Question: Why Is Particle Decay Probabilistic?
Traveler
all their insufferable pomposity, physicists don't really know shit.
ahahaha...
Anyway, if you know the right answer to the question, you deserve at
least a hall pass. You should get a Nobel prize but the Nobel is only
reserved for clueless physicists. ahahaha... I happen to know the
answer. So I am the judge here. ahahaha... Let's see who the real
smart ones are.
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
SucMucPaProlij
news:1mo553poi1uij6864...@4ax.com...
1) define term probabalistic
2) observe particle decay
3) discover relation between 1) and 2)
4) make a conclusion: particle decay is probabalistic
can't get much easier than that.
Traveler
wrote:
The question is why is particle decay probabilistic, not whether or
not it is. We already know that it is, jackass. What's wrong with you?
Stephen Harris
> Physicists don't have a clue, which should not surprise anybody. For
> all their insufferable pomposity, physicists don't really know shit.
> ahahaha...
>
> Anyway, if you know the right answer to the question, you deserve at
> least a hall pass. You should get a Nobel prize but the Nobel is only
> reserved for clueless physicists. ahahaha... I happen to know the
> answer. So I am the judge here. ahahaha... Let's see who the real
> smart ones are.
>
> Louis Savain
>
It is random because of entropy but everyone knows that
so you must have something else in mind.
SucMucPaProlij
Why are we here?
What's life all about?
Is God really real?
Or is there some doubt?
SucMucPaProlij
> The question is why is particle decay probabilistic, not whether or
> not it is. We already know that it is, jackass. What's wrong with you?
>
full version:
Why are we here? What's life all about?
Is God really real, or is there some doubt?
Well, tonight, we're going to sort it all out,
For, tonight, it's 'The Meaning of Life'.
What's the point of all this hoax?
Is it the chicken and the egg time? Are we just yolks?
Or, perhaps, we're just one of God's little jokes.
Well, ça c'est 'The Meaning of Life'.
Is life just a game where we make up the rules
While we're searching for something to say,
Or are we just simply spiralling coils
Of self-replicating DN-- nay, nay, nay, nay, nay, nay, nay.
What is life? What is our fate?
Is there a Heaven and Hell? Do we reincarnate?
Is mankind evolving, or is it too late?
Well, tonight, here's 'The Meaning of Life'.
For millions, this 'life' is a sad vale of tears,
Sitting 'round with really nothing to say
While the scientists say we're just simply spiralling coils
Of self-replicating DN-- nay, nay, nay, nay, nay, nay, nay.
So, just why-- why are we here,
And just what-- what-- what-- what do we fear?
Well, ce soir, for a change, it will all be made clear,
For this is 'The Meaning of Life'. C'est le sens de la vie.
This is 'The Meaning of Life'.
Dirk Van de moortel
> all their insufferable pomposity, physicists don't really know shit.
> ahahaha...
>
> Anyway, if you know the right answer to the question, you deserve at
> least a hall pass. You should get a Nobel prize but the Nobel is only
> reserved for clueless physicists. ahahaha... I happen to know the
> answer.
We happen to know your answer.
Nothing new there.
> So I am the judge here. ahahaha... Let's see who the real
> smart ones are.
We also happen to know the answer to the following:
Question: Why is Louis Savain Autistic?
Dirk Vdm
Vend
SperM.hotmail.com>
> We also happen to know the answer to the following:
> Question: Why is Louis Savain Autistic?
I don't think he his autistic, I think he is a trollish crackpot.
Tomoko Kanazawa
I think that the question needs clarification. To say that something is
probabilistic really is'nt saying much, as anything you wish can be modelled
probabilistically.
What you are really saying is that the physically real processes which
underlie particle decay are inherently random, stochastic, or otherwise
indeterminate. Specifically, the amount of time from one decay to the next
is considered truly random, and that this randomness is inherent in physical
reality and not merely a problem of observability or measureability.
The reason is very simple.
Modelling particles using the complex-like randoms (a + ~b), (a)*(~b),
you will notice that either (a) or (~b) is weighted more heavily. For
example,
1000 + ~[.1, .2] contains relatively littel disorder, whereas
1 + ~[100, 1000000] contains a relative high proportion of disorder.
The reason that nuclear dynamics exhibit genuine randomness is because the
numbers which best model those behaviours are in fact weighted in such a way
that they contain a high proportion of disorder.
Curt Welch
> Physicists don't have a clue, which should not surprise anybody. For
> all their insufferable pomposity, physicists don't really know shit.
> ahahaha...
>
> Anyway, if you know the right answer to the question, you deserve at
> least a hall pass. You should get a Nobel prize but the Nobel is only
> reserved for clueless physicists. ahahaha... I happen to know the
> answer. So I am the judge here. ahahaha... Let's see who the real
> smart ones are.
We call it random because there is nothing in this universe we have so far
been able to sense that is predictive of these events. Not even previous
decay events are predictive of future decay events.
I don't know enough about this level of physics to say much more with
authority (I'm posting from c.a.p), but the more interesting question to be
asked here is not what the cause of the decay events are (it's quite
possible they have a very simple cause), but instead, why can't we sense
the cause? The answer to that I suspect is to be found in the methods we
have available to sense with. Our ability to sense is limited to
what we can build out of atoms and most likely, the answer is that you
can't build a machine to sense the cause of these decay events out of
atoms.
So, the answer to why we talk about the decay events as being random is not
because they have no predictable cause, but that we can't sense the cause
to verify any working hypothesis we might create to explain the events.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
cu...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/
Tomoko Kanazawa
> underlie particle decay are inherently random, stochastic, or otherwise
> indeterminate. Specifically, the amount of time from one decay to the next
> is considered truly random, and that this randomness is inherent in
physical
> reality and not merely a problem of observability or measureability.
>
> The reason is very simple.
>
> Modelling particles using the complex-like randoms (a + ~b), (a)*(~b),
> you will notice that either (a) or (~b) is weighted more heavily. For
> example,
>
> 1000 + ~[.1, .2] contains relatively littel disorder, whereas
>
> 1 + ~[100, 1000000] contains a relative high proportion of disorder.
>
> The reason that nuclear dynamics exhibit genuine randomness is because the
> numbers which best model those behaviours are in fact weighted in such a
way
> that they contain a high proportion of disorder.
All you really need is that ||a|| << ||~b||.
I dont think that a or ~b is ever quite zero, maybe it is, I dunno.
Traveler
ahahaha... Why are you kissing van de merde's ass, Vend? He's a
wannabe physicist just like you. His ass stinks. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Physics From the Bible!
Shaking the Foundations of Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Physics.htm
Traveler
<T.Kan...@eodomo.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>The reason that nuclear dynamics exhibit genuine randomness is because the
>numbers which best model those behaviours are in fact weighted in such a way
>that they contain a high proportion of disorder.
ahahaha... The numbers do it, eh? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Well, at least you're not an ass kisser like Dick van de merde and
Vend. ahahaha... You need serious psychiatric help though. ahahaha...
Vend
Traveler
Like everything else in physics, the cause of particle decay is simply
an imbalance, i.e., a violation of a conservation principle. Nature
corrects the imbalance by inducing an interaction that manifests
itself as particle decay. If you take a group of neutrons, they all
cause an equal imbalance. Why is it that all we can say is that half
of the neutrons will decay within a certain fixed interval t?
Subsequently, half of the remaining neutrons will decay within exactly
t and so on. t is the half-life interval. It is not possible to
predict which of the neutrons will decay within any half-life
interval.
The question I am asking is, why do the neutrons not all have a decay
interval equal to the half-life interval? Physicists do not know the
answer. Why? Simply because physicists don't know shit. ahahaha... And
yet, in spite of this glaring lacuna in their understanding, the
assholes feel free to assert that particles are in superposed states
(both decayed and not decayed) when nobody is looking. ahahaha... None
other than that crackpot/lunatic Schrodinger proposed this nonsense
in his stupid cat experiment where the cat is both alive and dead
simultaneous when nobody is looking. ahahaha... Worse, the stupid
asshole is worshiped like a god by all physicists. Go figure.
HAYSOOS MARTINEZ! what a bunch of ass kissers! Physics is a fucking
ass kissing, ass worshiping cult, IMO. Peer review is synonymous with
ass review. ahahaha... Ass kissers, all of them. Kissee, kissee,
kissee. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:vic853dcg180ma911...@4ax.com...
What about a group of protons?
And more importantly what about a group of Louis Savains?
Nothing is more out of balance than a group of Louis Savains.
> Why is it that all we can say is that half
> of the neutrons will decay within a certain fixed interval t?
There is *nothing* that allows you to say that half of the neutrons
will decay within a certain fixed interval t.
Clearly a group of Louis Savains has no idea how probabilities work.
> Subsequently, half of the remaining neutrons will decay within exactly
> t and so on. t is the half-life interval. It is not possible to
> predict which of the neutrons will decay within any half-life
> interval.
>
> The question I am asking is, why do the neutrons not all have a decay
> interval equal to the half-life interval? Physicists do not know the
> answer.
Indeed.
Fortunately we have this group of Louis Savains who know the answer.
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
[crap]
Hey, Van de merde. How many asses have you kissed today? ahahaha...
What does John Baez's ass smell like? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Igor
> Physicists don't have a clue, which should not surprise anybody. For
> all their insufferable pomposity, physicists don't really know shit.
> ahahaha...
>
> Anyway, if you know the right answer to the question, you deserve at
> least a hall pass. You should get a Nobel prize but the Nobel is only
> reserved for clueless physicists. ahahaha... I happen to know the
> answer. So I am the judge here. ahahaha... Let's see who the real
> smart ones are.
>
Any quantum mechanics textbook will tell you that it's because the
squared amplitude of the wave function is a probability density
function, which must be integrated over the relevant regions of
space. But I know you probably have your own cwn little perverted
version, which I'm just dying to hear.
Traveler
ahahaha... Another clueless physicist wannabe. So probabilistic decay
is due to probability, eh? Get your head out of your ass for a change,
jackass. And, for crying out loud, stop kissing other people's asses.
They are just as clueless as you are. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Vend
It just consists in insults.
SucMucPaProlij
> an imbalance, i.e., a violation of a conservation principle. Nature
> corrects the imbalance by inducing an interaction that manifests
> itself as particle decay. If you take a group of neutrons, they all
> cause an equal imbalance. Why is it that all we can say is that half
> of the neutrons will decay within a certain fixed interval t?
> Subsequently, half of the remaining neutrons will decay within exactly
> t and so on. t is the half-life interval. It is not possible to
> predict which of the neutrons will decay within any half-life
> interval.
you call it "imbalance", somebody else calls it "probability density function".
Even if you call it "God's will", at the end of the day, your model can't
predict or describe particle decay better that any other model.
You are just renaming old stuff. The fact is that particle decay is
probabilistic and no matter what story you invent that "explains" why particle
decay is probabilistic, you won't get any smarter. You better save your ideas
for next Terminator movie.
Your imbalance theory is not something new. In Middle ages people thought that
every illness is caused by imbalance. What does it tell us about you? Are you
some kind of retro-philosopher? Is This year imbalance theory in again :))))
Traveler
wrote:
Fuck you, whoever you are. This is not my theory. Even Newton spoke of
unbalanced forces. I haven't given the answer to the question in this
thread yet. I am waiting for all the usual ass kissers to put their
feet in their mouths. ahahaha...
The_Man
> On 23 May 2007 02:29:25 GMT, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
Like everything else in medicine, the cause of Savain's mental illnes
is a "chemical imbalance"
> i.e., a violation of a conservation principle. Nature
> corrects the imbalance by
taking large quantities of Thorazine or Haldol?
> inducing an interaction that manifests
> itself as particle decay. If you take a group of neutrons,
"Take my neutron, please!" (HY)
> they all
> cause an equal imbalance.
If it is an "equal" imbalance, then is it a "balanced" imbalance? WTF
would a balanced imbalance be, anyway?
> Why is it that all we can say is that half
> of the neutrons will decay within a certain fixed interval t?
Because the neutrons have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal
Saviour?
> Subsequently, half of the remaining neutrons will decay within exactly
> t and so on. t is the half-life interval.
Let's see: exactly half the particles will decay in exactly one half-
life ....
BZZZZ. Wrong! Better luck on our next program, where you might win
THESE exciting prizes....
> It is not possible to
> predict which of the neutrons will decay within any half-life
> interval.
It is also not possible to predict which of the neurons in your brain
will atrophy next.
>
> The question I am asking is,
Why are you such a fucking moron?
> why do the neutrons not all have a decay
> interval equal to the half-life interval?
Because God doesn't want them to go to hell?
Because God can only have so many neutrons in the 144,000 who will be
saved?
> Physicists do not know the
> answer.
Psychiatrists DO know the answer to YOUR problem, though.
> Why? Simply because physicists don't know shit.
You are correct. When it come to knowing shit, you "take the
cake" (and eat it). You KNOW shit; SHIT is your life. You actually DO
know shit from Shinola, and prefer the shit.
> ahahaha... And
> yet, in spite of this glaring lacuna in their understanding, the
> assholes feel free to assert that particles are in superposed states
> (both decayed and not decayed) when nobody is looking.
Fortunately, we know EXACTLY what YOU are doing when nobody is
looking.
> ahahaha... None
> other than that crackpot/lunatic Schrodinger proposed this nonsense
> in his stupid cat experiment
IF you think this was an "experiment" you should really cut back on
those bilateral ECT treatments.
> where the cat is both alive and dead
> simultaneous when nobody is looking.
You are simpler - you are in a superposition state of STUPID and more
STUPID,
> ahahaha... Worse, the stupid
> asshole is worshiped like a god by all physicists. Go figure.
Schroedinger was banging THREE women at the same time - that makes him
MY hero, even without wave mechanics.
>
> HAYSOOS MARTINEZ! what a bunch of ass kissers! Physics is a fucking
> ass kissing, ass worshiping cult, IMO.
And you are offended, because you prefer ass LICKING Androcles and
hanson!
> Peer review is synonymous with
> ass review. ahahaha... Ass kissers, all of them. Kissee, kissee,
> kissee. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
Making phun of "physics from the Bible!" is so phucking phun!
>
> Louis Savain!
>
> Physics From the Bible!
> Shaking! the! Foundations! of! Physics !:http://www.rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Physics.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Traveler
wrote:
[boring crap]
You sure put a lot of thought and sweat into kissing ass, don't you,
Michael Varney? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
The_Man
> On 23 May 2007 11:45:21 -0700, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> [boring crap]
HAHAHAHAHA... I ran rings around you.....
>
> You sure put a lot of thought and sweat into kissing ass, don't you,
> Michael Varney? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Who is "Michael Varney"????
>
> Louis Savain
If you are "traveler", why don't you travel to the drugstore and
refill your meds? You obviously don't need to go there for
prophylactics....
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix
"Bad!, Bad, software! Bad!"
It:http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Traveler
wrote:
[crap]
Do you know why particle decay is probabilistic, VARNEY? Or you're
just kissing ass as usual? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Physics From the Bible!
Phineas T Puddleduck
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 23 May 2007 12:02:05 -0700, The_Man <me_so_h...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> [crap]
>
> Do you know why particle decay is probabilistic, VARNEY? Or you're
> just kissing ass as usual? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Still delusional, maroon?
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
Traveler
wrote:
>Physicists don't have a clue, which should not surprise anybody. For
>all their insufferable pomposity, physicists don't really know shit.
>ahahaha...
>
>Anyway, if you know the right answer to the question, you deserve at
>least a hall pass. You should get a Nobel prize but the Nobel is only
>reserved for clueless physicists. ahahaha... I happen to know the
>answer. So I am the judge here. ahahaha... Let's see who the real
>smart ones are.
It's been more than 34 hours since I asked the question and not one
physicist has stepped to the plate with the correct answer. You want
to know why? Because what you practice is chicken feather voodoo
physics. That's why. You don't know shit as you ought to know.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Ok, maybe I'm being a little too harsh on you. Maybe you need a little
bit more time to think about it. I'll ignore the fact that you've had
more than half a century already. I'll give you 24 more hours to come
up with the correct answer or else you must concede that you don't
really know shit. ahahaha... And no cheating. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Phineas T Puddleduck
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 08:33:19 -0400, Traveler <trav...@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Physicists don't have a clue, which should not surprise anybody. For
> >all their insufferable pomposity, physicists don't really know shit.
> >ahahaha...
> >
> >Anyway, if you know the right answer to the question, you deserve at
> >least a hall pass. You should get a Nobel prize but the Nobel is only
> >reserved for clueless physicists. ahahaha... I happen to know the
> >answer. So I am the judge here. ahahaha... Let's see who the real
> >smart ones are.
>
> It's been more than 34 hours since I asked the question
And we still don't care, kook.
Traveler
<phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>And we still don't care, kook.
ahahaha... Who is this "we", VARNEY? I already know that you don't
care. You're a stupid physicist wannabe. You kiss the ass of your
masters. You learned early on not to ask questions that you know they
cannot answer for fear of being rejected. ahahaha... BTW, how many
asses did you kiss today? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Phineas T Puddleduck
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:19:28 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
> <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >And we still don't care, kook.
>
> ahahaha... Who is this "we", VARNEY?
Oh how wrong you are! This week I'm someone else apparently
> I already know that you don't
> care. You're a stupid physicist wannabe. You kiss the ass of your
> masters. You learned early on not to ask questions that you know they
> cannot answer for fear of being rejected. ahahaha... BTW, how many
> asses did you kiss today? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
Trolling is all you have left when you ignorance is exposed.
SucMucPaProlij
>>Your imbalance theory is not something new. In Middle ages people thought that
>>every illness is caused by imbalance. What does it tell us about you? Are you
>>some kind of retro-philosopher? Is This year imbalance theory in again :))))
>
> Fuck you, whoever you are. This is not my theory. Even Newton spoke of
> unbalanced forces. I haven't given the answer to the question in this
> thread yet. I am waiting for all the usual ass kissers to put their
> feet in their mouths. ahahaha...
>
Yes but Newton was some stupid ass kissing mother fucker. He didn't event know
that particles decay.
He was a really dumb fuck jackass.
The_Man
> On 23 May 2007 12:02:05 -0700, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> [crap]
>
> Do you know why particle decay is probabilistic, VARNEY?
Because the Bible says so?
Because God made the world too difficult for dumbasses like you to
understand?
Because neurtrons are "out of balance"?
Do you think neutrons need better feng shui?
BTW, who is Varney?
Traveler
<phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Trolling is all you have left when you ignorance is exposed.
ahahaha... Problem is, I know the answer to why particle decay is
probabilistic. You don't. And I know that the idea of superposed
quantum states is stupid as fuck, on the face of it. Yet you believe
in it. Who's the ignorant one, eh VARNEY? ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Traveler
wrote:
>BTW, who is Varney?
You. ahahaha... What does Stephen Hawking's ass smell like today,
VARNEY? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Phineas T Puddleduck
The_Man <me_so_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 4:02 pm, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > On 23 May 2007 12:02:05 -0700, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > [crap]
> >
> > Do you know why particle decay is probabilistic, VARNEY?
>
> Because the Bible says so?
> Because God made the world too difficult for dumbasses like you to
> understand?
> Because neurtrons are "out of balance"?
> Do you think neutrons need better feng shui?
>
> BTW, who is Varney?
Outhouse John claimed I am some bloke Mike Varney, and the cranks insist it is
true. It isn't, but as you are probably aware cranks believe any old crap.
So it seems me and thee are the same person!
Phineas T Puddleduck
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:56:32 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
> <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Trolling is all you have left when you ignorance is exposed.
>
> ahahaha... Problem is, I know the answer to why particle decay is
> probabilistic. You don't. And I know that the idea of superposed
> quantum states is stupid as fuck, on the face of it. Yet you believe
> in it. Who's the ignorant one, eh VARNEY? ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> ahahaha...
So everyone is Varney is it, oh font of all ignorance?
Phineas T Puddleduck
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 23 May 2007 17:49:59 -0700, The_Man <me_so_h...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >BTW, who is Varney?
>
> You. ahahaha... What does Stephen Hawking's ass smell like today,
> VARNEY? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
Take your meds, you're losing it - big time.
Tomoko Kanazawa
"Vend" <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:1179924235....@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
It's some weird math currently being invented on sci.physics. Pretty simple
stuff, a quick explanation :
Let a be Real. Let (~b) be an uncertainty,
( a + ~b ) = a + ~[b1, b2] continuous case
( a + ~b ) = a + ~{b1, b2, b3...bn} discrete case
~[b1, b2] is like a continuous valued "die", with values ranging anywhere
from b1 to b2.
~{b1, b2, b3...bn} is a discrete valued die, with face values being b1, b2,
b3, ...b_n
a is nonrandom, and ~b is random.
The sum and product of these complex-like numbers can have the following
geometric interpretation.
Case #1
(a)*(~b).
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |
Length is everywhere fuzzy. The existence of any given point is
probabilistic.
Case #2
(a + ~b)
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| + [~ ~ ~)
Length is everywhere well behaved except at the endpoint, which is
probabilistic.
Now, the interesting trick is that physical space is "topologically
indeterminate". You dont know if it is continuous or not. It may be regarded
as either one or the other as you wish, and in fact it must be this way.
Case#1 and case#2 above can toggle back and forth effortlessly, because
space is a duality of case#1 and case#2.
Clearly, this leads to a more fundamental question which is an examination
of the distinction between addition and multiplication. And I think that it
can be shown quite easily that this distinction is essentially little more
than yet another consideration of order, disorder, structure, etc.
This is an analytical explanation of the wave-particle duality. That's all I
can remember from my physics studies at UIC, but I think that they're still
teaching it pretty much like that.
Traveler
<phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So everyone is Varney is it, oh font of all ignorance?
Why not? Any gutless anonymous coward might as well be fucking Mike
VARNEY. I think it's funny. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... The
problem with gutless cowards like you is that you have zero sense of
humor. ahahaha...
Sue...
> Physicists don't have a clue, which should not surprise anybody. For
> all their insufferable pomposity, physicists don't really know shit.
> ahahaha...
The decay is not ~probabilistic~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
...because we know for most particles, a deterministic
way to alter their lifetimes. The muon for example.
It is the statististical process we use to evaluate a
system with many unknown factors that makes the
decay process *appear* to be a matter of random chance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
>
> Anyway, if you know the right answer to the question, you deserve at
> least a hall pass. You should get a Nobel prize but the Nobel is only
> reserved for clueless physicists. ahahaha... I happen to know the
> answer. So I am the judge here. ahahaha... Let's see who the real
> smart ones are.
Not interested in the Nobel because it can close your mind to
better solutions. Look what a mess the Photoelectric award
made of Einstein's neural networks.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Quietly forward the prize money to my agent in Nigeria and I'll send
you photo of what I am doing with it in Tahiti. ;-)
Sue...
Tomoko Kanazawa
(a)*(~b)
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |
The existence of points is everywhere probabilistic.
Case#2
(a
+ ~b)
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| + [~ ~ ~)
Length is only probabilistic on the endpoint of a well behaved interval.
OK - so space is a duality of the above cases. Space can toggle back and
forth effortlessly. Space is simultaneously both.
Just as
2+2+2+2+2+2+2 = 14 = 7*2. It's the same exact situation. The number 14 is
/both/ a sum and a product, and space is likewise /both/ a sum and a
product, where disorder is either added to an endpoint or alternatively
infused throughout the length. As seen above.
The main reason I posted this is to mention that the Lorentz Transform could
live in such a space. The dual space which behaves like these
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| + [~ ~ ~)
Space is a die. A die that does not know whether it's output is continuous
or discrete.
The Lorentz Transform would work very nicely in such a space and I can prove
it right here and now. When the magnitude of the random part is small enough
this space will behave just like R3 or R4.
There it is.
Physics is unified, the show is over, everybody can go home now,
..........and make sure not to tell anyone.
The_Man
wrote:
> In article <1179967799.748855.109...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 23, 4:02 pm, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > On 23 May 2007 12:02:05 -0700, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > [crap]
>
> > > Do you know why particle decay is probabilistic, VARNEY?
>
> > Because the Bible says so?
> > Because God made the world too difficult for dumbasses like you to
> > understand?
> > Because neurtrons are "out of balance"?
> > Do you think neutrons need better feng shui?
>
> > BTW, who is Varney?
>
> Outhouse John claimed I am some bloke Mike Varney, and the cranks insist it is
> true. It isn't, but as you are probably aware cranks believe any old crap.
I am a Ph.D. chemist (definitely NOT named Mike Varney). All of the
"Idiot savant" Savain's taunts about "physicists" are even more
unintentionally funny than usual, since I'm not a physicist, and never
have been.
>
> So it seems me and thee are the same person!
It is good to finally meet my other half :-)
>
> --
> COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
> poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
>
> Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
> singularity.- Hide quoted text -
Jeff…Relf
" Igor " ( 128.205.115.70, Google on IE6 on Win_XP ) is Varney,
if my memory serves me correctly.
The_Man
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 01:55:17 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
>
> >So everyone is Varney is it, oh font of all ignorance?
>
> Why not? Any gutless anonymous coward
like YOU?
> might as well be fucking Mike
> VARNEY. I think it's funny.
But then you think crapping on the rug is funny, too.
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
HI Hanson.... Any follow-ups to "Mmm Bop"?
> The
> problem with gutless cowards like you is that you have zero sense of
> humor.
Do you mean as in "Good Humor", the brand of ice cream truck you
drive?
> ahahaha...
>
> Louis "Idiot" Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad
It crapped on the rug? "Bad, software! Bad! Down, boy!"
> and What We Can Do to Fix
Take it to the vet, and have it castrated like hanson?
It:http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Tomoko Kanazawa
Case#1
(a)*(~b)
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |
Case#2
a + ~b
|---|---|---|---|---|---| + [~ ~ ~)
This graphic explains a direct connection between multiplication, addition,
and continuity of space.
Then, consider that multiplication and addition are distinguished only as a
matter of order, and this things really becomes quite amazing.
Does that make sense ?
Traveler
wrote:
>On May 22, 9:33 am, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> Physicists don't have a clue, which should not surprise anybody. For
>> all their insufferable pomposity, physicists don't really know shit.
>> ahahaha...
>
>The decay is not ~probabilistic~
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
>...because we know for most particles, a deterministic
>way to alter their lifetimes. The muon for example.
>
>It is the statististical process we use to evaluate a
>system with many unknown factors that makes the
>decay process *appear* to be a matter of random chance.
This is pathetic, Sue. Nobody can observe that the lifetime of a
*single* muon has been lengthened due to relativistic "time dilation"
since the lifetime of a single muon cannot be predicted. Only the
average statistical lifetime of a bunch of muons can be observed to
undergo "time dilation" while moving at very high speeds.
Note that I put "time dilation" in quotes only because it is a
misnomer: time can neither dilate nor change since time is not a
variable, a billion relativists braying and howling to the moon
notwithstanding. ahahahaha... Variable time is an oxymoron as anybody
with two neurons between their ears should know. That's why time
travel is crap. ahahaha... The crackpots of the physics community
should replace "time dilation" with something like "clock slowing" or
"process slowdown". However, can we expect a mutual ass-kissing
society to come to its senses after a century of crackpottery? Answer:
Of course not. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
PS. If you don't already know that time is not a variable and you want
to learn more on the subject, click on the link below.
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Sue...
> On 23 May 2007 20:42:22 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
"Time dilation" was never mentioned except by you.
Muon lifetimes were extended by selecting their "favorite"
speed. In the BNL g-2 experiment. Electron lifetimes can be
shortened by proximity to a positron.
You are off on wild tangent so obviously don't even understand
your original post.
>
> PS. If you don't already know that time is not a variable and you want
> to learn more on the subject, click on the link below.
No thanks. The lifetime of your bait-and-switch just expired.
Sue...
Traveler
wrote:
>"Time dilation" was never mentioned except by you.
>Muon lifetimes were extended by selecting their "favorite"
>speed. In the BNL g-2 experiment. Electron lifetimes can be
>shortened by proximity to a positron.
Electrons decay now? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Sue, it's ok to
want to be a physicist, but why do you feel the need to imitate their
crackpottery? ahahaha...
I just love usenet. It's an incessant source of comedy. Peer review at
its best. ahahaha...
smallpond
> On 23 May 2007 20:42:22 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
The linked article says that time travel is impossible because
spacetime is unchanging.
However, that argument does not preclude an object from having a fixed
but non-linear
shape in spacetime. A hypothetical object with a fixed "S" shape in
spacetime
would appear to move forward then backward then forward in time to a
normal observer,
for example.
The principle that seems to preclude this is conservation of matter,
not the fixed nature of
spacetime. At the bends in the "S" matter would appear to be
spontaneously created
or destroyed. This seems to be the downfall of all "time travel"
theories.
--S
N
>
> - Show quoted text -
I hope you don't mind if I happen to jump in here...but...
is there something about 'dark matter' thats colder or
sometimes 'slower' in some way than the stuff we're used
to having about?
Phineas T Puddleduck
N <n.m....@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> I hope you don't mind if I happen to jump in here...but...
> is there something about 'dark matter' thats colder or
> sometimes 'slower' in some way than the stuff we're used
> to having about?
Non-baryonic dark matter does not interact with normal matter except through
gravity.
N
wrote:
> In article <1180027653.921755.319...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> N <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > I hope you don't mind if I happen to jump in here...but...
> > is there something about 'dark matter' thats colder or
> > sometimes 'slower' in some way than the stuff we're used
> > to having about?
>
> Non-baryonic dark matter does not interact with normal matter except through
> gravity.
>
> --
> COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
> poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
>
> Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
> singularity.
(quickly looking through wiki)
can baryons or their activity be 'imagined' as a low level
activity on a strata and heirarchy? I'm thinking in frequencies
here?
hanson
aka "The_Man" <me_so_h...@yahoo.com> cranked himself
in news:1180006451....@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> about Louis Savain aka Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> who wrote:
>> You, "The_Man", might as well be fucking Mike
>> VARNEY. I think it's funny.
>
[me_so_horneeeee]
> HI Hanson.... Any follow-ups to "Mmm Bop"?
>
Yo, Varnney, I don't know what an "Mmm Bop" is, but it is
safe to assume that it has to do with you being "so_horneeeee"
ahahaha... Sorry to hear that, little fat_Man... ... Anyway, does
Louis crank you more, or much more, or less than Tom Potter
does.... which precipitated these characterizations of yourself:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/510835821ae61ae9
Now go and get-some so that you don't have to cry & constantly
whine "me_so_horneeeee." **Become** "The_Man" you imagine
to be Varney... instead of just creaming about it, you beat-off artist...
Thanks from the laughs, chum..... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
The_Man
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... hahaha... Mike Varney
> innews:1180006451....@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...> about Louis Savain aka Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> who wrote:
> >> You, "The_Man", might as well be fucking Mike
> >> VARNEY. I think it's funny.
> >> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> [me_so_horneeeee]
> > HI Hanson.... Any follow-ups to "Mmm Bop"?
>
> [hanson]
> Yo, Varnney, I don't know what an "Mmm Bop" is,
I'm not surprised, stupid jackass.
It was the hit song by the group "hanson", whose lead singer was a boy
with hair so long he was frequently mistaken for a girl, kind of like
you are mistaken for a human being, or a girl, or whatever.
BTW, again, who is "Varney"? Do you mean Jim Varney, the actor from
the "Enrest" movies? I would think that would be YOU - particularly
from the film "Ernest Scared Stupid", which pretty much sums up your
sorry ass life.
HAHAHAHA!
> but it is
> safe to assume that it has to do with you being "so_horneeeee"
Better to be horny than stupid or dead. Saving up for your Levitra?
> ahahaha... Sorry to hear that, little fat_Man...
You must be projecting - I'm not little OR fat. Keep fishing for a
clue....
> ... Anyway, does
> Louis crank you more, or much more, or less than Tom Potter
> does.... which precipitated these characterizations of yourself:http://www.liveleak.com/view?
I find the whole lot of you sadly depressing, but you'll die in abject
squalor soon enough, so that perks me up
Even if I were fat, fat people can lose weight, but stupid is forever.
i=e1842edc4fhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/
Traveler
>> Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
>>http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
>The linked article says that time travel is impossible because
>spacetime is unchanging.However, that argument does not preclude
>an object from having a fixed but non-linear shape in spacetime.
>A hypothetical object with a fixed "S" shape in spacetime would
>appear to move forward then backward then forward in time to a
>normal observer, for example.
A normal observer? There is no observation possible in an unchanging
spacetime. You're thinking too much, IMO. It's not all that
complicated. In fact, the nonexistence of time is part of the answer
to the question I posed: Why is particle decay probabilistic? Do you
know the answer or are you using this thread to advance your own
theories?
hanson
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai.philosophy/msg/e9a5eaadd8d984fb
AHAHAHA... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Obviously, our
ugly fat Jewboy still argues instead of getting himself some pussy,
and so, he "The_wannabe_Man" <me_so_h...@yahoo.com>
who so strenuously but unsuccessfully denied his uneasy Jewishness
spilled some more of his unkosher beans in his profound message in
news:1180050401.7...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com..
where he did seek refuge on the goy-boy music bandwagon in his
gay yearnings & he moaned in his worshipping ecstasy as he said:
>
[fatboy]
> It was the hit song by the group "hanson", whose lead singer was
> a boy with hair so long he was frequently mistaken for a girl,
>
.... ahahaha... So, you, the alleged "Ph.D., with post-doc, and granted
professorship" [1]...has to go to a juvenile goyim-boyish music group
to learn language & to parrot proudly their: "Mmm Bop" & to expose
your own penchant for your pedophilia in the process.... ahahaha...
You are some kind of professori, alright ... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA....
>
[fatboy]
> BTW, again, who is "Varney"? Do you mean Jim Varney, the actor from
> the "Enrest" movies? I would think that would be YOU - particularly
> from the film "Ernest Scared Stupid", which pretty much sums up your
> sorry ass life.
>
.... ahahahaha... Why do you ask me, fat-boy?.. I am here for fun and
not to explain to you who Varney is. Hint: Just look into the mirror!...
ahaha... or keep going to your "Enrest" movies... AHAHAHA..
>
[fatboy]
> I find the whole lot of you sadly depressing, but you'll die in abject
> squalor soon enough, so that perks me up
>
.... oye-weh, fat-boy, you whine right away again, very hinterfützig,
in typical and classical AshkeNazi low class style, with your threats
and death-wishes onto others just like this posterchild here does :
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f
Maybe Potter is more right in his assessment about you & your ilk
then I could have ever imagined. But now most of the credit goes
to you for having made me glaringly aware how you really are.
Remember, nobody is born Anti-Semitic, but you sure are a fine
educator, not as a professor, but as a teacher of Anti-Semitism...
Why should anybody respect you and much less tolerate or even
like you????... ahahahaha...
>
[fatboy]
> Even if I were fat, fat people can lose weight, but stupid is forever.
>
ahaha... Of course you are fat and it shows, flabby-babby.... ahahaha...
and I hope that your "stupid" will ebb away one day so that you do
not continue to be such an embarrassment to your Jewish community,
and that you stop behaving like this raving and deranged Jew here:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f
>
Now, let's sit down, have a fine Lager, a kosher ham sandwich and
plenty of crunchy pork rind and study again what got you to confess
that you have a fat brain and so that you don't have to crank & fatten
yourself even more ... and in the process not submit to what Sharon
said you should do, namely:.. for you, the Jew, to do "all you can to
increase Anti-Semitism" [2]... ... But then, you do love it, don't you!
ahahaha. Shalom & L'Chaim, Dreidel!... and thanks for the laughs!
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/510835821ae61ae9
[2]
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/04/1003.shtml
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/40b951c1e2473cfb
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/be8452e683364a49
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.politics/msg/1eb3c30eead351ba
PS:
Dreidel, here's a refresher for you so that your fat, phony Ph.D. brain
can connect the above to this:
>
-------------- an encore for "The_lying_Man's" benefit -----------------
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... hahaha... Mike Varney
aka "The_Man" <me_so_h...@yahoo.com> cranked himself
in news:1180006451....@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> about Louis Savain aka Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> who wrote:
>> You, "The_Man", might as well be fucking Mike
>> VARNEY. I think it's funny.
>> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
[me_so_horneeeee]
> HI Hanson.... Any follow-ups to "Mmm Bop"?
>
[hanson]
Yo, Varney, I don't know what an "Mmm Bop" is, but it is safe
to assume that it has to do with you being "so_horneeeee"
ahahaha... Sorry to hear that, little fat_Man... ... Anyway, does
Louis crank you more, or much more, or less than Tom Potter
does.... which precipitated these characterizations of yourself:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/510835821ae61ae9
PD
> Physicists don't have a clue, which should not surprise anybody. For
> all their insufferable pomposity, physicists don't really know shit.
> ahahaha...
>
> least a hall pass. You should get a Nobel prize but the Nobel is only
> reserved for clueless physicists. ahahaha... I happen to know the
> answer.
Then let's have it.
> So I am the judge here.
We'll see. Depends on your answer.
> ahahaha... Let's see who the real
> smart ones are.
>
PD
> On 23 May 2007 02:29:25 GMT, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
>
>
>
> >Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> Physicists don't have a clue, which should not surprise anybody. For
> >> all their insufferable pomposity, physicists don't really know shit.
> >> ahahaha...
>
> >> Anyway, if you know the right answer to the question, you deserve at
> >> least a hall pass. You should get a Nobel prize but the Nobel is only
> >> reserved for clueless physicists. ahahaha... I happen to know the
> >> smart ones are.
>
> >We call it random because there is nothing in this universe we have so far
> >been able to sense that is predictive of these events. Not even previous
> >decay events are predictive of future decay events.
>
> >I don't know enough about this level of physics to say much more with
> >authority (I'm posting from c.a.p), but the more interesting question to be
> >asked here is not what the cause of the decay events are (it's quite
> >possible they have a very simple cause), but instead, why can't we sense
> >the cause? The answer to that I suspect is to be found in the methods we
> >have available to sense with. Our ability to sense is limited to
> >what we can build out of atoms and most likely, the answer is that you
> >can't build a machine to sense the cause of these decay events out of
> >atoms.
>
> >So, the answer to why we talk about the decay events as being random is not
> >because they have no predictable cause, but that we can't sense the cause
> >to verify any working hypothesis we might create to explain the events.
>
> Like everything else in physics, the cause of particle decay is simply
> an imbalance, i.e., a violation of a conservation principle. Nature
> corrects the imbalance by inducing an interaction that manifests
> itself as particle decay. If you take a group of neutrons, they all
> cause an equal imbalance. Why is it that all we can say is that half
> of the neutrons will decay within a certain fixed interval t?
> Subsequently, half of the remaining neutrons will decay within exactly
> t and so on. t is the half-life interval. It is not possible to
> predict which of the neutrons will decay within any half-life
> interval.
>
> The question I am asking is, why do the neutrons not all have a decay
> interval equal to the half-life interval?
Because then it wouldn't be a half-life, by definition. It would be a
whole life. Idiot. It might help to learn the physical behavioral law
that dictates an exponential solution. It's simpler than you think.
No, I take that back, nothing is simpler than the way you think.
> Physicists do not know the
> answer.
Sure they do. *You* however, do not. There is a sizable difference.
PD
Traveler
>>
>> The question I am asking is, why do the neutrons not all have a decay
>> interval equal to the half-life interval?
>
>Because then it wouldn't be a half-life, by definition. It would be a
>whole life. Idiot.
ahahaha... PD, you are such a good little ass kisser that you don't
mind putting your foot in your mouth just so you can create an ass
kissing opportunity. ahahaha... The half-life interval is not called
half-life because it is 1/2 of an interval. It is called half-life
because half of a given group of particles (e.g., neutrons or muons)
are observed to decay in the interval. The half-life interval of a
particle is its average decay time.
>It might help to learn the physical behavioral law
>that dictates an exponential solution. It's simpler than you think.
Whatthe fuck does particle decay and half-life have to do with
exponetial solutions. You are showing signs of sinility. ahahaha...
>No, I take that back, nothing is simpler than the way you think.
And nobody kisses ass like you do. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>> Physicists do not know the
>> answer.
>
>Sure they do. *You* however, do not. There is a sizable difference.
ahahaha... PD. Just stop kissing ass for a minute. If physicists knew
the answer, why don't you come out with it that we may all marvel? I
am still waiting. Come out with it, PD. Let us hear it. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
On second thought, don't even try. You're liable to put your foot in
your own ass this time around. ahahaha...
Traveler
wrote:
>Physicists don't have a clue, which should not surprise anybody. For
>all their insufferable pomposity, physicists don't really know shit.
>ahahaha...
>
>Anyway, if you know the right answer to the question, you deserve at
>least a hall pass. You should get a Nobel prize but the Nobel is only
>reserved for clueless physicists. ahahaha... I happen to know the
>answer. So I am the judge here. ahahaha... Let's see who the real
>smart ones are.
Ok. I think it's time that I relieve you from your painful misery.
ahahaha... Why is particle decay probabilistic? Here's the answer:
All particle interactions in the universe have exactly the same
fundamental discrete duration. An interaction is nature's way of
correcting a violation to a conservation principle. Ideally, the
interaction interval should be proportional to the severity of the
violation. However, since nature cannot calculate an exact interval
(there is only fundamental interval), it is forced to use the only
alternative, probability. Thus the probability of a decay
(interaction) is proportional to the severity of the violation.
Question: What is the fundamental interaction interval?
Answer: Possibly the Planck Time.
Question: Why is there only one interation interval?
Answer: Because time does not exist. It is abstract.
Question: Why does time not exist?
Answer: Because a time dimension would make change impossible.
Change exists. Time is is abstractly inferred from change. You can
learn more about the non-existence of time by clicking on the link
below:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Physicists have no idea why particle decay is probabilistic and yet
they feel free to teach all sorts of voodoo nonsense having to do with
superposition of states when nobody is looking. What a bunch of
fucking crackpots! ahahaha... There is no superposition of states, you
imbeciles. There are only degrees of violations. The universe is one
(distance is an illusion) and has a single heartbeat, so to speak. It
simply uses probability to decide what percentage of a group of
similar violations to correct at every beat. So, what's my point? My
point is twofold:
1. Quantum computing is either a hoax or outright stupidity.
2. Physicists don't know shit. They are all mental midgets.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Phew! Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:vqhg5352qb30o73nh...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 08:33:19 -0400, Traveler <trav...@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Physicists don't have a clue, which should not surprise anybody. For
>>all their insufferable pomposity, physicists don't really know shit.
>>ahahaha...
>>
>>Anyway, if you know the right answer to the question, you deserve at
>>least a hall pass. You should get a Nobel prize but the Nobel is only
>>reserved for clueless physicists. ahahaha... I happen to know the
>>answer. So I am the judge here. ahahaha... Let's see who the real
>>smart ones are.
>
> Ok. I think it's time that I relieve you from your painful misery.
> ahahaha... Why is particle decay probabilistic?
Why is Louis Savian autistic?
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why is Louis Savian autistic?
ahahaha... Funny. ahahaha... But I got a better one. ahahahaha... Why
is Dick Van de merde a senile ass kisser?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
SucMucPaProlij
> Question: What is the fundamental interaction interval?
> Answer: Possibly the Planck Time.
>
> Question: Why is there only one interation interval?
> Answer: Because time does not exist. It is abstract.
>
> Question: Why does time not exist?
> Answer: Because a time dimension would make change impossible.
>
> Change exists. Time is is abstractly inferred from change. You can
> learn more about the non-existence of time by clicking on the link
> below:
>
this is very nice story that says nothing much. If time is function of change,
it doesn't mean that change is more fundamental then time.
If you have formula:
v=s/t
you can say that v is calculated value and distance and time are basic values,
but in formula
t=s/v
time is calculated and distance and speed are not. This formula is not better
than the first one, it is the same thing.
Your theory doesn't bring anything new. It is just a story. You can't use your
theory to better predict particle decay. All you did is rewrite formula v=s/t in
the form t=s/v and concluded that time is inferred from change. Good for you.
Traveler
wrote:
>this is very nice story that says nothing much. If time is function of change,
>it doesn't mean that change is more fundamental then time.
Who said anything about change being more fundamental than time? Time
does not exist, period. Why? Because a physical time would make motion
impossible. That's why but I'm sure it will go over your head.
Distance does not exist either, BTW. Only positional properties exist
and distance is merely the vector difference between two positions.
[cut the rest of your crap. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...]
I am not about to try to convince you personally that your physics is
crap. But it's all delivered to you on a platter. You can choose the
red stupid pill or the blue smart pill. ahahaha... It's up to you.
It's your prerogative to remain stupid. ahahaha...
Uncle Al
[snip]
> All particle interactions in the universe have exactly the same
> fundamental discrete duration.
[snip crap]
> Louis Savain
>
> Physics From the Bible!
[snip rest of crap]
Savain the Miracle Fruit evinces a confluence of overwhelming
ignorance with overweening arrogance.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Traveler
wrote:
[cut Uncle Shfartz' spew]
What does John Baez's ass smell like today, Uncle Shfartz? ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Physics From the Bible!
SucMucPaProlij
I will ask you tomorrow does time exist....
Traveler
wrote:
>> Time does not exist, period.
>
>I will ask you tomorrow does time exist....
You're wasting my time. ahahaha...
Wolf
[...]
>
> Ok. I think it's time that I relieve you from your painful misery.
> ahahaha... Why is particle decay probabilistic? Here's the answer:
>
> All particle interactions in the universe have exactly the same
> fundamental discrete duration. An interaction is nature's way of
> correcting a violation to a conservation principle. Ideally, the
> interaction interval should be proportional to the severity of the
> violation. However, since nature cannot calculate an exact interval
> (there is only fundamental interval), it is forced to use the only
> alternative, probability. Thus the probability of a decay
> (interaction) is proportional to the severity of the violation.
Good grief! Louis has been imbibing the same stuff as Zick!
Gad, he's been drinking even more of the stuff than Zick does.
--
Wolf
"Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)
Traveler
wrote:
[crap]
ahahaha... Just because your name is Wolf does not mean that you're
not an ass kisser, you know. Wolves are some of the most shameless ass
kissers in nature. It's in their genes. There is usually a dominant
wolf whose ass the other wolves kiss incessantly. ahahaha... Who's
your head wolf, Wolf? Is it that time travel believing lunatic who is
leading the pack? Is it that con man/crackpot of quantum computing,
aka David Deutsch? I would be careful if I were you. ahahaha... I hear
he has a slight hygiene problem. ahahaha... But you don't mind, do you
now, Wolf? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Jan Mortensen
in your last post you wrote:
>Question: Why is there only one interation interval?
>Answer: Because time does not exist. It is abstract.
>Question: Why does time not exist?
>Answer: Because a time dimension would make change impossible.
but in an earlier post in this thread you wrote:
>It's been more than 34 hours since I asked the question and not one
>physicist has stepped to the plate with the correct answer. You want
>to know why? Because what you practice is chicken feather voodoo
>physics. That's why. You don't know shit as you ought to know.
>ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
From this I conclude that you seems to own a watch, and that you find
this tool (created by a crazy physicist) for measuring time (which does
not exist) useful. Will you please explain?
Best regards
Jan Mortensen
Traveler
wrote:
Don't you 'best regards' me, you ass kissing jackass. Don't you people
have anything better to do than to find lame ways to kiss ass?
ahahahaha... I use a thermometer to measure temperature too, you know.
Is temperature a physical entity? No. Mathematicians speak of
percentages, slopes, pi, exponents, etc... Are these things physical
entities? No. Same with time. It is abstract and that's what
differentiates non-ass-kissers from mere ass kissers. The former
understands the concept of abstraction. The latter just kiss ass...
for free. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Androcles
: On Sun, 27 May 2007 12:56:08 +0200, Jan Mortensen <je...@inet.uni2.dk>
All that "haha" shit is kissing ahahanson's arse. He's funny, you are not.
The difference is he doesn't stick his neck in a noose, you do.
The jackass brays when stuck, don't you, ass-kissing jackass Savain?
Open the trap, Jan.
Dirk Van de moortel
> wrote:
>
>>Dear traveler
>>
>>in your last post you wrote:
>>
>> >Question: Why is there only one interation interval?
>> >Answer: Because time does not exist. It is abstract.
>>
>> >Question: Why does time not exist?
>> >Answer: Because a time dimension would make change impossible.
>>
>>but in an earlier post in this thread you wrote:
>>
>> >It's been more than 34 hours since I asked the question and not one
>> >physicist has stepped to the plate with the correct answer. You want
>> >to know why? Because what you practice is chicken feather voodoo
>> >physics. That's why. You don't know shit as you ought to know.
>> >ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>>
>> From this I conclude that you seems to own a watch, and that you find
>>this tool (created by a crazy physicist) for measuring time (which does
>>not exist) useful. Will you please explain?
>>
>>Best regards
>>Jan Mortensen
Jan, the answer below shows a nice application of Dilbert's
saying: "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to
his level and beat you on experience".
Nice try though :-)
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
... says Andro while kissing Jan's ass. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Traveler
Wow Jan. You got two ass kissers kissing your ass in a row for no
reason other than that they believe in the existence of time as you
do. You must be proud. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Traveler
>For another thing, your claims are contradictory. It
>is not logically possible for all particle interactions
>to "... have exactly the same fundamental discrete
>duration ..." on the one hand, and "... time not exist
>.." on the other. There is duration, or there is not.
To paraphrase a US president, it depends on what your definition of
"is" is. ahahaha... I can speak of the unemployment rate being 7%.
Does that mean that the unemployment rate exist? I don't think so.
Unemployed and employed people exist but the unemployement rate is an
abstract concept. Same thing with time. Change exists. Time is an
abstract concept derived from change. Why is this so hard for you
people to understand? Did you all swallow a stupid pill or something?
Why is it that all the assholes who object to my saying that time does
not exist never come out to refute my assertion that a physical time
dimension makes motion impossible. This is the reason that Sir Karl
Popper called Einstein's spacetime a "block universe where nothing
happens". ahahaha... This is the reason that nothing can move in
spacetime and that spacetime is abstract, just like time. Now, do we
observe motion, yes or no? What does that tell you? Wake the fuck up,
godamnit!
>Where there is change, there is duration.
One is physical and the other is abstract. Pack that up your ass and
stop bothering me. I ain't got time for this shit.
[rest of your crap deleted]
Sue...
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 08:46:19 EDT, "T.H. Ray" <thray...@aol.com> wrote:
> >For another thing, your claims are contradictory. It
> >is not logically possible for all particle interactions
> >to "... have exactly the same fundamental discrete
> >duration ..." on the one hand, and "... time not exist
> >.." on the other. There is duration, or there is not.
>
> To paraphrase a US president, it depends on what your definition of
> "is" is. ahahaha... I can speak of the unemployment rate being 7%.
> Does that mean that the unemployment rate exist? I don't think so.
> Unemployed and employed people exist but the unemployement rate is an
> abstract concept. Same thing with time. Change exists. Time is an
> abstract concept derived from change. Why is this so hard for you
> people to understand? Did you all swallow a stupid pill or something?
>
> Why is it that all the assholes who object to my saying that time does
> not exist never come out to refute my assertion that a physical time
> dimension makes motion impossible. This is the reason that Sir Karl
> Popper called Einstein's spacetime a "block universe where nothing
> happens". ahahaha... This is the reason that nothing can move in
> spacetime and that spacetime is abstract, just like time. Now, do we
> observe motion, yes or no? What does that tell you? Wake the fuck up,
> godamnit!
>
> >Where there is change, there is duration.
When the winning drag racer finishes with more fuel than the
looser your notions might warrant some consideration.
Untill that occurs, the surplus of fuel in looser's tank is
a tangibile refutation of your absurd notions.
<< invariance with respect to time translation gives the
well known law of conservation of energy >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
Sue...
SucMucPaProlij
> Does that mean that the unemployment rate exist? I don't think so.
> Unemployed and employed people exist but the unemployement rate is an
> abstract concept. Same thing with time. Change exists. Time is an
> abstract concept derived from change. Why is this so hard for you
> people to understand? Did you all swallow a stupid pill or something?
>
hahahahaha you should kept you mouth closed.
Unemployment rate do exists and it is something very real. It is as real as any
other thing that you can measure (time, distance, speed....)
So, the answer to your question is:
No, you are the stupid one who doesn't understand the very basics of physics and
philosophy.
Tomoko Kanazawa
"SucMucPaProlij" <bu...@paji.bu> wrote in message
news:f3cc5f$358$1...@ss408.t-com.hr...
> > I can speak of the unemployment rate being 7%.
> > Does that mean that the unemployment rate exist? I don't think so.
> > Unemployed and employed people exist but the unemployement rate is an
> > abstract concept. Same thing with time. Change exists. Time is an
> > abstract concept derived from change. Why is this so hard for you
> > people to understand? Did you all swallow a stupid pill or something?
Time does not exist. Hah. Of course it dosent. And yet it also does. So what
of it then ? How does one reconcile that ?
SIMPLE.
The existence of time is indeterminate, it is probabilistic, just like
length is. Probabilistic. Probability of what ? Probability that it exists.
So, it does, and also does not exist, because it is probabilistic.
Existentially probabilistic.
Can we move on ?
ŠućMućPaProlij
> Time does not exist. Hah. Of course it dosent. And yet it also does. So what
> of it then ? How does one reconcile that ?
>
> SIMPLE.
>
> The existence of time is indeterminate, it is probabilistic, just like
> length is. Probabilistic. Probability of what ? Probability that it exists.
>
> So, it does, and also does not exist, because it is probabilistic.
> Existentially probabilistic.
>
> Can we move on ?
>
>
your words probably don't have a meaning.
or they do?
no they don't!
Traveler
wrote:
HATSOOS MARTINEZ! I am in the midst of lunatics and ass kissers.
ahahaha... This is the way usenet is. The ultimate peer system and mad
house. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Tomoko Kanazawa
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:08:13 +0200, ŠućMućPaProlij <bu...@paji.bu>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Time does not exist. Hah. Of course it dosent. And yet it also does. So
what
> >> of it then ? How does one reconcile that ?
> >>
> >> SIMPLE.
> >>
> >> The existence of time is indeterminate, it is probabilistic, just like
> >> length is. Probabilistic. Probability of what ? Probability that it
exists.
> >>
> >> So, it does, and also does not exist, because it is probabilistic.
> >> Existentially probabilistic.
> >>
> >> Can we move on ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >your words probably don't have a meaning.
> >or they do?
> >no they don't!
In Harris Math these things are perfectly sensible. We can very easily
justify the view that time is probabilistic.
Mr. Savain, it appears, has gone quite mad. He muses the nonexistence of
that which clearly also exists, and cannot balance the philosophical
checkbook.
Ahhhhh, SAVAIN, lemented I.
Josip Almasi
>
> Question: What is the fundamental interaction interval?
> Answer: Possibly the Planck Time.
I did some collision detections in software.
Usual (and good way) for this is to use discrete space (AKA matrix): you
just can't put two 'dots' on the same place in matrix.
If you chose contiuous space, you're into some really complex algorithms
like linear programming.
But suppose we're using continuous space. Double.MIN_DOUBLE becomes
equivalent of Planck length. Each 'particle' is a thread, continously
scanning its environment and correcting it's own behaviour based on
environment data.
So what happens when two such threads collide?
It usually goes as expected - balls knock each other and they go its own
way each.
But if one goes too fast, inner loop may miss collision detection; in
one iteration, its in front, in second iteration it's passed by the
other already, and no collision is detected. Sounds like quantum
tunelling right? It depends on speed (~energy) of first particle, and
'height' (~ barrier energy) of the second. Another view on the same
effect is relativistic: 'particle' 'shortens' with increase of speed;
shorter the particle, tunnelling probablity higher/collision detection
probability lower.
And, what happens when we have a lot of such 'particles'? Its lot of
threads and computer slows down. Each thread's inner loop slows down,
IOW time slows down.
And so on; unintentionally I got a number of phisical effects instead of
plain and simple collision detection.
I thought to myself, could it be that time does not really exist? Could
it be that it's just a side-effect of universes finite processing power?
Then I asked Internet Allmighty the same thing, and He came up with
The Institute of Time Nature Explorations
http://www.chronos.msu.ru
and it's lovely library
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/eelectropublications.html
Here you are guys knock yourselves up;)
Regards...
Tomoko Kanazawa
"Tomoko Kanazawa" <T.Kan...@eodomo.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:1K6dndSB3bQms8fb...@comcast.com...
>
> "Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:chvj53hs2iqhdmn5j...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:08:13 +0200, ŠućMućPaProlij <bu...@paji.bu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> Time does not exist. Hah. Of course it dosent. And yet it also does.
So
> what
> > >> of it then ? How does one reconcile that ?
> > >>
> > >> SIMPLE.
> > >>
> > >> The existence of time is indeterminate, it is probabilistic, just
like
> > >> length is. Probabilistic. Probability of what ? Probability that it
> exists.
> > >>
> > >> So, it does, and also does not exist, because it is probabilistic.
> > >> Existentially probabilistic.
> > >>
> > >> Can we move on ?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >your words probably don't have a meaning.
> > >or they do?
> > >no they don't!
In fact, it does make sense.
Take a look at this.
http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/ggp/
Now, Paulus explains this in terms of "slits in time". He's a great
physicist, but I dont like his interpretation. I think that it's much more
sensible that time is probabilistic, hence, ergo, and therefore, to wit :
interference in the time regime.
Need I say QED ?
Unless you can explain "slits in time", .........
Traveler
wrote:
>Traveler wrote:
>>
>> Question: What is the fundamental interaction interval?
>> Answer: Possibly the Planck Time.
>
>I did some collision detections in software.
>Usual (and good way) for this is to use discrete space (AKA matrix): you
>just can't put two 'dots' on the same place in matrix.
>If you chose contiuous space, you're into some really complex algorithms
>like linear programming.
>But suppose we're using continuous space. Double.MIN_DOUBLE becomes
>equivalent of Planck length. Each 'particle' is a thread, continously
>scanning its environment and correcting it's own behaviour based on
>environment data.
Interesting but why use a thread for each particle? It it not better
to use a data structure for each particle and have your update loop go
through the collection of particles and update their properties as
necessary? The biggest problem with threads, however, is that they are
not synchronous, i.e., some particle may get processed faster than
another.
>So what happens when two such threads collide?
>It usually goes as expected - balls knock each other and they go its own
>way each.
>But if one goes too fast, inner loop may miss collision detection; in
>one iteration, its in front, in second iteration it's passed by the
>other already, and no collision is detected.
That's probably because you use positional jumps to effect movement
and fast particles simply make longer jumps and do not go through the
in-between positions.
>Sounds like quantum
>tunelling right? It depends on speed (~energy) of first particle, and
>'height' (~ barrier energy) of the second.
That's exactly what happens in quantum tunelling (a stupid misnomer,
IMO): Particles can make long-distance jumps and do not go through the
in-between positions. It can happen because there is no space.
Position is one of the intrinsic properties of every particle. In the
future, we will create jump technologies that will enable us to move
from anywhere to anywhere almost instantly. I call it "long-distance
quantum jump".
>Another view on the same
>effect is relativistic: 'particle' 'shortens' with increase of speed;
>shorter the particle, tunnelling probablity higher/collision detection
>probability lower.
That, I disagree with since particles do not have size in my
cosmology. You can talk about the distance between particles being
shorter though.
>And, what happens when we have a lot of such 'particles'? Its lot of
>threads and computer slows down. Each thread's inner loop slows down,
>IOW time slows down.
[begin rant]
Threads were created to solve a nasty problem in algorithmic software,
so as to allow the simulation of multiple algorithms running
concurrently. I hate them. If CPUs were built the right way, there
would be no need for threads. I explain it all in my Silver Bullet
page.
[end rant]
I do see your point. It is not time that dilates, it is the processes
that slow down due to energy conservation issues. Big difference.
Relativists can never understand this truth.
>And so on; unintentionally I got a number of phisical effects instead of
>plain and simple collision detection.
>I thought to myself, could it be that time does not really exist? Could
>it be that it's just a side-effect of universes finite processing power?
>Then I asked Internet Allmighty the same thing, and He came up with
>The Institute of Time Nature Explorations
>http://www.chronos.msu.ru
>and it's lovely library
>http://www.chronos.msu.ru/eelectropublications.html
>Here you are guys knock yourselves up;)
>
>Regards...
Of course, time does not exist. Only the crackpots of the physics
community and their ass kissers believe in the existence of time.
Having said that, I disagree that our concept of time is a side effect
of the processing power of the universe. The universe is not run by a
single processor. It is the ultimate parallel computer (cellular
automaton) where every particle is its own processor. However, since
the universe is ONE (distance is a perceptual illusion), it has a
single heartbeat which gives us the fundamental interaction interval.
BTW, time does not dilate. The observation that physical processes can
slow down does not imply time dilation. It only implies, well, process
slowdown which, like every phenomenon in nature, is an energy
conservation phenomenon. Time cannot change, by definition. Changing
time is an oxymoron. All you can say is that a slowed clock measures
longer temporal intervals than another. Don't tell that to
relativists though. They are liable to have an apoplectic fit and
start jumping up and down while foaming at the mouth. ahahaha...
I'll take a look at the sites above. Thanks for the links.
Tomoko Kanazawa
If time simply "does not exist", as you claim, then how do you account for
the interference fringes in this experiment ?
http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/ggp/
If time did not exist, then the fringes could not occur.
Josip Almasi
>
> Interesting but why use a thread for each particle? It it not better
> to use a data structure for each particle and have your update loop go
> through the collection of particles and update their properties as
> necessary? The biggest problem with threads, however, is that they are
> not synchronous, i.e., some particle may get processed faster than
> another.
Right. I was just examining different approaches.
And it's not really threads vs. central loop issue; when N players fire
at each other, we have square complexity (N*(N-1)/2), so we completely
removed server-side collision detection.
> That's probably because you use positional jumps to effect movement
> and fast particles simply make longer jumps and do not go through the
> in-between positions.
In fact I use speed vectors. But they change asynchronously due to user
input, and relativistic due to internet lag.
> [begin rant]
> Threads were created to solve a nasty problem in algorithmic software,
> so as to allow the simulation of multiple algorithms running
> concurrently. I hate them. If CPUs were built the right way, there
> would be no need for threads. I explain it all in my Silver Bullet
> page.
> [end rant]
Yep I'm familliar with your Silver Bullet. And I'm ambivalent.
> Of course, time does not exist. Only the crackpots of the physics
> community and their ass kissers believe in the existence of time.
:)))
Well with that I cannot agree:)
After all, we do experience time, right?
Thus believing in time is believing in own experience, and that's most
natural thing in natural intelligence.
So one needs not be crackpot neither asskisser for that.
BTW, on time, philosophical reading:
The Experience and Perception of Time
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-experience/
> Having said that, I disagree that our concept of time is a side effect
> of the processing power of the universe. The universe is not run by a
> single processor. It is the ultimate parallel computer (cellular
> automaton) where every particle is its own processor.
Well I do to tend to look at this that way too.
> However, since
> the universe is ONE (distance is a perceptual illusion), it has a
> single heartbeat which gives us the fundamental interaction interval.
Elsewhere I compared that smallest interaction to NOP instruction;)
I'm not aware that anything implies any kind of heartbeat. Like, INC
instruction can last 1.1537229843878249345 times NOP instruction:)
Such a 'heartbeat' may be, just as time, only in our heads.
Regards...
PD
> On 25 May 2007 07:21:00 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> The question I am asking is, why do the neutrons not all have a decay
> >> interval equal to the half-life interval?
>
> >Because then it wouldn't be a half-life, by definition. It would be a
> >whole life. Idiot.
>
> ahahaha... PD, you are such a good little ass kisser that you don't
> mind putting your foot in your mouth just so you can create an ass
> kissing opportunity. ahahaha... The half-life interval is not called
> half-life because it is 1/2 of an interval. It is called half-life
> because half of a given group of particles (e.g., neutrons or muons)
> are observed to decay in the interval.
Exactly. And if all neutrons had a decay interval equal to the half-
life interval, then they would *all* decay in that half-life interval,
which is not what a half-life is, by definition. Don't you feel like
an idiot this morning?
> The half-life interval of a
> particle is its average decay time.
That is also incorrect. The average decay time is a time called the
"characteristic life" or "characteristic time". It is related to, but
not equal to, the half-life.
>
> >It might help to learn the physical behavioral law
> >that dictates an exponential solution. It's simpler than you think.
>
> Whatthe fuck does particle decay and half-life have to do with
> exponetial solutions.
Ah, so you ARE operating from a position of ignorance.
Here's a start. Note the liberally sprinkled use of the word
"exponential".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life
You may want to read a book in addition. That sometimes helps.
> You are showing signs of sinility. ahahaha...
>
> >No, I take that back, nothing is simpler than the way you think.
>
> And nobody kisses ass like you do. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> >> Physicists do not know the
> >> answer.
>
> >Sure they do. *You* however, do not. There is a sizable difference.
>
> ahahaha... PD. Just stop kissing ass for a minute. If physicists knew
> the answer, why don't you come out with it that we may all marvel?
They have. It's in some books. Would you like a recommendation and
some page references?
> I am still waiting.
You're waiting for it HERE? That may be part of your problem.
> Come out with it, PD. Let us hear it. ahahaha...
> AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> On second thought, don't even try. You're liable to put your foot in
> your own ass this time around. ahahaha...
Traveler
>On May 26, 7:25 am, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 25 May 2007 07:21:00 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> The question I am asking is, why do the neutrons not all have a decay
>> >> interval equal to the half-life interval?
>>
>> >Because then it wouldn't be a half-life, by definition. It would be a
>> >whole life. Idiot.
>>
>> ahahaha... PD, you are such a good little ass kisser that you don't
>> mind putting your foot in your mouth just so you can create an ass
>> kissing opportunity. ahahaha... The half-life interval is not called
>> half-life because it is 1/2 of an interval. It is called half-life
>> because half of a given group of particles (e.g., neutrons or muons)
>> are observed to decay in the interval.
>
>Exactly. And if all neutrons had a decay interval equal to the half-
>life interval, then they would *all* decay in that half-life interval,
>which is not what a half-life is, by definition. Don't you feel like
>an idiot this morning?
Have I cranked you, PD? The point I was making, before you took it on
a tangent to better suit your ass kissing tendencies, ahahaha... is
hypothetical. I hypothesized that, if particle decay were
deterministic (as opposed to probabilistic), then all particles would
decay precisely at what is measured *now* as their half-life interval.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Of course, it would no longer
be called the half-life interval. This is obvious to everybody except
you. I did not have to explicitly say it. Phew! It just goes to show
you, once an ass kisser, always an ass kisser. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Josip Almasi
> If time simply "does not exist", as you claim, then how do you account for
> the interference fringes in this experiment ?
>
> http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/ggp/
But it's totally compatible with computing viewpoint.
If particles were threads/processes/programs, they would have parts that
receive input and/or send output, and part(s) to process input and state
information. And there's your time slit AKA window in time: state change
cannot occur during input readings. Or something; it's not that hard to
explain anyway.
If I were to pursue this computing approach, I'd say that interference
patterns and particle decays are probabilistic due to turing machine
halting probability;)
Check
From Heisenberg to Godel via Chaitin
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0402197
for more on relations of uncertanity, incompleteness and halting.
Note that my above claim is quite the oposite of theirs in this paper;
but hey, they have proven equivalence, so they gave me arguments to
claim the oposite;)
> If time did not exist, then the fringes could not occur.
Well it's taken a bit out of context. In this view time is consequence
rather than dimension.
Regards...
hanson
news:nm8o5314foubkg3ae...@4ax.com...
> Paul, the PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On May 26, 7:25 am, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 25 May 2007 07:21:00 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> The question I am asking is, why do the neutrons not all have
>>> >> a decay interval equal to the half-life interval?
>>>
>>> >Because then it wouldn't be a half-life, by definition. It would be a
>>> >whole life. Idiot.
>>>
>>> ahahaha... PD, you are such a good little ass kisser that you don't
>>> mind putting your foot in your mouth just so you can create an ass
>>> kissing opportunity. ahahaha... The half-life interval is not called
>>> half-life because it is 1/2 of an interval. It is called half-life
>>> because half of a given group of particles (e.g., neutrons or muons)
>>> are observed to decay in the interval.
>>
>>Exactly. And if all neutrons had a decay interval equal to the half-
>>life interval, then they would *all* decay in that half-life interval,
>>which is not what a half-life is, by definition. Don't you feel like
>>an idiot this morning?
>
> Have I cranked you, PD? The point I was making, before you took it on
> a tangent to better suit your ass kissing tendencies, ahahaha... is
> hypothetical. I hypothesized that, if particle decay were
> deterministic (as opposed to probabilistic), then all particles would
> decay precisely at what is measured *now* as their half-life interval.
> Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Of course, it would no longer
> be called the half-life interval. This is obvious to everybody except
> you. I did not have to explicitly say it. Phew! It just goes to show you,
> once an ass kisser, always an ass kisser. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> ahahaha...
> Louis Savain
> Physics From the Bible!
> Shaking the Foundations of Physics:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Physics.htm
>
Carry on guys. This is hilarious! As you 2 can see but have not
expressed that: "There are many ways to skin the cat".....
Louis does it one way, Paul does it in another fashion... ahahaha
Sidebar question:
Remember the e-microscope pix by IBM showing individual atoms?
Were there any experiments done where radioactive atoms where
line up like that, neatly spaced, and where then the decay time of
the individual atoms was seen and measured? IOW has it been
experimentally verified that single isolated atoms do decay at the
same rate as they do when in bulk where the half-life concept applies?
hanson
PD
> Louis Savain"Traveler" <trave...@nospam.net> wrote in message
Yes. Short-lived isotopes are created in nuclear facilities like IUCF
all the time, and it is verified that those individual nuclides do
decay with an exponential distribution satisfying the bulk half-life
numbers. In fact, for very short half-lives, this is how the half-life
is measured.
Traveler's near-total ignorance of how half-life is actually
*measured* should not be confused with freedom from ass-kissing.
PD
hanson
news:1180466869.1...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 29, 11:58 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> Louis Savain"Traveler" <trave...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:nm8o5314foubkg3ae...@4ax.com...
>> > Paul, the PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. Short-lived isotopes are created in nuclear facilities like IUCF
> all the time, and it is verified that those individual nuclides do
> decay with an exponential distribution satisfying the bulk half-life
> numbers. In fact, for very short half-lives, this is how the half-life
> is measured.
>
Of course, what you just said is standard ken, Paul, but let me
reposition the question. There's a straight line of individual atoms
deposited onto a contrasting surface matrix with, say, an STM
tip , each atom set apart, say, some 20 or 200 Angstrom etc.
>
The whole line-up of, say, 50 individual atoms is made visible on
the monitor thru the setup's electronics. Say that the bulk half-life
of the chosen element is 150 minutes.
Now according to heuristic wisdom after 150 minutes there should
be and will be only 75 atoms left in the row.
>
My question now is:
When watching the monitor during these 150 minutes did we see:
(a) exactly every 2 minutes one out of these 50 atoms disappear
from the screen (assuming that the decay yanks it of the base in
the lineup) or
(b) will we see a totally random disappearance like that for a few
minutes or seconds there occurs an event where a whole bunch
of atoms do simultaneously/at once decay, followed by a prolonged
duration of quiet stableness and so on.
>
Naturally all these intervals events in (b) or (a) do average out to
said half life. But what is observed in reality?... process (a) or (b)?
Which is it? The weasling answer is of course "both", which is
what makes Louis so unhappy.
>
Now the real fun continues with the question:
You put one such single atom into the set-up. When will it decay?
Can you predict when that single one will go poof?
Don't weasel with ("on the average... etc). We have only one atom.
After how many minutes of placing that single atom (with its 150
min. bulk half life) onto the matrix/substrate will it decay?
>
Paul don't come with buzzwords now. Just with a simple explanation.
Say, if our know-how and/or technology is not there yet to make an
accurate prediction of a single-atom-decay time, then so be it
and I do happily resort to/and accept results inferred from the
mass/group behavior as manifested in/by the bulk half-life.
>
I think Louis is driving the issue along these above lines of inquiry.
So, unless you can tell me with certainly after how many minutes
that single atom will decay, Louis has a point of insisting that
the decay is probabilistic... with the question left open, what
is the cause of the probabilistic behavior... which if we get to know
that cause, the problem is no longer probabilistic but becomes
deterministic and predictable.
>
[Paul]
> Traveler's near-total ignorance of how half-life is actually
> *measured* should not be confused with freedom from
> ass-kissing.
> PD
>
ahahaha... So, you insist to have the freedom to engage in
ass kissing... ahahaha... Whatever turns you on Paul, but
why are you whining at me with your bagging on Louis?....
I didn't tell you to start a cyber quarrel with him.... ahahaha...
Don't worry, the entire NG atmosphere of discussions is like
that... Great party. Folks with different dialects getting into
each others hair over their lingo, like drunks and dopers at
a rave.... ahahaha... I think it's a fabulous show. Very funny
& eminently more instructive then the real class rooms were.
... Thanks for the laughs, Paul.
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:RYY6i.6071$XC3.4017@trnddc04...
: Louis Savain"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message
I quite enjoy your style, but I have to say your personal wannabe, Louis
Insane, who constantly cranks himself with such statements as "no such
thing as time" and "Have I cranked you?"(thereby stealing your thunder),
is a hahaha fucking lunatic.
Still, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I suppose he's harmless.
Androcles
Has hanson cranked you, Phuckwit Duck, or are you still sitting in the duck
blind being blind to appearing ducks?
Date: 20 Oct 2004 13:06:46 -0700
Draper:
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or
drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You wouldn't be able to tell with your set-up. The atoms are still
there, they are just of a different element. Nuclear beta or alpha
decay doesn't result in the disappearance of an atom, only the
transmutation of an atom to a different kind of atom. This wouldn't
affect the STM significantly.
>
> My question now is:
> When watching the monitor during these 150 minutes did we see:
> (a) exactly every 2 minutes one out of these 50 atoms disappear
> from the screen (assuming that the decay yanks it of the base in
> the lineup) or
> (b) will we see a totally random disappearance like that for a few
> minutes or seconds there occurs an event where a whole bunch
> of atoms do simultaneously/at once decay, followed by a prolonged
> duration of quiet stableness and so on.
Neither.
>
> Naturally all these intervals events in (b) or (a) do average out to
> said half life. But what is observed in reality?... process (a) or (b)?
> Which is it? The weasling answer is of course "both", which is
> what makes Louis so unhappy.
>
> Now the real fun continues with the question:
> You put one such single atom into the set-up. When will it decay?
> Can you predict when that single one will go poof?
> Don't weasel with ("on the average... etc). We have only one atom.
> After how many minutes of placing that single atom (with its 150
> min. bulk half life) onto the matrix/substrate will it decay?
>
> Paul don't come with buzzwords now. Just with a simple explanation.
> Say, if our know-how and/or technology is not there yet to make an
> accurate prediction of a single-atom-decay time, then so be it
> and I do happily resort to/and accept results inferred from the
> mass/group behavior as manifested in/by the bulk half-life.
>
> I think Louis is driving the issue along these above lines of inquiry.
> So, unless you can tell me with certainly after how many minutes
> that single atom will decay, Louis has a point of insisting that
> the decay is probabilistic...
I am not debating that the decay is probabilistic. It is. However,
Traveler claims we do not know why. That is wrong. Knowing this,
however, does not allow us to predict it any better, and so it is not
deterministic.
hanson
Yo, Paul, given your incessant and loud-mouthed grandstanding,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/238affeb3f3aa1e3
I expected more from you then what you have delivered below.
It's pitiful!... Tell me, correct me, and show me how a good set
up works by/with/thru which one can see and time the decay of
one single lonely atom, instead of saying "your set-up wouldn't
work!. Every 5 year old kid can say: "But it doesn't work"...
ahaha... NTL thanks for playing, Paul.... ahahaha... ahahansonnews:1180488205.8...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 29, 5:42 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1180466869.1...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> You wouldn't be able to tell with your set-up. The atoms are still
> there, they are just of a different element. Nuclear beta or alpha
> decay doesn't result in the disappearance of an atom, only the
> transmutation of an atom to a different kind of atom. This wouldn't
> affect the STM significantly.
>
>> My question now is:
>> When watching the monitor during these 150 minutes did we see:
>> (a) exactly every 2 minutes one out of these 50 atoms disappear
>> from the screen (assuming that the decay yanks it of the base in
>> the lineup) or
>> (b) will we see a totally random disappearance like that for a few
>> minutes or seconds there occurs an event where a whole bunch
>> of atoms do simultaneously/at once decay, followed by a prolonged
>> duration of quiet stableness and so on.
>
> Neither.
>
[hanson]
>> Naturally all these intervals events in (b) or (a) do average out to
>> said half life. But what is observed in reality?... process (a) or (b)?
>> Which is it? The weasling answer is of course "both", which is
>> what makes Louis so unhappy.
>>
>> Now the real fun continues with the question:
>> You put one such single atom into the set-up. When will it decay?
>> Can you predict when that single one will go poof?
>> Don't weasel with ("on the average... etc). We have only one atom.
>> After how many minutes of placing that single atom (with its 150
>> min. bulk half life) onto the matrix/substrate will it decay?
>>
>> Paul don't come with buzzwords now. Just with a simple explanation.
>> Say, if our know-how and/or technology is not there yet to make an
>> accurate prediction of a single-atom-decay time, then so be it
>> and I do happily resort to/and accept results inferred from the
>> mass/group behavior as manifested in/by the bulk half-life.
>>
>> I think Louis is driving the issue along these above lines of inquiry.
>> So, unless you can tell me with certainly after how many minutes
>> that single atom will decay, Louis has a point of insisting that
>> the decay is probabilistic...
>
> I am not debating that the decay is probabilistic. It is. However,
> Traveler claims we do not know why. That is wrong. Knowing this,
> however, does not allow us to predict it any better, and so it is not
> deterministic.
>
PD
> I expected more from you then what you have delivered below.
> It's pitiful!... Tell me, correct me, and show me how a good set
> up works by/with/thru which one can see and time the decay of
> one single lonely atom, instead of saying "your set-up wouldn't
> work!. Every 5 year old kid can say: "But it doesn't work"...
> ahaha... NTL thanks for playing, Paul.... ahahaha... ahahanson
>
I already told you. Nuclear collisions at IUCF do this by routine, as
does Darmstadt. Surely you're not so lazy that you can't look those up
to see what they do rather than whining and baiting to have it
spoonfed to you on a newsgroup. Perhaps you'd like to look up the work
on elements 114 and 116, if that lends some focus to your looking.
PD