studiot

Your statement #28 forms a pretty fair observation, except for the above. Classical mechanics includes an uncertainty principle, of the same form as that of Heisenberg, but for classical waves. More generally, classical theory acknowledges that for various reasons exactitude is not always possible, even in theory. The Heisenberg principle goes further. It is a condition of measuring something there has to be a value to measure. Heisenberg's principle asserts that at some fineless of granularity there is no single definable value to measure. I thought that the Canadians were addressing that, so I thank those who pointed out that they (the Canadians) are simple addressing the measurement aspect. Those who have brought statistics to this discussion are missing the point. This issue is not a matter of statistics and its use is wholly inappropriate in this case.

I consider this remark highly biased. We have a conceptual difference about whether counting constitutes a valid form of measurement. Since the answers offered to my original question was that the Canadians have simply shown there is more than just the measurement, the question of what is measurement is surely valid for discussion.

illusio, I didn't note any reply to my post#6 so I presume you agree with me?

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68862-did-the-canadians-nuke-the-uncertainty-principle/page__p__701279__fromsearch__1#entry701279

I think you should look in the mirror, or follow the biblical advice about the mote and the beam. I say this from genuine concern about your health. Since the original speed of light experiments there have been many alternative ones, including interplanetary ones, which have all yielded the same basic result.

Your English is good.

Well modern electricity is only availble in 2012. Historic electricity was available in 2011 and has been available since the early 1800s. On your desert island you could follow the early career of Andrew Crosse, who powered his stately home by electricity. Don't follow his later path though since his experiments caused the house to burn down.

Well I Vote Contemptuous. !

I did promote a related question here recently. http://www.sciencefo...__1#entry689884

So you have moved from your original categorical position that observation must precede theory and/or speculation. That is good.

Don't give up mate - it's a grand life if you don't weaken.

Words in this case but they didn't prove anything. Just because you have semiconductors, and even simple semiconductor devices such as diodes, doesn't mean that you can casually 'observe a transistor happening'. Someone (Shockley and Brittain) had the idea to place two junctions in close proximity which is required for transistor action. I will grant you that many (probably most) theory in physics has been developed by observing something physical and wondering why. The fact that the internal energy of an ideal gas depends solely on temperature (Joules experiment) is one such good example. Another is the observation of matter leading eventually to the electron. However antimatter was a postulate or hypothesis before any experimental evidence appeared to require it. The positron was the first antiparticle discovered. There have been several particles since postulated as a result of group theory or symmetry, searched for and finally discovered. So physical theory has two sources of inspiration and development. That surely is better than one?

I can't agree with you there. You are using a device right now that came of someone asking 'what if?' The transistor and its associated physical theory was not invented by physical observations but by the simple idea as posed above.

I like it +1

Well I actually found your responses to my comments unprofessional and dismissive.

Chirality Perchance those who do not understand its precisely defined meaning might like to look it up? Then perhaps the OP could get on and state whatever it is he actually want to say.

But chirality is not a quantum matter so why mix the two?

A simplification, yes, overdistorted, no. I like to think of it at getting to the essence of the matter. And certainly it is relevant as each version of the Bible includes or leaves out different documents from the available set. And translation is actually a side issue as well. there are postgraduate courses available in the UK that study these documents in their original language, thus rendering translation unneccessary. Would you not agree this is the best? So the answer to Mr Rayon is that the development of the Bible is studied scientifically at some establishments. So you have not actually addressed my question/comment, merely sidestepped the issue.

Strengthening Sagactiousness although your post#9 quotes my post#8 and purports to be a response to it I can't see any direct relationship between the two. I was trying to listen to you, but are you listening to me?

As I understand it, he was saying that you can't use the axioms to prove themselves. So if you have axioms you have, perforce, something unproven. I am taking unproven to mean not explained or derived from something else. Is this not so?

It's not determined what by exists but by what to include and what to leave out. Different 'editors' at different times and places have made different choices resulting in a plethora of different 'Bibles'. The christain Bible is not a single manuscript but more like a folder collection of different documents from different times and places.

No, you should study Godel.

Whenever sensible discussion of any subject is undertaken is is necessary to agree (define) what that subject is. In this case you need to answer the question "Which Bible" ? since there are more than one and these are different.

I really didn't understand the relationship between the title of your initial post and your post#1. Chirality is not a quantum matter. It's most significant effects on humanity have been in the fields of chemistry and biochemistry where the the lack of appreciation of chirality of certain molecules has lead undesirable effects. The spin quantum number on the other hand is only to do with quantum mechanics, and further really has little or nothing to do with classical mechanical rotation.

It might be but it would be even more productive to add something to that which is already established, rather than substitute something else.