Internet of Things for smarter living

EPFL scientists are developing a new concept of a smart building that adjusts to your lifestyle, by allowing you to control your preferences. An important component, called the Internet of Things, involves monitoring your overall energy consumption by networking together all of your devices.

Do you forget to turn off the lights when you leave a room? Have you ever forgotten to turn off your stove... or worried that you hadn't? Wouldn't it be nice not to have to think about it—and still be environmentally friendly? How would you like to live in a building that adjusts to your lifestyle?

If you are aiming for the 2000 watt society, or simply trying to prevent a fire from starting, then you may be interested in the way EPFL scientists are using the Internet of Things, i.e. connecting appliances together and monitoring their overall to make every day life a little bit smarter.

The Internet of Things is a network of that can be controlled together for optimal energy consumption. Those connected objects, which can be anything from your usual appliances to the heating system, are augmented with sensors and electronics that relay information about how you and your building consume energy. The concept of IoT is a few years old already, so what's new?

Maher Kayal and his team at EPFL are using the IoT to redefine the idea of the smart building by putting the user's comfort at the core of the system. You, the user, can control your own comfort – temperature, humidity and lighting – in careful balance with how much energy you consume and how much is available from the power grid. Their results are now published in the Krakow Conference Proceedings from the "International Conference on Control, Communication and Signal Processing EBCCSP".

Credit: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

Their concept of a smart building has three components. The first consists of electronics that would have to be integrated into all of the building's appliances and plugs, basically everything that requires power, like the stove. The electronics make each appliance intelligent, first by adding control-at-a-distance, but also by collecting data about how you use a specific appliance. The second component is the user interface, with a built-in learning mechanism: the interface allows you to control your appliance, while learning about your energy habits and preferences. The third is the building, as a whole, and how it interacts with the environment and its energy demands for intelligent management with the grid.

To illustrate the concept, Kayal and his team built a demo wall fitted with intelligent lights and plugs. Kayal identifies himself by placing his identity card on the wall. The system registers Kayal, loads his preferred settings and the lights immediately dim. Meanwhile, he consults his smartphone and reads the temperature of the room, the humidity and the amount of electricity being consumed by the demo wall.

Today, the impact of our individual comfort, in terms of energy consumption and environmental footprints, is far too complex to quantify. But this shouldn't prevent us from trying. "Given the right tools, we are intelligent enough to make the right decision for optimizing our energy consumption," says Kayal. "Our main objective is to educate the user, to include people in the feedback loop of energy control, and moving away from fully automated systems that dismiss human interaction."

Smart buildings of the future may well be personalized for your lifestyle. If you're the forgetful type and you've left home without turning off the stove, then you could tell your smartphone to turn it off for you, prevent a possible fire and overall consume less energy.


Explore further

Study shows it is possible to save money and reduce carbon dioxide emission by using more energy

Citation: Internet of Things for smarter living (2016, June 17) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-06-internet-smarter.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
24 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 17, 2016
"Given the right tools, we are intelligent enough to make the right decision for optimizing our energy consumption,"
-----------------------------------------

And if we're still not happy?

Perhaps the answer is in ourselves.

I think the IoT provides a lot of opportunity for hackers and Big Brother.

Jun 17, 2016
Neato, so it turns off the burners before my soup is warm because I set the timer to let me know if it had been at least that much time rather than because I knew how long the soup would take.

*Bzzzzttttt gack*

There are tasks computers are well suited for. To prevent fires I still like smoke alarms better. Now, if you want to connect the smoke alarm to the gas supply, that's a bit better thinking. But there are still the unintended unintended consequences. Programming is not for amateurs because most of them can't think their way through it; that's why programmers get paid.

There are good ways and bad ways to use stuff like this. Experience suggests that we will wind up testing them all, and it will be quite some time before we figure out what works best in this solution space.

Jun 19, 2016
@Shilelagh, you should change your handle to "Shillelagh_Rule." Unfortunately it's not a law of nature, they may get hit with it but that doesn't mean they're paying attention.

Jun 19, 2016
Oh, cute. Those of you with no knowledge think the rest of us are Luddites? I guess you do not know our histories. You have in fact just revealed your own limits, as well as your character.

Folk should be careful to not be drawn into the game of otto and Ira. It brings out the part of your character which is not pretty or attractive to others.

My house has an instantaneous water heater, a condensing furnace, PV panels on the roof and an electric vehicle in the driveway.

Who is the Luddite?

Jun 19, 2016
@gracie poses again.

When you are ready to do whatever is necessary to reduce carbon emissions, get back to us. Until then you are a poser.

And BTW you have not the least slightest comprehension of the Internet of Things. And that's only the beginning of your incompetence.

Jun 19, 2016
Get back to some anonymous sniper?

Really???

Send me your email address and I'll send you some pictures of the future. You are all followers.

Jun 19, 2016
Insults are cheap Schnottie, . . . see?

Show me what you have done, Mister Mouth. That is what you are all upset about isn't it? My proof of what I did in my own life and what you have failed to do in yours?

Until then, I expect to see your true character on display here like those of Ira, otto and Sgt Frumpy.

Jun 19, 2016
Schil, you can guess all you want about me and still be wrong. My life has been rife with new technologies, some of which I helped perfect. I think you are just emotionally ragged, and not thinking clearly, with those hateful emotions clouding your rationality.

In fact, it was my work on rocket planes at the Air Force Flight Test Center that got me on the hit list, because I proved it. Then, when the Electronic Battlefield came up, it was too much for Ira and otto. Then came the work with industrial lasers and 3 MeV electron beams (1969-72), then computer-operated manufacturing, . . in (1972-74).

I will be damn glad to compare and see who is the Luddite, and who has experience in the field and understands the dangers.

Jun 19, 2016
Did I say "frightening"? No flaming, I get too much of that from the other anonymous snipers.

Inthe 1980's PG&E and the phone company had an industrial secret using some kind of technology called "Victoria", which would allow us to use our powerlines with the phone lines and control houses remotely. You could have the A/C turn on before you got home, and such. Our guy in charge of it was a nice guy, but had not a single clue, so we did not do it. It ain't a new idea.

Having worked with networks a little, I understand how they can be used by others. And having helped put together, test, deploy, and operate the Electronic Battlefield let me see the interest of the government in what we do.

Without going into much more, that's it.

Jun 19, 2016
it was too much for Ira
Cher, I been leaving you to tell your lies without interfering, but if you want me to be in your lies, all you got to do is keep asking. I don't mind explaining to your new friend you attracted with your charm what a silly lying elderly man you are (and reminding everybody else while explaining to him.)

@ Shillilah-Skippy. Don't mind glam-Skippy. He's harmless, really stupid, but the harmless kind of stupid. Here's a little video that he made to tell peoples where he is at.

https://www.youtu...3b2mxl2M

He was super spy Skippy too, here he telling about all that stuffs,

https://www.youtu...-C3OTJds

https://www.youtu...-6MUz06w

And when he was in the Air Force he even got him self in the news letter,

https://www.youtu...doRD6HMA

And

https://www.youtu...absV3DeA

Just so you know what you up against.


Jun 19, 2016
I use the IoT to check the charge on the EV, and other stuff. But when I was the electronic spook for the guvmunt and then served on a Federal Criminal Grand Jury, I saw what we use against the people. It gives too much access to others, for me. But I have to use the systems we have, so, . .

It is not that you do anything wrong, it is that someone else with a dirty mind says so, perverting your information to suit his needs. I guess at 72, I have seen too much of it.

Jun 19, 2016
Oh,my, . . Little Ira is back, with his silly playground talk.

He is the one I sent my copies of the front page of the newspaper of the Air Force Flight Test Center with my name and picture on it. Then, I sent him to three military websites with my name and or picture on them. Then, I sent him copies of my Master of Science degree, and the body of my Master's Thesis. Then, Grumpy showed him my military performance reports where the Avionics Officer called me the "Perfect Airman", and the Commander insisted on my promotion.

That's why he's crabby. He put all his credibility on the charge I was phony like him, . . and LOST.

Jun 19, 2016
That's why he's crabby. He put all his credibility on the charge I was phony like him, . . and LOST.
Well okayeei Cher, laissez les bons temps rouler (that's coonass for "remember it was you that asked me to come out and play"). Now no baby-crying about bullies or snipers, you asked me for this dance.

Jun 19, 2016
To prevent fires I still like smoke alarms better. Now, if you want to connect the smoke alarm to the gas supply, that's a bit better thinking.

Hmm... better thinking, eh. Not even in the slightest.
By the time your smoke alarm triggers, you are well on your way to or into a fire.
Thinking is not for you.

Jun 19, 2016
"Nothing in that helps me understand what specifically you think is worrying."
--------------------------------

Okay. It may become clear much later. I do not want to beat it to death.

Jun 19, 2016
By the time your smoke alarm triggers, you are well on your way to or into a fire.
So the gas shouldn't be turned off if there's a fire?

Tell me, were you born an idiot or did you have to practice?

And you still can't count.

Jun 19, 2016
Oh, the logic of the consummate retard. Turning off your gas after your smoke detector has triggered is NOT PREVENTING a FIRE.
Also, at what point (location) would you turn it off.

Jun 19, 2016
anti, . . please stop the abusive verbiage. It does not hide the fact you lost the argument.

Jun 19, 2016
Turning off your gas after your smoke detector has triggered is NOT PREVENTING a FIRE.
Ummm, it's preventing the fire from getting worse by denying it fuel. Fuel, oxidizer, heat. Remove one leg of the triangle and it collapses.

Firefighting 101, duhhh ummm. Not only can't you count, you don't know how fire works.

Also, at what point (location) would you turn it off.
At the entrance of the gas line to the building. You know, where they have that smart meter thingie you don't understand installed.

Duhhh ummmm again.

I ask again, were you born an idiot or did you have to practice? Humans have been doing fire for a million years. Apparently you missed out on those genes. Not to mention the ones for counting.

Climate deniers can't count and don't understand fire.

Jun 19, 2016
I ask again, were you born an idiot or did you have to practice?

LOL. You can't even muster an original insult. Let those with intelligence devise solutions to problems. http://www.elster...hure.pdf
As I said, thinking is not for you.

Jun 19, 2016
Hey @Cappy, here's another thread to add to your collection for idiot climate deniers. On this one idiot @gorillacle proves it doesn't understand fire.

As I said, thinking is not for you.
This is playgrounding after you demonstrated you don't understand fire, which is something humans have understood for a million years.

Climate deniers can't count and don't understand fire. They're stupider than Australopithecus.

Jun 19, 2016
https://en.wikipe...tion.jpg

Note the tiny braincase.

Jun 19, 2016
demonstrated you don't understand fire

Oh the mind of the retard. Is gas the only thing that's flammable in your house? You truly believe shutting off the gas would end a fire? You have my pity.

Jun 19, 2016
For the rest of us, imagine firefighters being able to go into a burning building that they KNEW FOR SURE had no electricity and no gas.

These brave peoples' lives would be preserved. They would save more victims.

Irresponsible unregulated electric and gas utilities' sources of heat and fuel wouldn't kill more brave firefighters.

Just sayin'.

On edit:

Is gas the only thing that's flammable in your house?
Irrrelevant. Climate deniers can't count. You just asserted 2 - 1 > 1.

You are innumerate.

Jun 19, 2016
For the rest of us, imagine firefighters being able to go into a burning building that they KNEW FOR SURE had no electricity and no gas.

LOL. Firefighters are trained professionals who, unlike you, have brains and would check for those things and not rely on some fallible device cutting off the power and gas.

Jun 19, 2016
Firefighters are trained professionals who, unlike you, have brains and would check for those things and not rely on some fallible device cutting off the power and gas.
Your ignorance in ass-erting I am not professionally trained in firefighting is noted.

Your ignorance in ass-erting that if such devices were provided firefighters would not check them, or that if they were properly designed they would be fail-safe, is also noted.

Climate deniers can't count and don't understand fire.

Feel free to continue demonstrating your ignorance, and your stupidity because you cannot be skooled. This is amusing and quite revealing. There will be a test later.

Jun 19, 2016
The only thing I was asserting, is that you are a retard and now you've confirmed it.

Jun 19, 2016
So you have no more answers because you're innumerate and don't understand fire and you are resorting to playgrounding.

Noted. Everyone can see it, you know. There's nowhere to hide here, and playgrounding is something everyone understands means you have no more rational arguments.

Jun 19, 2016
Worth noting as well that most firefighters are well trained in the physics of fire, and the three legs of a fire are one of the first things they are taught. Fuel, oxidizer, heat. Every technique for killing a fire involves removing one of the legs. Good techniques remove more than one. Fire extinguishers are designed to do exactly this.

Aim at the base of the fire and sweep the flames away. Your extinguisher is designed to remove oxidizer and heat. If the extinguisher doesn't work call for the pros, turn off the gas, and trip the breaker for the mains. Use this knowledge properly and you'll be able to clean the mess up yourself instead of paying the insurance company.

Jun 19, 2016
So enlighten me. Exactly what aspect of the IoT is it you find frightening? What do you think the "hackers" might do to you? And why do you think there are not easy precautions that can be put into place?
Note how the lying cheating psychopath george kamburoff operates. He'll post some outrageous fact that he just made up as an excuse to get people talking about him. And then he'll begin bragging about his imaginary past which is actually an endless string of failed jobs, nonexistent education, and invented degrees and accomplishments.

Sad little guy. He tries so hard to get people to notice him that he will even dare people to post his SS# by sending it to them.

If you got an MS in environmental management george, how come you had no idea what CFR was? Did you sleep through class that day?

People catch you lying all the time. In your mind this means they're not as smart as you.

Jun 20, 2016
you have no more rational arguments

This from the idiot, who believes connecting a smoke detector to the gas line will prevent fires. And, furthermore imagines that firefighters would rely on this and run into burning buildings without actually confirming that there is no gas leaking.
LOL.

Jun 20, 2016
anti, please give up your nastiness. You sound like otto.

Jun 21, 2016
Turning off your gas after your smoke detector has triggered is NOT PREVENTING a FIRE
@antiG
1- the objective would be to prevent worsening or acceleration of a fire

2- if the smoke alarm goes off then there is likely enough of a heat source to ignite gas when mixed properly
so it's Firefighting 101 (see links)

because
3- if the alarm triggers you *want* to shut of the gas. the FD will shut off all the
utilities they can when they arrive (hopefully)

if it is automated, it's one less chance for worsening or blowing up before help depending on the situation

we'll check it anyway b/c safety & redundant & safety & redundant etc

http://www.nfpa.o...out-fire

http://www.firesa...bustion/

.

.

here's another thread to add to your collection
@DaSchneib
you know it!
some seriously funny sh*t! LMFAO

thanks!

Jun 21, 2016
@antigoracle
A smoke detector/alarm is to detect smoke, not propane/natural gas. So attaching it to a gas line is silly. If the smoke detector/alarm goes off, it could be detecting an excess of smoke from something burning on the stove or inside the oven. If an electric stove/oven turn knobs to off. Same with a gas stove/oven.
If smoke is detected/alarm sounds and there is a gas leak, it's best to go to the circuit breaker panel and close all circuits to prevent any electrical sparks that could cause the gas to explode.
Perhaps da schmooze meant a "gas detector" to detect a gas leak, not a smoke alarm.

"Now, if you want to connect the smoke alarm to the gas supply, that's a bit better thinking." says da schnoz

No need to do that. Attach a "gas detector". Natural gas is infused with a garlicky odor. If you smell garlic and haven't been cooking with it, then immediately turn off the circuit breaker panel, then turn off the gas lines and run out the door. Avoid causing a spark

Jun 21, 2016
my Master of Science degree, and the body of my Master's Thesis
Using caps doesnt make them true. It only makes your lies more pathetic.
my military performance reports where the Avionics Officer called me the "Perfect Airman"
I wonder if he knew you well enough at the time to know that you are a pathological liar -?

""Likeable," "Charming," "Intelligent," "Alert," "Impressive," "Confidence-inspiring,"... These are the sorts of descriptions repeatedly used by Cleckley in his famous case-studies of psychopaths. They are also, of course, "irresponsible," "self-destructive," and the like."

-George thinks this is a compliment.

"Many Psychopaths "make their living" by using charm, deceit, and manipulation to gain the confidence of their victims."

"psychopaths are good imposters. They have absolutely no hesitation about forging and brazenly using impressive credentials"

-But some of them are better at this than others. You cant even fool the goobers here.

Jun 21, 2016
otto, please outgrow your silly little need to "get even" with me. I am sorry I showed the world you are just a fat boy hiding from society on the internet. Really. There are lots of folk like you who hide behind phony names because their real lives are embarrassing.

You, Ira and Grumpy got really mad when you put all your eggs in the "George is phony" basket, and then found out I am real. Did it hurt your feelings to be outed as snipers?

Jun 21, 2016
Ira got really mad


@ glam-Skippy. Why you keep telling that lie too? I never got mad. Mad peoples don't chuckle and smile and laugh as much I was doing when I was fooling around with you. For the world class engineer who did every thing that ever been done you sure don't do the reading and comprehending stuffs very good.

Now if you keep begging for my attentions, I probably might think you really enjoyed all that fooling around and miss me being "mad" with you all day and all night too. It is not the definition of bully if you keep poking at me until I come back around, eh? Yeah, I will cut you if you stand still and I will choot you if run (us coonass is energy efficient like that.)

But I suspect you are so stupid you can not help your self. Actually we all know you are stupid like that. It's part of your mental conditions.

Jun 21, 2016
"Now if you keep begging for my attentions,"
-----------------------------

Do not over-rate yourself. You are still just a phony on the internet, too SCARED to take responsibility for your comments. You are just SCARED. Big Mouth, no guts to show us who you really are.

" I will cut you if you stand still and I will choot you if run "

Really? What a man!! I'll bet the others here quake when you threaten them.

Jun 21, 2016
Goddamn the psycho pusherman. George kamburoff is his own addiction.

"What differentiates a sociopath who lives off the labors of others from one who occasionally robs convenience stores, or from one who is a contemporary robber baron - or what makes the difference betwen an ordinary bully and a sociopathic murderer - is nothing more than social status, drive, intellect, blood lust, or simple opportunity.

"What distinguishes all of these people from the rest of us is an utterly empty hole in the psyche, where there should be the most evolved of all humanizing functions." [Martha Stout, Ph.D., The Sociopath Next Door]

Jun 21, 2016
us who you really are.
It's not my fault if you are too stupid to see what is right in front of your eyes Cher.

" I will cut you if you stand still and I will choot you if run "


Really?
Yeah, really.

I'll bet the others here quake when you threaten them.
It is not a threat, it's just a reminder like "be careful what you wish for because you whined and baby cried and stamped your feets a whole lot about "bullies" and "snipers" and "personal attacks", you if you beg those things, that makes you the liar. It is one of the ways everybody came to know you are the liar. It's why you got cast out by your tribe and had to take up with the troll tribe.

So is it going to be more "Stop it"? More "Please go away"? More "sniper"? More "how do we rid our selfs of"? You have your chance to never beg like that anymore with me,,, but you seem to miss it, eh Cher?


Jun 21, 2016
Ira is SCARED.

I revealed who I am, taking responsibility for my life and my comments.

The cowards do not.

Jun 21, 2016
Ira is SCARED.
Scared of what? If I am not real, how I am supposed to be really scared? For a moron, you are remarkable stupid.

I revealed who I am, taking responsibility for my life and my comments.
Yeah, you were stupid enough to reveal what a lying goober you are. How did that work out for you here Cher? You got cast out of your tribe. You got the troll tribe karma ratings, so you are in the tribe with bennie-Skippy, antigore-Skippy, Obama's-Socks-Skippy, really-Skippy, cantdrive-NAZA-Skippy. How you like being known the interweb over for being in that tribe?

The cowards do not.
What that mean? You just a silly old elderly man who has to make up stuffs on the interweb and thinks everybody on the interweb is just dying to hear about all the things he never did do. Cher, you should try to find a more rewarding hobby for your golden years. Getting slapped around here could only be rewarding to somebody with the mental conditions.

Jun 21, 2016
Well, I guess I will put online the documents I sent to you and Grumpy, except for my Social Security Number, which Grumpy already revealed, to his liability. Folk should see what real ones look like, especially folk like you whose education and experience are so shallow.

What got to you the most, . . the picture on the front page of the Newspaper of the Air force Flight Test Center? Did you see my name and or pictures on the three military websites, including one for a very classified group to which I did not belong? Why do you think they did that?

Then we have to to to the NASA studies and reports - I sent you the entire catalog,with my name on top of page 41. Remember? You screamed I did not do those things, and put your credibility on it,and lost. Shall we forget being a utility Senior Engineer? A national Power Quality specialist?

Yeah, I am just a silly old man, whose experience and achievements you will never match.

Jun 21, 2016
Ira is SCARED.

I revealed who I am, taking responsibility for my life and my comments.

The cowards do not.
Will you take responsibility for this?

"The Board's Enforcement Unit works with the Department of Consumer Affairs' Division of Investigation to investigate cases involving unlicensed practice and other allegations of criminal violations. These cases are forwarded for criminal prosecution to the Office of the District Attorney in the appropriate county."
http://www.bpelsg...ed.shtml

-From what youve told us and from what we've seen, youve apparently violated some laws regarding misrepresentation.

Jun 21, 2016
Please allege that to the authorities. It will fit nicely into your evidence file.

http://www.bbc.co...35712772

"CPS to prosecute 'trolls' who use fake online profiles"

Jun 21, 2016
You just a silly old elderly man who has to make up stuffs on the interweb and thinks everybody on the interweb is just dying to hear about all the things he never did do. Cher, you should try to find a more rewarding hobby for your golden years. Getting slapped around here could only be rewarding to somebody with the mental conditions.

I hear golf works for some...

Jun 21, 2016
"CPS to prosecute 'trolls' who use fake online profiles"


You left out the best part Cher. The whole thing should be put up, so I will do it.

"CPS to prosecute 'trolls' who use fake online profiles" to mock and ridicule peoples who can't stop talking about them selfs


It's called the "Stupid Goober With His Foot In His Mouth Act".

Jun 21, 2016
You just a silly old elderly man who has to make up stuffs on the interweb and thinks everybody on the interweb is just dying to hear about all the things he never did do. Cher, you should try to find a more rewarding hobby for your golden years. Getting slapped around here could only be rewarding to somebody with the mental conditions.

I hear golf works for some...

He stopped going to the duck pond because as soon as they spot him, they are outta there. Even the ducks are tired of his lies.

Jun 21, 2016
Please allege that to the authorities. It will fit nicely into your evidence file
Alleging? I am accusing.

"CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER (PE) PROFESSIONAL LICENSING GUIDE
There are some specific work environments where you do not have to be licensed to work legally as an engineer. There are exemptions under certain conditions for manufacturing, for government, or for military work.

"In fact, a minority of graduates of US engineering programs become PEs; most use their training in positions that do not require licensing.

"One warning: you must be careful, if you leave exempt work, not to continue calling yourself an engineer or offering design services; PELS can fine people heavily in these cases."
https://www.upwar...ineer-pe
Cont>

Jun 21, 2016
And as george kamburoff appears so willing to misrepresent himself here I can only assume that he may have done so with alleged consulting clients. Assuming their were any.

But hey - I could be wrong.

See the difference? I am accusing you of misrepresenting yourself. You're alleging that you had clients.

Jun 23, 2016
ahem... pardon the intrusion, but i laughed at this!
except for my Social Security Number, which Grumpy already revealed, to his liability
@illiterate POS liar-kam
1- you consented to your SSN being public by accepting the terms posted and ignoring the warning, all of which predate your sending the documents

2- you have intentionally lied about this (which means no lawyer in their right mind will take your case: also see above #1)

3- where is my summons? i can't wait! are you going to file for discovery?

4- just because you are an incompetent illiterate idiot attempting to mislead with documents that don't validate your science claims doesn't mean we all will suddenly be just like you and forward our own SSN around to the interwebz

still waiting for that summons, idiot boy

oh, and if you are "real", how come you aint sent someone to visit me?
afraid?
scared?
or just another braggart liar?
Hmm?

FOAD

Jun 23, 2016
And yet you idiots voluntarily read his posts,.... unbelievable.

What is far worse than ones opinion or merely crank posts, is the vulture and gang like mentality that exists at phys.org, and all the non-science related adolescent bickering over nothing of substance.

The 'Stumpy, Otto, and Ira cartoon show', is definitely NOT about science,... and definitely does a disservice to phys.org.


Jun 23, 2016
Noum, it all started when I mentioned I worked on rocket planes at Edwards AFB. they accused me of being a "LIAR!". So, I sent them the front page of the newspaper of the Air Force Flight Test Center with my name and picture on it, for being AFFTC Airman of the Month, for superior service. I expected them to ask technical questions such as "how was it powered?", and "What was used as a propellant for the attiude thrusters?" and such. Nope.

We went from there to other places such as my studies and reports for NASA, which necessitated the same round of abuse before I sent them the entire NASA catalog of studies and reports with my name in the top of page 41.

The same for being Senior Engineer in Technical Services for what was them the largest non-governmental power company on Earth. Same for teaching 33,000 engineers and technicians about Power Quality, the technical term for integration dysfunctions.

Jun 23, 2016
BTW, Noum, why do the rest of you HIDE behind phony names?

SCARED???

Of Ira??? Grumpy???

Don't be. They are cowards, like otto. No guts.

"Mommy, he found out my name!!!". "I'm scared!"

Jun 23, 2016
The 'Stumpy, Otto, and Ira cartoon show', is definitely NOT about science,... and definitely does a disservice to phys.org.


@ Nounemom-Skippy.

This is what it is Cher.

https://www.youtu...AlI2IIvI

Jun 23, 2016
@ glam-Skippy.

Of Ira???


What? You miss me so quick Cher?

Don't you think your time would be better spent developing super IC chips, awesome airplanes, electric warrior tools, designing cutting edge cow poo power plants and the windmills to shut down all the coal and nuclear plants..... and teaching the 200,000 engineers you have not gotten to yet about all the stuffs they could not learn in school?

Jun 23, 2016
@Ira, your trolling after gkam is not a form of boasting? To brag ; "talk with excessive pride and self-satisfaction about one's achievements",... this seems spot on for those who 5-rate each other's ability to character-assassinate.


Jun 23, 2016
is definitely NOT about science
@nou
1- it is a reply that is relevant to a post

2- threatening legal action for her own personal stupidity is freakin hilarious, so it was worth replying to

3- considering the bulk of your replies are typically completely subjective - "pot-kettle-black"

4- considering that PO is pandering to the trolls like you and liar-girl... it is OK to vent about it now and again

5- there is nothing non-factual in my post

6- history is relevant in science at times (see above)

7- the topic is relevant as it applies to the internet and it's ability to help one be smarter (to a point, ignoring philo, religion, conspiracy and idiots, that is)

8- smarting about being outed by Schneib & attempting to start a flame war is demonstrative of the above & the problems of PO, which is why i advocate for moderation: to keep the idiots and trolls like you and gkam in check or banhammered for your blatant disregard

Jun 23, 2016
Nounemom-Skippy. He came to me with his snide snarky calling me the goober before I ever made a comment to him. Over and Over. Every time I decide to let it go, he begs me to come back and play because he likes to start writing more stuffs with my name in it. I've asked dozens of times through the last year to not mess with me, but he just KNOWS he is the smarter one and I am just a goober. If that back-up-fire on him, it is not my fault.

@Ira, your trolling after gkam is not a form of boasting?
That's what makes him so mad, I don't brag about my achievements. So he fills in the blanks with "ignorant" and "not having an education" and "goobers from the south" and "not having any experience".

this seems spot on for those who 5-rate each other's ability to character-assassinate.
glam-Skippy should have the 10+ rating for what he did to his own reputation on the physorg.

Now why you don't go discuss the nature of the mental reality that is not real with somebody.

Jun 23, 2016
@ Nounemom-Skippy. Things are not always what they look like. Sometimes assuming stuffs get you in real big trouble when you are assuming what other peoples don't know, don't understand and don't have. glam-Skippy is just one more couyon that make that mistake with me.

He come here to pretend to some sort of elite expert on every single field of human endeavors. There was peoples (not me) that told him on his first days that might not be such a good idea on a science site. And all he done since is double down on stupid.

He gets every thing wrong, and whenever anybody calls him on it, he says: "It don't count when I am wrong because I have experience and you the goober".

If he isn't handing out one-liner snarky insults, he is making up stuffs thinking "goobers can't tell if it is true or not". Seven different kinds of engineer he claims over and over. But 99% he gets all the sciences wrong. Over 15k postums in 18 months of it.

All he has to do is not type "Ira".

Jun 23, 2016
@nou ..smarting about being outed by Schneib


More subjective characterizations devoid of substance. I asked you in the thread to articulate how exactly so, as opposed to just "saying so",... i.e. where is the physics "evidence" for your subjective claim.....

http://phys.org/n...pse.html

You failed to do so, thus I must take this as evidence of your inability to understand my posts enough to pass qualified judgement. Nor do you know enough physics to see that DaSchneib was schooled multiple times by me, and therefore must rely on subjective opinion from one who was not particularly honest.

Then came a barrage of even more trolls with more unsubstantiated character assassinations,... typical of the uneducated low class nature of the bulk of posters here.


Jun 23, 2016
@nou
I asked ...You failed to
actually, asked and answered Jun 13
you just didn't like the answer & you failed to clarify which specifics & then went on yet another philo-rant (backpedaling)
see also:
https://www.psych...ttle-ego

must rely on subjective opinion from one who was not particularly honest
1- i am not an expert in QM, thus i rely upon those who are

2- so... if Schneib posts about QM
&
said post is substantiated by research
&
validated by another physicists (x2, actually)
&
these physicists also regarded your own comments as invalid
THEN
per your above claim this means you "schooled [DaS] multiple times" and all the other physicists are "not particularly honest"??
really?
LOL

sorry nou, but i would take a JPL physicist, an MIT physicist, a CalTech physicist & a NASA physicist's collective QM explanations over a philo whiner any day...
(feedback from 1st two)

Jun 23, 2016
@nou cont'd
thus I must take this as evidence of your inability to understand
so, what is your comment to the other physicists who didn't like your feedback or didn't agree with your QM interpretations and agreed with what Schneib said vrs your philo opinion?

are they stupid, or are you just far better educated then they?
maybe they just don't "know enough physics"...???

Hmm... if i had to put money on the argument, i would have to side with the degree holding experts over the philo

just sayin'

maybe it is indicative of something (like Dunning-Kruger) and "typical of the uneducated low class nature of the bulk of posters here" that you consider yourself to be far better educated to explain something in physics over anyone else who is willing to be open to the evidence listening to actual physicists?

care to elaborate?

feel free to expound on whatever you wish... always willing to examine your fascinating delusions

Jun 23, 2016
"He picked on me first!",

"It's his fault!", . .

"He reported me for being a goober".

"Whaaaaaaa!!!"

No, the fact is, we got along until you called me a liar.

"WAAAAAA!". It's all you can say, not having had any science.

Jun 23, 2016
thus I must take this as evidence of your inability to understand


so, what is your comment to the other physicists who didn't like your feedback or didn't agree with your QM interpretations and agreed with what Schneib said vrs your philo opinion?


What other physicists? Didn't agree with me about what, specifically? This is your problem, you spout these type of unsubstantiated claims that are without any actual merit.

Go to the above thread and quote them disagreeing with me. Did they quote me and articulate an actual counter-point, or did they simply say "you're wrong" and then hide under their desk?

It was DaSchneib who was espousing [metaphysical] philosophy,.. your bias blinded you.

As I said, if YOU must rely on other posters subjective opinion, one who didn't even know the Schrodinger equation from a wavefunction, then your own is even more worthless.

I can reference prominent physicists for most of what I post.


Jun 23, 2016
@Stumpy, all those screen-names that interjected on June 15th,.. NEVER actually articulated WHY I was wrong nor made any ACTUAL counter arguments. Any dolt could post character-assassinations like they did, without even knowing anything about QM.

They are all the same demented half-wit that are obviously trolling and likely never even read the thread. Are these "the physicists" your are referring to? Trolls? Look at me profile page to see how demented this person is. Is that your reference? Go to that thread and quote them.

No? Then who? Quote their counter-arguments in that thread. That's how competition of ideas works,... not by simply saying "your wrong" like a child .

After-all, I "could" be wrong and there "are" valid counter-arguments,.... I even supplied one for DaSchnieb myself.

Waiting for Stumpy to substantiate his character assassinations......


Jun 23, 2016
Gkam - If you are going to put the words of others in quotes, please provide references, unless they are from the current thread.

Gkam If you are going to put quotes around phrases not actually said by others, well, that's just one more reason you are despised.

This is called taking responsibility for your comments. Try it sometime.

Noum. will figure you out eventually. You are the small dog intellectually, and should stay out of the situation between him and Cptn. Stumpy.

Hi Noum.

Jun 23, 2016
Let's get back to science and what happens when somebody hacks into your IoT. Do you know there is a Russian channel which shows hacked living in American houses which use cameras and the internet for "security"?

Jun 23, 2016
You are the small dog intellectually, and should stay out of the situation between him and Cptn. Stumpy.
Another reason some peoples should stay out of situations like that, those peoples actually put thought and effort into their postums. I don't very often agree with Nounemon-Skippy, But I hardly ever down vote him. Once in a while I do, but not when him and me are arguing about something. At least he works at trying to say something.

The same old recycled bumper-sticker slogans year after year after another year don't really beg much respect. (And I am not exaggerating either, these bumper-sticker slogans are the same ones postumed at dozens of places all over the interweb for the last 10 years. On a lot of places he is restricted to just a few postums a week or month or some such like.)


Jun 23, 2016
@ glam-Skippy. How about we try to have a reasonable conversation, eh? You up for that Cher?
Let's get back to science and what happens when somebody hacks into your IoT. Do you know there is a Russian channel which shows hacked living in American houses which use cameras and the internet for "security"?


Yeah, I did know that. When I read about it I say to my self, that is really bad. That somebody, in the 21st century would buy a interweb camera and hook him up. AND be stupid enough not to change the store-bought default passcode like the softwares advises you to do when you are setting him up.

You can't protect people from being really stupid. If a person is a big enough idiot he'll screw him self no matter how much you try to "protect" him.


Jun 24, 2016
This is your problem, you spout these type of unsubstantiated claims that are without any actual merit
@nou
you mean like this?
DaSchneib who was espousing [metaphysical] philosophy

if YOU must rely on other posters subjective opinion...then your own is even more worthless

Go to the above thread and quote them disagreeing with me
actually, i e-mailed them Schneib's quotes, and your's, then the links to verify the quotes were verbatim
I can reference prominent physicists for most of what I post
and i can quote religious scholars who know algebra, so what's your point?

just because a scientist discusses philosophy doesn't mean it validates the philo comment any more than being able to see a garage makes you a Toyota

given their lack of posting to you, then one can only conclude they weren't in the mood for your philo distraction

i know every time Schneib tried to nail you down to anything you attempted distraction with some philo point

2Bcont'd

Jun 24, 2016
@nou cont'd
NEVER actually articulated WHY I was wrong nor made any ACTUAL counter arguments...post character-assassinations like they did...
oh boo hoo!

so you troll above, in other threads, pissing people off by attempting to talk QM with Schneib et al and when you get outed, instead of capitulation or accepting that you aren't the jebus f*cking christ, you talk philo, distract with subjectivity...

& now you want to cry about it here because people said mean things about you because they hate it when you do that?

really?
do i need to break out the violins?
Waiting for Stumpy to substantiate his character assassinations
i proved everything i said about you, philo-girl
not by simply saying "your wrong" like a child
and i provided evidence and left the clarification in your court, you idiot... you are the one refusing to actually state or clarify

or are you getting like certain other Rule 37 idiots and can't read?
2Bcont'd

Jun 24, 2016
last point @nou:
After-all, I "could" be wrong and there "are" valid counter-arguments
from what i read and from the feedback i got you intentionally failed to keep on topic because that would mean addressing specifics you don't want to accept

this was why Schneib had to keep repeating "You're making stuff up again"

now, i have always known my own limitations, and i've gotten some books to study QM
i can accept that i don't know a lot of the equations or math in QM
this is why when i get into a situation, i defer to experts (as noted)

point being: i will not post anything i didn't get permission to post (hint to certain other idiots)
& my feedback said you kept distracting from a good discussion with subjective philo crap

given the known specialists versus your pontification and known idiocy
plus your refusal to actually address my points

...

it's not character assassination if it's validated by outside sources

Jun 24, 2016
Three more posts and still no articulated counter-argument. Your inability to be specific rather than "just saying so" in a vague way with your mysterious "physicists" speaks volumes. The thread is still open my boy,.... I asked you to specify how my argument was faulty, .......

i can accept that i don't know a lot of the equations or math in QM


My argument made use of the mathematical formulation of QM, so therefore if you don't understand the basis of that argument then you won't understand my subsequent interpretation. I pointed this out to you and DaSchneib in that thread,..... but yet you still have [empty] negative characterizations to offer?

Here is the thread,.....

http://phys.org/n...pse.html

State how my argument was invalid or wrong. Again, I'm not interested in YOUR misapprehension or rewording of what I wrote,... quote me directly. No? Then why are you attacking me in that thread?


Jun 24, 2016
There are useful aspects of the IoT, no doubt (if I could think of one...but right now I actually can't).
But it should be used where sensible and not just make every nose-hair remover internet capable per default..

One thing is security and encryption. We have to consider that the IoT part of devices will have to be very cheap and will come from a plethora of producers/vendors. I find it questionable whether all of them can implement airtight security and/or provide timely updates to their own devices (especially those vendors that go out of business while their IoT module is still in use).

Security is not a selling point for a fridge. The fridge capability is.

Heck...many 'smart meters' on the market are implementing NO encryption - and that is one bit of information that can give you all you need to know whether someone is home or not.

Jun 24, 2016

I will not post anything i didn't get permission to post


Then your subjective characterizations of my posts are worthless, without specificity. You admonish cranks for not being specific in their arguments, but yet, here you offer only empty drive-by subjective characterizations.

my feedback said you kept distracting from a good discussion with subjective philo crap


Your feedback from whom, Jerry-Springer?

Your mysterious references hiding under their desk, didn't notice all the false accusatory distractions leveled against me? I even pointed them out there.

You have not articulated a counter-argument nor even once pointed out how my argument was wrong or faulty. [and there is certainly room for criticism],.... but instead only offer "argument by authority" hiding under their desks. Since, as stated, I can reference prominent physicists for most of my statements,.... this is a pointless means of debate by proxy. Fraudulent.


Jun 24, 2016
it's not character assassination if it's validated by outside sources


But you haven't told me what their supposed objection is, therefore there was never any validation for your vacuous characterizations. In contrast, I referenced the mathematical formulation of theory to substantiate my argument, while others offered metaphysically based argument. This is the irony here and evidence that phys.org is flooded with frauds, who are more interested in personality and character-assassination than actual substantive discussion.

Still waiting Stumpy for you to post a counter point. Your only attempt in that thread was your own mischaracterization and not representative of what I posted. You will need to quote me in full rather than "telling me what I said"......


Jun 24, 2016
accepting that you aren't the jebus f*cking christ,


That's speculation on your part.

you talk philo, distract with subjectivity


I posted more core factual physics theory in that one thread than I've seen you post since inception my boy,... so why do you offer only insults?

Noumenon is the bad-guy at phys.org because 1) he does not take bs from character-assassins, 2) instead of attacking the soft-targets ad nauseam, he engages and questions those who appear to know something, 3) is a right-winger (libertarian).

Jun 24, 2016
Three more posts
@Nou
Stopped there

4 posts, still no clarification
in (yet again) an attempt to distract from your failure to answer

1- Still waiting, nou, for you to post a clarification or answer my request (in the LOOP thread)

2- (yet another repeat, because you either can't read or intentionally won't actually answer)
"asked and answered Jun 13
you just didn't like the answer & you failed to clarify which specifics & then went on yet another philo-rant (backpedaling)"

3- no point continuing if you aint going to actually answer, is there?
you will simply dance in circles until one of us walks away, so... i will make it very clear

answer me from the other thread or STFU
'cause i really don't feel like continuing to cross post this here since you obviously aren't going to answer in either thread

not even going to bother reading the rest until you do

thanks

PS- didn't have to post the link
i'm not the idiot gkam
i know how to internet

Jun 24, 2016
Still waiting, nou, for you to post a clarification or answer my reques


What request? Answer what? I thought I answered your false claim that I said things don't exist unless they're measured. If there was something else, you'll have to repost it as I must have missed it? You can post it there instead of here.

Jun 24, 2016
Let's get back to science and what happens when somebody hacks into your IoT. Do you know there is a Russian channel which shows hacked living in American houses which use cameras and the internet for "security"
Hackers are only looking for the kind of personal info that george kamburoff gives away freely online... name, address, phone#, family names, SSN, work history, etc.

George has single-handedly discovered the cure for viruses.

Yup suicide.

George wants us to believe that this is a courageous and morally superior way to act.

Well so did jesus I suppose.

Jun 24, 2016
The 'Stumpy, Otto, and Ira cartoon show', is definitely NOT about science,... and definitely does a disservice to phys.org
Nou. You consistently show a lack of respect for science and facts as well, and object just like george does when you are called on it.

No wonder youre defending fellow abusers and fantasists.

Jun 24, 2016
Would you trust otto or the other snipers with your IoT?

Just look at their responses to view their character.

Jun 24, 2016
I think the IoT provides a lot of opportunity for hackers and Big Brother.


Is that what you think? That makes me think you are a twenty-first century Luddite who is afraid of things he does not understand.


Look up @Internetofshit on Twitter. The security issue is not trivial. There are many in industry and government who are really scared of what someone could do with this technology.

I suggest proceeding with a bit more caution and a slightly less cavalier attitude toward these concerns.

Jun 24, 2016
Would you trust otto or the other snipers with your IoT?
You trusted them with your SSN, your address, the names of your family, telephone number, etc, etc. Not only Otto-Skippy and the snipers here, but with everybody on the whole interweb.

Like I said up there Cher, you can not protect a person from his own stupidity, he'll always find a way to circumvent anything you do to help protect him from him self.

Just look at their responses to view their character.
Have any of them sent you any harassing mail to your house? To your email account? Phone calls? THAT is how you judge their character.

Jun 25, 2016
@Stumpy, I reread through your posts concerning my discussion with DaSchneib, and I do not see any calls for clarification nor any questions from you that I did not subsequently address.

You consistently show a lack of respect for science and facts as well

That's a drive-by unsubstantiated and vacuous accusation. Anyone can level such empty charges. Not just anyone can be specific about WHAT facts or statements in question, though.


Jun 25, 2016
What request? Answer what?
I reread through your posts...
@nou
answered this here: http://phys.org/n...pse.html

quit playing stupid - i know you're not illiterate like some of the other gang of idiots, so quit acting like rc et al

unless, of course, you are doing it intentionally... then don't bother replying
i can downrate and simply post the exact same points and argument next time you get schooled in QM (just like i did above)

Jun 25, 2016
What request? Answer what?
I reread through your posts...
@nou
answered this here: [link]


I don't see any post by you requesting clarification on June 13th. I already answered a post by you on that date. It appears that you are BS'ing here.

i can downrate and simply post the exact same points and argument next time you get schooled in QM (just like i did above)


Schooled by whom? The person I conversed with didn't even know the Schrodinger Equation from a wavefunction, nor other basic principles. I was doing the schooling my boy. More of your own unqualified subjective opinion.

By your own admission, you don't know much QM, thus how is it that you are qualified in making these type of claims of me being "schooled". You just level attacks.

For all this back and forth you could have simply quoted yourself or re-asked the question. It appears that you are bs'ing here.


Jun 26, 2016
I don't see any post by you requesting clarification on June 13th
@nou
so you're gonna play the pachinko instant stupid card... you go ahead with that, felcher
I already answered a post by you on that date
no, you didn't
you evaded answering
you tried to distract from answering
you circumvented by obfuscation
you lied and backpedaled
and you also philo'd

but you did not answer, just like you are continuing to lie

so that's how you want to play it?
you want to pachinko it and then play like your liar-kam and an idiot?
really?

and so now you're back to this exact same game again - the philo distraction lie topped with illiteracy and stupidity

gotcha

ok- thanks for showing your true colours

(you do know google works, right? and so does CTRL+F?
Oh wait, you're playing f*cking stupid again... sorry. you don't know it.
forget i asked)

Jun 26, 2016
@lying POS nou
Schooled by whom?
really?
now you can't read names either?
I was doing the schooling my boy
you mean like your lying backpedaling obfuscation & distraction from fact posted here?
my boy
i'm straight, married & dislike lairs and pretentious idiots
sorry
maybe you can ask o_sz
By your own admission, you don't know much QM
and by your demonstration, you don't know much either

so what?
at least i know how to find answers and admit what i don't know
you could have ...re-asked
and you could buy some feathers & call yourself a faerie
you are bs'ing
Nope
just tired of your crap

as for your wanting the questions "yet again"... this is a running trend with you and certain pachinko others

i re-quote it, you will obfuscate, philo, distract, evade or blatantly lie about it yet again (see above or loop thread)

I know this because i can Google and CTRL+F

Jun 26, 2016
It would take much less effort for you to simply repost your question, than posting another eight posts in an effort to avoid doing so.....

1- Still waiting, nou, for you to post a clarification or answer my request (in the LOOP thread)


And I'm requesting you to restate that request so that I can do this for you. Since you know how to use google, look up the word Irony.

You made over 40 posts in that thread, and I honestly don't know what it is you are asking for clarification about nor any request, that I had not already addressed. Was it before my discussion with DaSchneib? Why not simply quote me then ask for clarification again? Or, what text should I search for?

You request clarification from me, yet are investing energy avoiding clarifying that request even when I'm practically begging you to so so.

Can we stop this,... the "who's on first" bit wasn't very funny anyway.

Go to the thread and ask your question.


Jun 26, 2016
The nature of character-assassins is that they actively avoid detailed and substantive discussion, because they're only interested in their original intention of drive-by impressionistic accusatory posts,.... they are easily exposed by simply by asking for details.

In the above referenced thread I was attacked by at least eight troll-rating-screen names all simply "proclaiming" that I'm wrong , but when pressed to elaborate on what it is that I was wrong about specifically ,... they hide under their desk. Otto "proclaims" that Noumenon 'does not respect science or facts',.... but what does such a statement mean without specifying what is being referred to? Do you see how it is nothing but empty impressionistic characterizations devoid of actual content.

Stumpy, many of your posts toward me are just that, drive-by characterizations. You state "you're speaking philo babble",... without even an attempt to specify which statement and why.


Jun 26, 2016
"and you could buy some feathers & call yourself a faerie"
--------------------------------

and drive a Big Red Truck!

Jun 26, 2016
That's a drive-by unsubstantiated and vacuous accusation. Anyone can level such empty charges. Not just anyone can be specific about WHAT facts or statements in question, though
Naw you and lots of others here know that that observation come from reading dozens and dozens of your posts, and participating in several protracted discussions with you, wherein you tried to convince me that I needed to have a thorough knowledge of Kantian philosophy in order to understand how kant foresaw the advent of quantum physics.

And now you're going to tell me that that's NOT what you said at all, but that I misunderstood because I don't have a thorough knowledge of Kantian philosophy.

Talking to yourself is not science nou.

Tell you what - from now on I'm going to 1/5 every post you make, just from spite. Just because it seems to bother you.

Jun 26, 2016
wherein you tried to convince me that I needed to have a thorough knowledge of Kantian philosophy in order to understand how kant foresaw the advent of quantum physics.


I never said this. Again, you're not quoting me having said this, but rather displaying your own defective apprehension. Quote me. If Kant could foresee QM , i.e. that we could have non-intuitive but yet predictive knowledge,.... then this would have had profound effect on his core philosophy. So again, you don't quite get those posts.

I have not had any debates with you about Kant nor about QM, nor philosophy of physics. All that I ever recall from you is your attempt to disparage philosophy in general sweeping terms not at all related to any of my posts. At one point I requested that you read his 'Critique of Pure Reason' or at least 'Prolegomena ..', and get back to me. Instead you copy/paste off the internet as if debating by proxy.

Talking to you is not science, Otto.

Jun 27, 2016
I never said this
See? Told you so.
you copy/paste off the internet as if debating by proxy.

Talking to you is not science, Otto
I often defer to accomplished scientists and even philos whose opinions I respect because they know far more about the subject in question than either you or I.

But you disparage respected references.

More hard evidence that you have more respect for philo mysticism than for science.
Quote me
Sorry I dont play fetch. I know what you said and so do the people here.

And so do you.

Jun 27, 2016
I never said this

See? Told you so.


Was that like the time you said, there are aliens with large glass heads that lay about all day on mars? And now you're going to tell me that that's NOT what you said at all. To which,.... I will tell you, ' see, I told you so.'

As I pointed out I could also "defer" and argue by proxy,.... thus it is pointless especially given the necessarily out of context nature of such "debates"..... [I could program a wiki-bot to debate in such a fashion]

"[Kant's objection to Realism]... all knowledge must go through the mold of our a-priori synthetic judgements , the constraints of our mind, so to speak [...] This is not very far from Bohr's point of view, formulated much lator" - Roland Omnes , physicist.

You don't play fetch and neither do you discuss topics in detail with coherent context.


Jun 27, 2016
Abraham Pais [a nuclear physicist and renowned biographer and physics historian],.... regarded Neils Bohr [a physicist of note] on account of his interpretational contributions to quantum theory,.. "as one of the most important twentieth century philosophers. As such he must be considered the successor to [Immanuel] Kant, who had considered causality as a "synthetic judgement a-priori" and not derivable from experience."

..............

Of course, I have never argued that there is no one who disagrees or fails to understand Kant, nor that there are no Realists,..... so you showing me that in fact there are such people, is not a valid counter-argument to anything that have proposed.

Jun 27, 2016
Naturally, if you don't quote me directly but instead 'tell me what I said' in your own words, there are two possibilities that extend beyond representing my conjecture accurately; 1) you deliberately assume control of what I said in order to guarantee validity of your counter-argument , or 2) you did not understand the point made in the original context.

It's not only important to quote one verbatim to substantiate your accusation, but to also reproduce the context honestly.


Jun 28, 2016
Was that like the time you said, there are aliens with large glass heads that lay about all day on mars?
So much for philo objective reading comprehension. Ive provided the quote from your buddy obamasocks/pussycateyes/pussytard many times.
"[Kant's objection to Realism]... all knowledge must go through the mold of our a-priori synthetic judgements , the constraints of our mind, so to speak nonsense
-And how does this mean that kant intuited quantum physics without any evidence to draw from whatsoever?

Perhaps it was because of the quantum flux in his brainial microtubules like your hero, the mystic Penrose, also intuited with no evidence whatsoever.

Jun 28, 2016
Naturally, if you don't quote me directly but instead 'tell me what I said' in your own words, there are two possibilities that extend beyond representing my conjecture accurately
-But that's the point - the primary deception of you word mongers - you always imply succinct conjecturing but you use words which have no definition.

This becomes obvious when comparing how 2 or more philos use them, and also when you claim that nobody can accurately restate your conjectures.

That last part is actually true.

But endless reiteration is a philos bread and butter.

Definition of dialectic: 2 philos talking to themselves. Description of nou conjecturing: 1 philo talking to himself.

Jun 28, 2016
You seem to want to debate the validity of philosophy in general sweeping terms, just as Stumpy does. I have stated repeatedly that I'm not interested in such an asinine discussion, because it is not about anything.

I'm not going to debate Kant with someone who has not even read him, nor QM with one who has not demonstrated knowledge or even interest.

If you can articulate a point that is relevant to physics, then I may respond,... otherwise this seems like more pointless bickering.

And how does this mean that kant intuited quantum physics ...


As I said, by rewording what I said, as opposed to quoting me directly, you're attempting to assume control of what I said in order to guarantee validity of your own counter-argument. Therefore, you may as well just argue with yourself.

Quote me having said anything like that. If you can't do this then your reading comprehension is defective, or you're only interested in impressionistic character assassinations.


Jun 28, 2016
Was that like the time you said, there are aliens with large glass heads that lay about all day on mars?


Ive provided the quote from your buddy obamasocks/pussycateyes/pussytard many times.


I guess you missed the punch-line. Above you claimed that I said X and then predicted that I would tell you that I did not in fact say X,... after which you said "see I told you".

Obviously, I just did the same to you to demonstrate how meaningless your post was.

Quote me having said that Kant knew anything of QM. That is your own manufactured gibberish. I just quoted two prominent physicists whom clearly indicate how Kant's ideas are relevant to QM. Perhaps go to the above referenced link to see more of my posts to this effect, or not.


Jun 29, 2016
Quote me having said that Kant knew anything of QM
I didnt say that kant knew anything of QM. I said he couldnt have without evidence. You HAVE said that kant discerned the indeterminate nature of the universe. But as he had no evidence to draw from, this is absurd.
just quoted two prominent physicists whom clearly indicate how Kant's ideas are relevant to QM
How could they be?? QM came from analysis of evidence which kant didnt have. Kant couldnt have known the nature of the universe. He was guessing.

No he wasnt even guessing, he was posturing. Like ayn rand and so many others have said his works are unfathomable by design.
If you can articulate a point that is relevant to physics
I did. Postulating without evidence in ridiculous.
then I may respond
Who cares whether you respond or not? Just more gibberish. Da schneib concludes the same thing after 20-30 posts. I'd rather find refs from your superiors on the internet who say the same thing.

Jun 29, 2016
You HAVE said that kant discerned the indeterminate nature of the universe.


I have never said this. Again, you attempt to tell me what I said. Quote me having said this.

Quote me having said that Kant knew anything of QM


I didnt say that kant knew anything of QM.


I didn't say that you did. I said that you are claiming that I did. So quote me having done so,.. otherwise your accusations are baseless.

You claimed [without any evidence by quoting me] that Noumenon said "kant foresaw the advent of quantum physics" and "kant intuited quantum physics". I have not said these things.

Jun 29, 2016
just quoted two prominent physicists whom clearly indicate [that] Kant's ideas are relevant to QM

How could they be??


How could that be? Well, that requires knowledge of the history of QM, and Kant's work, and Bohr interpretation of QM, which is why A. Pais and R. Omnes are making those statements. IOW, this requires work on your part, or for you to treat me with reasonable respect in order for me to inform you,..... otherwise why on earth would I go to that effort?

QM came from analysis of evidence which kant didnt have.

You seem to be under the impression that Kant said something about physics and that he is being referenced for that. Not true.


Jun 29, 2016
Who cares whether you respond or not? Just more gibberish. Da schneib concludes the same thing after 20-30 posts.


Evidently you do since you're asking questions. Yes it is gibberish to you that is clear. DaSchneib conclusions are of limited value given the physics I had to teach him. Perhaps, you can do better, the thread is still open…..

http://phys.org/n...pse.html

Jun 30, 2016
just quoted two prominent physicists whom clearly indicate [that] Kant's ideas are relevant to QM
How could that be? Well, that requires knowledge of the history of QM, and Kant's work, and Bohr interpretation of QM
Let me explain it more simpler for you. Back in kants time no one knew anything about QM. Kant wrote an unfathomable book with some quotable phrases in it which said something about how we will never be able to know everything about something.

Some gens later scientists amassed enough evidence to develop QM. QM says you cant know everything about something.

Similarly, nostradamus once said "Bates farouches de faim fleuves tranner: Plus part du champ encontre Hister sera, En cage de fer le grand fera traÅ'ner..." (Quatrain 2-24).

-which clearly anticipates the rise of national socialism.

Coincidence or the power of precognition? Or the even greater power of philobabble?

I dunno, maybe we should ask a mystic.

Jun 30, 2016
Thank you for explaining your misunderstanding in more simpler terms.

No, not a coincidence as what Kant wrote about was epistemology,.... an analysis of how we acquire knowledge and its limits etc. This is relevant when a field such as QM (or even GR) exposes classical concepts as forming an artificial synthesis of empirical reality.

In the above referenced thread I point out what Kant could not have foreseen, and where he was wrong. If you actually have interest beyond "attacking",.... then continue this discussion there.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more