australopithecus wrote:Thanks, I am. Now, those myths of QM you referred to? Any chance of you listing them?
Hey, get in line, I'm still waiting for Joseph to debunk Krauss here
I suppose first I'll have to wait for Joe to actually understand what it is he is trying to debunk, but hey, something tells me you're in the same boat.
If I don't understand Krauss, then we are all in the same boat! seeing as you have said nothing about his proposed theory, indicates you don't even understand it. It's funny that you have no understanding of QM but you pose that not only do you understand it completely but that it's as irrefutable theory. I don't have time to argue with posers. If I wanted to debate with the internet I might as well have never joined the league of reason. I was hoping for something different then this. Unless you show me you have some kind of understanding about quantum theories than I shall not waste my time debating against a video or a book.
everything I say or ask; you'll just google the answer. First question: What is quantum mechanix. Give me an anwer that you did not have to google to get. Is that possible?
Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:13 pm
australopithecusPosts: 4349Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: KernowGender: Time Lord
Josephhasfun01 wrote: If I don't understand Krauss, then we are all in the same boat!
Oh dear, you missed the point there too. I was saying to Austra that I was waiting for you to understand Krauss' theory (which you have already showed me you don't) and similarly, I bet he will also be waiting for to understand quantum theory.
I'd never be in the same boat as you, Joe, for health and safety reasons, as you're vacuous brain would create similar conditions to the Bermuda triangle.
seeing as you have said nothing about his proposed theory, indicates you don't even understand it.
So you're ignoring all the outlines that we've given you then......again.
It's funny that you have no understanding of QM but you pose that not only do you understand it completely but that it's as irrefutable theory.
Nothing is irrefutable, but Quantum mechanics has been shown to be as precise as measuring the width of North America to the accuracy of a single human hair. And in all fairness, Joe, no one understands Quantum theory fully. As Richard Feynman said "if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory".
I don't have time to argue with posers. If I wanted to debate with the internet I might as well have never joined the league of reason. I was hoping for something different then this.
For someone who doesn't like it here, you spend an awful lot of time posting.
Unless you show me you have some kind of understanding about quantum theories than I shall not waste my time debating against a video or a book.
I'm not a physicist, but as I understand it, Quantum mechanics describes the actions and interactions of particles on the sub-atomic level where classical physics breaks down. One such example is the wave-particle duality. Meaning matter and energy seem to display characteristics of both. You can see this for yourself by performing the double slit experiment
Again, I'm not a physicist, so that is probably a very simplistic explanation. But it's enough for you to go on.
everything I say or ask; you'll just google the answer. First question: What is quantum mechanix. Give me an anwer that you did not have to google to get. Is that possible?
You seem to equate "research" with "wrong". Of course I look things up, of course I research, of course I double check before making ridiculous assertions. May I ask Joe, why you find that such a bad thing?
Frenger wrote:Again, I'm not a physicist, so that is probably a very simplistic explanation. But it's enough for you to go on.
No, that pretty much covers it. Everything flows from the Uncertainty Principle. Once you begin to grasp the implications of that, you're well on your way to understanding quantum theory, at least as well as anyone can.
BTW, anyone who's interested should check out Ozmoroid's new series on QM. It's absolutely brilliant, including the best elucidation of the Schrödinger equation this commentator's ever come across.
[quote="hackenslash"][quote="Frenger"]Again, I'm not a physicist, so that is probably a very simplistic explanation. But it's enough for you to go on. [/quote]
No, that pretty much covers it. Everything flows from the Uncertainty Principle. Once you begin to grasp the implications of that, you're well on your way to understanding quantum theory, at least as well as anyone can.
BTW, anyone who's interested should check out Ozmoroid's new series on QM. It's absolutely brilliant, including the best elucidation of the Schrödinger equation this commentator's ever come across.[/quote]
Everything flows from the Uncertainty Principle
That statement alone shows you don't even grasp the fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. Posers.
Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:19 pm
australopithecusPosts: 4349Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: KernowGender: Time Lord
Why does it seem that everybody who comes here and try's to define their god into existence inevitably degenerates into stripe mode with cheeky one line responses and smilies, once they realize that their arguments don't really make any sense.
Contrary to popular belief, full-immersion holographic sex will not destroy society.
Full-immersion holographic sex achievement points will destroy society
Josephhasfun01 wrote:That statement alone shows you don't even grasp the fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. Posers.
Bored now. Bye, Joe.
May I ask on what grounds you banned him? He may have been obnoxious but he wasn't given a single warning as far as I'm aware. Now I'm not trying to start a fight with an admin but how can "Bored now" possibly be a justification for banning someone? He wasn't exactly open minded, but he wasn't trolling and I think given time we may have gotten through to him. This seems unnecessarily sudden. You pretty much Gnug smahed him.
"Nobody is ever born into this world as a soldier. " —Rau Le Creuset, Mobile Suit Gundam Seed
Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:40 pm
ProlescumPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores
forgotten observer wrote:May I ask on what grounds you banned him? He may have been obnoxious but he wasn't given a single warning as far as I'm aware. Now I'm not trying to start a fight with an admin but how can "Bored now" possibly be a justification for banning someone? He wasn't exactly open minded, but he wasn't trolling and I think given time we may have gotten through to him. This seems unnecessarily sudden. You pretty much Gnug smahed him.
The Rules wrote:Generally being excessively crude, irritating or attempting to troll for lulz may get you banned at the discretion of the moderators. Respect their decisions, they are only enforcing the rules. You can appeal a ban, but we will be checking logs to assess your offense, so don't try to lie about it.
There were several instances of misbehaviour (editing earlier posts to bolster his positions, goading, trolling), and several warnings to attend to it.
If you wish to discuss moderation policies, we have an issues and suggestions forum
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.
forgotten observer wrote:May I ask on what grounds you banned him? He may have been obnoxious but he wasn't given a single warning as far as I'm aware. Now I'm not trying to start a fight with an admin but how can "Bored now" possibly be a justification for banning someone? He wasn't exactly open minded, but he wasn't trolling and I think given time we may have gotten through to him. This seems unnecessarily sudden. You pretty much Gnug smahed him.
He had been warned previously, though more specifically, he had no intention of honest debate. That much is evident by the childish tactics he displayed. His post to hackenslash, after hack had provided some excellent sources on QM, was ridiculous. We already have an example of a creationist coming here, willing to discuss things honestly and maturely, and that is what this forum is for. It isn't for ato facilitate the onanistic tendencies of people who have no intention of behaving honestly.
Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:58 pm
FolgoraPosts: 13Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:46 amGender: Male
Folgora wrote:"I would have been a much better god than you" or "You should beg me and the human race for forgiveness for what you did"
if you were god you wouldnt be fair, or tested humans on their love for you. humans would of took advantage of you. and your charater and essence would be in doubt. you wouldnt be called the great god that loves and protects.
Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:02 pm
malicious_blokePosts: 305Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:12 pmLocation: Proper WestcountryGender: Male
prycejosh wrote:if you were god you wouldnt be fair, or tested humans on their love for you.
You mean like the book of Job, where Yahweh destroys one of his followers lives basically as a bet with Satan to see how far he can push a guy before their faith breaks?
That's pretty much an impression of the main villain from the Saw movies right there...
humans would of took advantage of you.
How, if one is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent in time and space can any 3-dimensional mortal manipulate interactions with one? It doesn't make any sense at all.
you wouldnt be called the great god that loves and protects.
There's a simple answer there, all you need to do to show people your unending love is to create an infinite pit of fire and torture and threaten to send them there if they step out of line. True love is based on threats of violence and mortal terror XD
[sarcasm ][/sarcasm ]
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it
Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:41 am
Dragan GlasPosts: 3214Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: IrelandGender: Male
How, if one is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent in time and space can any 3-dimensional mortal manipulate interactions with one? It doesn't make any sense at all.
You forget ...
Judges 1:19 wrote:19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
A bunch of yahoos with chariots of iron are as powerful as a omniscient God.
What chance does God really have?
Kindest regards,
James
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." The Age Of Reason
Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:27 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightPosts: 2752Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: NetherlandsGender: Male
prycejosh wrote:if you were god you wouldnt be fair, or tested humans on their love for you. humans would of took advantage of you. and your charater and essence would be in doubt. you wouldnt be called the great god that loves and protects.
If I was omniscient, no test would be required, it wouldn't be possible for humans to take advantage of me. If I was omnipotent, I wouldn't feel belittled because they do not love me, or if they didn't sing praises to me.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Re: What if a god does exist?
seeing as you have said nothing about his proposed theory, indicates you don't even understand it. It's funny that you have no understanding of QM but you pose that not only do you understand it completely but that it's as irrefutable theory. I don't have time to argue with posers. If I wanted to debate with the internet I might as well have never joined the league of reason. I was hoping for something different then this. Unless you show me you have some kind of understanding about quantum theories than I shall not waste my time debating against a video or a book. 
