13 Jul 12
11 edits
Originally posted by humyI am using the term quantum in this context to represent possibilities.I am using homeopathy as an analogy to communicate the quantum dissolution of probability fields into a perceptive result.
Lol. What are you on?
You keep coming up with indecipherable statements like this again and again. I don't know how you do it.
Just for starters, what on earth do you think “quantum dissolution” means?
I know fr d meaning. Try googling “quantum dissolution” and see if you can get a definition/explanation.
I am using the term dissolution to represent the collapsing of probability waves into space and time.
My notion is upon us having a lead theory pertaining to 'existence' of which the lead candidate should be a temporal loop.
13 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckfantastic stuff this , look it up on wiki its all there.
I am using the term quantum in this context to represent possibilities.
I am using the term dissolution to represent the collapsing of probability waves into space and time.
My notion is upon us having a lead theory pertaining to 'existence' of which the lead candidate should be a temporal loop.
13 Jul 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I am using the term quantum in this context to represent possibilities.
I am using the term dissolution to represent the collapsing of probability waves into space and time.
My notion is upon us having a lead theory pertaining to 'existence' of which the lead candidate should be a temporal loop.
My notion is upon us having a lead theory pertaining to 'existence' of which the lead candidate should be a temporal loop
I think you are on drugs.
I am using the term quantum in this context to represent possibilities.
then you are using totally the wrong term. Quantum means the smallest amount of something ( usually in the form of particles but can be some other physical thing ) that cannot be subdivided and can only have a minimum size/magnitude:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
“....a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized," referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization".[1] This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete values. ...”
Quantum does not represent/mean 'possibilities' but a type of discrete value.
Also, “quantum” is strictly singular and represents something that is indivisible but “possibilities” is plural and represents a number of things that can exists separately. So how can you use something that is strictly singular and indivisible to represent something that is plural i.e. consists of a number of separate entities? How can something be BOTH one thing and indivisible AND be made of many distinct things that can be separated and exist independently? That is a logical contradiction.
I am using the term dissolution to represent the collapsing of probability waves into space and time.
Then you are using a ludicrous representation ( like representing the probability waves with a turkey ) .
I have already told you that the word “dissolution” in science is the process of a substance becoming part of a solution with a solvent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_%28chemistry%29
“...Dissolution is the process by which a solid, liquid or gas forms a solution in a solvent. ...”
what on earth has that got to do with probability waves or, for that matter, quantum?
There is no more such thing as “quantum dissolution” as there is such thing as “quantum turkey”.
14 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI'm waiting for you to start your "Is pseudoscience a science?" thread.
OK, I readily admit I started this thread just to p*** you off but it's still a serious question.
For those that haven't studied homeopathy it's a case of serially diluting a substance until it only has a probability of being within the solvent.
I know what you're thinking. Bunch of donkey ****s. However. Upon the first experimentation it was proved t ...[text shortened]... le world?
I put it to you that homeopathy has more of a basis in science than psychiatry.
14 Jul 12
6 edits
Originally posted by Soothfast-or "Is science a pseudoscience?" thread.
I'm waiting for you to start your "Is pseudoscience a science?" thread.
-or "Is pseudoscience a pseudoscience?" thread.
-or "Is science probability waves?" thread.
-or "Is science a quantum dissolution?" thread.
-or "should science be a temporal loop" thread.
( look at his previous posts to see where I got the three above from )
-or "Is science a quantum turkey?" thread.
-or "Is science a science?" thread.
-or, and I guess this is the one he wants to start the most, "Is real science a science?" thread.
14 Jul 12
4 edits
I think you are on drugs.
I think you need to stop making unfounded comments.
then you are using totally the wrong term. Quantum means the smallest amount of something ( usually in the form of particles but can be some other physical thing ) that cannot be subdivided and can only have a minimum size/magnitude:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
“....a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized," referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization".[1] This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete values. ...”
Quantum does not represent/mean 'possibilities' but a type of discrete value.
Also, “quantum” is strictly singular and represents something that is indivisible but “possibilities” is plural and represents a number of things that can exists separately. So how can you use something that is strictly singular and indivisible to represent something that is plural i.e. consists of a number of separate entities? How can something be BOTH one thing and indivisible AND be made of many distinct things that can be separated and exist independently? That is a logical contradiction.
Atom:
Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English attomos, athomus < Latin atomus < Greek átomos, noun use of átomos undivided, equivalent to a- a-6 + tomós divided, verbid of témnein to cut
A good example of where the wording of science has not been able to undergo it's own scrutiny and modesty.
Are you saying quantum particles can't be respresented as probabilities but instead refer to something 'solid'.
Then you are using a ludicrous representation ( like representing the probability waves with a turkey ) .
I have already told you that the word “dissolution” in science is the process of a substance becoming part of a solution with a solvent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_%28chemistry%29
“...Dissolution is the process by which a solid, liquid or gas forms a solution in a solvent. ...”
what on earth has that got to do with probability waves or, for that matter, quantum?
There is no more such thing as “quantum dissolution” as there is such thing as “quantum turkey”.
It's an analogy is all it is. Science is making unfounded statements such as 'atom'. So I think I should be able to use analogies.
14 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI think you are on drugs.
I think you need to stop making unfounded comments.
[quote]then you are using totally the wrong term. Quantum means the smallest amount of something ( usually in the form of particles but can be some other physical thing ) that cannot be subdivided and can only have a minimum size/magnitude:
http://en.wiki ...[text shortened]... unfounded statements such as 'atom'. So I think I should be able to use analogies.
Are you saying quantum particles can't be represented as probabilities.
I was not saying this. I was saying quantum particles can't be represented as “possibilities” because you said .“possibilities” and not “probabilities”. Reminder of what you said: “I am using the term quantum in this context to represent possibilities. “ ( your quote ).
Incidentally, although I didn't say this in that post, it is also logically false to say a quantum particles can be “represented as probabilities” .
No part of quantum physics and no quantum physics equation says you should equate a probably of a particle being at a particular point in space and time with with the actual particle.
If you think otherwise, try finding a link that says/implies you should equate the two ( and please show me it! ) .
The quantum physics equations don't say what metaphysical assumptions you should have about the particle when you are not observing it -a fact that is widely missed by the TV media and documentaries and even, shamefully, by some scientists, that nearly always makes the false statement that quantum physics says a particle does not exist until it observed -I and many of the better informed scientists groan in despair every time we hear this widely propagated stupid falsehood. Quantum physics does NOT say a particle does not exist until it observed ) .
but instead refer to something 'solid'.
NO. Where did you get that from?
Science is making unfounded statements such as 'atom'
“atom” is not a proper statement that makes claim but is just a single word so logically cannot be “unfounded”. Unless you are implying atoms don,t exists? -if so, we have scientific evidence that they do exist so it is not true that the claimed existence of atoms is “unfounded”. If that is not what you mean, what is “unfounded” about “atom”? In what sense? Exactly which claim to do with 'atom' is unfounded?
You do know that the word "atom" is not a claim -right?
14 Jul 12
4 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy, lost your penis? 🙂 Heh he, soz, couldn't resist.
Thequick, perhaps you ought to google "Scanning Tunneling Microscope" on Google Images.
I know about scanning microscopy and such, what's your point?
I'm not trying to disprove the 'atom' exists. I'm trying to highlight sciences
lack of rigmarole in ensuring the proportionate analysis of results by way of language structure.
14 Jul 12
3 edits
Originally posted by humyAre you saying quantum particles can't be represented as probabilities.
I was not saying this. I was saying quantum particles can't be represented as “possibilities” because you said .“possibilities” and not “probabilities”. Reminder of what you said: “I am using the term quantum in this context to represent [b]possibilities. “ ( your q with 'atom' is unfounded?
You do know that the word "atom" is not a claim -right?[/b]
I was not saying this. I was saying quantum particles can't be represented as “possibilities”
I beg to differ. I believe this is exactly how we should represent wave collapses. My hypothesis is simple.
How there is a greater possibility of a future 'ultra-intelligence' having the capacity to create a temporal
loop, even at the quantum level. Than there is of a bearded dude doing his chores before Sunday nap time.
Don't get me wrong, for once I am not criticizing religion. In fact I am putting it into the context of futurism and thereby a mechanism for creating the future. I know I've
called those guys a bunch of cream-pie-pusing-b******s in the past but upon
the acceptance of this theory, it would re-introduce religion as a necessay part of futurism.
14 Jul 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou suddenly totally change the topic of conversation to...well, not sure what but the post is wild to say the least.I was not saying this. I was saying quantum particles can't be represented as “possibilities”
I beg to differ. I believe this is [b]exactly how we should represent wave collapses. My hypothesis is simple.
How there is a greater possibility of a future 'ultra-intelligence' having the capacity to create a temporal
loop,
the acceptance of this theory, it would introduce religion as a necessay part of futurism.[/b]
“represent wave collapses”? “'ultra-intelligence' having the capacity to create a temporal loop, even at the quantum level.“? What the hell are you on?
14 Jul 12
2 edits
Originally posted by humyThank you. I'm just throwing some stuff out there. Figured you guys are smarter than me and could make some sense of it.
You suddenly totally change the topic of conversation to...well, not sure what but it is wild to say the least.
“represent wave collapses”? “'ultra-intelligence' having the capacity to create a temporal loop, even at the quantum level.“? What the hell are you on?
I'm actually following a theme generated by Dan Simmons 'Hyperion' series.
14 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThen why are you touting your 'theories' on this forum instead of writing a proper scientific paper about your work? Seems to me you are just spouting your thoughts of the day with no vigorous backing, just words words and more words. It sounds more like a religious attitude to me. It also sounds to me you may suffer from some kind of autism, if true that could explain your bizarre words. I think you have OCD also.I was not saying this. I was saying quantum particles can't be represented as “possibilities”
I beg to differ. I believe this is [b]exactly how we should represent wave collapses. My hypothesis is simple.
How there is a greater possibility of a future 'ultra-intelligence' having the capacity to create a temporal
loop, e acceptance of this theory, it would re-introduce religion as a necessay part of futurism.[/b]
You can't do science by just talking about it on an almost unknown blogspace, you have to put your money where your mouth is and produce a real peer reviewed paper. Of course your paranoia would tell you to do that would be a cop out. So you are left with more words and words only, not a real theory.
I think I see what you are about. You are about not making science yourself, but you want to be the leader of a science revolution and have others take up your standard and do the real work of overhauling science as you see it.
Good luck with that one.
14 Jul 12
6 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseMight try this, thnx. 'The theory of scientific disproportionality with respect to the inability for retro-active inspection of language elements within the context of media,macro-social effects and futurism'. Got a kind of ring to it.
Then why are you touting your 'theories' on this forum instead of writing a proper scientific paper about your work? Seems to me you are just spouting your thoughts of the day with no vigorous backing, just words words and more words. It sounds more like a religious attitude to me. It also sounds to me you may suffer from some kind of autism, if true that c o that would be a cop out. So you are left with more words and words only, not a real theory.
With a follow-up paper 'The understanding of existence. A paper on the dissolution of information in an expanding universe. How possibilities and not probabilities dictate our future. A scientific discourse on the analysis of language structure, religion and a reactionary charta for purposeful determinism.'.
14 Jul 12
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse
Then why are you touting your 'theories' on this forum instead of writing a proper scientific paper about your work? Seems to me you are just spouting your thoughts of the day with no vigorous backing, just words words and more words. It sounds more like a religious attitude to me. It also sounds to me you may suffer from some kind of autism, if true that c andard and do the real work of overhauling science as you see it.
Good luck with that one.
It also sounds to me you may suffer from some kind of autism, if true that could explain your bizarre words
his words are bizarre but I happen to know quite a bit about autism ( I used to professionally care for autistic people ) and I don't think autism would explain his words but don't know what might.
In most of his posts, he seems to repeatedly relate two or more things together in ways they certainly do not actually relate if they relate at all which they often don't -a possible symptom of …? anyone?