I am simply going to point out that you are in error.
Again, you prove your own ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
Quantum teleportation is the only sort of teleportation currently possible. You are an idiot who's too stupid to even know how utterly ignorant you are.
But since you're so stupid, you might want more links...
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/
http://www.physorg.com/news10924.html
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/...html#nj248372s4
http://www.imit.kth.se/QEO/qucomm/DelD19QuComm.pdf
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/teleport.html
Note the date on that last link...
11 friggan years ago you idiot!
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 14 2009, 06:42 PM)
Again, you prove your own ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
Quantum teleportation is the only sort of teleportation currently possible. You are an idiot who's too stupid to even know how utterly ignorant you are.
But since you're so stupid, you might want more links...
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/
http://www.physorg.com/news10924.html
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/...html#nj248372s4
http://www.imit.kth.se/QEO/qucomm/DelD19QuComm.pdf
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/teleport.html
Note the date on that last link...
11 friggan years ago you idiot!
Again, it is you who cannot fathom that we are not talking about quantum teleportation but the teleportation of ACTUAL MATTER they are 2 DIFFERENT THINGS
You sir are a fool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
Quantum teleportation is the only sort of teleportation currently possible. You are an idiot who's too stupid to even know how utterly ignorant you are.
But since you're so stupid, you might want more links...
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/
http://www.physorg.com/news10924.html
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/...html#nj248372s4
http://www.imit.kth.se/QEO/qucomm/DelD19QuComm.pdf
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/teleport.html
Note the date on that last link...
11 friggan years ago you idiot!
Again, it is you who cannot fathom that we are not talking about quantum teleportation but the teleportation of ACTUAL MATTER they are 2 DIFFERENT THINGS
You sir are a fool
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 01:47 PM)
Again, it is you who cannot fathom that we are not talking about quantum teleportation but the teleportation of ACTUAL MATTER they are 2 DIFFERENT THINGS
You sir are a fool
Again, your ignorance shines through... Quantum teleportation can be used on matter, dumbass*.
Or maybe you'd like to find me 7 external links from reputable sources which proves there's some other means of teleporting matter? Go ahead, I'm waiting, numnuts.
*It's not as straightforward as it sounds. Read the links I gave.
You sir are a fool
Again, your ignorance shines through... Quantum teleportation can be used on matter, dumbass*.
Or maybe you'd like to find me 7 external links from reputable sources which proves there's some other means of teleporting matter? Go ahead, I'm waiting, numnuts.
*It's not as straightforward as it sounds. Read the links I gave.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 14 2009, 06:48 PM)
Again, your ignorance shines through... Quantum teleportation can be used on matter, dumbass.
Or maybe you'd like to find me 7 external links from reputable sources which proves there's some other means of teleporting matter? Go ahead, I'm waiting, numnuts.
I am not going to argue with you. People who use such terms as "dumbass" are a waste of oxygen. From now on I will simply ignore your posts, you may blbber on about whatever you wish in an attempt to "get a following" as H20 specified. You mean nothing to me nor do your opinions.
I simply can't wait for you to see the science channel special discussing these topics that will be airing very shortly....
We will see then who has the ignorance and whom is the fool.
Or maybe you'd like to find me 7 external links from reputable sources which proves there's some other means of teleporting matter? Go ahead, I'm waiting, numnuts.
I am not going to argue with you. People who use such terms as "dumbass" are a waste of oxygen. From now on I will simply ignore your posts, you may blbber on about whatever you wish in an attempt to "get a following" as H20 specified. You mean nothing to me nor do your opinions.
I simply can't wait for you to see the science channel special discussing these topics that will be airing very shortly....
We will see then who has the ignorance and whom is the fool.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 01:55 PM)
I am not going to argue with you. People who use such terms as "dumbass" are a waste of oxygen. From now on I will simply ignore your posts, you may balbber on about whatever you wish in an attempt to "get a following" as H20 specified. You mean nothing to me nor do your opinions.
I simply can't wait for you to see the science channel special discussing these topics that will be airing very shortly....
We will see then who has the ignorance and whom is the fool.
H20 is as much an idiot as you are, and he or she knows absolutely nothing about me or my motivations.
If you actually had a point, you'd be able to argue it. The fact that you're pretending to take the moral high ground is not only pathetic, but ironic, in that you're only doing so because you know you're wrong, and refuse to admit it.
Oh, and a special on the science channel means nothing. The science channel has aired specials about ghosts, alien astronauts, and the loch Ness monster.
I simply can't wait for you to see the science channel special discussing these topics that will be airing very shortly....
We will see then who has the ignorance and whom is the fool.
H20 is as much an idiot as you are, and he or she knows absolutely nothing about me or my motivations.
If you actually had a point, you'd be able to argue it. The fact that you're pretending to take the moral high ground is not only pathetic, but ironic, in that you're only doing so because you know you're wrong, and refuse to admit it.
Oh, and a special on the science channel means nothing. The science channel has aired specials about ghosts, alien astronauts, and the loch Ness monster.
I must have missed this...
I didn't explain myself very well. What I was saying was that it sounds like you are proposing an idea to prevent circular logic from happening.
You say that we can't fully explain how a machine works using methods that depend on the mechanics of the machine.
I agree with this. We can explain it to a degree but there will come a point where we will come across things we simply can not explain and never will (maybe we came to that already with a few things that have yet to be fully explained). Not until we can become an outside observer as you say.
I didn't explain myself very well. What I was saying was that it sounds like you are proposing an idea to prevent circular logic from happening.
You say that we can't fully explain how a machine works using methods that depend on the mechanics of the machine.
I agree with this. We can explain it to a degree but there will come a point where we will come across things we simply can not explain and never will (maybe we came to that already with a few things that have yet to be fully explained). Not until we can become an outside observer as you say.
You seem to be an open minded individual whom will answer simply yet humbly.
The way I see it is there are three types of individuals.
Those that are like cattle that follow the herd. They work with what is known Their thoughts are entirely inside the box. They have their comfort zone and they stay within it. They are the most common type.
Those that like to be individuals among peers (Minority by Green Day is their theme song). They poke and prod the stability of the system, question it, come up with "what if" scenarios no matter how radical. They like to think completely outside the box. This type is not so common.
Those that are both. They think inside the box and outside. They know how to bridge the two. They are the real visionaries as they can take what's outside the box and bring it in. They can even take what's inside and take it out. They are the ones that shape the world. An example of such a person in the scientific community would be Nikola Tesla. This type is the rarest of them all.
I see myself as the second type.
I agree with this. We can explain it to a degree but there will come a point where we will come across things we simply can not explain and never will (maybe we came to that already with a few things that have yet to be fully explained). Not until we can become an outside observer as you say.
But you can't observe outside of nature.
On another forum a lady says that when someone asks her if she can think outside the box, she answers "does it have to be a box"?
anyone that does not understand that answer doesn't really understand the question.
Being contrarian and being ignorant is not the same as "thinking outside the box".
Would you consider suggesting that pro baseball players play barefoot to be "thinking outside the box"?
Yeah I should, it would probably put me in the third group...
But I have too much going on as it is. In a month I'll be posted to a new base, then I have to get my types done, then I need to take OPME's (might be wrong on the acronym), then I plan on trying to commission. Total time frame? Probably 4 years.
Although, I have had people who have taken a few courses tell me that I should do the same. They say I clearly have an aptitude for it.
Yeah I should, it would probably put me in the third group...
But I have too much going on as it is. In a month I'll be posted to a new base, then I have to get my types done, then I need to take OPME's (might be wrong on the acronym), then I plan on trying to commission. Total time frame? Probably 4 years.
Although, I have had people who have taken a few courses tell me that I should do the same. They say I clearly have an aptitude for it.
But you can't observe outside of nature.
Unfortunately no, we can't. I won't say one way or the other if that will change but as of today, we can't.
I can assure you that the laugh will be at your expense right here.
It's been like that for a while now.... Shadow Master..
I can assure you that the laugh will be at your expense right here.
It's been like that for a while now.... Shadow Master..
If this were a world where anyone cared what you thought I might be insulted.
It's hilarious that you couldn't even spell that one sentence correctly.
Irony is a harsh mistress.
QUOTE
I make no assumptions
I didn't explain myself very well. What I was saying was that it sounds like you are proposing an idea to prevent circular logic from happening.
You say that we can't fully explain how a machine works using methods that depend on the mechanics of the machine.
I agree with this. We can explain it to a degree but there will come a point where we will come across things we simply can not explain and never will (maybe we came to that already with a few things that have yet to be fully explained). Not until we can become an outside observer as you say.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I make no assumptions |
I didn't explain myself very well. What I was saying was that it sounds like you are proposing an idea to prevent circular logic from happening.
You say that we can't fully explain how a machine works using methods that depend on the mechanics of the machine.
I agree with this. We can explain it to a degree but there will come a point where we will come across things we simply can not explain and never will (maybe we came to that already with a few things that have yet to be fully explained). Not until we can become an outside observer as you say.
You seem to be an open minded individual whom will answer simply yet humbly.
The way I see it is there are three types of individuals.
Those that are like cattle that follow the herd. They work with what is known Their thoughts are entirely inside the box. They have their comfort zone and they stay within it. They are the most common type.
Those that like to be individuals among peers (Minority by Green Day is their theme song). They poke and prod the stability of the system, question it, come up with "what if" scenarios no matter how radical. They like to think completely outside the box. This type is not so common.
Those that are both. They think inside the box and outside. They know how to bridge the two. They are the real visionaries as they can take what's outside the box and bring it in. They can even take what's inside and take it out. They are the ones that shape the world. An example of such a person in the scientific community would be Nikola Tesla. This type is the rarest of them all.
I see myself as the second type.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 14 2009, 07:19 PM)
I must have missed this...
I didn't explain myself very well. What I was saying was that it sounds like you are proposing an idea to prevent circular logic from happening.
You say that we can't fully explain how a machine works using methods that depend on the mechanics of the machine.
I agree with this. We can explain it to a degree but there will come a point where we will come across things we simply can not explain and never will (maybe we came to that already with a few things that have yet to be fully explained). Not until we can become an outside observer as you say.
The way I see it is there are three types of individuals.
Those that are like cattle that follow the herd. They work with what is known Their thoughts are entirely inside the box. They have their comfort zone and they stay within it. They are the most common type.
Those that like to be individuals among peers (Minority by Green Day is their theme song). They poke and prod the stability of the system, question it, come up with "what if" scenarios no matter how radical. They like to think completely outside the box. This type is not so common.
Those that are both. They think inside the box and outside. They know how to bridge the two. They are the real visionaries as they can take what's outside the box and bring it in. They can even take what's inside and take it out. They are the ones that shape the world. An example of such a person in the scientific community would be Nikola Tesla. This type is the rarest of them all.
I see myself as the second type.
Touche' well put. Finally some understanding
I didn't explain myself very well. What I was saying was that it sounds like you are proposing an idea to prevent circular logic from happening.
You say that we can't fully explain how a machine works using methods that depend on the mechanics of the machine.
I agree with this. We can explain it to a degree but there will come a point where we will come across things we simply can not explain and never will (maybe we came to that already with a few things that have yet to be fully explained). Not until we can become an outside observer as you say.
The way I see it is there are three types of individuals.
Those that are like cattle that follow the herd. They work with what is known Their thoughts are entirely inside the box. They have their comfort zone and they stay within it. They are the most common type.
Those that like to be individuals among peers (Minority by Green Day is their theme song). They poke and prod the stability of the system, question it, come up with "what if" scenarios no matter how radical. They like to think completely outside the box. This type is not so common.
Those that are both. They think inside the box and outside. They know how to bridge the two. They are the real visionaries as they can take what's outside the box and bring it in. They can even take what's inside and take it out. They are the ones that shape the world. An example of such a person in the scientific community would be Nikola Tesla. This type is the rarest of them all.
I see myself as the second type.
Touche' well put. Finally some understanding
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 14 2009, 02:19 PM)
The way I see it is there are three types of individuals.
Those that are like cattle that follow the herd. They work with what is known Their thoughts are entirely inside the box. They have their comfort zone and they stay within it. They are the most common type.
Those that like to be individuals among peers (Minority by Green Day is their theme song). They poke and prod the stability of the system, question it, come up with "what if" scenarios no matter how radical. They like to think completely outside the box. This type is not so common.
Those that are both. They think inside the box and outside. They know how to bridge the two. They are the real visionaries as they can take what's outside the box and bring it in. They can even take what's inside and take it out. They are the ones that shape the world. An example of such a person in the scientific community would be Nikola Tesla. This type is the rarest of them all.
I see myself as the second type.
Yet you're so very typical of cranks, with views and attitudes about science which are easily explained by the most basic forms of sociology and psychology...
All you cranks try so hard to be different, yet never manage to notice that you're all so very much alike, and so hampered by common misperceptions and herd thinking...
You wanna be different? There are more cranks than actual scientists out there, so actually getting a science degree would make you far more different than what you're doing now.
Those that are like cattle that follow the herd. They work with what is known Their thoughts are entirely inside the box. They have their comfort zone and they stay within it. They are the most common type.
Those that like to be individuals among peers (Minority by Green Day is their theme song). They poke and prod the stability of the system, question it, come up with "what if" scenarios no matter how radical. They like to think completely outside the box. This type is not so common.
Those that are both. They think inside the box and outside. They know how to bridge the two. They are the real visionaries as they can take what's outside the box and bring it in. They can even take what's inside and take it out. They are the ones that shape the world. An example of such a person in the scientific community would be Nikola Tesla. This type is the rarest of them all.
I see myself as the second type.
Yet you're so very typical of cranks, with views and attitudes about science which are easily explained by the most basic forms of sociology and psychology...
All you cranks try so hard to be different, yet never manage to notice that you're all so very much alike, and so hampered by common misperceptions and herd thinking...
You wanna be different? There are more cranks than actual scientists out there, so actually getting a science degree would make you far more different than what you're doing now.
Call me here is my phone ext 122
00110111 00110000 00110011 00100000 00110100 00111000 00110010 00100000 00110001 00110001 00110000 00110000
Note: this post was not meant for anyone in this forum. Grow up
00110111 00110000 00110011 00100000 00110100 00111000 00110010 00100000 00110001 00110001 00110000 00110000
Note: this post was not meant for anyone in this forum. Grow up
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 02:38 PM)
Call me here is my phone ext 122
00110111 00110000 00110011 00100000 00110100 00111000 00110010 00100000 00110001 00110001 00110000 00110000
http://home2.paulschou.net/tools/xlate/
Remember what I said about proving your own stupidity? You're doing it again.
00110111 00110000 00110011 00100000 00110100 00111000 00110010 00100000 00110001 00110001 00110000 00110000
http://home2.paulschou.net/tools/xlate/
Remember what I said about proving your own stupidity? You're doing it again.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 14 2009, 06:30 PM)
I do not think you could tell me what would happen if particles of matter were to vibrate at a frequency other than that of their design.
Sure, don't you know how to do first quantisation on strings in string theory? It's really not too hard to follow if you've done usual quantum field theory and Lagrangian methods.
If you change the vibrations of a string then you change the particle it would be viewed as in everyday life. For instance, applying a pair of opposite direction level 1 bosonic creation operator to a closed bosonic string takes you from a tachyon to a massless particle and then depending on which SO(8) representations those modes fall into and the boundary conditions of your string modes you can get things from a scalar field to a graviton to a D-brane.
Just because you have no clue doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
Sure, don't you know how to do first quantisation on strings in string theory? It's really not too hard to follow if you've done usual quantum field theory and Lagrangian methods.
If you change the vibrations of a string then you change the particle it would be viewed as in everyday life. For instance, applying a pair of opposite direction level 1 bosonic creation operator to a closed bosonic string takes you from a tachyon to a massless particle and then depending on which SO(8) representations those modes fall into and the boundary conditions of your string modes you can get things from a scalar field to a graviton to a D-brane.
Just because you have no clue doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 14 2009, 07:19 PM)
I agree with this. We can explain it to a degree but there will come a point where we will come across things we simply can not explain and never will (maybe we came to that already with a few things that have yet to be fully explained). Not until we can become an outside observer as you say.
But you can't observe outside of nature.
On another forum a lady says that when someone asks her if she can think outside the box, she answers "does it have to be a box"?
anyone that does not understand that answer doesn't really understand the question.
Being contrarian and being ignorant is not the same as "thinking outside the box".
Would you consider suggesting that pro baseball players play barefoot to be "thinking outside the box"?
So then we observe the rush of geniuses, who first will guess the TOE! It is very near! One more post and here it is! Sarcasm intended.
QUOTE
You wanna be different? There are more cranks than actual scientists out there, so actually getting a science degree would make you far more different than what you're doing now.
Yeah I should, it would probably put me in the third group...
But I have too much going on as it is. In a month I'll be posted to a new base, then I have to get my types done, then I need to take OPME's (might be wrong on the acronym), then I plan on trying to commission. Total time frame? Probably 4 years.
Although, I have had people who have taken a few courses tell me that I should do the same. They say I clearly have an aptitude for it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You wanna be different? There are more cranks than actual scientists out there, so actually getting a science degree would make you far more different than what you're doing now. |
Yeah I should, it would probably put me in the third group...
But I have too much going on as it is. In a month I'll be posted to a new base, then I have to get my types done, then I need to take OPME's (might be wrong on the acronym), then I plan on trying to commission. Total time frame? Probably 4 years.
Although, I have had people who have taken a few courses tell me that I should do the same. They say I clearly have an aptitude for it.
But you can't observe outside of nature.
Unfortunately no, we can't. I won't say one way or the other if that will change but as of today, we can't.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 14 2009, 09:13 PM)
Sure, don't you know how to do first quantisation on strings in string theory? It's really not too hard to follow if you've done usual quantum field theory and Lagrangian methods.
If you change the vibrations of a string then you change the particle it would be viewed as in everyday life. For instance, applying a pair of opposite direction level 1 bosonic creation operator to a closed bosonic string takes you from a tachyon to a massless particle and then depending on which SO(8) representations those modes fall into and the boundary conditions of your string modes you can get things from a scalar field to a graviton to a D-brane.
Just because you have no clue doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
It seems the only way to get a straight answer in here.
Provoking someone like yourself to the point of irritation in which you have no choice but to reveal the answer I was looking for worked exactly as I predicted. You can't just simply answer, it has to be a giant production ending with a foolish comment or insult.
With all of your knowledge, wit and intelligence you could not see what I was doing?
You people are so predictable and easy to control.
I will enjoy a laugh over this with my co-workers. I can assure you it will be at your expense AlphaNumeric
In a lighter note thank you though for answering the question I posed which took 5 pages of arguments, insults and role-playing on my part to attain.
There is a part of me that feels bad for you...but not a very big part at all....calculate that genius.
If you change the vibrations of a string then you change the particle it would be viewed as in everyday life. For instance, applying a pair of opposite direction level 1 bosonic creation operator to a closed bosonic string takes you from a tachyon to a massless particle and then depending on which SO(8) representations those modes fall into and the boundary conditions of your string modes you can get things from a scalar field to a graviton to a D-brane.
Just because you have no clue doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
It seems the only way to get a straight answer in here.
Provoking someone like yourself to the point of irritation in which you have no choice but to reveal the answer I was looking for worked exactly as I predicted. You can't just simply answer, it has to be a giant production ending with a foolish comment or insult.
With all of your knowledge, wit and intelligence you could not see what I was doing?
You people are so predictable and easy to control.
I will enjoy a laugh over this with my co-workers. I can assure you it will be at your expense AlphaNumeric
In a lighter note thank you though for answering the question I posed which took 5 pages of arguments, insults and role-playing on my part to attain.
There is a part of me that feels bad for you...but not a very big part at all....calculate that genius.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 15 2009, 05:58 PM)
You people are so predictable and easy to control.
Wait
I haven't said anything yet. I couldn't read all of your initial post to this thread for awhile cause I was laughing after the first sentence. I did however read the entire thread eventually and also showed it to my room mate.
Wait
I haven't said anything yet. I couldn't read all of your initial post to this thread for awhile cause I was laughing after the first sentence. I did however read the entire thread eventually and also showed it to my room mate.
QUOTE
I will enjoy a laugh over this with my co-workers. I can assure you it will be at your expense AlphaNumeric
I can assure you that the laugh will be at your expense right here.
It's been like that for a while now.... Shadow Master..
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 15 2009, 06:40 PM)
I can assure you that the laugh will be at your expense right here.
It's been like that for a while now.... Shadow Master..
If this were a world where anyone cared what you thought I might be insulted.
A bit of projection there ShadowMaster?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 15 2009, 07:22 PM)
A bit of projection there ShadowMaster?
It's Mr Shadow to you
It's Mr Shadow to you
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 15 2009, 08:26 AM)
Although, I have had people who have taken a few courses tell me that I should do the same. They say I clearly have an aptitude for it.
They're either lying or even stupider than you. You haven't the faintest aptitude. But that shouldn't stop you. I haven't the faintest aptitude for communicating with imbeciles, yet I do so almost every time I log onto this site...
They're either lying or even stupider than you. You haven't the faintest aptitude. But that shouldn't stop you. I haven't the faintest aptitude for communicating with imbeciles, yet I do so almost every time I log onto this site...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 15 2009, 08:06 PM)
They're either lying or even stupider than you. You haven't the faintest aptitude. But that shouldn't stop you. I haven't the faintest aptitude for communicating with imbeciles, yet I do so almost every time I log onto this site...
Maybe he could work at Blacklight if he does?
Maybe he could work at Blacklight if he does?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 15 2009, 03:23 PM)
Maybe he could work at Blacklight if he does?
No... Even if they lack standards fro credibility on their website, I'm sure they have standards for employment, else they'd have gone out of business long ago...
No... Even if they lack standards fro credibility on their website, I'm sure they have standards for employment, else they'd have gone out of business long ago...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 15 2009, 09:10 PM)
No... Even if they lack standards fro credibility on their website, I'm sure they have standards for employment, else they'd have gone out of business long ago...
I hope they don't check you typing and spelling skills
I hope they don't check you typing and spelling skills
QUOTE (Ceasar+Oct 16 2009, 12:58 AM)
I hope they don't check you typing and spelling skills
Oh Noes
That was a real dis MP!
Oh Noes
That was a real dis MP!
QUOTE
I hope they don't check you typing and spelling skills
It's hilarious that you couldn't even spell that one sentence correctly.
Irony is a harsh mistress.
QUOTE (Ceasar+Oct 15 2009, 07:58 PM)
I hope they don't check you typing and spelling skills
I find it most amusing that someone would critique the single typo in my last post with a sentence which contains 2 distinct typing errors, neither of which seem to be typos.
It's also amusing that it's not actually a complete sentence.
I find it most amusing that someone would critique the single typo in my last post with a sentence which contains 2 distinct typing errors, neither of which seem to be typos.
It's also amusing that it's not actually a complete sentence.
Ist ko I am sreu yuo wlii gte ti rite nxt tme genuius
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 16 2009, 10:19 AM)
Ist ko I am sreu yuo wlii gte ti rite nxt tme genuius
That could have been funny... but it just wasn't.
That could have been funny... but it just wasn't.
'Dr' Wolf (or shall I say sheep), you are the most appalling piece of crap that I've ever met online.
I truly understand, that you must have had a hard time in high-school, but since some decades, we have therapies for that. Please shut up, and stop causing harm to innocent people, you sorry ana* fucke*..
I truly understand, that you must have had a hard time in high-school, but since some decades, we have therapies for that. Please shut up, and stop causing harm to innocent people, you sorry ana* fucke*..
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 16 2009, 02:26 PM)
That could have been funny... but it just wasn't.
Are you sure? Could it have been funny? Are you positive?
I enjoy very much the precise detail to punctuation you demonstrate. For all of your little comments and attempts to be important you are nevertheless simple and will always be simple. You have become the embodiment of what is wrong with society and for that I thank you. You are so easily controlled and persuaded that one must wonder if you are perhaps a bit shall we say..slow...
Are you sure? Could it have been funny? Are you positive?
I enjoy very much the precise detail to punctuation you demonstrate. For all of your little comments and attempts to be important you are nevertheless simple and will always be simple. You have become the embodiment of what is wrong with society and for that I thank you. You are so easily controlled and persuaded that one must wonder if you are perhaps a bit shall we say..slow...
There you go master, kick 'm in the butt. People who don't know how to behave themselves, don't have credibility and don't deserve our appreciation. Stand firm!
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 16 2009, 10:13 AM)
Are you sure? Could it have been funny? Are you positive?
I enjoy very much the precise detail to punctuation you demonstrate. For all of your little comments and attempts to be important you are nevertheless simple and will always be simple. You have become the embodiment of what is wrong with society and for that I thank you. You are so easily controlled and persuaded that one must wonder if you are perhaps a bit shall we say..slow...
This is exactly the sort of juvenile, ridiculous behavior that prevents cranks such as yourself from ever achieving the popularity among laymen you so aspire to.
Rather than critique others based on their ideas, ability to communicate, and actions, you critique them based entirely upon how much they agree with you. That's so incredibly biased that it calls into question your very morality.
Not to mention the fact that fbm has proven himself time and time again to be intelligent, creative, witty and likable, four attributes you have demonstrated a clear lack of.
Which is just a more polite way of saying that your idiotic diatribe applies to you more than him.
I enjoy very much the precise detail to punctuation you demonstrate. For all of your little comments and attempts to be important you are nevertheless simple and will always be simple. You have become the embodiment of what is wrong with society and for that I thank you. You are so easily controlled and persuaded that one must wonder if you are perhaps a bit shall we say..slow...
This is exactly the sort of juvenile, ridiculous behavior that prevents cranks such as yourself from ever achieving the popularity among laymen you so aspire to.
Rather than critique others based on their ideas, ability to communicate, and actions, you critique them based entirely upon how much they agree with you. That's so incredibly biased that it calls into question your very morality.
Not to mention the fact that fbm has proven himself time and time again to be intelligent, creative, witty and likable, four attributes you have demonstrated a clear lack of.
Which is just a more polite way of saying that your idiotic diatribe applies to you more than him.
Hey mo*on, your hammer is nothing but a dipswitch, compared to what I have to offer. Leave this boy alone, sicko.
QUOTE (nerdbasher+Oct 16 2009, 11:21 AM)
Hey mo*on, your hammer is nothing but a dipswitch, compared to what I have to offer. Leave this boy alone, sicko.
Shouldn't you be doing your homework instead of playing with mommy and daddy's computer? At this rate, you're not going to get your gold star for the week....
Shouldn't you be doing your homework instead of playing with mommy and daddy's computer? At this rate, you're not going to get your gold star for the week....
I believe that Nerdbasher is likely someone who has been banned and found another alias to sign in under. He has no reason to come here and contributes nothing except for stupid insults. It's too bad there isn't a way to get rid of these idiots permanently.
Wrong again Robbie, I am someone who likes to follow scientific forums, because he has a broad interest in all aspects of life, but after a very long time, has become very irritated. I like to help the underdog, understand? (By the way, this is my first registration on a science-forum ever.)
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 16 2009, 04:29 PM)
Shouldn't you be doing your homework instead of playing with mommy and daddy's computer? At this rate, you're not going to get your gold star for the week....
This is exactly the sort of juvenile, ridiculous behavior that prevents cranks such as yourself from ever achieving the popularity among laymen you so aspire to.
Rather than critique others based on their ideas, ability to communicate, and actions, you critique them based entirely upon how much they agree with you. That's so incredibly biased that it calls into question your very morality.
Not to mention the fact that fbm has proven himself time and time again to be intelligent, creative, witty and likable, four attributes you have demonstrated a clear lack of.
Which is just a more polite way of saying that your idiotic diatribe applies to you more than him.
His own quote applies to him. How ironic.
This is exactly the sort of juvenile, ridiculous behavior that prevents cranks such as yourself from ever achieving the popularity among laymen you so aspire to.
Rather than critique others based on their ideas, ability to communicate, and actions, you critique them based entirely upon how much they agree with you. That's so incredibly biased that it calls into question your very morality.
Not to mention the fact that fbm has proven himself time and time again to be intelligent, creative, witty and likable, four attributes you have demonstrated a clear lack of.
Which is just a more polite way of saying that your idiotic diatribe applies to you more than him.
His own quote applies to him. How ironic.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 16 2009, 11:13 AM)
I enjoy very much the precise detail to punctuation you demonstrate. For all of your little comments and attempts to be important you are nevertheless simple and will always be simple. You have become the embodiment of what is wrong with society and for that I thank you. You are so easily controlled and persuaded that one must wonder if you are perhaps a bit shall we say..slow...
Keep trying.
Keep trying.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 16 2009, 05:09 PM)
Keep trying.
Who's trying, you're an easy target.
Who's trying, you're an easy target.
QUOTE (TheShadowMaster+Oct 16 2009, 01:10 PM)
Who's trying, you're an easy target.
Apparently not.
You have followed the standard pattern that almost every user here follows.
You have an idea.
You find a physics forum.
You post the idea.
The people who know physics say that your idea is worthless.
You get personally offended.
You tell everyone that they're stupid.
Apparently not.
You have followed the standard pattern that almost every user here follows.
You have an idea.
You find a physics forum.
You post the idea.
The people who know physics say that your idea is worthless.
You get personally offended.
You tell everyone that they're stupid.
[/QUOTE]This is exactly the sort of juvenile, ridiculous behavior that prevents cranks such as yourself from ever achieving the popularity among laymen you so aspire to.
Rather than critique others based on their ideas, ability to communicate, and actions, you critique them based entirely upon how much they agree with you. That's so incredibly biased that it calls into question your very morality.
Not to mention the fact that fbm has proven himself time and time again to be intelligent, creative, witty and likable, four attributes you have demonstrated a clear lack of.
Which is just a more polite way of saying that your idiotic diatribe applies to you more than him.
His own quote applies to him. How ironic.[QUOTE]
Yeehaw! Keep up the good work master!
Rather than critique others based on their ideas, ability to communicate, and actions, you critique them based entirely upon how much they agree with you. That's so incredibly biased that it calls into question your very morality.
Not to mention the fact that fbm has proven himself time and time again to be intelligent, creative, witty and likable, four attributes you have demonstrated a clear lack of.
Which is just a more polite way of saying that your idiotic diatribe applies to you more than him.
His own quote applies to him. How ironic.[QUOTE]
Yeehaw! Keep up the good work master!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.