Re: existencism

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:19:38 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker
<starmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:02:47 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker
<starmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:44:47 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by The Starmaker
<starmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Mark Isaak wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:01:58 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

[...]
I don't have, ...misunderstandings. Either I understand or I don't
understand..but I don't mis-understand. I don't have the wrong
interpretation...I have 'my own' interpretation.

Do you understand? Or are you misunderstanding me?

So you don't misunderstand, you malunderstand.

Seriously, denying that you misunderstand is a form of denying that you
are ever wrong, which is an excellent indication that you are *usually*
wrong.

Misunderstanding means having the wrong interpretation.. Since I make 'my own'
interpretations, they are not wrong unless proven to be wrong through scientific test.

They are also not right unless scientific tests fail to
disprove them; until tested they are merely conjecture. You
*were* aware of this. right?

Einstein must have had a Lot Of Conjectures...

Einstein did a lot of thought experiments.

"thought experiments"? CONJECTURES!!!!

So we can add "thought experiment" (which involves far more
than idle conjecture) to the concepts you don't understand?
OK.

He also had the
math and science skills to know how to do it correctly.

He hated math...

Cite to the relevant data, please. It isn't correct because
you say it is. Just like your imaginary "photon
consciousness".

What do I gotta do, walk on the moon?

Nope, just provide evidence supporting your claim.

I'll try to make this simple for everyone...

IOW you'll continue your simple-minded posts. OK.

Can you predict the behavior of a photon? Or a woman?

Yes (nearly always), and yes (usually).

Sometimes a photon behaves like a wave
Sometimes a photon behaves like a particle.

Correct, although its behavior is dependent on the
experiment. If you set up to detect wavelike activity you
detect waves; if you set up to detect particle activity you
detect particles. That's why it's called "wave-particle
duality" - photons are both. Note that this is *very*
simplified, and I wouldn't be able to give a rigorous
explanation if I had to; my physics courses were around 30
years ago and I don't work in the field.

Sometimes a woman behaves like a lady
Sometimes a woman behaves like a ***.

I'm going to avoid any reference to the two-slit experiment
here...

A photon *thinks* before it acts.

No, it doesn't; it *always* exhibits the behavior (wave or
particle) which the experiment is designed to produce.

You mean to tell me they don't teach this stuff in skool?

No, schools teach reality, and "photons think" is no part of
observed reality.

I'm having "thought experiments"?

No, you're engaging in imagination based on a very poor
understanding of QM. And, for that matter, of women.

I must be another Einstein!

E=mc2....wait that's wrong, it's P=mc2!


How am I'm going to explain to you people about the universe
was created by the future if you cannot get pass a simple elementary...photon?

You can't, since you have no evidence that this is correct.
No evidence, no valid explanation.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Loading