Posted on 08/21/2008 6:29:23 PM PDT by Alice in Wonderland
At YFZ? Do you consider one or two to be large numbers?
You are right in that Schroedinger used that darn cat to object to aspects of the current observation in quantum theory and to demonstrate that cat is always in one state or the other.
Thank you.
However, nothing I read convinced me that Feynman did more than string us along the wrong paths, lead us 'round and 'round.
Now dems is fighten words : ( Can you point to anything where Feynman wasn't accurate? The more I have read his writings the more impressed I have become. Every time I think I caught him in error, I have been wrong.
So that answer is the best you can do? LOL
---------------------------------------------
Texas: The age is 18 without from a parent or your legal guardian. If under the age of 16, the law requires that the couple receives a court order before being allowed to marry.
“Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? “
You will have to look inside the box to find out.
First, yes there have been births to under age girls at YFZ. Remember the indictment of Dr. Barlowe - there's three, right there. One estimate was that 30 of the women had had children at 17 or younger.
Second, Feynman had problems with the source of attractions of gravity and singularities, I believe. Also, I mentioned those pages of errata and revisions of the "definitive" Lectures. Hawkings mentions one or two less than accurate positions of Mr. X, here http://plus.maths.org/issue18/features/hawking/index.html#
You will have to look inside the box to find out.
Damn that is a good answer : )
“Yes, and your point is what? “
It’s one thing to say the Cat WAS alive, but another to say the Cat IS alive.
I am going to need my espresso this morning to keep up : (
Do we determine the outcome by looking in the box though? That is the question.
Yes the infamous Mr. X : ) Well it so happens that Feynman may get the last laugh. Hawkings and the rest of the bunch didn't predict that the Universe would or even could be expanding at an accelerating rate. Feynmans equations allow for that : )
Hawkings and the rest are now floundering looking to dark matter and energy to pull their bu*ts out of the fire : ) This game isn't over yet.
“Do we determine the outcome by looking in the box though? “
Determine has two different applicable meanings.
Which one are you going with?
“Hawkings and the rest of the bunch didn’t predict that the Universe would or even could be expanding at an accelerating rate.”
Is the Universe ‘infinite’?
Dear LeGrande,
“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which ARE seen were not made of things which do appear.” Heb. 11:3
Well, this comment of Paul’s was a pretty good spot-on, elegant, highly common sense guess by a guy made before the retrospect knowledge that we have now of invisible atoms and protons, neutrons and electrons - for a fellow who, according to you, had no common sense. :8)
Invisible atoms? What do you think you see?
It is expanding at an accelerating rate : )
Determine has two different applicable meanings. Which one are you going with?
1 a: to fix conclusively or authoritatively
Sorry I am being a pest about the semantics, but meanings are important.
Would it be fair to restate your question so?
Do we observe the outcome by looking in the box though?
Or...
Were you going with , Do we cause the outcome by looking in the box?
“invisible atoms and protons, neutrons and electrons -”
So far, IIRC, we can only see the results of their movement (orbits) and interactions with other particles.
We don’t ‘see’ them.
Considering the speed which electrons orbit, the best we ‘could’ do is see a blur.
“It is expanding at an accelerating rate “
Into what?
EVERYTHING is made up of invisible energy (atoms, protons, neutrons and electrons).
“In Him we live, and move, and have our very being.”
YOU also, UCANSEE2, are made up of invisible energy building blocks, and when there are enough of these blocks grouped together, they appear to be the very solid UCANSEE2.
The single atom is invisible to the human eye. When enough of these atoms are grouped together, we have the very visible and solid LeGrande.
“In Him, we live, and move, and have our very being.”
Yes.
I can think of many times I’ve been called a blockhead, so you must be right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.