The SemiRandomness of Quantum Mechanics is just ignorance.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Re: " Could time travel soon become a reality ? "
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2665781/Could-time-travel-soon-reality-Physicists-simulate-quantum-light-particles-travelling-past-time.html

The answer is " No ! ".
The article says: ＜＜

  On larger scales, time travel still remains implausible,
  say researchers. ＞＞

"implausible" is _quite_ the underStatement.

WormHoles require _neagive_ MassEnergy, for one thing,
which doesn't exist in reality; see:

  http://www.hawking.org.uk/space-and-time-warps.html
  [ Hawking is _certain_ that you can't go back in time ]

You can _imagine_ neagive MassEnergy, as Quantum Mechanics does;
but it's _virtual_, not real.

The SemiRandomness of Quantum Mechanics is just ignorance.

Again, those who think otherwise should cut back on their caffine intake.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( TakuyaSaitoh ) asked me:
> > The SemiRandomness of Quantum Mechanics is just ignorance.
> > Those who think otherwise should cut back on their caffine intake.
> 
> Jeff, how do yo explain the double slit experiment then?

The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.

Coherency is key; no coherency, no interference pattern.

The ProbabilityWave of coherent particles produces the pattern.

Quantum Mechanics is statistical, like a series of dice tosses.
At best, the data shows (MISLEADING?) correlations, not causation.
Correlation doesn’t guarantee causation.

Quoting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_interpretation
＜＜

  THE ENSEMBLE INTERPRETATION of quantum mechanics 
  considers the quantum state description to apply only to an
  ensemble of similarly prepared systems [[ dice tosses ]], 

  rather than supposing that it exhaustively represents
  an individual physical system [[ each toss is random ]].  ＞＞

Quoting Einstein ( "Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist", 1949 ): 
＜＜

  The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical description 
  as THE COMPLETE DESCRIPTION of the individual systems 
  leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, 

  which become immediately unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation
  that the description refers to ensembles of systems [[ dice tosses ]], 
  and not to individual systems [[ each toss is random ]]. ＞＞

[Tom Roberts]

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

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

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


Tom Roberts

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
> > The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.
> 
> Say, rather, that the probability "waves" of QM are a MODEL, not "physical".

"Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.

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

Just because something is too complex to _fully_ understand,
like tomorrow's weather, it doesn't mean that it's _truly_ random;
in fact, we _know_ that it isn't.

Randomess is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

[noTthaTguY]

show that tossing three coins, is the same
as tossing two coins, one of which is weighted
to be t00 hedz or t00 tales

[benj]

On 8/12/2016 5:15 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( TakuyaSaitoh ) asked me:
>> > The SemiRandomness of Quantum Mechanics is just ignorance.
>> > Those who think otherwise should cut back on their caffine intake.
>>
>> Jeff, how do yo explain the double slit experiment then?
>
> The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.
>
> Coherency is key; no coherency, no interference pattern.
>
> The ProbabilityWave of coherent particles produces the pattern.

<snip remaining jimp-like drooling babble>

Probability waves are "Virtual"? Bwahahahaha! I suppose you think
Tinkerbell is "virtual" too. Are Ghosts virtual? Rolf you are STILL an
idiot.

[LIGO Fraud Investigator]

There is a very simple reason that quantum interactions are probabilistic. However, the physics community is blind to it because of their infatuation with Einsteinian physics. Einstein decreed that there is a time dimension and they all believe in it like lemmings. Get rid of the time dimension and everything begins to make sense.

[begin quote]
All Interactions Have Equal Durations

The non-existence of a time dimension is the reason that particle decay is inherently probabilistic. Normally, one would expect the duration of a quantum interaction to depend on the energies involved in the interaction. But since there is no time dimension, nature cannot calculate the exact durations of quantum interactions. In other words, all interactions, regardless of the energies involved, have the exact same fundamental discrete duration, a very minute interval.

The problem is that the use of equal durations for all interactions would break energy conservation laws. Nature has no recourse but to use probability to decide when to allow interactions to happen. Nature knows how energetic every type of interaction is. It uses this value to determine, at every discrete instant, the percentage of all similar particles in the entire universe which must undergo decay. It must choose them randomly, otherwise it would result in a lopsided universe. Over the long run, conservation laws are obeyed.
[end quote]

Source: http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2016/05/physics-surprisingly-simple-reason-that.html

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/12/16 8/12/16 11:29 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):

>> Say, rather, that the probability "waves" of QM are a MODEL, not "physical".
>
> "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality;

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

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

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

> Randomess is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

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


Tom Roberts

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
> > Just because something is too complex to _fully_ understand,
> > like tomorrow's weather, it doesn't mean that it's _truly_ random;
> > in fact, we _know_ that it isn't.
> 
> Tomorrow's weather is not at all random; aspects of QM are.

I don't know about Chicago, the Windy City,
but Seattle's weather is a tad _random_ sometimes.
We say, " If you don't like the weather, wait a few minutes. ".

But, with much effort, one could _prove_ that that
the (pseudo/semi) randomness is due to ignorance, nothing more.
Likewise, one could _prove_ that a die toss is (pseudo/semi) random.

No One can _prove_ that QM is fully, intrinsically causal, to 5 sigma;
but, most likely, it's (pseudo/semi) random, like die toss.
Far, _far_ less likely: QM is instrinsically random, like a medieval god.

Without data, no one can be 100.000,000,000% sure.
TV personalities and cult leaders build their mansions there, 
in the ( ever shrinking ) doubt zone.

> > Randomess is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Not true. In the case of QM we know from tests of the Bell inequalities
> that the underlying randomness is inherent, and mot mere ignorance.

No, today's missing data is _ignorance_, not instrinsic randomness.
Never say Never; you can't _know_ that something will _always_ be unknowable.
Scientists don't think that way, TV personalities and cult leaders do.

> > > Say, rather, that the probability "waves" of QM are a MODEL, not "physical".
> >
> > "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.
> 
> NOT AT ALL. "Virtual Reality" means something completely different, 
> and need not correspond to reality at all.

"Virtual Reality" _attempts_ to model reality, to some degree.
Quantum Mechanics has a higher standard, but still falls short.

"Virtual Particles" and "Probablity Waves" are intrinsically _random_;
nature, however, is not.

If you think otherwise, you should reduce your caffine intake,
and/or switch professions -- you're not a scientist.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Correction:

  No One can prove that _nature_ is fully, intrinsically causal, to 5 sigma;
  but, most likely, it's (pseudo/semi) random, like die toss.
  Far, far less likely: nature is instrinsically random, like a medieval god.

  "Virtual Particles" and "Probability Waves" _are_ intrinsically random;
  nature, however, is not.

Today's missing data is _ignorance_, not instrinsic randomness.
Never say Never; you can't _know_ that something will _always_ be unknowable.
Scientists don't think that way, TV personalities and cult leaders do.

If you think otherwise, you should reduce your caffine intake,
and/or switch professions -- you're not a scientist.

[Michael J. Strickland]

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

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

[Odd Bodkin]

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

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

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

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Quantum "Statistics" ( not "Mechanics" ) is a horrible description of nature.

Worse, people spin it to make themselves feel better;
i.e. they lie, lie, lie; Likewise:

  Trump spins Hillary; Hillary spins Trump -- they lie, lie, lie.

Sadly, the alternatives are worse.

[Double-A]

Vote for Gary Johnson for President! Abolish the IRS!

Double-A

[reber g=emc^2]

The fastest a classIII man will go is 73% of c The fastest a class III cockroach will be 82% of c .Good inertia thinking gives this reality.Trebert

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

MrAA wrote:
> Vote for Gary Johnson for President!  Abolish the IRS!

Sure, but your S.S. check would have to go too, no ?

[reber g=emc^2]

AA I kick off Sept.3 I can't lose.My wit and blue eyes give me the woman vote.They are even praying for me.My new picture and equation of the universe they say is a "Gift From God"WOW The City Hall is very big.Bigger than Anaheim's.Great location.Will use it 24 hours a day. TreBert

[Double-A]

Well, I have been known to be self-destructive when once I've made up my mind about something I thought was right.

Double-A

[Double-A]

Does it have a rotunda? A throne for the mayor to sit on? Is there room inside for the homeless to sleep? Will you have a room you can sleep in there?

Double-A

[benj]

The problem, Boinker, isn't that people use statistics to obtain some
measure of knowledge where before there was total ignorance. The problem
comes when one starts saying that such probabilities are ALL that it is
possible for humans to know. How can any human make such a statement?
What possible basis could one have to justify it. Superpowers are the
only possible way one could know such a thing.

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

[noTthaTguY]

it is only with the realm of pairs of covariant variable e.g,
or triads of covariant variables, and so on ... if only because a)
some thing is t00 small, or b)
some thing is t00 large

[hanson]

"reber g=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> Cretin Glazier wrote:
> The fastest a classIII man will go is 73% of c The fastest a class III
> cockroach will be 82% of c .Good inertia thinking gives this reality.
>

hanson wrote:
Never mind your classIII, which was the last class you took,
before they drummed piglet Glazier out of the 4th grade, and
reality now asks: "Glazier, you Cretin, why are you back?
>
Instead of posting Glazierola, recant your Face-shitting threats,
your criminal Graveyard vandalism, and jus say that that you
had some oral prolapses and blurted out your threats, so, that
it will become unnecessary for...
>
<herbert...@gmail.com> the sanctimonious
Full-Swine Glazier to often post:
"god and religion is hocus pocus" and now that
Glazier is doing his final twitching he trembles and prays:
"Open Mind of God. Best to go with God, and be nice"
>
hanson wrote:
But Glazier you Swine, it is YOU that is NOT nice, and things
have not gotten any better because YOU came back after you
wrote:
>
Full Swine & Cretin Glazier wrote:
> "Why am I not loved by all?"
> "I might leave if things do not get better"..because...
>
<herbert...@gmail.com> Glazier whose G=EMC^2 is
short for "Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism", (Zika
& or by his genetic ashkeNazi marker) defines Bert, reber
Trebert, or Treb as the loud mouth, the misogynic Peeping
Tom (lifts & looks under the shirts of girls) the Jewish Jailbird,
the Liar, Hatemonger, schizoid mental cripple, Pervert Face-
Shitter, criminal Graveyard vandal, Bigot, Racist, War-monger
& Communist :B::ert Glazier who introduces himself with/as....
>
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works,.."
:B:: "My Grandfathers had tails". -- Trebert
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: "I'm a non-bible(torra) Jew. I'm the only Jew that
:B:: got 2 form letters from two Popes". Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's face
:B:: to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide".
:B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh".
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I'm M&M's Clueless Fuck-faced turd".Bert.
:B:: I'm "Siegman Fraud", "Bert, the Bowel Movement".
:B:: "I gave G=EMC^2 (wrong & stolen) to the world"
:B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert
:B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. "....
:B:: cuz "I was mixing sulfur, carbon & iron together
:B:: to make gun powder" ... & "while I was in custody
:B:: of Osceola Sheriff Bob Hansel, for thieving, his
:B:: deputies beat the shit out of me. So I bought a
:B:: 357 magnum for death threats by Sheriff Bob.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
about which ....
Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
"Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup."
"Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__."
"Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!."
>
"Glazier, your science is far worse than the man's on the street."
"Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage."
"Glazier, your brain is entangled with a used garbage can."
>
"reber, take your 'you know it all thinking' to your grave" .
"reber, your horseshit gets old. Say hi to Allah for me.:
"reber, you don't believe in science."
>
Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr....@gmail.com>
"Harlow Campbell" succinctly added & wrote:
>
"Bert, your opinion doesn't count"
"a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert"
"Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker"....
"Bert you are senile, dazed & confused"
"Bert, you are Fucked in the head.
>
"Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)"
"TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker".
"Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking
moron who ever came down the Mass Pike."
"Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?"
>
"Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human
fucking being". "Bert you are an idiot."
"Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet."
"Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get
some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck".
>
"Bert, you should be arrested"
"Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your
van seems to be a center for drug activity in the
Wal-Mart parking lot"... .... .... about which....
>
Aviator Jim Pennino ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
Glazier, you are a spamming piece of shit...
Your Cocaine usage explains a lot of your posts.
You know nothing about government nor physics.
You are drunk again. Give up and kill yourself.
>
Astrophysicist "Saul Levy" <saul...@cox.net> wrote:
>
GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT!
Saul Levy
>
Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
I know, you reber are an idiot. Glazier, you are babbling
desperately. Is it sympathy or pity you're grasping for?
Stop it, either way.
>
benj" Benjamin Franklin Jacoby <nob...@gmail.com> who
recently nymshifted to "B Gates" <nobodyxx@gmail>, wrote:
>
One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was lobotomized.
But Herb found poster "Double-A" who likes to be like Glazier,
but "Alkie-Alkie" is another kook who is as dumb as Bert is...
and promote that shitting into a bucket in a car is an achievement
that is a laudable accomplishment... and both being Communists
they demand entitlement to goods and services that were created
by hardworking people while they themselves drink, party and frolic!...
... still waiting "to be loved by all"...
>
hanson wrote:
So Glazier, given your Jewish Superiority complex and
your IQ of 122 and you knowing how how everything works,
... how come ended up shitting into a bucket in a 25 year
old Minnie Mouse van that you use as your residence
on Wal-Mart's Parking Lot? ..... .... What went wrong, Glazier?
>
"What are they gonna say when Swine Glazier dies? Are
they gonna say he was a kind man? He was a wise man?
He had plans? He has wisdom? .... BULLSHIT, MAN!"...
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4> [D]
BULLSHIT,... because Swine Glazier DOES have plans
which Glazier, the Full-Swine, announced and posted at
the ripe age of eighty (80) when Glazier became a criminal
Graveyard Vandal who wrote:
>
(1)
On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier wrote in:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J
Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert.
>
Glazier's geriatric decay worsened, along with Glazier's chronic
alcoholism and Glazier, the Olde Kacker, became a Coprophile
IOW Glazier became a filthy Face Shitter at his age of 86, which
Glazier proudly announced & posted...
>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, Jew-Swine Glazier
said to "benj" <nob...@gmail.com>: Reality is you always
post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... after
which...
>
Glazier, the Criminal Graveyard Vandal & Face Shitter got even
worse over the next year and at Glazier's age of 87, Glazier
widened his piggish Face-shitting habit, as seen when Glazier
threatened...
>
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, as Swine Glazier wrote:
Harlow HVAC, Mr....@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saul...@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nob...@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your face to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
after...
>
(4)
The Criminal Swine Glazier refused to stop his practices & rejected
to be taken down, because Glazier at his age of 87+, Swine Glazier
labeled himself as "Siegman Fraud" which is synonym with "Bowel-
movement, actually saying that __ "Glazier is a piece of shit"__.
who, to boot, also announced that Glazier is a Transvestite who dons
female dresses and a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice
legs"...
>
hanson wrote:
Now Glazier, since you are a curse and an embarrassment, day-in
and day-out, to every Jew everywhere, has it dawned on you
sorry, geriatric Transie-Swine, that as soon as you have been
"put away and under" Google will remove ALL YOUR posts from
the USENET and the only thing that will remain and show your
legacy, is because:
>
Glazier the Swine fortunately posted:
.... "hanson made me famous"....
>
hanson wrote
So, Glazier you Swine, you should be grateful to me & not wish
me ill like you did above, in your sick hate mongering, since
it is only because of hanson, that Web searches show for:
>
--- Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ---- 27'833 hits & rising
--- reber g=emc^2 Face-shitter & Vandal ---- 27'953 hits & rising
>
which is why the mental cripple <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier>
badly needs to be administered to with
<http://tinyurl.com/G-EMC2-Recall-Therapy> ...
>
Now Glazier, you filthy Swine, "you will never be loved by all"
but incredibly, Glazier, you do have groupies who love you,
and haved become, voluntarily, your personal slaves of you,
Faceshitter Glazier, who demonstrate their worship & their
devotion to their master Glazier, by lying under & literally
shit-eating Glazier's turds:
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
such as:
>
=1=
Sefton "john" <johnse...@gmail.com> the delusional
vegetarian loud-mouth from Canuckistan's town of Regina
is under the influence of his Lysergic- and Solanine
contaminated diet and so Sefton lays himself with gusto
under Face-shitter Glazier's Sphincter and enjoys eating
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
and Sefton is impressed also with the Hate-mongering of
>
=2=
<clutterfre...@gmail.com> is Iran's Glazier.
The Freak Muslime Mehram Maleki HATES Western
culture & the USA, hates Xtians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists,
even Sunnis. Yet Maldrecki lays himself freely UNDER
the Sphincter of Face shitter Jew Glazier who bragged
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
to have _"PFM"_= "Poop For Maleki", which the gay, Iranian
Muslime, Maldrecki, consumed until he turned black
& posted his <http://tinyurl.com/Maleki-Mehram-Selfie>
>
Then the 88 Year old Glazier announced that "Glazier is a
Transvestite who dons female dresses & a Sarah Palin mask,
saying that he has "nice legs"... which so impressed Maldrecki
that Maleki showed his devotion and solidarity by going LGBT
& had a Sex change operation, whose result she posted in
<http://tinyurl.com/Maleki-the-TG-Girl>.
>
=3=
"AA" <doub...@hush.com> is __Glazier's "Ass Angel"__,
aka "Abner Afterduft", the "Alcoholic Addict" who struts with
his "AmoebA" brain, posted and yearns to be like Glazier, &
AA doubles as Anon Yidd. Mouse", <nob...@home.invalid>
who does NOT mind that Full-swine Glazier is a Face shitter
& a criminal Grave yard vandal, Glazier who never recanted
nor apologized for the overt threats Glazier made.... ....
>
...aux contraire, "Yidd Mouse", cum "AA", the Kike, comes to
the defense & aid of Full Swine Glazier's criminality, & worse,
the Jewish Pig "Anon Yidd Mouse" cum "AA", curses folks that
point at Glazier's behavior, which makes Yidd Mouse to be an "AA"
example of the lurid "Closeness" which the eminent Jewish Scholar
Harold Wallace Rosenthal ||R:|| describes in his epic
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
wherein it says:
||R:|| We Jews have a solidarity & a closeness to
||R:|| fellow Jews like none other in the world.
||R:|| We Jews are always 'as one' when it counts.
>
||R:|| It's no secret that we Jews do not respect
||R:|| you gentiles. All of you are our enemies.
||R:|| Our Jewish beliefs are entirely different from yours.
||R:|| Our Talmud/Nedarim/Kol Nidre = "all vows" allows
||R:|| us Jews to lie, subvert and cheat you, the Goyim
>
=4=
Strangely, the Austrian Hitleryouth Halbmutt Wabnigger,
<hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> sides with Glazier too, but said:
____ "Jews are a residue of failed evolution" _______
>
=5=
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>, the "Rectal Vacuumist (Seattle) is a criminal
Child-support dead-beat who greedily sucks turds out of Glazier's
sphincter, especially when they are Methamphetamine preloaded
as seen when Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>::JR:: wrote:
::JR:: I no longer want sex anymore. I masturbate. I've found that
::JR:: all these erections & masturbations can irratate my prostate.
::JR:: My problem mostly happens a few hours before I want to
::JR:: wake up, so I can't take Sudafed.
::JR:: Ejaculation is a mind-altering drug, no better than heroin
::JR:: or meth. So I've recently vowed to not masturbate...
::JR:: I use my left hand to smoke, masturbate and to type ...
::JR:: Does that make me smart ? -- I'd rather masturbate.
::JR:: She likes to squirt meth up her rear ( it makes her cum).
::JR:: but pussy is the last thing I want.
::::::: (cuz Relf is apparently interested now, with his "mouth wide
::::::: open", to let Swine Glazier shit into Relf's "kisser")
::JR:: My dreams, however, have been semi-erotic as of late..."
>
=6=
... and even earlier, ironically, signed up was kike "Bodaisky",
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> who lied and claimed to be
"Bo Dai" from China, but was in fact "Fagie Bodaisky", who
lives off the tips he gets from being a rest-room attendant in
a NY Bath house for gay Jews.
>
=7=
"Andrew Vecsey" posting as <trudi.s...@gmail.com>
is another stinky & filthy AshkeNAZI, a twatt to boot, who enjoys
spending her time under Glazier's Sphincter like the ones above.
Like those pigs s/he does NOT mind that Jew Glazier is bragging
to be a Face shitter and a criminal Grave yard vandal, but
s/he objects and groans when that is pointed out & comes
runnning to defend and side with Full-Swine Glazier, just like
seen in =3= & <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
>
=8=
The Wal-Mart Greeter "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com>
Mark L. Fergerson is another stupid & despicably filthy pig that
enjoys spending his time under Glazier's Sphincter like the 7
ones above. Like those 7 other pigs, the Wal-Mart Greeter Ferkel
does NOT mind that Jew Glazier is bragging to be a Face shitter
and a criminal Grave yard vandal, but says that Glazier's criminal
behavior, like Glazier's looking up/under the skirts of girls, is
"not abusive" & insists that "Us old-timers gotta stick together."
>
This bizarre perversion is well documented as seen here in:
<http://tinyurl.com/magnum-opus-the-rectal-jew>
<https://theendofzion.com/the-fecal-fixation-of-the-chosen-ones/>
<https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=jewish+coprophilia>

[hanson]

<herbert...@gmail.com> Glazier LOUDMOUTHED & wrote:
> I kick off Sept.3 (to run for Mayor of Fullerton. I can't lose.
> They are even praying for me. My G=EMC^2 equation of the
> universe (which Glazier stole as graffiti off a farmer's barn,
> they say is a "Gift From God". WOW
> I will use the City Hall 24 hours a day to do this:
> <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
> That's a given.

>>
hanson wrote:
Glazier, you Cretin, why are you back?

Before you "kick off Sept.3", recant your Face-shitting threats,

your criminal Graveyard vandalism, and jus say that that you
had some oral prolapses and blurted out your threats, so, that
it will become unnecessary for...
>
<herbert...@gmail.com> the sanctimonious

Full-Swine Glazier to post often :

[hanson]

"Double-A" <doub...@hush.com> is __Glazier's "Ass Angel"__,
alias "AA", "Abner Afterduft", the "Alcoholic Addict" who struts

with his "AmoebA" brain & wrote:
> I have been known to be self-destructive when once I've
> made up my mind about something I thought was right.
> Double-A
>

hanson wrote:
Well Abner, that is a true shams & more so pitiful, because
your plight is self inflicted... especially since you yearned
and posted that "AA aims to be like Full-swine Glazier" who
is a Face shitter, a criminal Grave yard vandal, who never
recanted nor apologized for the overt threats that Swine
Glazier made... as seen below when....
>
<herbert...@gmail.com> the sanctimonious
Full-Swine Glazier often posts:

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/15/16 8/15/16 5:01 PM, benj wrote:
> The problem [...] isn't that people use statistics to obtain some measure of

> knowledge where before there was total ignorance. The problem comes when one
> starts saying that such probabilities are ALL that it is possible for humans to
> know. How can any human make such a statement? What possible basis could one
> have to justify it.

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

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

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

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

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


Tom Roberts

[The Starmaker]

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

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

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

[Double-A]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 5:15:08 PM UTC-7, hanson wrote:
> "Double-A" <doub...@hush.com> is __Glazier's "Ass Angel"__,
> alias "AA", "Abner Afterduft", the "Alcoholic Addict" who struts
> with his "AmoebA" brain & wrote:
> > I have been known to be self-destructive when once I've
> > made up my mind about something I thought was right.
> > Double-A
> >
> hanson wrote:
> Well Abner, that is a true shams & more so pitiful, because
> your plight is self inflicted...

Who is this Li'l Abner?

Double-A

[hanson]

"Double-A" <doub...@hush.com> is __Glazier's "Ass Angel"__,
alias "AA", "Abner Afterduft", the "Alcoholic Addict" who struts
with his "AmoebA" brain & wrote:
> Who is this Li'l Abner?
> Double-A
>

hanson wrote:
Abner, don't be coy... as you being an "Alcoholic Addict" and now
carries Glazier's trademark of "M&M", "Misfit & Moron" in addition
to your posted yearning that "AA aims to be like Full-swine Glazier"

[The Starmaker]

Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:31:00 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:

> >
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --
> > > Arthur C. Clarke.
> >
> >
> > I looked at your "sufficiently advanced technology", ...I opened up the
> > IBM PC, looked inside...and there was no magic. It's junk now.
>

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

>
> > All "sufficiently advanced technology" becomes just junk.
>

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

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

> Then you are the poorer for it:

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


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


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


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

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Quantum "Mechanics" should be called Quantum "Statistics"
because it models mere correlations, not cause and effect.
Sadly, correlations can be wrong and/or misleading.

"Entanglement" works like this:

  You buy a pair of shoes.

  You ship one shoe to Becky and the other to Sam.
  Should Becky find that she got the left one,
  she'll _instantly_ know that Sam got the right one.

  The pair was "entangled", naturally; no tachyons required.

Quantum Statistics sucks, but it's the best we can do.
Sadly, people _spin_ it; i.e. they lie, lie, lie.

  "Virtual Particles" and "Probability Waves" _are_ intrinsically random;
  nature, however, is not.

Quoting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_interpretation
＜＜
  THE ENSEMBLE INTERPRETATION of quantum mechanics 
  considers the quantum state description to apply only to an
  _ENSEMBLE_ of similarly prepared systems [[ die tosssing ]], 

  rather than supposing that it exhaustively represents
  an individual physical system [[ one toss ]].  ＞＞

Quoting Einstein ("Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist", 1949): 
＜＜
  The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical description 
  as THE COMPLETE DESCRIPTION of the individual systems 
  leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, 

  which become immediately unnecessary 
  if one accepts the interpretation that 
  the description refers to _ENSEMBLES_ of systems [[ die tosssing ]], 
  and not to individual systems [[ one toss ]]. ＞＞

Now, if you think a cult leader and/or TV personality
is _smarter_ than Einstein... well... you're just tripping.
Reduce your meds.

[Tom Roberts]

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

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


> [... further nonsense based on ignorance]

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

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


Tom Roberts

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 12:29:07 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):

> > > The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.
> >
> > Say, rather, that the probability "waves" of QM are a MODEL, not "physical".
>

> "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done.
>

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

> Just because something is too complex to _fully_ understand,
> like tomorrow's weather, it doesn't mean that it's _truly_ random;
> in fact, we _know_ that it isn't.
>

> Randomess is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

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

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

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

I hope to hear about it soon.

[edpr...@gmail.com]

Excellent point! Worth repeating and hence this reply.

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:01:15 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 8/15/2016 9:47 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 8/14/2016 7:42 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> >> I tend to disagree about the "constituents of our world" (or universe)
> >> bowing to statistics (a human mathematical invention).
> >
> > Every theory, including Newtonian, deterministic mechanics, is a human
> > invention. I don't think it's a question of nature "bowing to" a human
> > idea. I think it's a question about whether the human idea is a good
> > description of how nature works. And, from what I know of the scientific
> > method, the ONLY way we can determine whether the description is good or
> > not is whether experiment supports the idea. I don't think there is
> > anything nasty or repellent about statistics where we should say, "But
> > this simply cannot be a good description of nature."
> >
> The problem, Boinker, isn't that people use statistics to obtain some
> measure of knowledge where before there was total ignorance. The problem
> comes when one starts saying that such probabilities are ALL that it is
> possible for humans to know. How can any human make such a statement?

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

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

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

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

[LIGO Fraud Investigator]

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

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

You heard it here first.

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

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:38:55 PM UTC-4, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
[]

>
> The universe is probabilistic simply because there is no time dimension.

[]>

> You heard it here first.
>
> ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

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

[LIGO Fraud Investigator]

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

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

[LIGO Fraud Investigator]

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

[The Starmaker]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

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

> No comment from the butt-watcher :-)

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

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


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


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

[The Starmaker]

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

[benj]

I can't believe that Einstein did not know that all Star Trek science is
absolutely REAL! Just shows you that people who are really smart can
still be dumb.

[noTthaTguY]

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

[William December Starr]

In article <57b4dc9d$0$40401$c3e8da3$b280...@news.astraweb.com>,
benj <be...@nobody.net> said:

[ in reply to some noise from The Starmaker ]

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

Yeah! Even the parts that contradict each other!

-- wds

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

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

Given the typical state of quantum physics knowledge at any given
moment (meaning we can't know what direction it's moving), I'd say
*especially* those parts.

--
Terry Austin

Tom "The Crap Man" Kratman is my bitch.

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Jerry Kraus]

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 2:24:05 PM UTC-5, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Re: " Could time travel soon become a reality ? "
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2665781/Could-time-travel-soon-reality-Physicists-simulate-quantum-light-particles-travelling-past-time.html
>
> The answer is " No ! ".
> The article says: ＜＜
>
> On larger scales, time travel still remains implausible,
> say researchers. ＞＞
>
> "implausible" is _quite_ the underStatement.
>
> WormHoles require _neagive_ MassEnergy, for one thing,
> which doesn't exist in reality; see:
>
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/space-and-time-warps.html
> [ Hawking is _certain_ that you can't go back in time ]
>
> You can _imagine_ neagive MassEnergy, as Quantum Mechanics does;
> but it's _virtual_, not real.
>
> The SemiRandomness of Quantum Mechanics is just ignorance.
>
> Again, those who think otherwise should cut back on their caffine intake.

Quantum Mechanics is an elaborate theoretical rationale allowing physicists to justify indefinitely their own incompetence.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/15/2016 5:01 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/15/2016 9:47 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/14/2016 7:42 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>> I tend to disagree about the "constituents of our world" (or universe)
>>> bowing to statistics (a human mathematical invention).
>>
>> Every theory, including Newtonian, deterministic mechanics, is a human
>> invention. I don't think it's a question of nature "bowing to" a human
>> idea. I think it's a question about whether the human idea is a good
>> description of how nature works. And, from what I know of the scientific
>> method, the ONLY way we can determine whether the description is good or
>> not is whether experiment supports the idea. I don't think there is
>> anything nasty or repellent about statistics where we should say, "But
>> this simply cannot be a good description of nature."
>>
> The problem, Boinker, isn't that people use statistics to obtain some
> measure of knowledge where before there was total ignorance. The problem
> comes when one starts saying that such probabilities are ALL that it is
> possible for humans to know. How can any human make such a statement?

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

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

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

[benj]

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

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

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

[Tom Roberts]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Tom Roberts

[benj]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Starmaker]

Now, Einstein said:

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

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

Einstein knew what "something real" is.

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


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

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


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

[pora...@gmail.com]

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

> On 8/12/16 8/12/16 - 4:15 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical.
>
> Say, rather, that the probability "waves" of QM are a MODEL, not "physical".
>

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

> Tom Roberts

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

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

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שלישי, 16 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 01:01:15 UTC+3, מאת benj:

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

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

=============================
right !!
now the anonymous crock Paul Draper PD
forget that
EVEN EXPERIMENTS ARE SUBJECTED TO
SELECTIVE
**INTEERPRETATIONS !!!

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

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

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שישי, 19 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 01:34:09 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:

>================================
P D is not a moron
he is a shameless pig hired gangster
----

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

[Tom Roberts]

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

You don't have a clue.

Tom Roberts

[hanson]

Einstein Dingleberry "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
"benj" <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote:
>> Never forget that physics and science is ALWAYS decided by rhetorical
>> combat
>

Einstein Dingleberry T Roberts wrote:
> You don't have a clue.
>

hanson wrote:
TR, do finish you sentence and say:
=== Benj, "You don't have a clue, how TRUE it is what you said" ===
>
All you have to do is to look at the bottom of the barrel,
starting with s.p. and work yourself up into industrials
physics, (wherein you managed to get yourself fired from),
up into the phys. mass media and the phys. R&D labs.
>
Physics, like all sciences, are social enterprises,
which are ruled by what Benj just said.

[The Starmaker]

In otherwords..

Can you name anyone in the 'scientific community' that will say,

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

?


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

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

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



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



Or, just keep them stupid...


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


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

[Mahipal]

Nice to read you Sir hansonJi.

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

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

Lesson: Every human endeavor has become a social enterprise.

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

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

[edpr...@gmail.com]

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

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

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

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

Can you beat that? :)

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 2:04:58 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:

[]
Replying to yourself may be a sign of mental issues, Star.
Try to calm down.

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

I think you could find lots of them.
I certainly take the view that UFOs are exactly that:
Unidentified lying Objects.
Did you see something, sure I believe you did.

Do I then leap from that to visitors from outer space?
Well, applying Occam's razor seems to put a stop to that for me.
There's just not enough credible evidence we have been visited.

On the other hand, the likelihood that other life is out there
just seems to have high odds. The fact that we have not yet
been able to visit them, is another argument for why they
might not be able to visit us. It just might take resources
that aren't available to mortal beings.

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

Repeating your argument is not logical proof of your point.
I named myself and invite you to talk to those you accuse
of ignoring reality to find out what their views.
[]

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

You draw conclusions without investigating the facts.
Another sign of sloppy logic.

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

Well, knowing that there have been experimental models
and even toy "FLYING SAUCERS", I think you will have a
hard time finding such a science teacher.

> Or, just keep them stupid...
>

Insults are not a good logical tool.

> On the other hand...if you tell people
> "There is no Life on Mars." how are they going to make money??
> How are you going to sell NASA and science fiction books???

Conspiracy theories. Now you have reached the bottom.
If you are willing to listen, we may be able to help you
out of that pit you got yourself into.
ed

[LIGO Fraud Investigator]

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

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

[hanson]

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

Virdyji wrote:
Nice to read you Sir hansonJi.
>

hanson wrote:
Likewise, mon cher amiji

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

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

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

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

hanson wrote:
[1] : Exactly! That is what the Rio-Swimmer-Winner-Sinners
did: 4 dudes & 2 hookers, which is 71: ... 69 with 2 people
watching... and ROTFLTAO.... ahahahaha... Take care Virdiji.

[Henrietta Testicockles]

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

[Mahipal]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

/\ "If the line between science fiction and
/ science fact doesn't drive you crazy,
/\ \ then you're just not tr(y)ing!"
\ /\/\ / \ \/ Mahipal Virdy
/ == \ / \/\/ The |meforce> Paradox
\/ http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/

[Double-A]

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


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

FTL action at a distance at its finest!

Double-A

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

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( MrAA ) replied ( to me ):
> > "Entanglement" works like this:
> > 
> >   You buy a pair of shoes.
> > 
> >   You ship one shoe to Becky and the other to Sam.
> >   Should Becky find that she got the left one,
> >   she'll _instantly_ know that Sam got the right one.
> > 
> >   The pair was "entangled", naturally; no tachyons required.
> 
> No.  You're wrong about your interpretation.  
> When Becky gets her box, it contains both a virtual right shoe
> and a virtual left shoe interposed.  

How do you _know_ ? !  Did you peek ? !
Or are you simply saying you don't know,
because you had no chance to peek ?

> When she opens the box, 
> the virtual shoe crystallizes into a real shoe.  

Only if it was Penn and Teller that sent the shoe.
Again: How do you _know_ ? !  Did you peek ? !

  Quantum "Mechanics" should be called Quantum "Statistics"
  because it models mere correlations, not cause and effect.
  Sadly, correlations can be wrong and/or misleading.

> Whether it becomes a right or left shoe is unpredictable, 
> but statistically a 50% chance.

Sure, like a thousand coin tosses, it averages out.
A single coin toss, however, can't be a HeadsTailsSuperposition.

Not even Penn and Teller could do that.

> At the same moment, the shoe Sam received 
> crystallizes into the other shoe!  
> FTL action at a distance at its finest!

Sure, you believe in magic.  I don't.

[The Starmaker]

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

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

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


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


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




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


Get real, will you? Real!



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

[Double-A]

Maybe you might have a point!

Double-A

[edpr...@gmail.com]

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

I have yet to see any references from you.

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

> Man, what is wrong with you? This is a [beep] non-sequitur.

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

Quick reminder:
You claimed

> > > > > You heard it here first.

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

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

ed

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 6:17:39 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
[]

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

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

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

[The Starmaker]

i own this newsgroup.

[edpr...@gmail.com]

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

You funny guy!

[LIGO Fraud Investigator]

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

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

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

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Michael Glasser replied ( to me ):
> > Randomness is IGNORANCE, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I share that intuition... but I can admit I cannot prove it. You?

Just because something is too complex to _fully_ understand,
like tomorrow's weather, it doesn't mean that it's _truly_ random;
in fact, we _know_ that it isn't.

At ＜The 1940 Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, New York＞,
Eintein said: ＜＜

  When the number of factors coming into play in
  a phenomenological complex is too large,
  scientific method, in most cases, fails us.

  One need only think of the weather, in which case,
  prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible.

  Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with
  a causal connection whose causal components are,
  in the main, known to us.

  Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of _exact_ 
  prediction because of the variety of factors in operation,
  not because of any lack of order in nature.  ＞＞

[noTthaTguY]

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

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

[noTthaTguY]

well, one tine beats one glass, any old day

[noTthaTguY]

meaning, ineTine's equations