Tom Vose

Well, trust me, that's not the truth. There are residents here who make claims, without needing to make a suportive source, simply because, and this is the truth, they have earned a certain amount of respect. This respect is reserved, and even flouted with the highest impunity, because they don't need to no longer implicate sources in their conversations. I am not asking for a card free from jail, but i am mearly raising a point, which is more obvious to people who have just joined. Do you really want me to prance about and find people (who are taken for granted, but for sake of situation, their knowledge taken for granted), and then lets see who can cite their sources, because i have been around several posts, who's claims are either spectacular, but maybe not wrong, and yet accpeted without proof, never mind the posts i have seen who should have been removed to speculations long ago.

I don't believe giving out personal details are part of the manditory system here. I don't believe that for one second. Some of the pegs you have hanging up around here, normally, wouldn't be questioned, so perhaps, maybe???/ its about time to take some other people here seriously, without this stagnent dogma.

Is it, because it seems that whether i am a scientist OR NOT, depends very greately on who the hell takes one seriously round here And by the way, it seems that backing statements up, come hand-in-hand with what i said.

As they exist now, you said. They do exist now, and we can make calculations we couldn't make previously.

Oh really, that's not what you said initially.

We have quantum computers now. What makes you think we haven't?

Maybe. But those who work in whatever field, (even self-paid fields), are scientific by definition. But, i still feel that these deifinitions being thrown about, are still very personal. I still beleive a scientist by definition, is someone who is taught in the scientific arena.

I say it would, because of the restrictions of the computational models required. Are you really advocating that everything in spacetime is a one-zero binary digit? What about including Feynmans sum-over-histories theory? Think.

I could argue the energy of the tachyon but i never really made a references to the photon. If you want evidence to the curved spacetime, around the (so-called boundary of a universe, hold on please).

The computing method would need to have quibit references in its data base, after some thought.

Right, if i was not wrong in what i said, do not challenge it. That's like me calling a carrot a carrot, and you calling it an elephant. Leave the truth to the truth, and the lies for a cesspit. And please, do not challenge the standrd interpretation. If you do, its not me in the wrong.

How is that a conclusive proof? Am i wrong in saying the standard interpretation is the accepted intepretation... ... I advise you lot to learn quantum mechanics, before you all come here to [math]try[/math] and slag off people who actually knows these things. Plus, some of us don't need references. So continue to be condescending, and i will cease altogether in giving people my advice and knowledge in this site. And, i use it as a reference, which i know to be true, smart-ass.

Right, let me help you here. The quantum bible of the standard interpretation, is the most accepted quantum interpretation that is on offer to the public. So conceptually, it relieves theories that must be of maintream. So... here is the rub, the standard interpretation is only theory, but it is still the most accepted. John A. Wheeler first posited that matter and energy must arise under Planck constraints. Not to sound like others here, however, but if you propose that matter and energy arises under other contraints, it remains speculation, and at best, psuedoscience. The reason why, is that all theories under the standard interpretation would fail like dominos, if it was found wrong. This is why, the words chosen in wiki, (which isn't the best place to source information, simply because i have found three mistakes in the past two years), it leaves someone to accept that wiki is not the best place to source.

I could solve it for you (probably), however, i want to know, for my own derivation, what the units you are using. By the way, it seems almost as though someone has replaced mass with time, am i wrong...?

That is very wrong. A scientist can be anyone, who studies science itself. To be a scientist, has many levels of expertise. Also it seems, you have read someones definition of a scientist, and not been very geniune to yourself. Secondly, i should know if i am a scientist or not. Tell me, surely, this is not your definition of scientist?

No, who ever said that, does not understand the limitations of quantum theory.

How would that be possible, without a sophisticated computer program which computes a 2D object under a 3D abstract? Conecputually, it is very easy to imagine. But computationally, it should be near-impossible.

How would that be possible, without a sophisticated computer program which computes a 2D object under a 3D abstract? Conecputually, it is very easy to imagine. But computationally, it should be near-impossible.

Not really. It exists for the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of one second. So yes, it exists.

I apologize. I must have misunderstood the meaning of the posters intellect of the subejcts involved.

I nominate DH. He seems very well-adversed in physics.

A chronon, is another term to a plank time. It is basically, the Plank Time itself, this is just a very convenient word to sci-obsessives. I will try and find a link for you. Planck time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light in a ... Spacetime · Chronon · Cosmological decade · Planck epoch · Planck time · T-symmetry ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time - 71k - Cached

lol... wrong guy mate. Not my bebo. I thought it was a real word. Obviously, now, its not.

(And i will show the operation of differentiation, if one requires. It's very straight forward.) I could be wrong, but i think this person means, or is thinking of is the net force.

I agree. I retract my position here, and i will not reply any longer.