Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: mpalenik on 18 Feb 2010 11:35
On Feb 18, 9:43 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 Feb, 10:08, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2:14 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Feb, 18:04, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 12:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 17 Feb, 16:07, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 17, 10:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > As we discussed earlier, it may be that we are only AWARE of four
> > > > > > > > dimensions. It may well be that there are more. Then the way to
> > > > > > > > entertain this notion is to ask the question, how would something that
> > > > > > > > is only AWARE of two dimensions become convinced that there is a third
> > > > > > > > dimension? This turns out to be very answerable.
>
> > > > > > > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these
> > > > > > > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be
> > > > > > > credible.
>
> > > > > > Well, how could they seem credible to people who don't hold them
> > > > > > credible?
>
> > > > > I fear the answer follows naturally from the question: they don't seem
> > > > > credible, to people who don't hold them to be credible.
>
> > > > That is true by definition
>
> > > I know, which makes one wonder why you asked the question in the first
> > > place.
>
> > I was trying to find out why you even made the statement in the first
> > place.  You might as well have said "the only people who are tall are
> > the ones who aren't short."
>
> I'm confused Mark.
>
> My position is that someone must hold a priori that alternate
> dimensions are a real possibility, in order to hold that any theory
> that employs alternate dimensions is credible. Some here do hold that
> alternate dimensions are a real possibility, so of course they hold
> theories that employ them as credible.
>
> I don't hold that alternate dimensions are a real possibility, so of
> course I don't accept that theories that employ them are credible.

The problem is, you act like everybody in this group went into physics
classes knowing and believing everything that was taught in the
physics classes.

The point is, your argument boils down to "the only people I see
convinced of alternate dimensions are the people who believe in
alternate dimensions," but that's a circular argument. The only way
for that to hold water would be if the people who believe in them had
always believed in them. Nobody is born knowing these things. We all
had to learn and change our opinions at some point.

If your argument is that there are some people who will never be
convinced, I completely agree with that. There are also some people
who will never be convinced of evolution. And you could make the same
argument "the only people who believe in evolution are the people who
believe in evolution." It's a circular argument and it means nothing.
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 11:39
On Feb 18, 2:30 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8e724cb5-1db0-47c2-aa3d-5ed7150295ea(a)f15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 12:40 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:c7b417f4-cdc4-414a-a24c-3f2e7fc4c67d(a)t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com....
> > On Feb 16, 11:55 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:3c8112b0-e86e-4fdb-a9f6-6c390200aa01(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 16, 9:26 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > My tabletop is not in a spaceship, and there is no train on the
> > > > > > spaceship.
>
> > > > > > Here is my question. Lets just take the first half this time:
>
> > > > > > 1. We place two atomic clocks on a tabletop at the centre of a 1
> > > > > > metre
> > > > > > ruler. We separate them very slowly so they are at either end of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > metre ruler. We record the time taken (according to the clocks)
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > light
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > travel 1 metre in a vacuum. Will the speed of light measured in
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > manner
> > > > > > be c or some other value?
>
> > > > > Is the aether at rest with respect to the table top?
>
> > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether.
>
> > > > The the tabletop is the train.
>
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > No, a tabletop is a tabletop. Its not a train. And you haven't
> > > > answered
> > > > my
> > > > question. Will the speed of light measured in this manner be c or some
> > > > other
> > > > value? It is a pretty simple question. Why won't you answer it?
>
> > > I have answered it several times. If you want to understand how the
> > > clocks on the tabletop behave read my posts and replaced 'train' with
> > > 'tabletop'.
>
> > > _______________________________________
> > > Or, you could simply answer my question. Its pretty simple. Will the
> > > speed
> > > be measured as c, or some different value.
>
> > > I will make it easy for you:
>
> > > If the earth is moving at velocity v with respect to the ether, and we
> > > perform the very simple experiment above, then will the measured speed
> > > of
> > > light in a vacuum be measured as c in a laboratory on earth?
>
> > > Well?
>
> > Replace 'earth' with 'train' and read my responses if you want to know
> > the answer.
>
> > ____________________________
> > So you refuse to answer (again). Shows how much confidence you have in
> > your
> > own theories.
>
> I have a great deal of confidence in my theory but why am I going to
> waste my time having to go back through my posts and replace 'train'
> with 'tabletop', or replace 'train' with 'Earth'?
>
> __________________________________
> Nobody is asking you to. I am asking you a very simple question about your
> theory. Say the earth is moving at speed v relative to the ether. The speed
> of light in the direction the earth is travelling is measured in a
> laboratory on earth. What is its measured speed?
>
> If you think the clocks being moved on a moving tabletop or the clocks
> being moved on the flat bed cars of a moving train makes a difference
> then this 'conversation' is pointless.
>
> _________________________________
> There are in fact 4 possibilities:
>
> a) c
> b) c+v
> c) c-v
> d) something else.
>
> You could just answer 'a', 'b', 'c' or 'd'. That is only typing a single
> character; that's not too much work for you, is it?

d) Something else. In order to understand the something else read my
posts discussing the simultaneity of lightning strikes as determined
by Observers on the train and on the embankment.
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 11:41
On Feb 18, 9:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 7:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 6:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 16, 10:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > 'You' do not understand what is occurring physically in a double slit
> > > > > > experiment so you invent a new type of object. A particle which in and
> > > > > > of itself 'waves'.
>
> > > > > It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe.
>
> > > > What I choose to believe
>
> > > It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe.
>
> > Since 'you' do not understand what is occurring in nature in a double
> > slit experiment 'you' invented a new type of object. Obviously, this
> > was unnecessary and a mistake.
>
> On what basis is it a mistake? How can you tell when the
> identification of a new object type is a mistake?
>

Because the more correct answer than the future determining the past
in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is the moving C-60
molecule, a particle of matter, physically travels a single path and
the associated aether displacement wave propagates the available
paths.


> > The particle has a physical aether
> > wave. so. the new type of object was a mistake but for whatever
> > 'reasoning' beyond the more correct explanation of what is occurring
> > in nature, 'you' insist a particle of matter is able to create an
> > interference pattern in and of itself in a double slit experiment.
>
> > This state of denial you choose to exist in has now forced you to
> > choose to believe the future determines the past.
>
> > A moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement
> > wave.
>
> > > > is matter and the aether are different states
> > > > of the same material. What I choose to believe is a moving C-60
> > > > molecule and its associated aether displacement wave are a 'one
> > > > something'. With this understanding of nature I do not need to invent
> > > > a new type of object or choose to believe the future determines the
> > > > past. My choices allow for a better understanding of nature than
> > > > yours.
>
> > > > > > In order to maintain the delusion such an object exists you are
> > > > > > required to believe in the absurd nonsense of the future determining
> > > > > > the past.
>
> > > > > > Once 'you' realize a moving particle has an associated aether wave
> > > > > > there is no need for this non-existent made up object of matter which
> > > > > > in and of itself waves and there is no reason to have to choose to
> > > > > > believe in the absurd nonsense the future determines the past.
>
> > > > > > > > > He's
> > > > > > > > > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly
> > > > > > > > > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little
> > > > > > > > > capability to deal with the real world around him.  The kind of
> > > > > > > > > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond
> > > > > > > > > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world--
> > > > > > > > > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad,
> > > > > > > > > really.  I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for
> > > > > > > > > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life?
>
> > > > > > > > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and
> > > > > > > > > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up
> > > > > > > > > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have.  I really
> > > > > > > > > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think
> > > > > > > > > they're mentally healthy enough.  And I gather that after years of
> > > > > > > > > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing.
>
> > > > > > > > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them?
> > > > > > > > > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious.
>
>

From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 11:43
On Feb 18, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 6:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 16, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Did you notice the poster you're responding to refuses to answer my
> > > > > > question as to the validity of your 'understanding' of the behaviors
> > > > > > in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is due to the future
> > > > > > determining the past?
>
> > > > > And you take his refusal to answer you to be assent to your claim that
> > > > > it's absurd?
>
> > > > Yes.
>
> > > Good for you. You're a nutjob. Enjoy your medications.
>
> > Of course the posters refusal to answer the question shows they think
> > your notion of the C-60 molecule entering one or multiple slits
> > depending upon detectors being placed at the exits or not in the
> > future is absurd.
>
> So if people ignore you, then they are agreeing with you?
> Why don't you ask the poster directly, and not make any conclusion
> until you have an answer?
> Or do you make up answers in the absence of evidence? Why yes, yes you
> do.
>
>
>
> > Why wouldn't the poster simply respond with a 'yes' if they agreed
> > with your absurd nonsense? The poster's non-answer demonstrates they
> > suffer from delusional denial just like you do.
>
> So a non-answer means "no"?
>
> Nice. So if nobody responds to you at all, you'll take that as
> implicit agreement with everything you say?
>
> Have you had a change in medication lately?
>

The other posters says they are ignoring my posts when it comes to
their having to respond to the future determining the past being the
reason for the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment with
C-60 molecule and then the poster asks a question as to the speed of
light with respect to objects moving with respect to the aether.

Either the poster has a short term memory loss issue or the poster
knows the future does not determine the past.



>
>
> > A C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated aether
> > displacement wave. The displacement wave enters and exits the
> > available slits and creates interference when exiting the slits. The
> > interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detectors
> > at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated
> > displacement wave (the waves are turned into chop) and there is no
> > interference.
>
> > > > > > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also.
>
> > > > > On what basis would he realize that? You don't have a basis either.
> > > > > You just make the empty assertion that it's "absurd, absurd, absurd,
> > > > > just absurd nonsense". Empty assertion.
>
> > > > If the poster agreed with you that the future determines the past why
> > > > didn't he just respond stating so? The posters silence is deafening..
>
>

From: mpalenik on 18 Feb 2010 11:47
On Feb 18, 11:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 16, 6:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 16, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Did you notice the poster you're responding to refuses to answer my
> > > > > > > question as to the validity of your 'understanding' of the behaviors
> > > > > > > in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is due to the future
> > > > > > > determining the past?
>
> > > > > > And you take his refusal to answer you to be assent to your claim that
> > > > > > it's absurd?
>
> > > > > Yes.
>
> > > > Good for you. You're a nutjob. Enjoy your medications.
>
> > > Of course the posters refusal to answer the question shows they think
> > > your notion of the C-60 molecule entering one or multiple slits
> > > depending upon detectors being placed at the exits or not in the
> > > future is absurd.
>
> > So if people ignore you, then they are agreeing with you?
> > Why don't you ask the poster directly, and not make any conclusion
> > until you have an answer?
> > Or do you make up answers in the absence of evidence? Why yes, yes you
> > do.
>
> > > Why wouldn't the poster simply respond with a 'yes' if they agreed
> > > with your absurd nonsense? The poster's non-answer demonstrates they
> > > suffer from delusional denial just like you do.
>
> > So a non-answer means "no"?
>
> > Nice. So if nobody responds to you at all, you'll take that as
> > implicit agreement with everything you say?
>
> > Have you had a change in medication lately?
>
> The other posters says they are ignoring my posts when it comes to
> their having to respond to the future determining the past being the
> reason for the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment with
> C-60 molecule and then the poster asks a question as to the speed of
> light with respect to objects moving with respect to the aether.
>
> Either the poster has a short term memory loss issue or the poster
> knows the future does not determine the past.
>
>
>
> > > A C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated aether
> > > displacement wave. The displacement wave enters and exits the
> > > available slits and creates interference when exiting the slits. The
> > > interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detectors
> > > at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated
> > > displacement wave (the waves are turned into chop) and there is no
> > > interference.
>
> > > > > > > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also.
>
> > > > > > On what basis would he realize that? You don't have a basis either.
> > > > > > You just make the empty assertion that it's "absurd, absurd, absurd,
> > > > > > just absurd nonsense". Empty assertion.
>
> > > > > If the poster agreed with you that the future determines the past why
> > > > > didn't he just respond stating so? The posters silence is deafening.
>
>

mpc755, I do not agree with anything you have said on this newsgroup
ever about any subject. Based on your posts, however, I don't believe
it's possible to have a rational discussion with you, so I am not
going to. Do not take that as a sign of my implicit agreement with
what you say.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights