Philosopher untangles Einstein senility controversy

Apr 03, 2014 by Marguerite Rigoglioso
Philosopher untangles Einstein senility controversy
Albert Einstein's critique of quantum theory, long regarded as a sign of senility, is vindicated in a new book by Stanford philosophy Professor Thomas Ryckman and University of Washington scholar Arthur Fine.

When it comes to looking at reality from the subatomic perspective of quantum theory, many physicists are nearly as much in the dark as the average person on the street.

"Even great physicists will tell you that nobody understands , although we use it every day," said Stanford philosophy Professor Thomas Ryckman.

Devices from airplanes to laptops rely on the mathematical calculations of quantum mechanics. But Ryckman, whose research centers on the philosophy of physics, calls this fundamental science a kind of "black box."

"You put in information, turn the crank, and get information out that matches what you can observe or test in the lab," he said. "But what's in that ? Even our best minds are not exactly sure."

The fact that there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics – each of them with severe problems, said Ryckman – means that the most empirically successful theory in all of science is not fully understood. For that reason, he contends, examining the topic through a philosophical lens may be important.

"Technically trained and historically informed philosophers can help physicists think through and even extend the field of possibilities for resolving these problems," he said.

Ryckman's teaching and research show that in the history of physics certain interpretive options were sidetracked or forgotten. "Some of them need to be brought back out of the closet," he asserts, because a thorough consideration of them may well lead to new breakthroughs and discoveries.

One of them, the philosopher maintains, is Albert Einstein's unorthodox critique that was incomplete and that a larger mathematical description of reality was possible. "Because his views went against the prevailing wisdom of his time, most physicists took Einstein's hostility to quantum mechanics to be a sign of senility," Ryckman said.

In 1935, Einstein showed that if quantum mechanics were taken to its logical conclusion, it would allow for "entanglement" between once-interacting particles that subsequently are widely separated in space. He colloquially called this "spooky action at a distance," whereby measuring a property on one of the particles apparently fixes the corresponding property on the other particle – no matter how far apart they are.

Einstein rejected the idea that the world could be that strange, which led to his contention that quantum mechanics must be missing something.

"Because he was arguing against a very empirically successful theory," said Ryckman, "his scientific biographer Abraham Pais asserted that after 1925, 'Einstein might as well have gone fishing.'" It's a view that has prevailed in the field of physics, despite the fact that the physics icon lived 30 more years, continuing his pioneering research until his last breath.

Ryckman argues that the world's most famous scientist "wasn't crazy, he was prescient."

The philosophical Einstein

As it turns out, in the 1960s, a physicist visiting Stanford named John S. Bell wrote a paper reviving Einstein's critique of quantum mechanics, arguing that if the late scientist were right, the quantum formalism would be describing a reality greatly at odds with our everyday experience of familiar objects. "By the 1980s it was possible to do an actual experiment to test this," Ryckman said, "and in fact it was shown that the world of quantum particles is indeed 'entangled.'"

Thus, in his critique of the prevailing paradigm, Einstein was in fact the first to observe that the mathematics involved did have very unusual implications. "Nature appears to be much stranger than Einstein thought," Ryckman said.

The paragon of genius therefore unwittingly vindicated quantum mechanics, but in a way no one expected – and, says Ryckman, in a way that few, outside of those working on foundations of quantum mechanics, have adequately credited him for. Einstein's unintentional discovery of entanglement opened the door to new fields of , including quantum computation and quantum cryptography, as well as to the creation of the world's most accurate atomic clocks.

Ryckman attempts to restore the great physicist's reputation in his new book, Einstein, co-written with Arthur Fine, professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Washington. The book is slated to be published by the Routledge Philosophers series in 2015, the centennial of the theory of relativity.

Drawing from materials in Einstein archives at Caltech and Jerusalem, and from the continuing publication of Einstein's collected papers, the book is the first attempt to articulate in detail the philosophical motivations underlying Einstein's most significant scientific contributions.

"He read widely in both classical and contemporary philosophical literature, and he engaged with some of the most important philosophers of the 20th century," Ryckman said. "His dissent from quantum theory is basically informed by the philosophical view that a complete description of physical reality might be attained by continuing further along the same path that had led to his greatest success, the relativistic theory of gravitation of 1915."

Furthermore, Einstein's most significant contributions to physical theory – notably, the special and general theories of relativity – completely overturned the Newtonian concepts of space and time in a direction partly anticipated by the German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. "Most significant, with the general theory of relativity, space-time becomes fully dynamic, no longer an inert background upon which the drama of physical interactions is staged," Ryckman said.

Putting physics in context

Ryckman's work on Einstein is part of his broader teaching and research on the philosophy and history of physics. "I've long been preoccupied with the big questions of this field," he said.

Most modern physicists are occupied with conducting research under conventionally accepted quantum mechanical paradigms in order to advance knowledge. But as a philosopher of science Ryckman spends his time researching and introducing Stanford students – including physics graduate students – to the idea that other interpretations have sometimes held sway.

By exploring conceptual problems regarding wave-particle duality, quantum measurement, entanglement and more, Ryckman provides his students with a glimpse beyond the realm of applied research.

"This is the first time many science students, who are busy solving problem sets, learn about history and questions regarding the various interpretations of quantum mechanics," said Ryckman, who has also written The Reign of Relativity: Philosophy in Physics 1915-1925 and The Form of Information in Science (with Zellig Harris, Michael Gottfried and others.)

"There is little mainstream research in the foundations of quantum mechanics," Ryckman said. "The reason is that most physicists consider it unproductive and not likely to be successful. This is the attitude that is taught to students."

On a daily basis, Ryckman's work deals with the fact that the realm of subatomic particles is very spooky, indeed. "Our world of everyday experience, where objects appear to be solid and travel on smooth trajectories, is terribly misleading," he said.

Moreover, he notes, it's unclear why we don't experience a cat as being alive and dead at the same time, for example – because, from the perspective of quantum mechanics, it is, until it is observed as one or the other, simultaneously both. "Nature is stranger than our evolved conceptual system can comprehend easily," he said.

Explore further: Einstein's 'spooky' theory may lead to ultra-secure internet

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Yale scientist sheds fresh light on Einstein

Oct 02, 2013

Albert Einstein's celebrated genius may be underappreciated, according to a new book by Yale physicist A. Douglas Stone: The father of relativity theory deserves far more credit than he gets for his insights ...

Researchers explore quantum entanglement

Feb 08, 2013

Albert Einstein called quantum entanglement—two particles in different locations, even on other sides of the universe, influencing each other—"spooky action at a distance."

Reviving Einstein's spooky action at a distance

Mar 18, 2014

Physicists at The University of Queensland and the Australian National University (ANU) have demonstrated a software-based quantum amplifier which has the potential to expand the use of ultra-secure quantum cryptographic ...

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

Oct 22, 2014

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

User comments : 117

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2014
Albert Einstein's critique of quantum theory, long regarded as a sign of senility, is vindicated in a new book by Stanford philosophy Professor Thomas Ryckman


This is untrue, or is at least a misinterpretation of what Ryckman writes about, (though I have not read his book)....

From the above article, it appears that Ryckman is not arguing against the notion that our conceptual structure for which we evolved to synthesis experience at the macroscopic scale of things, is intuitively incompatible with the microscopic realm, ...but rather simply that Einstein was not "senile".

I've never heard that anyone would be so arrogant as to make such a claim of Einstein, so I think it is a bit of a straw-man.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2014
There is much misunderstanding in physics even today imo. The non-intuitive element in QM is purely an epistemological issue, that necessarily comes about at the interface between the mind functioning at the macroscopic realm, and the microscopic realm during observations, ...which is why 'the act of measurement' effects the outcome.

The mind autonomously presumes, a-priori, certain conceptual forms in order to synthesize experience, which necessarily guides experimental setup and interpretations. The error is in letting this natural precondition of thought guide physical theory, ..... or thinking somehow we can get out of our own way and come to know Reality as it exists in itself, independently of our experience of it; Our experience of it necessarily involves such artifacs of thought.

'Scientitic realism' is fantasyland. Physics is about modeling our experience of reality, not about understanding Reality independently of ourselves.

Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2014
Its very sad to see that anyone who proposes a theory or philosophy which disagrees with "mainstream" (i.e. the current set of beliefs that keep establishment scientists in employment) is so quickly labelled a "crackpot", "senile", or some other disparaging description. No attempt made to disprove the new theory, or actually think about it, just reactionary mud slinging from the talent-less myrmidons who deem their careers are under threat. For heavens sake, who could call even Enstein, 30 years before his death, SENILE! Assholes!
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2014
Continued from above,.....So therefore, what can be said to be known of Reality itself are necessarily formless things, like conservation laws, symmetries, and invariants,..... found only by determining how mind dependent descriptions change from place to place, i.e. .....gauge theories (GR, QFT).

Is space-time "really" curved? Is it a wave or particle? Meaningless questions, as none of these things are discoverable independently of their use in describing things, thus they are not of themselves substantive.
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2014
Its very sad to see that anyone who proposes a theory or philosophy which disagrees with "mainstream" (i.e. the current set of beliefs that keep establishment scientists in employment) is so quickly labelled a "crackpot", "senile", or some other disparaging description. .... For heavens sake, who could call even Enstein, 30 years before his death, SENILE! Assholes!


The only thing that matters in science is how well theory accords with experimental verification.

If one comes up with a theory, no matter how intuitively satisfying or mathematically neat, or motivated by jealously of the 'mainstream', .... it means zero if it does not improve predictive accuracy over existing theories. Conversely, no matter how 'ugly' a theory is, if its held together by rubber-bands, gibberish, and whining, ... if it makes makes more accurate predictions, then it is a better theory for doing so. This was the stance of Heiseberg's approach to qm and it was the correct one.
Zwentoo
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
russell_russell
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2014
"There is little mainstream research in the foundations of quantum mechanics," Ryckman said.

Vortrag im Rahmen der öffentlichen Vorlesungsreihe "Geschichte der Physik - Revolutionen grosser Denker" am 26.6.2012 an der Universität Göttingen.

Referent: Dr. Christian Joas, MPI für Wissenschaftsgeschichte Berlin

Abstract:
Die Entwicklung der Quantenmechanik in den Jahren 1925--1927 wird oft als revolutionärer Bruch mit der klassischen Physik beschrieben, welcher aus Konflikten zwischen dem mechanischen Weltbild des 19. Jahrhunderts und neuen experimentellen Resultaten entsprang. Eine gründliche historische Analyse der verfügbaren Quellen zeigt jedoch, dass theoretische Strukturen und Methoden der klassischen Physik in der Entstehung der Quantenmechanik eine große Rolle spielten und die Quantenrevolution überdauerten. Im Falle der Schrödingerschen Wellenmechanik tritt dies deutlich zutage: Die Hamilton-Jacobi-Theorie der analytischen Mechanik bildete Schrödingers Grundlage ...
russell_russell
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2014
Herr Professor Ryckman
You remark is really, really unwarranted.
Have the courtesy to take the course...or at least this:

https://www.youtu...zP86HNF0

Do I have to translate?

russell_russell
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2014
Abstract cont...

...für die Ableitung seiner berühmten Wellengleichung. Eine von Hamilton in den 1830er Jahren aufgestellte Analogie zwischen Optik und Mechanik spielte dabei eine Schlüsselrolle. In meinem Vortrag werde ich Schrödingers Weg auf der Suche nach einer Wellentheorie der Materie nachzeichnen, die Entstehungsgeschichte der Schrödingergleichung rekonstruieren, und die Geschichte der Wellenmechanik in den größeren Kontext der Geschichte der Quantenphysik einbetten.
11791
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zwentoo
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zwentoo
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zwentoo
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2014
Its not right to call all of the creationists senile because they believe in something scientifically improbable. Einstein functioned like a normal person his whole professional life
@11791
no one calls creationists senile: we call them stupid
it is because anyone who ignores empirical data in favor of a belief with NO evidence is stupid, NOT senile
This is not an argument of ignorance either, as empirical data is something that IS... ignoring it for a belief that cannot answer things is plain stupidity
This bias is a psychological thing. BTW WHO is the actual moron here?
@zeph
you are
sure, there are biases that are psychological, however, that is what peer review etc is for. when it is WRONG it is proven wrong. just like AWT
and if it has NO EMPIRICAL DATA, it is not only WRONG, but completely irrelevant, because without empirical data or the means to argue a point, it can mean ANYTHING, which makes it garbage
IOW- it is NO BETTER than the god/fairy/magic argument
osnova
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
osnova
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 03, 2014
But does it make me a fool?
no. believing in a philosophy that is so poor that it has ZERO empirical data for support makes you one
Isn't the unwillingness to recognize the limits of contemporary theories rather a sign of Dunning-Kruger effect?
thinking outside the box is a good thing
thinking the box is corrupt for your personal belief that it is trying to attack you or because you don't like things like restrictions, proof, or all those other tedious things that science requires for empirical data, or for proof to substantiate a claim.... THAT is just signs is instability.
that feeling of persecution you get while claiming that you are being ostracized & all that: that is conspiracy as well as delusional

believing in something is not a bad thing
arguing for the belief when there is PROOF that you are wrong? NUTS!
osnova
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
osnova
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2014
Einstein was considered a freak with mainstream physicists at the end of his era. He was respected for his foundations, but not for actual research
@zeph
he was also vindicated when HE PROVIDED A METHOD TO TEST THE THEORY
THAT THEORY WAS TESTED
HE AS PROVEN CORRECT

big difference between you two... he was proven right, you are CONTINUALLY proven wrong
when the whole community of physicists becomes biased,
and therein lies your fallacy
you ASSUME that the whole of mainstream physicist are wrong, or working under a false assumption, as though not ONE would ever challenge the system

when they DO, and they have EMPIRICAL DATA supporting them (like Einstein), they are PROVEN CORRECT

making a blanket proclamation that everyone is wrong because "you believe it to be so" is nothing but delusional ranting

were you CAPABLE of proving it, you would be insanely famous by now... but you are only infamous (for trolling etc)

gotta go... NSA is watching you, Z!
Gawad
5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2014
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.....Zeph/Jigga/Alizee/Sloten/Jizby/osnova/etc., now, you *know* I think of you as a drooling idiot (I don't want to speak for anyone else) so I never ask your opinion on anything but....

Did you just claim that the Earth's atmosphere violates General Relativity?!

O.k., THIS I've got to hear.
osnova
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2014
seventy years after his death
@zeph
1- NOT 70 years after...
a 1919 expedition led by Eddington confirmed general relativity's prediction for the deflection of starlight by the Sun during the total solar eclipse of May 29, 1919,[8] making Einstein instantly famous
THIS IS WHY YOU ARE CONSIDERED A TROLL... tell you what Zeph, try Google once in a while. if you CANT use google, use duckduckgo.com
2- I REALLY REALLY want to hear how Earths atmosphere violates relativity
3- I dont know if I can talk to you too much more, so make it quick... the NSA has you under its eye and watches everything you are doing: I think you are on a list somewhere...
osnova
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
osnova
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gawad
5 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2014
Only strictly spherical pin point objects are allowed in GR - everything else is a GR violation in strict exact sense.


Of course, obvious when you think about it, and this is why Earth's atmosphere must violate GR; because, after all, it's just doing what everything *else* is. Why, this is a *perfect* example of the Naturalness principle. Clever! Truly well done!

The SR introduces a constant speed of light. But the gravitational lensing introduces a speed of light, which depends on path of light. If you cannot understand it, then you simply never understand, what the relativity is all about.


You know, I really want to congratulate you, Zeph, this is way beyond even *my* expectations. I really, really think you've outdone yourself here, and god knows, that's no mean feat! I think I'll save your two posts above for posteriority, because in a strange and unexpected way, you've made my day.

Oh but, Christ, my abs hurt!
osnova
Apr 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2014
the scientific theory is nothing but a product of organized intersubjective belief into its postulates. The postulate is the assumption accepted without proof.
@z
no
a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation (see: https://en.wikipe...c_theory for more information)
Without such a belief we would have no theory developed yet. Every theory is sorta religious extrapolation of reality: you're predicting something, which you cannot know in a given moment
wrong again
the theory, as defined above, allows one to make a prediction based upon facts that are present, and extrapolate into a possible future (like what Einstein did) which is then TESTABLE, and either proven or disproven
religious/faith beliefs are belief in something without empirical data
SCIENCE REQUIRES EMPIRICAL DATA
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2014
No problem, people are often getting thrilled with my deductions
@Z
this is the problem with the language barrier... you totally missed the hyperbole
he is not "thrilled" by your deductions, he is hurting from laughing his butt off at your deductions
but until they cannot argue it, then I'm not risking anything
you risk nothing because there is no empirical data to support your claims
there is no argument because your claims cannot be validated
GR is most valid at the dimensional scale
no. relativity is most valid because is offers predictions (which have been observed), it offers maths (validated) and it offers an explanation (again, validated)... it also offers means to test, and it has been repeatedly tested and re-validated
my abs hurt!
@Gawad
I don't know which is worse: the claims he made or the fact hat he actually believes them!
makes me wonder if we should be laughing, shaking our heads or hiding from him?!?
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2014
@Gawad
I don't know which is worse: the claims he made or the fact hat he actually believes them!

I'd PM you on this, but that isn't possible (considering how the PM system was apparently being abused, I'm not exactly surprised). Do you mean that it wouldn't be so bad if he were just pulling our collective leg? :) If so I agree. But given that he apparently believes this like a fundy believes in God, ya can't really dissociate the two.
makes me wonder if we should be laughing, shaking our heads or hiding from him?!?
I don't know. Sometimes choices are...limited. I just know that I was expecting something to argue about and the next that happens is I'm trying to suppress a belly laugh and having a hard time reading through the tears. And after a good laugh like, you just feel better. Doesn't really matter why :)

And ya can't hide from him, he's been banned at least a couple dozen times in the last 4 yrs and he's still on every other thread spinning long yarns. (cont.)
Zwentoo
Apr 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gawad
Apr 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2014
"Philosopher untangles Einstein senility controversy"

Ahaahaaa this is like letting a pastry chef fix my car.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2014
I'd rather say, he's upset, 'case he didn't find any way, how to disprove me. The nervous laughing is the last option, how to cover it. It's normal to laugh at dumbass - but until you cannot prove, he's wrong, then it's just you who is dumbass here...;-) Under such a situation no laugh may not quite convincing..;-)
Trust me, there was nothing nervous about it, and it really did lighten my mood; like I said, sometimes the reasons don't matter.

And no, Zeph, after reading that I very well know that I can't "prove you wrong". I'm not even interested in "proving you wrong" and it's not because I think you're wrong, it's because I know "you're not even wrong" and I know nothing I can say will matter. To you, IT CAN'T. You're like an OCD wall. Hell, I've known that for years. Doesn't mean that once in a while you don't come up with stuff I won't enjoy, even if not for the reasons you hope. At least you're not all nasty and twisted like the EU crowd on here, or, Christ, Prins. Yeeesh!
osnova
Apr 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
osnova
Apr 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gawad
Apr 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2014
Of course that hasn't changed his theories or how he sees the world, but that's like trying to help a paranoid-schizophrenic: you just become part of the conspiracy. Nothing to be done about it
@Gawad
pretty much what I was thinking, just didn't have the space available (been too rushed lately)

I would love to talk to his psychiatrist. I wonder if that OC wall
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2014
Of course that hasn't changed his theories or how he sees the world, but that's like trying to help a paranoid-schizophrenic: you just become part of the conspiracy. Nothing to be done about it
@Gawad
pretty much what I was thinking, just didn't have the space available (been too rushed lately)

I would love to talk to his psychiatrist. I wonder if that OC wall

hmm
wonder why it didn't post the rest...
I hate windows

I wonder if that "OCD wall" is a marker in other abnormal psych patterns ... this is something I am going to look into
osnova
Apr 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2014
@osnova
Every regime presents its opponents as a subject of psychiatric disorder. You guys aren't different in this matter - you're just illustrating how the subject of article works in real time.
Nice one, right between the eyes!
Try aiming lower, say between their legs where their brains are.
Moebius
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2014
"Because his views went against the prevailing wisdom of his time, most physicists took Einstein's hostility to quantum mechanics to be a sign of senility,"

He's right because he wasn't senile and neither am I. Believe it or not there must be a logical explanation for everything. If there isn't a logical explanation the question must be wrong or the answer must be wrong.
Gawad
4.8 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2014
Nice one, right between the eyes!


Except, of course, that you two clowns forget, for one, that this isn't the 1950's Soviet block, and for another that, there are no "opponents" who make concrete, verifyable predictions based on there alternative ideas. Those who obsessively cling to the disproved or unfalsifiable, like you two specimens, can quite legitimately have your mental/emotional wellbeing thrown into doubt. Good 'ol Albert's Relativity was vindicated because his ideas were confirmed to work; your fantasies on the other hand, hummm? What *concrete* predictions do they make? Nothing!

Hey Reg, how do orbits work again in expansion theory? You've still failed to answer that; how do you expect to be taken seriously?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2014
@Gawdicwad
Hey Reg, how do orbits work again in expansion theory? You've still failed to answer that; how do you expect to be taken seriously?

Read the book, cheapskate!
Your old comrade Q-Star read it, and it melted his brain so he doesn't comment anymore. Hopefully, it will have the same effect on you!
osnova
Apr 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2014
Albert's Relativity was vindicated because his ideas were confirmed to work;....
And so? Ideas of Albert were fantasies for last sixty years too.


Not true. He found a mathematical foundation for GR straight away, and used it to correctly predict the perihelion of mercury. So the theory was already promising for further use because it actually said something quantifiable. Had he found that GR could provide no improvement upon Newton, he never would have spoken about it.

Also, wrt QM, generally the way paradigm shifts work is that physicists are Forced to accept new models that work given lack of an alternative, even though they don't regard it as "philosophically satisfying".

Many physicists were disillusioned by QM because it upset what they believed science to be,.... they had a personal wish for an "explanation of Reality". This was naiveté. Remarkably the man who brought forth the very non-intuitive GR fell victim as well.

Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2014
most physicists took Einstein's hostility to quantum mechanics to be a sign of senility


I believe the above statement is patently false. It was in fact quite natural and ubiquitous to think that QM was somehow incomplete, until Bell proved that 'local realism' was a false presumption. Had Einstein lived past 1955 to read Bell's paper, he would have been Forced by the evidence and mathematical proof to accept it. He had already acknowledged QM successes.

That is the difference between a physicist and a crank, .... the force of the evidence motivates the physicist, ....while a perpetual lack of evidence motivates the crank.
osnova
Apr 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2014
Now after sixty years he is finally vindicated. What else from the above article you didn't understand?


In what sense was he vindicated? Is not QM still non-local?

Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2014
@Gawdicwad
Hey Reg, how do orbits work again in expansion theory? You've still failed to answer that; how do you expect to be taken seriously?

Read the book, cheapskate!

That's not how it works you senile old fool. Why do you think I'm asking about how you handle orbits (hint to all: he doesn't, he CAN'T, he just babbles about it not mattering)? Becasue it's the biggest point of failure in your drug fuelled haze of a fantasy. "Buy the book, cheapstake" doesn't cut it: all that does is SCREAM "My contrarian ideas are another total failure!" and "Yes, unlike Albert up there, I really AM a crazy old idiot."

Isn't that so, Muddy? No? Really? Well then, make like a responsible researcher and give us the book, cheapskate. There's a reason for the Arxiv, or the likes, you know, 'cause your book is too expensive for toilet paper. Ask Q-Star. Oh, and FWIW, I'll be reporting your "buy the book" posts as commercial spam.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2014
Good 'ol Albert's Relativity was vindicated because his ideas were confirmed to work; your fantasies on the other hand
And so? Ideas of Albert were fantasies for last sixty years too.


Wow, Zeph, you and your buddy Muddy really should shack up together. (don't count on his book helping you pay the reant, though.)

Do you *ever* stop screaming "I'm an idiot"? Oh, well, at least you have your hilarious moments.
osnova
Apr 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
@Gawdikwad
As usual, you resort to aggressive insults, the last resort of the incompetent. Do you actually think that calling me names and disparaging theories you have never understood shows you in a good light? You are simply letting people know what a complete asshole you are..... As I have explained many times, expansion theory requires an understanding of the whole theory to show orbits, complete with diagrams, and cannot be reduced to a paragraph(or several) here.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2014
Not true... So the theory was already promising for further use because it actually said something quantifiable
"Quantify
1. to determine, indicate, or express the quantity of.
2. to make explicit the quantity of (a proposition).
3. to give quantity to (something regarded as having only quality)."

-So nou, given the above defs, how does the theory say something about the 'quantity' of anything?

Idiot philos are in love with fashion words. But word calcs are worthless and never could explain anything. Which is why science was invented.

'Philo words are worse than useless.' -Dan Dennett, sciphilo
'Nobody reads or discusses science philo except other philos.' -Lawrence Krauss
'Philo is dead dead dead.' -Stephen Hawking
'um-um' -David Z. Albert, Ph.D., Frederick E. Woodbridge Professor of Philobabble and Director of the M.A. Program in The Philo Foundations of Physics at Columbia U
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2014
@Gawdikwad
As usual, you resort to aggressive insults, the last resort of the incompetent. Do you actually think that calling me names and disparaging theories you have never understood shows you in a good light? You are simply letting people know what a complete asshole you are..... As I have explained many times, expansion theory requires an understanding of the whole theory to show orbits, complete with diagrams, and cannot be reduced to a paragraph(or several) here.


Is the expansion a function of material bodies or space?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
David Albert - the typical philo who thinks that using neurotic speech affectations are a valid way of conveying erudition.
http://youtu.be/9nbbEw6SctA

- Note that dennett and Sam Harris are in the audience. How embarrassing for them as Albert explains causality in a billion words as if he were talking to a kindergarten class. And this guy had the balls to criticize Krauss' book in the NYT?

"Albert is a moronic philosopher." -Krauss
http://www.scient...at=false

"Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature." -Krauss
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2014
Not true... So the theory was already promising for further use because it actually said something quantifiable
"Quantify
1. to determine, indicate, or express the quantity of.
2. to make explicit the quantity of (a proposition).
3. to give quantity to (something regarded as having only quality)."

-So nou, given the above defs, how does the theory say something about the 'quantity' of anything?

Idiot philos are in love with fashion words. But word calcs are worthless and never could explain anything. Which is why science was invented.


I'm astonished to read that you think "quantify" is a philosophical term, rather than one expressing the fact that a theory can make measurable (via experiment) predictions!!
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2014
@Gawdikwad
As usual, you resort to aggressive insults, the last resort of the incompetent.


Yeah, but it's the first resort of the crackpot. Besides, hey, you started it :)

Do you actually think that calling me names and disparaging theories you have never understood shows you in a good light? You are simply letting people know what a complete asshole you are.....


Lol, sounds like you need a Reality Check too (in addition to Zephy).

As I have explained many times, expansion theory requires an understanding of the whole theory to show orbits, complete with diagrams, and cannot be reduced to a paragraph(or several) here.
What was that? Oh, right, more excuses. You're right, I'm sure the *only* way around that is to buy your toilette paper. Not.

You're always so full of excuses. Like all the other crackpots–whose crackpot theories ALL happen to be right somehow in spite
of being mutually incompatible AND at odds with experimentally supported mainsteam theory.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
do you *ever* stop screaming "I'm an idiot"?
Ignored, reported for offensive language replacing the arguments.


Careful Zephy, who do you think is going to have it the worst if you actually manage to rouse the dragon again ;) I don't even want you banned anymore, you're way too much fun.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2014
I'm astonished to read that you think "quantify" is a philosophical term, rather than one expressing the fact that a theory can make measurable (via experiment) predictions!
I am astonished that you chose to ignore the accepted defs I copy/pasted in lieu of your made-up def. But that's SOP for you guys isn't it? Mangling the language for fun and profit? Doesn't matter what you say only how you say it. Blah.

'Philo words are worse than useless.' -an enlightened sciphilo
Gawad
5 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2014
@Gawdikwad. As I have explained many times, expansion theory requires an understanding of the whole theory to show orbits, complete with diagrams, and cannot be reduced to a paragraph(or several) here.


Is the expansion a function of material bodies or space?


Good luck getting anything *useful* out of him! I'll be waaatching, 'cause this too could be fun. Heck, Noum, I can't believe you missed the party with Captain and Q-Star; Muddy was twisting and squirming so hard you'd have thought Physorg was a disco.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
I'm astonished to read that you think "quantify" is a philosophical term, rather than one expressing the fact that a theory can make measurable (via experiment) predictions!
I am astonished that you chose to ignore the accepted defs I copy/pasted in lieu of your made-up def. But that's SOP for you guys isn't it? Mangling the language for fun and profit? Doesn't matter what you say only how you say it. Blah.

'Philo words are worse than useless.' -an enlightened sciphilo


What are you talking about?! How is this statement,.....

"Not true. He found a mathematical foundation for GR straight away, and used it to correctly predict the perihelion of mercury. So the theory was already promising for further use because it actually said something quantifiable." - Noumenon

.... different from the definitions you posted?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
@Noumenon
Is the expansion a function of material bodies or space?

Material bodies, yes, space - depends on how you define it, but yes bearing in mind that, if material bodies are expanding (or contracting, depending on your perception of time) then you, the observer, are also expanding (or contracting) so how will you know?
But the whole theory is dependent on "time" and what it actually is - so you can see why I can't provide a simplistic explanation of why bodies orbit due to expansion without all the other stuff, and as only a very simple explanation would satisfy morons like Gawad I must leave them in their state of abysmal ignorance, clinging to their belief in gravity and searching desperately for gravitons, gravitinos, gravity waves, dark matter, etc., etc., without which there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that gravity exists as a force which is not equally applicable to expansion theory as an explanation.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
Material bodies, yes, space - depends on how you define it, but yes bearing in mind that, if material bodies are expanding (or contracting, depending on your perception of time) then you, the observer, are also expanding (or contracting) so how will you know?


As you know solid objects are mostly empty space, so are the atoms which make up a solid object expanding or is the space between the atoms expanding also, or both?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
Material bodies, yes, space - depends on how you define it, but yes bearing in mind that, if material bodies are expanding (or contracting, depending on your perception of time) then you, the observer, are also expanding (or contracting) so how will you know?


As you know solid objects are mostly empty space, so are the atoms which make up a solid object expanding or is the space between the atoms expanding also, or both?

Both
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2014
So if everything is scaled in proportion, indeed how would we know?.... but how would we explain any dynamics that is observed? I assume your expansion theory rejects the notion of 'effects at a distance'. Is this correct?

richardwenzel987
3.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
It really seems that Kant hit the nail on the head. I wonder whether Kant and the Gestalt psychologists might both provide a conceptual framework for understanding our perplexity re quantum mechanics?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2014
Read the book, cheapskate!
Your old comrade Q-Star read it, and it melted his brain so he doesn't comment anymore. Hopefully, it will have the same effect on you!
@RegTROLL spammer
actually, Q-Star said there was absolutely NOTHING to your book! no empirical data, maths, or anything else that was substantial enough to be considered a hypothesis even, let alone a theory, which means that your book doesn't even rate hypothesis status, and is a philosophy only in that it offers a point of view that can only be substantiated by faith in the authors words...

IOW - its crap. you still spam and troll. nothings changed
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2014
As usual, you resort to aggressive insults, the last resort of the incompetent
at least he was able to show that you didn't know what you were talking about... explain those orbits again?oh, right... you cant
Do you actually think that calling me names and disparaging theories you have never understood shows you in a good light?
he's not calling you names, he's pointing out that you are a troll to the newbies
As I have explained many times, expansion theory requires an understanding of the whole theory to show orbits, complete with diagrams, and cannot be reduced to a paragraph(or several) here.
Q-star read the book and STILL said that it was crap... it didn't explain anything, nor did our graphs make sense... and he is in the field... therefore, how would it make sense to anyone else (unless stoned)?

explain to everyone about mass dependent growth too! that was a real hoot! in order for your theory to work, it has to have GRAVITY... as well as expansion! LMFAO
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2014
So if everything is scaled in proportion, indeed how would we know?.... but how would we explain any dynamics that is observed? I assume your expansion theory rejects the notion of 'effects at a distance'. Is this correct?
@Noumenon
check out some of the answers here in this thread too
http://phys.org/n...ong.html

he says expansion is mass dependent as well... there is MUCH that will confuse you, if you read it all.
have fun
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2014
So if everything is scaled in proportion, indeed how would we know?.... but how would we explain any dynamics that is observed? I assume your expansion theory rejects the notion of 'effects at a distance'. Is this correct?
@Noumenon
check out some of the answers here in this thread too
http://phys.org/n...ong.html

he says expansion is mass dependent as well... there is MUCH that will confuse you, if you read it all.
have fun


Yea, I was in that thread and corrected Reg about his massive photons. I cracked thefurlongs code, so we talked about Reg while he watched perplexed. LOL.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2014
Yea, I was in that thread and corrected Reg about his massive photons. I cracked thefurlongs code, so we talked about Reg while he watched perplexed. LOL.
@Noumenon
THATS right! sorry!
I just woke up LOL just looked at the thread again...

I am trying to find the one where Q-Star talks about what is actually in his book... rather hilarious! reg makes it sound like Q was impressed... more like baffled by bullsh*t !
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2014
Yea, I was in that thread and corrected Reg about his massive photons. I cracked thefurlongs code, so we talked about Reg while he watched perplexed. LOL.
@Noumenon
THATS right! sorry!
I just woke up LOL just looked at the thread again...

I am trying to find the one where Q-Star talks about what is actually in his book... rather hilarious! reg makes it sound like Q was impressed... more like baffled by bullsh*t !


That one I missed.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
Hi Gawad, CptS et al. :) Whatever you think of Zeph's more tangential comments/ideas, his Water Surface Analogies have famous precedent, Einstein! An excerpt from his 1920 Leyden Address:
Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two
entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory
surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the
course of time; or else - with the help of small floats, for
instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles
of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such
floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a
fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact, nothing else
whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the
water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the
assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the
same we could characterise it as a medium.
So try to 'read' Zeph in that context. :)
osnova
Apr 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
@Noumenon
Actually, ASCII code is very familiar to me, I just couldn't be bothered with translating it and the childishness of it all. You will have noticed that thefurlong couldn't correctly solve his own equation......
Anyway, I advise you to choose your bedmates with more care, Cap'n Grumpy is a talentless twit who has never contributed a thing to physorg except a mountain of silly insults aimed at anyone who disagrees with him. If you can be bothered, have a look thru' his comments, there isn't an iota of sense in any of them, just venom and spleen. I suspect he is very short, possibly a cretin, with a chip on his shoulder against the cruel world.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2014
@Noumenon
Actually, ASCII code is very familiar to me, I just couldn't be bothered with translating it and the childishness of it all. You will have noticed that thefurlong couldn't correctly solve his own equation.......


The encryption I'm referring to wasn't ASCII code.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2014
I wonder whether Kant and the Gestalt psychologists might both provide a conceptual framework for understanding our perplexity re quantum mechanics?
HOW COULD THEY?? Kant had no access to the experimental data and resulting theories. He was making shit up. And no gestalt therapist could understand QM unless he had a physics degree.
So the theory was already promising for further use because it actually said something quantifiable
What you are saying nou, is that the theory says something which is countable. What is countable? The theory itself? Sure - there is one of them. Can we disassemble (deconstruct?) the theory into basic units and count them? No we can't.

Your use of the word is wrong but fashionable. Either way it is gibberish of the type you gents love to use in your stage shows.

"I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors." Dennett

-Philos select words with affection.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2014
He found a mathematical foundation for GR straight away, and used it to correctly predict the perihelion of mercury. So the theory was already promising for further use because it actually said something quantifiable.
What you are saying nou, is that the theory says something which is countable. What is countable? The theory itself? Sure - there is one of them. Can we disassemble (deconstruct?) the theory into basic units and count them? No we can't.

Your use of the word is wrong but fashionable. Either way it is gibberish of the type you gents love to use in your stage shows.


You are putting on a comedy show right now.

What is meant by 'quantifiable', is that the theory predicted a QUANTITY, ....of 43 seconds of arc per century over what Newton's theory predicted. It is not a difficult word and is very ubiquitous in science. Stop embarrAssing yourself already.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2014
I wonder whether Kant and the Gestalt psychologists might both provide a conceptual framework for understanding our perplexity re quantum mechanics?

HOW COULD THEY?? Kant had no access to the experimental data and resulting theories. He was making shit up. And no gestalt therapist could understand QM unless he had a physics degree.


Have you read 'A Critique of Pure Reason' yet, like I asked you to two years ago? No?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2014
Anyway, I advise you to choose your bedmates with more care
@reg
I noticed you didn't answer any of the questions
Cap'n Grumpy is a talentless twit who has never contributed a thing to physorg except a mountain of silly insults aimed at anyone who disagrees with him. ....I suspect he is very short, possibly a cretin, with a chip on his shoulder against the cruel world
you will have to do better than that... I was a firefighter. I have been insulted far worse by my best friends... you don't even rate in the top 100 so far
his Water Surface Analogies
@RC
yes, I know. the difference being that the previous analogies were used to clarify, whereas Zeph does not apply them very well: it muddies the water or even is completely wrong at times, or he uses them out of context often too.
I am not saying the wave analogy is a bad one, but it does NOT apply to almost every QM article/new theory/cosmological article etc like he uses them

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2014
That one I missed.
@Noumenon
I finally found the link... sorry I didn't get to it earlier... had Grandkids to take care of:
check out the comments between Reg and Q-Star here: http://phys.org/n...lts.html
to quote Q
I'll pass on clicking your link,I'm sure I've seen it all before. Reg & I have a history, an unpleasant history. He's a moron. His book is moronic babbling. The stuff you see here at physorg? That's what you get when you buy the book. Here in the office we took up a collection and purchased the ebook version. It's so stupid that it doesn't even have any entertainment value.
It's mostly rambling on about "Reg & his growth & path to what he is today & blah, blah, blah." The science in it is ALL misconceptions

but I loved the quote
it lacks any means of computing the dynamics. It is a word salad "way of looking at it". So for the purpose of predicting, measuring, and relating, it's not very useful


check it out!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2014
Well, Cap'n, seems you have devoted quite a bit of your time to investigating who said what when, still without any meaningful contribution of your own. Anyway, if you had looked properly at ALL the exchanges between myself and Q-Star, you will have realised that, by his own admission, Qpee reviewed both the first two editions of the book without having read it, then eventually read the third edition. What an honourable, ethical gentleman he proved to be! Then, to vindicate his earlier despicable actions, he continued to vilify the book in a bout of self-justification. However, he did read it, and, as I expected, he retired hurt from the arena. Looks as if he has handed on his get-Reg standard to you and your ilk, it must be a proud moment for you. I am quite amused to see you carrying on his noble tradition, with your pontifications against a theory you have never read and wouldn't understand if you did.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2014
HOW COULD THEY?? Kant had no access to the experimental data and resulting theories. He was making shit up.


His analysis was of epistemology, ....how the mind acquires knowledge generally, its validity and extent*. His ideas were therefore universal and apply to all attempts at understanding what exists apart from ourselves.

*think of the mind (brain) as a bio-mechanism that operates on sense experience,.....it is not passive like a pond merely reflecting light.... it is active in synthesizing and ordering experience in particular ways given it's a-priori evolved design.

[this post was made to irritate ghostOtto].
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2014
he retired hurt from the arena
@reg
wrong again, skippy: he said
I haven't refuted the contents because there's nothing in there useful. It's a word salad without means to apply it
seems that you have the TROLL ability to think that was a compliment... I laugh at your inability to comprehend. an indicator of the TROLL
with your pontifications against a theory you have never read and wouldn't understand if you did
your personal conjecture, but if your arguments on the thread I posted are any indication of the contents of the book (which Q says they are) then the book is better listed as fiction or philosophy, and I dont purchase fiction books. In fact, I think I only own about 40 or 50 fiction books (all gifts), which is less than 1% of my library

sorry reg, its perfectly clear that you know less about physics than even the EU sect

you STILL HAVENT ANSWERED the questions... why not?
I would rather you answered. its funnier that way
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
you STILL HAVENT ANSWERED the questions... why not?

Pointless answering your questions, you wouldn't understand the answers.
By the way, you would be amazed if you realized how much I know about physics, but again it is pointless arguing about that with an illiterate prat like you who thinks collecting books bestows knowledge. You have to actually read and understand them, not just look at the pictures, though I imagine most of your books consist only of pictures anyway.......
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2014
Pointless answering your questions, you wouldn't understand the answers
@reg
your assumption... but ok, how about answering Noumenon's then?
you would be amazed if you realized how much I know about physics
you cant even answer questions here on phys.org, or even answer questions about your made-up philosophy! I'm not amazed at what you don't know, you continually share it!
who thinks collecting books bestows knowledge
your assumption, not mine. I collect books because I LIKE them. that's it
You have to actually read and understand them, not just look at the pictures, though I imagine most of your books consist only of pictures anyway
I told you I didn't buy your book! I don't DO fiction!

you're not even good at insults! wow! go hang out at a fire station... they are quite good at it!

still waiting for you to answer Nou!
We love watching you try... it is HILARIOUS

P.S. we can only learn what YOU KNOW by your answers here... so far, you know nada... nothing!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2014
@Noumeno
Sorry Nou, Cap'n Grumpy points out that I have neglected you..
So if everything is scaled in proportion, indeed how would we know?.... but how would we explain any dynamics that is observed? I assume your expansion theory rejects the notion of 'effects at a distance'. Is this correct?

So if everything is scaled in proportion, indeed how would we know?....Indeed, how would we know? Can you or anybody else prove otherwise?
.. but how would we explain any dynamics that is observed? I dunno, how would we? Everything LOOKS the same as GRAVITY, but does not require the invention of a new force like Newton did.
I assume your expansion theory rejects the notion of 'effects at a distance'. Is this correct? No, incorrect. Once again, you would have to read the book, understand what "time" is, and accept the universality of fundamental particles.
When you have done this, perhaps you could spend the rest of your life trying to explain it all to the Cap'n starting from fundamentals.
11791
Apr 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2014
I assume your expansion theory rejects the notion of 'effects at a distance'. Is this correct?
No, incorrect.


I assumed that because,.....uhm..... that's what gravity is already understood to be,...... an effect at a distance, in both Newtonian and GR. So then the obvious question, why say this effect at a distance which we term gravity, does not exist?!

Once again, you would have to read the book, understand what "time" is, and accept the universality of fundamental particles.
When you have done this......


Are you experiencing hard times and in need? I don't mind giving money to beggers on the street corner because at least I know my windshield would get cleaned. Would you explain your time component, for a bag of chips?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2014
but how would we explain any dynamics that is observed?
I dunno, how would we? Everything LOOKS the same as GRAVITY, but does not require the invention of a new force like Newton did.


But if space expanded as well as matter, the moon would never fall toward the earth, .... yet it does.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2014
His analysis was of epistemology, ....how the mind acquires knowledge generally, its validity and extent*. His ideas were therefore universal and apply to all attempts at understanding
How could he do that? He had no idea of the sorts of knowledge we might uncover in the 20th century. Much of what we uncover is totally foreign to our 'intuition' and experience. We have had to struggle against what we expect to see and where the evidence actually leads us.

You imply that if we were totally objective then our quest for knowledge would lead somewhere else. We would still be doing the same experiments, uncovering the same evidence, and formulating the same theories to explain it. Because the numbers filter out human influence.

There IS no 'nature of knowledge'. Your voodoo bullshit 'dasein/ding an sich/forms/grok/nature of things' nonsense only obscures and retards. This is why feinman said you guys were a waste of time.

As always, thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2014
Also there IS no mind, no consciousness, no soul, no transcendence, no ontology, no teleology, no eschatology, nothing whatsoever metaphysical ANYWHERE, no astral planes, no spirit mediums, no idiots sitting in caves staring at shadows, no science without math, no netherworlds, no hereafter, and -certainly- no bookgods.

And no philosophy that ever informed us about anything except how to gain employment in a world full of rubes.

The world would be a much better place if you guys would quit making this crap up.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2014
Hilarious! Zeph started reporting my posts for violating the comment guidelines and got his latest sockpuppet banned (all its posts are gone...again). I even got two of my own posts deleted because they had the acronym A double you Tee in the text. Looks like somebody (or a bot?) at Physorg is starting to do some cleaning :)

Looks like Zeph *has* roused the dragon. Can't say I didn't warn him!

This is a good thing.

Good luck Muddy ;^)
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2014
Also there IS no mind, no consciousness, no soul....


Have you determined this from personal experience?

I don't believe in anything metaphysical or spiritual, only things derived from observation, so why do you make this claim of me?

And no philosophy that ever informed us about anything


Every physicist engages in philosophy and his/her philosophical outlook will guide him/her in that field,...i.e. positivist or realist. Logic is a branch of philosophy. Physics itself is a branch of philosophy, ...'natural philosophy'. There IS a branch of philosophy called 'philosophy of physics', etc.

What you fail to appreciate is that the term philosophy encompasses a wide scope of intellectual pursuit. It is just a generalized term referring to the study of the fundamental nature of reality, logic, knowledge, and existence. If you earn a PhD you earn a 'Doctorate of Philosophy', taken in this wide meaning. So you see how ridiculous your crusade against philosophy is?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2014
His analysis was of epistemology, ....how the mind acquires knowledge generally, its validity and extent*. His ideas were therefore universal and apply to all attempts at understanding


How could he do that? He had no idea of the sorts of knowledge we might uncover in the 20th century. Much of what we uncover is totally foreign to our 'intuition' and experience.


Correct. His core analysis was that we add the conceptual framework by virtue of the process of acquiring knowledge, and can't help but do this because that is what knowledge means.

What relevance is this to modern science? The history of physics of the early 20th century is the struggle to rediscover this epistemological truth,... the Copenhagen Interpretation of qm is in an essential way, a physical restatement of Kant. The nuclear physicist and Einstein biographer, A. Pais, regards N. Bohr to be the 'natural successor to Kant'. Yet, still many physicists are "realists".
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2014
You imply that if we were totally objective then our quest for knowledge would lead somewhere else.


I'm not sure what you mean here. The question is one of what can validly be said of Reality. For example the wave-function as an existent entity, (which is to claim more than just a description of a quantum state) is metaphysical, so is the multiverse.

We would still be doing the same experiments, uncovering the same evidence, and formulating the same theories .....Because the numbers filter out human influence.


How does one filter out the process of acquiring knowledge to arrive at independent knowledge of reality, when the mind can't possibly get out of its own way to do this without leaving conceptual artifacts. All knowledge of reality, by definition and pure logic, must have a mind dependent component.
richardwenzel987
not rated yet Apr 07, 2014
What a heated discussion. At any rate, when I examined Kant in college, I thought the noumenon/phenomenon distinction was spurious because it seems there is a mechanism mapping the noumenal world into the phenomena we experience, and doing it consistently and in an orderly way. Think of it as a transformation rule if mapping isn't the right way to express it. At any rate, it then seemed that knowledge of the transformational rules would allow an inverse mapping, of the phenomenon back into the noumena. But now I think that inverse mapping is not possible. I mentioned the gestalt psychologists because they were interested in universal rules of perception, which would be equivalent to the mapping rules I mentioned, by which the thing-in-itself gets transformed into something a neuron-based computer can process (our brains). They didn't get very far with that, apart from discovering some interesting optical illusions.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2014
when I examined Kant in college, I thought the noumenon/phenomenon distinction was spurious because it seems there is a mechanism mapping the noumenal world into the phenomena we experience, and doing it consistently and in an orderly way.


The 'mapping' would be scientific experiment, but it can not be one-to-one mapping, simply because we must presuppose a conceptual form, a-priori, before it can be used to order and synthesize reality.

This fact is exposed where such intuitive concepts, ....locality, counterfactuality, space, time, separability, and causality,... are exposed as a mind dependent artificial synthesis at the qm scale.

Phenomenon is distinct from Noumenon by virtue of being conceptualized and processed by mind, ....whereas Noumenon is Realty as it is in itself, unconceptualized, and thus unknowable. As D'Espagnat says, there must be a "something" that informs experiment, that "says no", but all that science can do is to wrap a conceptual leash around it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2014
Have you determined this from personal experience?
Are you like the godder who claims that since no one saw creation then we can never know how it happened? I have posted you links to scientists and even philos who offer valid reasoning and/or concrete evidence for most all of these fallacies. I'm not going to post them again.
I don't believe in anything metaphysical or spiritual, only things derived from observation, so why do you make this claim of me?
1) metaphysical IS spirit voodoo and 2) you continue to REPEAT that the metaphysical cannot be a source of knowledge. As if it is a THING of some sort.

Quit juggling words like a circus clown. It is not entertaining.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2014
whereas Noumenon is Realty as it is in itself, unconceptualized, and thus unknowable.
Utter tripe. Worthless, useless, pointless, dangerous, shameful, irresponsible rubbish. And no different from any other religious dogma in that it's only real effect is to make you feel good.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2014
"Kant claimed that everyone's reason leads them to assume three unconditioned absolutes. These are God, the soul, and the total world... Kant called God, soul, and total world (cosmos) Ideas of Reason... "I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith."

Obviously Kants dogma of the unknowable is derived from his religion. God is unknowable and so must be the things he creates. Philos were enlisted back then to wean certain target groups off god by substituting the metaphysical.

A little later they were tasked with enamoring these same groups with the inherent right of euro Ubermenschen to rule the world. Soon after that they were used to sell communism. Social engineering and nothing else.

I repeat - there is no ding an sich.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2014
What you fail to appreciate is that the term philosophy encompasses a wide scope of intellectual pursuit
What you fail to appreciate is that this is only according to you philos. NO ONE ELSE. As Krauss says, no one reads your crap but other philos.

You use words which no one understands, and which get redefined from gen to gen and philo to philo. What you have to say is not relevant. And merely claiming that it is, and having the guys down at Philosophy Now echo your sentiment, does not make it so.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2014
@Noumenon
But if space expanded as well as matter, the moon would never fall toward the earth, .... yet it does.

No, it doesn't.
They simply both expand until they collide, unless moving away from each other at sufficient velocity.
You will simply have to read why expansion causes orbits, I can't help you any further.
Incidentally, can I pick up my bag of chips next time I am in Vegas? Seems like a fair swap for the book, which I can't just give to you for copyright reasons.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2014
Hi again, CptS. :)
@RC, yes, I know. the difference being that the previous analogies were used to clarify, whereas Zeph does not apply them very well: it muddies the water or even is completely wrong at times, or he uses them out of context often too.
I am not saying the wave analogy is a bad one, but it does NOT apply to almost every QM article/new theory/cosmological article etc like he uses them
Maybe if you weren't so PREJUDICED personally/egotistically against Zeph's posts you might have read enough of his analogous explanatory posts without being biased against and dismissing as 'word salad' those posts which made PERFECT SENSE to anyone knowledgeable reading them in that analogous context Einstein. You just didn't bother to read/understand properly because he had 'reputation' which your troll mates propagandized so you would mindlessly dismiss/kneejerk and so miss the meaningful bits. Zeph probably forgotten more real physics than you'll ever know/understand, mate. :)
Pejico
Apr 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gawad
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2014
it muddies the water or even is completely wrong at times
My bet is, after few years all these trolls here will http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4356 "watter surface, water surface" as mindlessly, as they're refuting this analogy by now.. Because the sheep just follow the crowd.
Humm, back so soon, Zeph? Think you can get yourself banned again within, say, 48 hours? I noticed that about half the physics threads on Physorg no longer have any continuity since your, what five? six? of your last sock puppets have been deleted in the last month. (I'd say "no longer make any sense, but they did't really make much sense even when your *hundreds* of posts were still up.) Well, given your inability to learn, I suppose that's par for the course. What a mess. It kind of makes interacting with you at all a moot point.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2014
You just didn't bother to read/understand properly because he had 'reputation' which your troll mates propagandized
@Rcheck
1- TROLL POST
2- no reality involved in THAT question: I read zeph et al for a year before ever setting up a profile here to comment, and still read most of his posts, like yours
Zeph probably forgotten more real physics than you'll ever know/understand
THIS is about as likely as YOU mentioning physics in your posts... or anything relevant, or anything about your ToE...
IOW: complete fallacy based upon delusions of grandeur
You will simply have to read why expansion causes orbits
@Reg
you have NEVER fully explained this one, and according to Q, you didnt in your book either.

you claimed on the other thread I linked that expansion was mass dependent, but that also would allow for a means to measure the expansion rates of different objects, which would allow a testable result which is NOT visible in the solar system or universe, therefore it's false
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2014
@Reg you have NEVER fully explained this one, and according to Q, you didnt in your book either.


Actually, he's never even *partly* explained it. Zip, nada, nothing. (Well, except for "it's caused by expansion, and you have to understand the real nature of time, and for that you need to buy my book, which all still adds up to a big fat zero.)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2014
Hi CaptS. :) That means you were even more 'layman' than now; thus incapable of understanding the underlying principles and know science and precedents and possible extensions of Einstein's and others work/analogies in this field. Hence all the science from ALL posters would have been 'word salad' to you. And hence practically ALL your 'judgements/assessments' of science content AND posters would have been gained by 'following the herd' of noisiest TROLLS whose anti-person agendas you would have been oblivious of in your naivete'.

Hence you SUBCONSCIOUSLY would've been plenty prejudiced personally/contentwise against Zeph early on; and anyone else the trolls targeted for personal disparagement, and conning newbie gullibles like you into going along UNQUESTIONINGLY with the TROLL HERD.

That's how BRAINWASHING WORKS, mate. It's doing you harm long before (if ever) you become aware you are being MANIPULATED by troll sociopaths who care nothing about YOU except your naive complicity. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2014
Did someone say expanding? Is this what RC thinks he's invented?
http://estfound.org

The theory has been around for a long time.
THIS is about as likely as YOU mentioning physics in your posts... or anything relevant, or anything about your ToE...
IOW: complete fallacy based upon delusions of grandeur
No seriously. Zephyr has consistently demonstrated a very thorough knowledge of physics. He just massively misinterprets it. And yes this is due no doubt to delusions of grandeur and other things.
Pejico
Apr 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2014
THIS is about as likely as YOU mentioning physics in your posts... or anything relevant, or anything about your ToE...
IOW: complete fallacy based upon delusions of grandeur

Why LIE like that. That's NOT mine. Don't you do any due diligence before posting? No wonder you come across as 'personality' TROLL, since you have no idea who's who or what's what. No-one yet knows what my complete and consistent ToE is about, precisely BECAUSE I have PURPOSELY only discussed bits and pieces while listening/comparing with others ideas. This used to happen in COFFEE HOUSES and SALONS in the old days. Now its internet forums where things are discussed and 'sound-boarded' etc. In my case, my ToE is overarching whole and not easily 'guessed at' because no 'part' I have discussed on net will betray the whole.

And Zeph probably understand better than you ever could the subtleties and complexities in reality which differs from the BB/Inflation etc theory fantasies you are working from, mate.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2014
you SUBCONSCIOUSLY would've been plenty prejudiced personally/contentwise against Zeph early on
@RC
are you stupid or illiterate?
1- I AM a layman, moron. i am a firefighter, not a scientist. and i've said as much many times
2-I work on the principles that I always worked on investigating: empirical data. if ya cant prove it, it is worthless to me
3- I gave Z every opportunity to provide empirical data, and I got NONE (NOT ONE PIECE)
4-you didnt read what I wrote... I pretty much said that getting info out of you about physics or your ToE is NOT going to happen, which you went all stupid on... but its true, NOT a LIE. you've never offered MUCH to ANY conversation unless it is crap, hints about a ToE, trolling/riding someone about trolling, or the occasional piece of good info (too little to far apart)

READ what Otto wrote... I TOTALLY AGREE! Zeph has a good knowledge and grasp... he just massively misinterprets it!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2014
Why LIE like that. That's NOT mine.
re read that, sparky. I SAID that... just like I said
THIS is about as likely as YOU mentioning physics in your posts... or anything relevant, or anything about your ToE...
that's not only doing my due diligence, ANYONE can go through your previous posts and see that!
at least Zeph can understand English better than you!
And Zeph probably understand better than you ever could the subtleties and complexities in reality which differs from the BB/Inflation etc
this is very possible, but he sure cannot share it sometimes, which is why I keep on about empirical data.
I guess it is time for YOU to do some "due diligence" and research... try reading up on the subject you want to bash... maybe you will learn something

Z and I differ in many ways, but I have more respect for him at least TRYING and posting his belief than for you and your continual whining/hinting/ranting/telling others how to act/believe
etc
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2014
Hi CptS. :) My apologies, mate, that post was in reply to TheGhostOfOtto who implied someone else's theory was mine. I must have put the wrong 'copy' back into the reply box from my 'saved' cache. Sorry!

So I won't respond to yours above which was obviously motivated by/in response to my incorrectly quoted post. Again, my apologies, CptS. :)

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
I guess it is time for YOU to do some "due diligence" and research... try reading up on the subject you want to bash... maybe you will learn something

You really are a card, Cap'n! You actually wrote this! Its really rich, coming from you. You haven't the first clue about expansion theory, yet you have consistently bashed it and thrown gratuitous insults at me from day one. The only positive thing you have offered on this site is your advice to hang about outside firestations like you do - I assume you are the one with the big handbag....
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2014
@Gawhard
There is a complete explanation for how expansion causes orbits WITHOUT GRAVITY in my book, but I cannot reproduce it here without diagrams and background theory - e.g. the quantum nature of time. If you are not satisfied with this explanation, I am sorry, but we will just have to leave the subject in abeyance. You must have noticed that I never bring it up now, it is only resurrected by others. Just forget about it, and sleep easy at night. You don't want to finish up like Q-Star, do you?
Spadia
Apr 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
edward_ponderer
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
It is ironic that philosophy that so prides itself on theory without measured perception, would look into such a question regarding one of the greatest exact-science theoreticians of all time.

Pauli had the sense not to approach Einstein this way when he actually went to talk to him about the matter. Later he spoke with his colleagues (approx.):, "Gentlemen, this is Albert Einstein, not some first-year graduate student! His problem is not with "causality," his problem is with (mathematical) reality."

Richard Feynmann (then still too young to be accused of senility) stated that someone claiming to understand quantum mechanics has rocks in his head. He understood what Einstein did--only he lived to see experimental evidence that Einstein didn't. Einstein's reasoning led to either yet hidden underlying statistical physics, or "spooky actions at a distance."

The latter is proving right, all points to this world as mere pixels on the screen of our senses.
Pejico
Apr 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2014
@Gawhard
There is a complete explanation for how expansion causes orbits WITHOUT GRAVITY in my book, but I cannot reproduce it here without diagrams and background theory - e.g. the quantum nature of time. If you are not satisfied with this explanation, I am sorry, but we will just have to leave the subject in abeyance.
Apology accepted ;) (Reg...those are just more excuses: surely a little bit of Physorg ascii art would not have been too much to ask for :) And after all, Zeph regularly posts links to *animated* gifs.)
You must have noticed that I never bring it up now, it is only resurrected by others.
Sort of. That will certainly be an improvement, if you stick to it, but it stands to reason that any comments to the effect that "there ain't no gravity" *will* cause others to resurrect the topic.
Just forget about it, and sleep easy at night.
Not to worry, Reg; you give yourself far too much credit. Please continue to follow that advice yourself and all will be well.
msaul_ny
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2014
I have been following these comment threads for years. I have finally created this account for two reasons:

1- To down-vote the slightly knowledgeable crazies (mostly zeph and various strawmen), and

2- To up-vote the extremely knowledgeable. (Q, gawad,TT, a_p et al.)

I think its detrimental to connect every other article with some kind of A*cough*T, or EU "PHILOSOPHIES" that muddle the waters and contain no scientific merit.

Many- like myself, are not scientists, have a vague understanding of physics, and wish to learn more. These comment threads have the potential to provide relevant insights (and occasionally do).

While i do sometimes enjoy the ridiculous antics, these hijacked threads are NOT productive.
-Thank you
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2014
msaul:
Please don't vote based on name. Vote based on content. Each post taken on its own merit. That's what (I think) the voting system is for, and certainly that's how scientific discourse works. Each paper stands on its own - irrespective of author (to ensure this peer review is anonymized).

Downvoting people en masse certainly has not discouraged the ones you mentioned to leave, so the effect is probably not the one you - and many of the rest of us - would wish for, in any case.

That said, I'm pretty flattered as being numbered among the 'knowledgeable'. Thanks.
msaul_ny
5 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2014
msaul:
Please don't vote based on name. Vote based on content.


Sorry, perhaps I should have worded that better, but I intend to do just that. Its just frustrating seeing him in every thread with that bullshit attempting to lure the less frequent visitors to this site into nonsensical garbage.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2014
...like myself, are not scientists, have a vague understanding of physics, and wish to learn more.
You admit to having only "vague understanding of physics". So how on earth can you possibly judge whether anyone is discussing "bullshit" or new ideas which may or may not be 'mainstream' once all the discussion and future experiments are done?

This is a discussion forum, not your "vague understanding" based 'preferred view' blog where you downrate/uprate according to personality/poster. Why do that if you don't understand EITHER 'side' of the discussion. You know, since you already said you only have "vague understanding of physics" an all?

How about instead of adding to troll/personality cult, you just engage on the ideas merits and discuss/ask what is actually meant before making vaguely understandings based comments of your own to add to the 'noise'?

Just discuss what is presented. Don't 'join a gang' on either 'side', like kindergarten kids. Good luck and good thinking! :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2014
@Gawhard
Apology accepted ;) (Reg...those are just more excuses: surely a little bit of Physorg ascii art would not have been too much to ask for :) And after all, Zeph regularly posts links to *animated* gifs.)

You must have noticed that I never bring it up now, it is only resurrected by others.
Sort of. That will certainly be an improvement, if you stick to it, but it stands to reason that any comments to the effect that "there ain't no gravity" *will* cause others to resurrect the topic.

Just forget about it, and sleep easy at night.
Not to worry, Reg; you give yourself far too much credit. Please continue to follow that advice yourself and all wil be well

You are very kind, Gawad. Most unusual, are you feeling yourself these days? (If so, please stop, it is a disgusting habit...)
Sorry to go against your sage advice, but I really must continue to state my belief that "there ain't no gravity!" whenever it needs to be said.
Captain Stumpy
Apr 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2014
Its just frustrating seeing him in every thread with that bullshit attempting to lure the less frequent visitors to this site into nonsensical garbage.
@msaul_ny
I can relate to your frustration msaul. as a layman myself (I am a retired truck captain) it is difficult at times to know who and where to turn to for answers... I would recommend using the links provided in articles and common sense.
Look for studies/articles supporting a claim (use Google or another search engine like duckduckgo.com)... If you can afford it, subscribe to magazines like sciencemag (part of AAAS)
research everything that you can. some people here sound good, but post crap. but you've probably already seen that
and be honest. if you dont know and cant find an answer, ask

and have fun
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2014
Look for studies/articles supporting a claim (use Google or another search engine like duckduckgo.com

If you looking for serious papers google scholar is often a good starting point
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2014
HI CptS. :) Mate, now you're just being silly again. I already said it was a news/comments site AND also , ipso facto, a DISCUSSION site is one or more members share and discuss a question/issue/idea etc which may be related to the article/news in some elliptical/tangential way that makes for better CONTEXT and understanding of the article/ideas in the news item heading the thread.

Really, CptS, first you say you "won't be told what not do do" or "whom not to discuss with", and NOW you claim it isn't a discussion venue? Even after you carried on a 'conversation' with that "Uncle" troll/socio case and its BOT program, discussing OTHER PEOPLE/POSTERS when you should have been discussing/conversing on the ideas presented?

Seems emotonal/elitist posters like you want it ALL WAYS and back again, depending on which 'way of the moment' arguments suits your PREJUDICED way of interacting.

Seriously. mate, just stop with the hypocritical feigned outrage etc, and just discuss science. OK? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2014
{PS: to above)...and CptS, what good are 'links' when NEW ideas cannpt by definition have been fully explored YET? Links to mainstream ideas are just that. No 'links' may be possible if the new idea is just starting to be seriously considered. That's the POINT of new discussion of new ideas, after all. Else if the orthodoxy 'links' were the be all and end all of 'acceptability/validity, then NO REVOLUTIONARY nw idea that OVERTURNS orthodoxy can ever make it through your 'demands' and 'constraints' which select against new ideas/discussion.

Oh, and again some good advice from a friend in science and humanity: Don't get 'pally' with that internet BOT using "uncle Ira" sociopath who will again manipulate you to subconsciously go along with his 'masquerade of the moment'. Don't fall for his various 'personas' and 'ploys' which are the CON-MAN's basic toolkit he uses and has used for years on the net now. You are no match for its sly and practiced MO.

Dn't let him exploit your 'ego'. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2014
That said, I'm pretty flattered as being numbered among the 'knowledgeable'. Thanks.
Not knowledgeable enough to suspect that this is merely one of the familiar resident trolls? Flattery does soften the suspicious heart eh? And titillate the ego to boot.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2014
Seriously. mate, just stop with the hypocritical feigned outrage etc, and just discuss science. OK? :)


@ Really-Skippy. I guess you miss seeing my apology from yesterday, eh? Now since I apologized and said to start over me and you, you should stop calling me names. The BOT I'm sure what it means but still you shouldn't call the Ira that until you explain to me what that means.

Now if you want to talk the science talk, why you not just jump on in with some science sounding stuff instead of all this name calling foolishment and telling us older peoples who we should say what to and how? Okayeei Cher?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2014
No deal, BOT man. You started out to disrupt and sabotage people and discussions. You are the longstanding internet troll using bots to ruin sites and reputations by lies and exploiting others 'as 'cover' for your craziness and criminal intent malicious activities.

There is NO APPEASING such sociopaths and psychopaths, because con-men like you have proven for a long time are not interested in fairness and compromise etc. They are just 'ploys' for you to exploit naive folk who fall for that 'new me' MO you are trying on now (unsuccessfully with me). Get lost, and kill off your bot network. Get a real good life outside your commercial spammer/phisher activities. Make a buck honestly. That is the only 'acceptable' change in you and your MO that will be in any way credible to me. I know you, and your history of internet insanity. You are fast running out of naive people to gull into your crazy life/activities, because people like me will gladly risk attack to expose you. Worth it! :)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2014
@ Really-Skippy

Okayeei Skippy-Doo, enough is enough for me oui? I taked back the silly looking pointy cap. I let you out of the corner. I give the apology. Ol Ira went to far as to even quite giving you the bad karma points which you said you didn't like no.

But Ira-Skippy us not the criminal. He is not the liar me. I exploit no man. It is the hard work I do and not mind, the engineer on the towing pushing boats. I don't need to do no crimes, eh? They paid me real good. What you think just because I'm the Cajun and don't know every fancy way of saying stuff that I am stupid me? You think all Cajun is the theft?

Fooeei on you Cher. Bad karma points list you go on now Skippy. You can put the silly looking pointy cap back on your head. And sit your tail down in that corner and SHUT YOUR MOUTH, I'll cut you if you stand there, and shoot you if you run, don't mess with me couyon, I can be as mean as a momma gator looking after her eggys.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2014
@BOT-man troll. Give it up "Uncle", your cover's been blown. Take it like a man and stop your silliness. Either behave and listen to the 'smarts peoples' and stop downrating without proper understanding and discussing the content, or remain an irrelevant troll on the internet and so remain a sad case. Good luck on your future path choice, "Uncle".
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2014
HI CptS....blah blah blah exploit your 'ego'
TROLLING
You started out to disrupt and sabotage people and discussions
so its ok for YOU to do it but no one else? WTF, 'mate'? try adding something constructive.
con-men blah not interested in fairness and compromise etc
this is called transference
also: Ira shows less signs of sociopathic behavior than you, and no psychotic signs. IOW - transference again
google scholar is often a good starting point
@aa_p
I forgot to add this one. thank you for putting it up there!

@Uncle Ira
peut-être qu'il ne vaut pas la peine? en fait, plus vous nourrissez la réalité troll plus il dit que c'est inutile. il ne partage pas la science, ne pleure bébé pleurnicher. J'ai un ami qui m'a dit de simplement signaler lui et l'ignorer, mais je ne peux pas toujours le faire non plus ... il est amusant ramasser sur lui. mais il est si pleurnichard comme le bébé

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2014
Hi CptS. :)

This is from your "Uncle":
I'll cut you if you stand there, and shoot you if you run, don't mess with me couyon,


If that doesn't get through your silly nut, nothing will, that your "Uncle" whom you 'converse' with, is not normal at all. In fact, he is dangerous sociopath/psychopath doing a 'snow job' on you gullible naive types this very minute. Wise up, mate.

Now give your unreasoning temper a rest, CptS. Get your life back on the level and ignore the Uncle troll. Just get on with your discussions, as I have stopped detailed discussion for the reasons already stated. Good luck! :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2014
give your unreasoning temper a rest
not mad. not even riled. & apathetic to your requests
You really are a card, Cap'n!
@reg
thanks
thing is... I am STILL waiting for you to explain how the mass dependent expansion explains orbits, and shows effects of gravity...
ANY TIME now! feel free to explain.

you've posted comment after comment about how stupid people are, including me, but you've only proven that you have no answers, you are not capable of explaining your own philosophy, and that the best you can do is tell people to go buy your book!
WHY should someone buy a book when you cannot even explain one small aspect here? If you cannot do ANY explaining here, then it is highly unlikely that you will have answers in a longer format. even WITH graphs

JUST EXPLAIN THE ORBITS... just do that. nothing else
I wont even address the other craziness...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2014
@CptS. Ok, mate, glad to hear it. Only please do take my friendly advice and choose better with whom you associate over the internet, ok? And you would do well to keep clear of people who make threats like that "Uncle Ira" has. Did you read it? Here it is again:
I'll cut you if you stand there, and shoot you if you run, don't mess with me couyon,


That's not the 'harmless' type. On the contrary, it betrays pathology of a particularly nasty closed mind only thinking of itself and what it would like to do to those who 'cross' him and his nasty trolling etc 'agenda' on the net.

Anyhow, if you're done with me, and since I have exposed that troll, I will (again) try to withdraw as I did before, and leave you all to your hopefully polite and interesting discussions of the science in the news items and posters' commentary. Cheers all! :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2014
@RC
Well done, I'm almost ready to forgive Q-Star for accusing me of being you
(http://phys.org/n...ow.html) (and a dozen other contributors....)!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2014
@Capn'Grumpy
thing is... I am STILL waiting for you to explain how the mass dependent expansion explains orbits, and shows effects of gravity...
ANY TIME now! feel free to explain.

Feel free to explain! Look, Cannonball, I've explained 'til I'm blue in the face! You cannot have a simple explanation of how expansion causes orbits (in terms you would understand) without grasping the reasoning behind the quantum nature of time and what time actually is, which rests upon the theory of discontinuities in the patterns of chaos formed by the fundamental particles which comprise matter linked by the laws of physics which govern our existence. Given your understanding of these things, the explanation of how expansion causes orbits is detailed in laymans' mathematical terms in the book with diagrams. The maths have been ratified by eminent mathematicians as correct, and the conclusion therefore inescapable.
Ask Q-Star to give you a yes or no answer, is this true or not?
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2014
@Reg,

Hey, Reg, you know, if ya really have found a way to quantize time, Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute would *love* to hear about this. I've hear rumors that he's a fairly smart guy, not like us low grade morons here.

lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca

Maybe you could let him have a copy of your, you know, book.

'Cmon, man, let him know about this and let us know how it goes :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2014
@Reg,

Hey, Reg, you know, if ya really have found a way to quantize time, Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute would *love* to hear about this. I've hear rumors that he's a fairly smart guy, not like us low grade morons here.

lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca

Maybe you could let him have a copy of your, you know, book.

'Cmon, man, let him know about this and let us know how it goes :)
better fire one off to Sean Carroll too! he has a book out that talks a bit about time and his opinions...Called From Eternity to Here.... pretty good book.
maybe yall can get together? maybe YOU can school Sean so that he can explain it to all us hillbilly eejits and shoeless mountain folk?

http://prepostero...rse.com/
he puts his e-mail here: http://prepostero...rse.com/eternitytohere/

cant wait to see your joint project!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2014
@Gawhard
@Cap'n Grumpy
@Reg,

Hey, Reg, you know, if ya really have found a way to quantize time, Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute would *love* to hear about this. I've hear rumors that he's a fairly smart guy, not like us low grade morons here.

lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca

Maybe you could let him have a copy of your, you know, book.

'Cmon, man, let him know about this and let us know how it goes :)

better fire one off to Sean Carroll too

Don't do freebies. Why don't you write to them if you think they can help you?