Individual consciousness or identity is an illusion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: water detected on moon before chandrayan went kaput - plentyof it
Next: Australia Dust Storm ... WELL DESERVED DIVINE RETRIBUTION FOR WELL KNOWN COLLECTIVE CRIMES
From: alien8er on 3 Oct 2009 22:16 On Oct 3, 12:38 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > alien8er wrote: > > On Oct 1, 3:48 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >> alien8er wrote: > >>> On Sep 27, 9:29 pm, Osmium <Rusht...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>>> On Sep 27, 1:23 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> (snip stuff you don't really seem interested in discussing) > >>>> "Unc knows which theories have evidence to support them, but has no > >>>> patience with those who don't bother to research a subject before > >>>> propounding on it." > >>>> This is exactly what is wrong with Uncle Al's posts. First there are > >>>> no Uncle Al posts with original and provocative ideas. > >>> You mean like his proposal(s) to break Relativity at one of its > >>> foundations, the Equivalence Principle, by checking to see if left- > >>> handed stuff falls identically to right-handed stuff? > >>>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > >> That's because physicists know better. > > > Which physicists have done experiments showing his speculation is > > unphysical? > > You might want to reword that if you expect a reply. Nope. You claimed "physicists know better". The only way physicists "know" anything is to gather evidence by doing experiments. If, as you claim, physicists know that Unc's speculation is wrong, it has to be because experiment has shown it to be so. Which physicists have done said experiments? Mark L. Fergerson
From: purple on 3 Oct 2009 22:42 alien8er wrote: > On Oct 3, 12:38 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> alien8er wrote: >>> On Oct 1, 3:48 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >>>> alien8er wrote: >>>>> On Sep 27, 9:29 pm, Osmium <Rusht...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sep 27, 1:23 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> (snip stuff you don't really seem interested in discussing) >>>>>> "Unc knows which theories have evidence to support them, but has no >>>>>> patience with those who don't bother to research a subject before >>>>>> propounding on it." >>>>>> This is exactly what is wrong with Uncle Al's posts. First there are >>>>>> no Uncle Al posts with original and provocative ideas. >>>>> You mean like his proposal(s) to break Relativity at one of its >>>>> foundations, the Equivalence Principle, by checking to see if left- >>>>> handed stuff falls identically to right-handed stuff? >>>>> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 >>>> That's because physicists know better. >>> Which physicists have done experiments showing his speculation is >>> unphysical? >> You might want to reword that if you expect a reply. > > Nope. You claimed "physicists know better". The only way physicists > "know" anything is to gather evidence by doing experiments. Some things are "obvious" unless you're oblivious. > If, as you > claim, physicists know that Unc's speculation is wrong, it has to be > because experiment has shown it to be so. Not necessarily true. > Which physicists have done said experiments? Thanks for the rewording. see "Table V. EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE TESTS" http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm Feel like you've been hooked by an obvious troll?
From: alien8er on 4 Oct 2009 02:46 On Oct 3, 7:42 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > alien8er wrote: > > On Oct 3, 12:38 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >> alien8er wrote: > >>> On Oct 1, 3:48 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >>>> alien8er wrote: > >>>>> On Sep 27, 9:29 pm, Osmium <Rusht...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Sep 27, 1:23 am, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> (snip stuff you don't really seem interested in discussing) > >>>>>> "Unc knows which theories have evidence to support them, but has no > >>>>>> patience with those who don't bother to research a subject before > >>>>>> propounding on it." > >>>>>> This is exactly what is wrong with Uncle Al's posts. First there are > >>>>>> no Uncle Al posts with original and provocative ideas. > >>>>> You mean like his proposal(s) to break Relativity at one of its > >>>>> foundations, the Equivalence Principle, by checking to see if left- > >>>>> handed stuff falls identically to right-handed stuff? > >>>>>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > >>>> That's because physicists know better. > >>> Which physicists have done experiments showing his speculation is > >>> unphysical? > >> You might want to reword that if you expect a reply. > > > Nope. You claimed "physicists know better". The only way physicists > > "know" anything is to gather evidence by doing experiments. > > Some things are "obvious" unless you're oblivious. Sure, and the Earth is "obviously" flat. > > If, as you > > claim, physicists know that Unc's speculation is wrong, it has to be > > because experiment has shown it to be so. > > Not necessarily true. Only to those who prefer "the scientific method" to intuition. > > Which physicists have done said experiments? > > Thanks for the rewording. A distinction without a difference. > see "Table V. EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE TESTS" > > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm I have read it. All of it. According to that document, no physicists have done experiments investigating the possible handedness of spacetime. > Feel like you've spanked an obvious fool? IFYPFY. And yes, I do, thanks for asking. Mark L. Fergerson
From: purple on 4 Oct 2009 03:06 alien8er wrote: >> Some things are "obvious" unless you're oblivious. > > Sure, and the Earth is "obviously" flat. One of the refuges of a scoundrel. >> Feel like you've spanked an obvious fool? Altering the verbiage of your opponent is another, and this one is worthy of the killfile. > Mark L. Fergerson Bye, Mark.
From: alien8er on 4 Oct 2009 20:33
On Oct 4, 12:06 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > alien8er wrote: > >> Some things are "obvious" unless you're oblivious. > > > Sure, and the Earth is "obviously" flat. > > One of the refuges of a scoundrel. Since you won't actually address my arguments, I have no choice but to mock you. > >> Feel like you've spanked an obvious fool? > > Altering the verbiage of your opponent is another, Quit whining and address my arguments, or admit you have no worthy counter-arguments. > and this one is worthy of the killfile. O! I am wounded to the quick! Not. > Bye, Mark. Surrender noted. Mark L. Fergerson |