Notices
Results 1 to 44 of 44

Thread: Open Discussions

  1. #1 Open Discussions 
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    On posting so far here, a (large) number of accusations have come my way from an unpronouncable moderator claiming to be a genius duck, who has pulled me up on everything from my use of language to lack of evidence. Now, I'm not one to make claims about things being unequivocally true in fields wherein no-one actually knows what the truth is, and quantum mechanics is one of those fields. If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand it, I've read it said. Many admirable people have done much admirable work to get the theories and the formulas to dovetail thus far, but to claim to know exactly how a quark behaves or to state that a neutrino has no interaction with anything of any kind? The evidence - in the spin parameters and the electron voltage and so on - colours the picture but it cannot be said that all the facts are at our disposal, for the facts as they are given are based on formulas that 'work' (once renormalised as necessary) and the observations of tracks showing where particles have been and the traces they have left, without ever being able to observe the particles themselves.

    With these matters in mind, I propose the value of open discussion lies not merely in the precision with which the concept in question is presented, i.e. the maths and/or the experiential evidence to back it up, but also in the relevance of the questions being asked before these stages are arrived at. Without dreams and visions, Einstein and his contemporaries would not have reached the conclusions they did, and a 'thought experiment' is hardly evidence, although it may be taken as an illustrative model very much to heart. Creativity has a place in science, and there have been some lengths gone to by the IoP to bring physics to the public table, as with the Superposition events in London, for example. Open discussion, the kind within which people feel comfortable expressing their views without fear of attack, are prepared to step into the Little Crazy zone to get an idea articulated, and can feel satisfied that the exchange has been worthwhile, are valuable to everybody. With the whole world watching new products propagating all over the place with Quantum in the branding faster than rabbits can reproduce, it's never been a more important time to explore the reaches of this branch of science.

    Why? Because it matters to us all, what those answers may be. If quantum mechanics has no effect on our lives (and given that we are made of quantum units it's surely unlikely that there is no correlation to be found), why the surge of interest? What if the shift purported to be taking place in our consciousness is real, and has a connection with the Schumann resonance (someone will come along and debunk that one, I'm sure), and we are thoroughly justified in seeking answers from quarters previously unchartered because that, after all, is where breakthroughs are always found? You don't break new ground by treading the same path as everyone else. You break ground by thinking outside the box.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,878
    You have made many unsupported statements in your posts, and you don't seem to understand even the basics of the topics you post on. Back up your claims you'll be fine, if you don't you'll be called on it. If you don't like this, less rigorous forums are available, you just won't get away with it here...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    who has pulled me up on everything from my use of language to lack of evidence.
    If you don't use the language correctly what makes you think you're communicating? If you're not communicating why post?).
    If you don't have evidence (or at least a supporting argument) then all you're doing is speculating baselessly.

    Now, I'm not one to make claims about things being unequivocally true in fields wherein no-one actually knows what the truth is, and quantum mechanics is one of those fields.
    Depends on what you mean by "true/ truth". We do know what we can show to be so.

    If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand it, I've read it said.
    Yeah... that, however is NOT an excuse to introduce sheer nonsense and present it as science.

    What if the shift purported to be taking place in our consciousness is real
    It's not.

    and has a connection with the Schumann resonance (someone will come along and debunk that one, I'm sure)
    That depends on whether you're talking about actual Schumann resonance or the purported (and completely ridiculous) stuff promoted the "new age" loonies.

    we are thoroughly justified in seeking answers from quarters previously unchartered
    Nope.

    because that, after all, is where breakthroughs are always found?
    Nope.
    E.g. Einstein was thoroughly versed in the then-current and established science and "simply" followed the evidence.

    You don't break new ground by treading the same path as everyone else. You break ground by thinking outside the box.
    The problem is - you, and many like you, don't even know where the "box" is.

    You have, so far, posted much unsupported drivel, made vague allusions, and, oh, you've also posted outright falsehoods1,2 but nothing of any substance (or, to be frank, credibility) since you arrived.
    You claim to have put 17 years into "research" of quantum theory yet the sum total of your posts suggests that that "research" consisted of pop-sci articles and/ or the woo crowd's claims about what quantum theory says (and does). Going by the content of your blogs you don't actually have a clue (and your use of "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand it" as an argument supports that) and are merely (dishonestly or ignorantly) co-opting it to support unscientific (very fringe) beliefs3.


    1 "Time travels (using that term loosely) from past to future and future to past concurrently. That's a scientifically accepted fact.
    2 The Multiverse (or Everett Interpretation) appears to be the most widely accepted model
    3 I'm not even going to mention "crystal power".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,132
    Oh:
    unpronouncable moderator
    It's not unpronounceable.
    Ti-oo-ith-ir is close enough if you only have English.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    The evidence - in the spin parameters and the electron voltage and so on - colours the picture but it cannot be said that all the facts are at our disposal, for the facts as they are given are based on formulas that 'work' (once renormalised as necessary) and the observations of tracks showing where particles have been and the traces they have left, without ever being able to observe the particles themselves.
    This sounds like you are saying that because we don't know everything (and that is always true in science) that it is OK to make stuff up to fill the gaps. It isn't.

    What if the shift purported to be taking place in our consciousness is real
    What "shift in our consciousness"? Do you have some evidence for this?

    and has a connection with the Schumann resonance
    Why would the earth's electromagnetic field be relevant? And, as it has always been there, why would it be responsible for some (probably non-existent) "shift in our consciousness"?

    I am not surprised you are getting a hard time if you post nonsense like this.

    You break ground by thinking outside the box.
    One has to be intimately familiar with the box and its contents before doing that. Making stuff up isn't "thinking outside the box".
    Last edited by Strange; October 9th, 2017 at 05:36 PM.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,878
    Quantumologist, allow me to explain why you are having a hard time here... You do not know what you are talking about, most of the community here do understand the topics you are waffling around. An apt analogy would be that you are a 5 year old kid who has watched 10 minutes of a football game trying to tell a professional player how to take a free kick... In a word, laughable...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Oh:
    unpronouncable moderator
    It's not unpronounceable.
    Ti-oo-ith-ir is close enough if you only have English.
    https://translate.google.ie/?hl=en&t...to/fr/Dywyddyr (press the "listen" icon on the right hand side of page)

    No idea how authentic that is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,132
    Close-ish.
    The Dyw is like Tiw (Norse god) or English pronunciation of TUEsday (definitely not American Toosday).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,733
    Well my father was a Myrddin , so I had a head start.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Oh, how I've missed this forum
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Oh:
    unpronouncable moderator
    It's not unpronounceable.
    Ti-oo-ith-ir is close enough if you only have English.
    Ah... you added that it's a Chi as in Tuesday. 'Chi'woo - ither' - is that close? One who studies the Chi of Woos?

    It's not realisitic to ask for evidence for everything that is said, Brassica Strange, and I'm not making stuff up, I'm looking at what's out there (in both scientific and woo territories) and bringing relevant questions and suggestions to the table. Here's what you quoted from me in the 'making stuff up' context:

    "The evidence - in the spin parameters and the electron voltage and so on - colours the picture but it cannot be said that all the facts are at our disposal, for the facts as they are given are based on formulas that 'work' (once rrenormalised as necessary) and the observations of tracks showing where particles have been and the traces they have left, without ever being able to observe the particles themselves."

    if this suggests 'making stuff up to fill the gaps', then what is renormalisation doing other than stuffing gaps with things conjured for the purpose? I have seen many presentations at conferences where the particle is 'said to' be doing this that or the other, but is equally concluded to be possibly doing something else, particularly in the context of dark matter. Science at high-energy level is making stuff up to fit observable and mathematical evidence all the time, and as long as the right language / personal paperwork / academic history is there to back you up, that's okay, i suppose?

    The EM field of the earth, bearing in mind that each body has an EM field of its own, is surely bound to have some effect on / correlation with the bodies which exist on it, or of it, and we are not separate from the Earth, or of the Universe for that matter. Although I do concede that a lot of scientists seem to think we are.

    Intimate familiarity with a box makes it difficult to view the box subjectively - sorry, I mean Objectively. If your box is better than my box, that's great, but I don't subscribe to the "my God is better than your God" in any context, secular or otherwise. Things of a universal / scientific nature are interesting to a lot of people who don't have PhD credentials filed in their box. And I am pleased to hear that most of the community here have a knowledge of the "topics I am waffling around" because that means they will also be able to contribute their version of waffling to these topics, provided of course they feel at liberty to do so without unforgiving condemnation by their peers.
    Last edited by Quantumologist; October 10th, 2017 at 07:28 AM. Reason: Use of word Subjectively was wrong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    It's not realisitic to ask for evidence for everything that is said
    It is when talking about science.

    Science at high-energy level is making stuff up to fit observable and mathematical evidence all the time, and as long as the right language / personal paperwork / academic history is there to back you up, that's okay, i suppose?
    All you are doing is demonstrating that you don't have a clue how science works.

    The EM field of the earth, bearing in mind that each body has an EM field of its own, is surely bound to have some effect on / correlation with the bodies which exist on it, or of it, and we are not separate from the Earth, or of the Universe for that matter.
    Then you should be able to provide some evidence of that....

    And what about this claimed "shift in our consciousness"? Do you have some evidence for this?

    Things of a universal / scientific nature are interesting to a lot of people who don't have PhD credentials filed in their box.
    There is a difference between being interested and thinking that random thoughts which occur to you are some sort of "out of the box contribution".
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    Here are seven cited examples of scientific contributions made possible by dreams: https://www.famousscientists.org/7-g...ade-in-dreams/

    Here is a man (cited in the article linked above) who taught himself mathematics and went on to contribute significantly to the course of future work : https://www.famousscientists.org/srinivasa-ramanujan/

    I don't think I'll be allowed to paste more links in this post so as far as 'shift in consciousness' is concerned, if you haven't noticed a change in thinking over the last decade or so, together with a substantially raised awareness of the importance of scientific and spiritual debate - entangled scientific and spiritual debate - , I don't know where you've been. Perhaps I should use another term for it .... perhaps you could suggest one that might be more 'appropriate'?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    The EM field of the earth, bearing in mind that each body has an EM field of its own, is surely bound to have some effect on / correlation with the bodies which exist on it, or of it.........

    How would that work? Would em fields have quantum effects? Is that what you are saying?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    This is just last year, when the sensory aspect of human correlation was first put forward: https://phys.org/news/2016-06-eviden...-magnetic.html

    At the moment, we have little more to work from, but there is nothing to substantiate any claim that human (or any other kind of ) bodies do not interface with the planetary EM system.

    I'd have thought (dangerously perhaps) that the health and welfare of our EM system is fairly important, in both physical and biological terms. Daren't mention the psychological implications here ...... are there any???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,733
    So you are just saying that the body can detect the earth's magnetic field?

    And you think that the earth's magnetic field can influence the body in important ways that we do not know about?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    Here are seven cited examples of scientific contributions made possible by dreams: https://www.famousscientists.org/7-g...ade-in-dreams/
    Contributions made BY SCIENTISTS not random people "thinking outside the box". So what point are you trying to make.

    Here is a man (cited in the article linked above) who taught himself mathematics and went on to contribute significantly to the course of future work : https://www.famousscientists.org/srinivasa-ramanujan/
    Yes, an expert in his field. Not an uninformed amateur "thinking outside the box". So what point are you trying to make.

    I don't think I'll be allowed to paste more links in this post so as far as 'shift in consciousness' is concerned, if you haven't noticed a change in thinking over the last decade or so, together with a substantially raised awareness of the importance of scientific and spiritual debate - entangled scientific and spiritual debate - , I don't know where you've been. Perhaps I should use another term for it .... perhaps you could suggest one that might be more 'appropriate'?
    Until you provide some evidence that such a thing has happened, I'm going to ignore it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    This is just last year, when the sensory aspect of human correlation was first put forward: https://phys.org/news/2016-06-eviden...-magnetic.html

    At the moment, we have little more to work from, but there is nothing to substantiate any claim that human (or any other kind of ) bodies do not interface with the planetary EM system.
    You have gone from external magnetic fields possibly having a very small effect on the human brain to human bodies affecting the "planetary EM system". That is quite a leap of logic. (Also, you do know that magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation are two different things, don't you?)

    The Earth's magnetic field is constantly changing - so much so that the poles move around and even reverse position.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    Er, I didn't specify the size of any effects, nor did I refer to any directional influence. The matter of correlation, or interface, could be in any amount (or variant thereof) and as unpredicable as the fluctuations themselves. Here is the citation from NASA- https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news - note use of the term "other earth-bound effects"

    The fact that the rest of your search engine's menu when you type in anything about Schumann resonance is stuffed with woo pages is not my responsibility.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,643
    So no evidence then. Just more crap you are making up.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    Ah... you added that it's a Chi as in Tuesday.
    Actually I didn't. Learn to read: TUE is not CHI.

    'Chi'woo - ither' - is that close? One who studies the Chi of Woos?
    Nor is there a "woo" - I clearly wrote "oo".

    It's not realisitic to ask for evidence for everything that is said
    One more time: evidence or supporting argument.

    and I'm not making stuff up
    Yet, obviously (e.g. the two examples I gave), you ARE.

    I'm looking at what's out there (in both scientific and woo territories) and bringing relevant questions and suggestions to the table.
    Why bother with the woo?

    Here are seven cited examples of scientific contributions made possible by dreams: https://www.famousscientists.org/7-g...ade-in-dreams/
    What you appear to be ignoring is that the people involved were thoroughly and "Intimate[ly] familiar with [the] box".

    if you haven't noticed a change in thinking over the last decade or so, together with a substantially raised awareness of the importance of scientific and spiritual debate - entangled scientific and spiritual debate - , I don't know where you've been.
    The fact that a bunch of nutcases "discuss" or espouse something on the internet (or even publish books about it) doesn't necessarily mean the subject is actually valid. Or rational.

    Perhaps I should use another term for it .... perhaps you could suggest one that might be more 'appropriate'?
    Sure: complete bollocks.

    The fact that the rest of your search engine's menu when you type in anything about Schumann resonance is stuffed with woo pages is not my responsibility.
    Is it not? Given that you didn't specify precisely what you meant and didn't particularly say anything more than "Schumann resonances" then the rest of us have to flail around trying to discern what you DID mean. Add to that your - increasingly noticeable - predilection for the woo side of things then, failing you being specific, what are we to think?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,878
    Is this loon a sock puppet of Mayflow? The cluelessness and lack of comprehension smell familiar...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,132
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Is this loon a sock puppet of Mayflow? The cluelessness and lack of comprehension smell familiar...
    Unfortunately1 the evidence is that they're two separate people.

    And shame on you! Classlessness and lack of comprehension is - as you should know - (again unfortunately) widespread and available to all.
    I've been trying to get hold of a copy of Quantumology's book2 to help me decide on whether she's ignorant and deluded or cynical and simply milking the market for woo.
    While ignorance is remediable delusion usually isn't. If it's the latter then...

    1 Because if they were the same person then both would be gone.
    2 But only a, er, downloaded version3 since A) delivery of hard copy is likely to be after a definitive decision is made about her remaining here and B) I don't want to spend good money on something that - even if it's twice as rational and valid as I'm expecting - isn't going to stay in my collection past first read.
    3 Sort of telling in itself: it's not available through any of the usual torrent sites - and their appetite for the fringe tends to be prodigious.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    The fact that the rest of your search engine's menu when you type in anything about Schumann resonance is stuffed with woo pages is not my responsibility.
    Wrong.
    What if the shift purported to be taking place in our consciousness is real, and has a connection with the Schumann resonance
    A direct reference to woo followed the mention of a (possible) link.
    If you didn't mean any woo connection with regard to Schumann resonance then why bother bringing it up at all?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Is this loon a sock puppet of Mayflow? The cluelessness and lack of comprehension smell familiar...
    Sadly not

    I wondered too but....

    Hear Kathy's philosophy to improving quality of life | Greenock Telegraph
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,878
    I read that link, total woo... Utter bollocks... Seems to be a poor man's Deepak Chopra...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,643
    Learn about electromagnetism, auras, spirituality, chakras, homeopathy, healing energies, alternative medicine, consciousness, indigenous culture, metaphysics and quantum mechanics;
    Riiiiight ....

    What an utterly bonkers mixture of psychoceramic claptrap.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,132
    I've decided, if someone who's a "non-scientist" that "doesn't possess a technical mind" can write a book about quantum theory it shouldn't be too hard to for someone to take the reverse path.
    So here's my first steps into life coaching:
    Stick knitting needles into your eyeballs every day1 (this way you get a free start in breaking the ice and conversing with strangers - make new friends).
    Don't eat (so you won't get fat).
    Give up drinking (it's a fact that everyone who ever drank anything dies in the end).
    Always remember that your unsupported opinion is at least as valid as any (so-called) facts produced by (so-called) experts: don't be constrained by "evidence", in fact don't even consider looking at it (this way you'll never feel (realise) that you're "behind the curve" when it comes to discourse).

    1 Based on the complete lack of scientific papers showing that deliberately sticking knitting needles in your own eye is bad thing2.
    2 If it was good enough for Newton it's good enough for you!
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; October 10th, 2017 at 03:14 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    Goodness, you have researched me, haven't you? Yay, I founded a local group last year looking into all kinds of esoteric things, some of which Strange has pasted from its website. A local group - no imposition on academia there! (I'm sure other people have interests you might like to rip asunder - if you knew about them - who are members here.) As it happens, much of the content of that list reflects the interests of other people rather than my own - I've neither the time nor the inclination to cover so much ground! On this forum, I've asked questions about science and posted comments which relate directly to scientific concepts. At your suggestion, I have linked them to citations from respected sources. You might not like what I say, but it's not offensive unless you take disalignment with the positivist view offensive, which kinda goes against the point of a forum, surely? People's thoughts follow their passions and I'm as passionate about this stuff as you are, I just see it from a different viewpoint. That's only a bad thing if you want everybody to agree with you.

    What would you like me to do? Fess up to being a bad girl, show you my tummy with my paws all folded neatly and promise to be good?

    You'll also notice from my websites that my corporate programmes (based on correlations with quantum mechanics) broke records in the steel industry, helped veterans overcome PTSD, smashed through KPIs wherever they've been set and brought startlingly unexpected results to sectors ranging from education to machine tooling. An understanding of quantum mechanics - even if it's not exactly the same kind of understanding as you have or would want everyone to have if the world was as you wanted it - is important on many levels and feedback tells me that concepts arising from it resonate with people. Elements of it are surprisingly simple, but scientists sometimes prefer to wrap their territories in mystery and propagate closed shops than open their gifts of insight to a wider (indefatigably more stupid) audience. I've got a sense of humour, surprisingly enough, and that has a place in all this - just as yours does. If you want to ban me from this forum, I can't stop you, but let's be clear on why you would choose to do so. It wouldn't be because I'm posting offensive material or insulting fellow members. There are more than three people perusing these posts but only three people have chosen to sink their teeth into my style of writing. Maybe you'd like to make an example of me, to scare anyone else off posting non-conformist questions or daring to step outside the confines of pre-ordained constraints? A couple of civil, informative replies to a couple of things I posted and - bang, the hounds couldn't get there quick enough....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,643
    Oh come on.

    You may have asked a few questions about areas of science, but they have been loaded with your preconceived (and totally unscientific) ideas. Your links may be to respected sources, but you either misunderstand or misrepresent them.

    Your "different viewpoint" is unscientific and full of meaningless metaphysics. If you want to take inspiration from quantum theory and use it to further your career in self-help and lecturing, then that is fine. But if you try and bring those half-baked ideas back to a science forum, you are going to get a hard time. Sorry, but science is a tough discipline that doesn't allow for sloppy thinking and made-up concepts.

    scientists sometimes prefer to wrap their territories in mystery and propagate closed shops than open their gifts of insight to a wider (indefatigably more stupid) audience.
    That is complete nonsense. The only reason that areas of advanced physics are wrapped in "mystery" is because they are bloody complicated. It is not a closed shop. But it takes years of full time study to understand the mathematics behind quantum theory or general relativity. It is pretty insulting to people who have made the effort to learn that stuff to claim that your superficial (mis)understanding is as valid as theirs but just more accessible.

    Many scientists do attempt to explain things to a wider audience. But they can only do that in very general terms and by using analogies. Unfortunately, this can lead to people thinking they understand more than they do.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    Oh, and regarding the "complete falsehoods" as cited early in this thread I began in the hope of discussing Open Discussions:

    "You have, so far, posted much unsupported drivel, made vague allusions, and, oh, you've also posted outright falsehoods1,2

    1 "Time travels (using that term loosely) from past to future and future to past concurrently. That's a scientifically accepted fact.
    2 The Multiverse (or Everett Interpretation) appears to be the most widely accepted model"

    1) - ref
    TIQM: 3.0 The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
    2) - ref
    https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#believes

    Both links provided as supportive evidence appear to be from academically reliable sources.

    As far as preconceived and totally unscientific ideas are concerned, I have asked questions on subjects of genuine interest I didn't know the answers to, and if I had some comprehension of my own that those subjects might be relevant to my own ways of thinking, I certainly wasn't about to stuff my views down anybody's throat. I respect and appreciate that this is a science forum, and that the academic plumage is sensitive. I didn't set out to ruffle feathers here, but if you dig into my background you can come up with as many wire brushes as you like - I had no intention of using them on anyone, despite the most profound insistence that I hold onto them tightly enough to cover them with my own fingerprints while other people insist I am being all the horrifying things the contents of this thread accuse me of being.

    I was asked to provide supportive evidence and have spent some time going out of my way to do so. If that's not good enough for you then nothing I do will be. Open discussion is under threat if members of a forum have to conform to the parameter viewpoints of the moderators. Yes, areas of advanced physics are bloody complicated, and many (of particular interest to me and an awful lot of other people) are still under hot contention as to what the vaguest notion of truth is likely to be. I have every respect for those who have devoted years of their lives to research and study, for the trail to date was blazed by them and like others here, I would love to see a breakthrough happen from the pages of this forum. I might be a bit weird in my thinking, but I know the answers to the most profound questions will come from the scientific community - equally, I might be loyal in my fascination but I won't worship at its feet, or accept hostile insult without measured retaliation.

    People - members of "the public" - who are interested enough to come here are likely to be intelligent enough to want to learn more, and in social terms they/we may represent a minority. But it's still a representation that deserves respect, not ridicule or retribution. If you really want to serve the interests of science in a public forum, and encourage thinking people to post here, the example you set in the way they are treated matters, whether their views suit the idealism of the puritanical or not.
    Last edited by Quantumologist; October 10th, 2017 at 06:30 PM. Reason: Didn't see Strange's post before posting this
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    Oh, and regarding the "complete falsehoods" as cited early in this thread I began in the hope of discussing Open Discussions:

    "You have, so far, posted much unsupported drivel, made vague allusions, and, oh, you've also posted outright falsehoods1,2

    1 "Time travels (using that term loosely) from past to future and future to past concurrently. That's a scientifically accepted fact.
    2 The Multiverse (or Everett Interpretation) appears to be the most widely accepted model"

    1) - ref
    TIQM: 3.0 The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
    2) - ref
    https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#believes

    Both links provided as supportive evidence appear to be from academically reliable sources.
    An interpretation of quantum mechanics is not a "scientifically accepted fact." It is an attempt to provide an accessible explanation of what quantum theory says. There are a large number of interpretations to choose from (Copenhagen, Many Worlds, etc). They are all exactly equivalent, because they all describe the same theory. I don't think the transactional model is not one that is widely used. (And the Feynman-Wheeler theory that inspired it has many flaws and is a long way from a "fact").

    And number 2 doesn't actually say that the many world's interpretation is the most widely accepted. It just says that 58% (of those questioned) accept it. They may also accept other interpretations.

    If you are interested in other interpretations, you can find more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interp...ntum_mechanics

    You might be able to make use of the fact that there are these apparently very different descriptions of exactly the same thing in your next book.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post

    Please quote the exact part that supports your claim.
    The word "concurrently" doesn't appear at all in that link. If you're talking about "Advanced waves have characteristic eigenvalues of negative energy and frequency, and they propagate in the negative time direction" then it should be noted that this doesn't say that "time travels [from anything]" and it's one interpretation.


    2) - ref

    A poll of only 72 people?
    Not to mention "Advocates of MWI often cite a poll of 72 "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" [89] conducted by the American political scientist David Raub in 1995 showing 58% agreement with "Yes, I think MWI is true".[90]
    However; the poll is controversial
    " (A link I gave elsewhere which you appear to have not read).

    Or even: For example, Victor J. Stenger remarks that Murray Gell-Mann's published work explicitly rejects the existence of simultaneous parallel universes. (quoted from the same link).

    In short, you still appear to be making sh*t up.

    As it happens, much of the content of that list reflects the interests of other people rather than my own - I've neither the time nor the inclination to cover so much ground!
    The fact that you attend such ridiculously woo performances at all (what's the matter? Couldn't get accepted to an actual science meeting?) shows that you have severely-curtailed (or non-existent) discriminatory skills when it comes to what's science and what isn't.

    I'm as passionate about this stuff as you are, I just see it from a different viewpoint.
    And ignoring the science, subscribing to woo....

    You'll also notice from my websites that my corporate programmes (based on correlations with quantum mechanics) broke records in the steel industry
    So what you're saying is that some people and corporations are gullible.
    Please outline these (alleged) "correlations".

    An understanding of quantum mechanics - even if it's not exactly the same kind of understanding as you have or would want everyone to have if the world was as you wanted it - is important on many levels and feedback tells me that concepts arising from it resonate with people.
    You don't have "an understanding of quantum mechanics": you have a distorted non-scientific interpretation that has nothing to do with the facts as known.

    but scientists sometimes prefer to wrap their territories in mystery and propagate closed shops than open their gifts of insight to a wider (indefatigably more stupid) audience.
    Sheer unmitigated crap.

    If you want to ban me from this forum, I can't stop you, but let's be clear on why you would choose to do so.
    Certainly.

    It wouldn't be because I'm posting offensive material or insulting fellow members. There are more than three people perusing these posts but only three people have chosen to sink their teeth into my style of writing. Maybe you'd like to make an example of me, to scare anyone else off posting non-conformist questions or daring to step outside the confines of pre-ordained constraints? A couple of civil, informative replies to a couple of things I posted and - bang, the hounds couldn't get there quick enough....
    Actually it would be because:
    1) you post nonsense.
    2) you fail - consistently - to support your arguments/ claims.
    3) you don't bother to check when given data that shows you're wrong (and, equally, you don't acknowledge that you have been shown to be wrong).
    But be my guest: play the "poor me I'm a victim" card if it makes you feel better.

    As for the comment about "my style of writing" that is - yet another - falsehood. It's the content that's being criticised. (Unless you wish to count posting nonsense, unfounded speculation, false claims etc as a "style" of course).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,132
    I'll ignore most of rant (especially the "hostile insult" part) but address this one:

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    People - members of "the public" - who are interested enough to come here are likely to be intelligent enough to want to learn more
    The main point of ALL of the argument against you is this: whatever "members of the public" "learn" from you is NOT going to be quantum physics (or its applicability to, um, anything (let alone "life coaching")) is going to at best be valueless and at worst badly wrong.

    But it's still a representation that deserves respect, not ridicule or retribution.
    No.
    This is a science forum. Pushing non-science as science deserves no respect and not a little ridicule.

    I have every respect for those who have devoted years of their lives to research and study
    And yet you are - by dint of promoting the nonsense that you do - essentially spitting on their efforts.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; October 10th, 2017 at 07:05 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    Oh I'm sorry, did you see me as a poor victim? Is that the card you're used to at this point in the process (for process it surely is, and a practised one, as other posts dotted around this forum indicate.) I thought I was just standing my corner with the words available. I said the hounds couldn't get there quick enough... I didn't say I ws bleeding to death. It's not exactly a sizeable pack, after all.

    In the absence of anything further to add, I'll just ask questions on this forum in future, then, shall I? If questions are asked of me in return, I can refuse to answer them in case certain people find the content of my answers offensive. Would that be a suitable solution? Your responses seem to indicate that you are deeply offended but then, we canna see ourselves as others see us. Some people are offended just by other people existing. I've no desire to offend anyone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    Oh I'm sorry, did you see me as a poor victim?
    Nope. Learn to read.
    YOU made the comment that any ban would be predicated on making "an example of me, to scare anyone else off posting non-conformist questions or daring to step outside the confines of pre-ordained constraints" which is not the case.

    In the absence of anything further to add, I'll just ask questions on this forum in future, then, shall I?
    Fair enough.
    But - if those questions are in the hard science sub-fora then try to keep the woo to a minimum.

    If questions are asked of me in return, I can refuse to answer them in case certain people find the content of my answers offensive.
    Ah... the victim card again.
    And there's nothing to stop you posting those answers in the fringe sub-fora (bearing in mind that even there there's nothing to stop drivel being pointed out as drivel).

    Your responses seem to indicate that you are deeply offended
    Well given the comprehension problems that you've already displayed I can sort of see how you'd come to that conclusion.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    I've been asked questions appertaining to my line of questioning on another thread, so in view of the specific nature of those questions I shall answer them. I will make proviso, however, to clarify that my views are my own . I cannot ascertain what you are going to classify as woo since it seems to be very blanket so far - in other words, if I've posted it, it's woo. (Perhaps there are people on this forum who like woo - some would consider it fun. Some might even consider it valuable.) Doesn't make me a victim of woovinism, although if you are a woovinist (not specifically you, ChewWoo) you might understandably want to call me out on certain aspects.

    I'm glad that you're not looking to make an example of me - hopefully of anyone in this context - as forums like this are a valuable resource., and your position of power (specifically you, ChewWoo) could strike fear into people who want to comment or question in the wide arena of scientific interest but who, like me, cannot bend their thinking process to match yours. Like all versions of power, it depends very much on how you use it. I hope, indeed, and furthermore, that you're just playing with me and are not offended at all. If that's the case, you won't mind me playing too, will you?

    I trust we've reached a level of mutual comprehension.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    I've been asked questions appertaining to my line of questioning on another thread, so in view of the specific nature of those questions I shall answer them. I will make proviso, however, to clarify that my views are my own . I cannot ascertain what you are going to classify as woo since it seems to be very blanket so far - in other words, if I've posted it, it's woo. (Perhaps there are people on this forum who like woo - some would consider it fun. Some might even consider it valuable.) Doesn't make me a victim of woovinism, although if you are a woovinist (not specifically you, ChewWoo) you might understandably want to call me out on certain aspects.

    I'm glad that you're not looking to make an example of me - hopefully of anyone in this context - as forums like this are a valuable resource., and your position of power (specifically you, ChewWoo) could strike fear into people who want to comment or question in the wide arena of scientific interest but who, like me, cannot bend their thinking process to match yours. Like all versions of power, it depends very much on how you use it. I hope, indeed, and furthermore, that you're just playing with me and are not offended at all. If that's the case, you won't mind me playing too, will you?

    I trust we've reached a level of mutual comprehension.
    I think that, as this is a science forum, on which you are likely to encounter people with a science background, it probably makes sense to try to confine yourself to questions and discussion about science.

    If you put forward unscientific ideas - meaning ideas that either display ignorance of science, or are not testable by reproducible observation - you must expect to be challenged pretty strongly. That's what science does, because in science it is a vital part of the process to sort the wheat from the chaff.

    Clarity of communication, especially precision in the use of terms, is also very important, as in science terms have very specific, often mathematical, meanings, so that misapplying them leads instantly to nonsense.

    You ask about woo. Woo is when people abuse science by not following the guidance above, i.e. by misapplying scientific terms and promoting ideas that are ignorant of science and/or not scientifically testable. ("Quantum woo" is particularly fashionable at the moment, and thus especially annoying to those of us who have studied it seriously.)

    If you think that woo can also be defined as any idea you have posted, then it follows you are committing one or more of the errors I have described. It is not personal, although every person in time acquires a reputation from their behaviour, which may inform the degree of enthusiasm or scepticism with which their contributions are received.

    It's up to you, really. I'm afraid this is a science forum.

    It may in fact be worth discussing the nature of science. It is possible you have some misunderstanding about what it is and what is isn't. But that is probably for a separate thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    Challenges are good, they produce interesting outcomes. I've looked up 'woo' which came, as I guessed, from the 'woooooo' sound people make when they're imitating ghosts, to find that the term is entrenched in many versions of skepticism, not just the scientific one. Pseudoscience, or 'unscientific' use of terminology, presenting unsupported concepts as facts, etc, yes and the word 'quantum' is very popular these days. It's car oil, toothpaste, deodorant, part of a James Bond movie title... it gets everywhere. This is a social development to come along many years after my personal introduction, and if I tried to explain that... I just won't.

    As I've stressed before, I appreciate that this is a science forum, and have asked questions in keeping with that fact. It's also a public forum, with posts that encourage more posting, so if the rule is 'only with the use of approved language" then a lot of people other than me are breaking it in various ways. People like me want to know what other people interested in science think. That's it, really. That's why we're here. Many of you will be learned scholars and we would like to discuss concepts with you. If in the line of doing so, we are wrong about something, that's to be expected. Sometimes, this might arouse a thought process that leads to something even more interesting, and then everyone benefits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    so if the rule is 'only with the use of approved language" then a lot of people other than me are breaking it in various ways.
    If you (anyone) are posting on a scientific topic trying to make a scientific statement then precision is a sine qua non. Otherwise confusion reigns.
    If posters wish to use terminology in a different manner the they should, at the very least, do the courtesy of explaining what they mean by a particular word.
    A typical one for newbies (and woo-mongers) is "dimension" - for most of us regulars that's a case of "I don't think that word means what you think it means".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    Challenges are good, they produce interesting outcomes. I've looked up 'woo' which came, as I guessed, from the 'woooooo' sound people make when they're imitating ghosts, to find that the term is entrenched in many versions of skepticism, not just the scientific one. Pseudoscience, or 'unscientific' use of terminology, presenting unsupported concepts as facts, etc, yes and the word 'quantum' is very popular these days. It's car oil, toothpaste, deodorant, part of a James Bond movie title... it gets everywhere. This is a social development to come along many years after my personal introduction, and if I tried to explain that... I just won't.

    As I've stressed before, I appreciate that this is a science forum, and have asked questions in keeping with that fact. It's also a public forum, with posts that encourage more posting, so if the rule is 'only with the use of approved language" then a lot of people other than me are breaking it in various ways. People like me want to know what other people interested in science think. That's it, really. That's why we're here. Many of you will be learned scholars and we would like to discuss concepts with you. If in the line of doing so, we are wrong about something, that's to be expected. Sometimes, this might arouse a thought process that leads to something even more interesting, and then everyone benefits.
    And I and others here will be fine with that. It will be introducing unscientific ideas or presenting unscientific arguments, that will attract criticism. On which note, I am going to challenge (on another thread) your assertion that we all have an EM field......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    A typical one for newbies (and woo-mongers) is "dimension" - for most of us regulars that's a case of "I don't think that word means what you think it means".
    Also: theory and energy.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,277
    I think the worst thing any noobie can do is post a thread and come on here with the 'I know more than you' attitude. Then follow it up by refusing to reply to any questions regarding the validity of the thread. Along with that comes the 'I'm never wrong' or 'I've done extensive research to prove my point' impass. You just can't at any time state a fact without backing it up. Religion might be given a little ground in this regard but for the most part, you better bring big time proof with you. The following is for those of us who are not scientists....

    For someone like myself, a self admitted armchair respondent and author of many threads, the trick is to realize just where the hell you are. You won't catch me stating baseless facts unless I get careless and I try to stay away from generalizing. Never preface a penned thought by saying 'I believe' or "I know' and always say 'I think' instead. This way people understand my comment has nothing to do with any theory or hypothesis of my own creation. Suggest, don't affirm, there are people here with vastly superior intelligence on scientific topics who are more than willing to respond in a friendly manner. However, should you vehemently disagree with a member, getting into name calling and insults will most likely hasten your demise.

    It's taken me years to learn how to operate on a science forum while having no scientific training. If you really want to learn something, it can be done without embarrassing yourself. In truth I have no science peers here, I'm a science enthusiast for lack of a better term and I know my place. Still, it is important not to allow the scientists amongst us to get too complacent with their discipline. The best way to handle that is to query things because science knowledge is always in a state of advancement and errors will be made, and I think even scientists might agree with that. The armchair guy has the luxury of the billions of pages of information on the internet at his/her disposal so even someone like myself can research things I never would have dreamed of in the past.

    Last piece of advice: Never type everything you want to say in a single post. State the bare minimum, if you have to use a glossary or thesaurus then do so because when the layman describes his/her thoughts in scientific terms then I guarantee you something will be lost in the translation. The more rambling you do the greater the possibility of mass confusion and thread death. As I said, state the minimum but, and this is important, define what you mean the best you can. If the post or thread you've submitted is worthy of discussion then you will be glad to have kept some unused data, information, thoughts etc in reserve. This way you can continue the thread and hopefully if all goes well, learn something. Think ahead, understand the hierarchy, play by the rules and never be afraid to be wrong or at minimum stand to be corrected.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    Liked this post of Z's, it's honest and informative, and if I had a mouse I'd quote bits of it to respond to but I don't have a mouse where I am at the moment.
    The first paragraph seems to allude to my attitude in script and if I've come across this way, it sure wasn't intentional. Years of writing tend to stamp a certain style on the stuff you write and I'm taking on board what's happened here so that I can make some changes for the better. Yes, it's a mistake to make statements about anything scientific without backing it up with something from an authorititive source. That's a valuable habit to translate to blog posting too, which in general terms will make them more informative.

    Being wrong is part of the learning curve and like most people I've come here to learn. Defining what I seek to learn is sometimes difficult given the history of where I've come from, but this is an awareness lesson in its own right and makes you think about what you're saying, which in turn clarifies what you're thinking. Prefacing with statements of belief is important but I think, too, that belief is a very personal thing and scientists themselves argue about their own beliefs, so we can't be expected to have belief systems that follow an autocratic track if we value our independence. Respect is very important in all relationships, and certainly name-calling is out of place unless in jest and where it can be taken in good humour.

    Human understanding is indeed full of deep ignorance and obscurity, mine no less than anyone else's, and I appreciate your tolerance. While I hold the scientific world in great esteem as an unrivalled source of incredible knowledge, it's difficult to overcome the barriers it tends to put up in defence of the 'right ways' of doing things. I think most laypeople here would find this to be so and Z has obviously put a lot of store by learning to tread this water carefully - again, a very valuable thing for those of us who really do want to increase our comprehension.

    I've found this thread incredibly useful - thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Logical Fallacies in Physics Discussions
    By pmb in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 10th, 2012, 08:27 PM
  2. Closing Nuclear Discussions.
    By kojax in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 30th, 2011, 11:59 AM
  3. Modern day discussions of Carl Jung .. any references ?
    By MohaveBiologist in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: January 12th, 2010, 08:14 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •