Shroedingerscat Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 So i've been wondering recently and it seems that it all makes sense if we go along with life in everyday size. In conclusion, we should delete 'Quantum Theory' from all time. Please give your opinions, I would be extremely grateful! Thankyou -3
Strange Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 In conclusion, we should delete 'Quantum Theory' from all time. I can't imagine why you would suggest that. It works extremely well. Without it, you wouldn't have a computer to make the suggestion ... 2
Unity+ Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 So i've been wondering recently and it seems that it all makes sense if we go along with life in everyday size. In conclusion, we should delete 'Quantum Theory' from all time. Please give your opinions, I would be extremely grateful! Thankyou This isn't even worth discussion because there is nothing that you have provided to really discuss besides bait.
Shroedingerscat Posted August 26, 2014 Author Posted August 26, 2014 I can't imagine why you would suggest that. It works extremely well. Without it, you wouldn't have a computer to make the suggestion ... Yes I would, It just wouldn't be as small. It would still exist we just wouldn't be aware of it. This it is worth discussion because there is everything to talk about it. I know. -3
swansont Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) ! Moderator Note Shroedingerscat, I have moved this to speculations, and edited your post to remove the bold (use such features for emphasis only, please) There doesn't seem to be any content to discuss. A nonspecific rant about QM does not make for a discussion and is considered soapboxing, which is against the rules. So come up with some specifics or this will be closed. Replying to this modnote will be a signal that you have nothing substantive to discuss. ! Moderator Note In addition, do not change people's quotes. A quote should (obviously) contain the same words that were said before. That is indeed the definition of a quote. If you change them, it should clearly be indicated that you changed them. This is so obvious that we do not have a rule against it (perhaps we should say that "If you don't quote, don't use the quote function"). Still, even though this is not specifically in our rules, a failure to comply with this request will ultimately reduce your stay on our forum. Edited August 26, 2014 by CaptainPanic More moderator notes needed. 2
Ophiolite Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 On behalf of Shroedinger's Cat I should like to reply to the mod note.
Strange Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) Yes I would, It just wouldn't be as small. It would still exist we just wouldn't be aware of it. No. It would be impossible to design many of the components in your computer with a knowledge of quantum theory. I know. Apparently not. By the way, quoting someone but changing their words is dishonest. Edited August 26, 2014 by Strange 1
Ophiolite Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Apparently not. By the way, quoting someone but changing their words is dishonest. And against forum rules, I believe.
Sensei Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 In which part of quantum physics you don't agree.. ? Schrodinger's cat (you can't even spell it correctly) is mostly about randomness at quantum level.
Thorham Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 So i've been wondering recently and it seems that it all makes sense if we go along with life in everyday size. Except that the universe isn't just made of things that are of everyday size. In conclusion, we should delete 'Quantum Theory' from all time. And then we remain in the dark about the workings of the universe. Great. Without it, you wouldn't have a computer to make the suggestion ... Not unless they had an electro-mechanical computer the size of a whole room
Lucius E.E Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) So i've been wondering recently and it seems that it all makes sense if we go along with life in everyday size. In conclusion, we should delete 'Quantum Theory' from all time. Please give your opinions, I would be extremely grateful! Thankyou Shroedingerscat, what you've just wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent original post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may Niels Bohr have mercy on your soul. Edited August 26, 2014 by Lucius E.E
Greg H. Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 I'm going to come right out and say it. This thread is nothing but troll bait, and frankly it should be locked until such time as the OP can formulate a conherent argument to support his claims. 3
Strange Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) Yes, presumably: IT'S ALL A JOKE!! Hilarious. </sarcasm> Shroedingerscat, a life in comedy is not for you. (Nor science, I suspect.) Edited August 26, 2014 by Strange
Ophiolite Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 I'm going to come right out and say it. This thread is nothing but troll bait, and frankly it should be locked until such time as the OP can formulate a conherent argument to support his claims. Please refer to my post #6 that, in relation to post #5, should have led to locking.
Phi for All Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 ! Moderator Note Thread locked temporarily for staff review.
swansont Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 ! Moderator Note This is going to remain locked, not only because of the non-content of the OP but also the quality of the responses to it; normally one should report posts that are suspected trolling. As you can see, staff was aware of the thread almost immediately. Piling on at that point is not necessary. IMO it's a bad habit to get into. If Shroedingerscat can formulate an objection to QM that contains a modicum of science, s/he may do so. However, if it's near the level posted here, it will be immediately locked. (For the record, it's Schrödinger, but oe is a common way to Anglicize ö. I would hope that attacking spelling as a form of argument would be beneath all of us.)
Recommended Posts