Nothing is because of 'modern physics' and I mean nothing at all

Did I say mindlessly? No I didn't. I was commenting on your argument that scientists built a machine without having any concept of the theories behind it. That was the argument you made by intentionally omitting the fact that the basic theory behind the MRI came from studies published 20 years earlier.

Most rational people accept that intentionally omitting key information is lying. Especially since the inclusion of the omitted information makes your argument moot.

You really are starting to ramble. Nevertheless,...
I don't blindly believe in science. I do believe in the work of thousands of people who have degrees in many different branches of science and who work daily to advance the knowledge of the human race.

I live in a house I didn't build. I drive a car I didn't build. I fly in airplanes I did not build. Don't you.
What's your point?

I think there is another thread going on about AGW. However, my belief in AGW, evolution, airplanes flying, people landing on the moon, etc. are based on the same thing I said above.

Why are you trying to stray from the premise of this thread and, in particular, your ridiculous comments regarding MRI?

 

>>>> What have the Romans ever done for us?

Ah, allow me!

 

Did you ever try pointing out to the professors how any single thing was wrong? How about you try that approach before raging on science.

 

Why would he refer to the TOR as modern physics? Remember, this is 1905-1915 we're talking about here. I don't know when "modern physics" became common vernacular, but it almost certainly wasn't upon Einstein's 1915 publication of the general theory of relativity.

What are you talking about? First, climate science is not lumped into "modern physics" so I'm not following the relevance. Second, QM and special/general relativity are anything but fake. They have propelled humanity into an era of unprecedented technological achievement. That's what we're trying to explain to the OP.

Nobody said anything about disbelieving and ignoring Einstein and Kelvin. And again, I don't know what to tell you about putting me or anybody else on your ignore list. Do what you feel is right. Just don't expect an answer from me on whether you should or shouldn't.

 

Ok, I don't really have an issue with this mindset if your point is that a theory should be confirmed or refuted by observation (the falsification principal). I also agree that widely accepted theories will have repeatable confirming observations and should have predictive or explanatory power. But, nobody is saying otherwise here. What we're saying is that the theories lumped into "modern physics" were formulated and matured to a point that allowed technology to evolve. It's almost inconceivable to think that any human would have invented the MRI or the GPS without having a mature theory. The theory predicted that these technologies were possible and so people attempted and succeeded in developing them.

 

OK......as I read this thread I get more and more ticked off!!!

There are a few members here who have taken University Level courses in Physics and Advanced Mathematics.

Now ME......Although I am still having an issue with the Neutrino's.....I have BEYOND standard University Physics and Advanced Mathematics knowledge and even the NAME of this thread that being.......
Nothing is because of 'modern physics' and I mean nothing at all

....well.......WTF IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN!!!???

 

We have come so far....Humanity.....as far as Physics and Mathematics that we are robotically constructing machines being QUANTUM COMPUTERS that literally when I explain HOW such a thing works WARPS THEIR VERY CONCEPTS OF REALITY RIGHT BEFORE MY EYES!!

Thing is so far no one yet except a few friends of mine who were rightly playing Devil's Advocate and making poignant statements.

But besides them......NO ONE YET HAS THE BALLS TO DEBATE ME ON THIS ONE ON ONE!!!!

AA

 

NO ONE??

NOT ONE PERSON WILL ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE???

I mean....WTF!!!!???

Some of you like say.....No experiment, no machine mean no physics; whether you call it modern or postmodern, it means a fake science.

Like climate science is all fake.....end quote Inquisitor.

Just one warning....I personally really do NOT like to make other members look foolish nor am I involved in this conversation other than to set some realities straight so I will do this in a civil tone.

But first member who starts using a debate for any other purpose other than to learn the facts I will turn on them like the Alpha Wolf I am and eat the heart and liver.

AA

 

This has got to be one of the most PATHETIC posts I have ever read!!!

You most likely have absolutely ZERO understanding of Quantum Mechanics as if you did you would understand that we are ALREADY using QUANTUM TELEPORTATION on the MOLECULAR LEVEL and that since we can do this it is just a matter of time before we are able to use Quantum Teleportation to Teleport objects from any one point on the Earth to any other or to the Moon and back or just down the street!!

THIS type of Thread REALLY IRKS ME as you know NOTHING about the subject of your own thread and in fact if I wasn't such a nice guy I could list endless cases that prove your opinion wrong yet I prefer not to make people look like fools and hope you will change your mind and either ask me what I am talking about or engage me so I can actually TEACH YOU SOMETHING!

AA

 

And if any of you would like a quick introduction to
Multiverse Theory that AboveAlpha and some of his
friends are working on you will find some of what he
writes on it quoted here:


The Philosophical implications of Multiverse Theory?

 

For the record I do have a variation of the Philosophical Implications of Multiverse Theory going over on this forum as well.

I suspect that time not being limited to one straight line could help us to understand Ezekiel chapter 37 on another level.

 

It was not my argument, you are lying.

It is not the fact because it contradicts the fact that the theory behind MRI was made up 2 years after the MRI was made up.

And you are still struggling to reconcile the facts.

I don’t even know what you have been trying to prove except for your ability to make up lies and twist meanings.

The fact is that “Nuclear magnetic resonance was first described and measured in molecular beams by Isidor Rabi in 1938,[1] by extending the Stern–Gerlach experiment.”

And Stern–Gerlach and Rabi’s experiments involve building up a machine.

Thus it does not matter what you have in mind, it does not matter what is your theoretical concept, it does not matter how clever it is and how many people believe in it, - it means absolutely nothing without an experiment and a machine built.

Without an experiment and a machine built it is not science but a religion, personal philosophy, political ideology, everything but not science.

This is my main argument and both the articles linked by you and by me fully confirm it.

I can repeat that my point again.

Would it make a scratch on a forged forehead of a religious fanatic?

No.

The point is not that you live in a house you did not build.

Nobody but only a religious fanatic used to twist, lie and deceive could read that in what I said.

The point is that you have never built a house but you insert yourself into a discussion how to build a house.

And you lie, twist and pervert and use all other linguistic exercises trying tell an experienced and licensed General Contractor how do they built houses.

And then you confess that you believe in carpentry to a surprise of the GC.

How is stating I believe in science is less ridiculous than stating I believe in carpentry, or I believe in shoemaking, or I believe in literature?

Who did tell you that a scientist with a degree is more credible or trustworthy than a shoemaker or a carpenter?

You have made a religion out of oh hail science and you made people with a degree in science some kind of priests of your religious belief.

 

Not he, but you explained to me that "Regardless, most of us knew what the OP was saying and that's why we're responding with demonstrable examples of technologies that were made possible by quantum mechanics and special/general relativity." telling me that QM and TOR are a part the modern physics in the discussion and modern physics "is just the counterpart to "classical physics".

I just pointed to the ignorance of your side, because Einstein in the explanation of the TOR in the text I mentioned explicitly pointed that the TOR IS NOT a counterpart to classical physics, classical, but "in spite of a totally different set of assumption both theories [Newton's mechanics and TOR] come to a FAR REACHING AGREEMENT."

I said about you disbelieving and ignoring Einstein and Kelvin, and you quoted me.

And I stand by my statement.

 

iamanonman, what?!?!

Not speaking even about my words you quoted but if I ever used the words "observation" or "the falsification principal" I could use them only in the most derogatory way, like Pooper principal, like poop.

The falsification principal makes me vomit.

it should be obvious throughout my posts.


iamanonman, what?!?!



I am sorry to hear that the reality is so inconceivable, that no wiki article, no quotes of Kelvin or Einstein can bore a needle hole your brainwashed view.

 

You believe that the MRI machine was built (in the 1970's) two years before the supporting theory was developed. Is that Correct? If so, why do you post that a theory of MR was developed in the 1930's? Don't you see you are contradicting yourself?

Would someone build a building before drawing up plans for the building?



More meaningless rambling...

Here is your first post on the subject:

Don't you understand he based his "machine" on his knowledge of the theory of MR?

Don't you consider Lauterbur to be a scientist?
Don't you consider Isidor Rabi to be a scientist?
Don't you consider Raymond Vahan Damadian to be a scientist?

What's wrong with believing in science?

 

The 5th time: this is what the wiki article says.

The 5th time:

NMR machine /= MRI machine.

A steam locomotive /= a car, there is a slight difference in the theories.

“A steam machine gave more to science than science gave to the steam machine” – Lord Kelvin.

No contradiction between the articles.

The 5th time:

Thus it does not matter what you have in mind, it does not matter what is your theoretical concept, it does not matter how clever it is and how many people believe in it, - it means absolutely nothing without an experiment and a machine built.

Without an experiment and a machine built it is not science but a religion, personal philosophy, political ideology, everything but not science.

Reading comprehension?

The 6th time: Experiment and machine – yes.

Yes to all the above.

No experiment and no machine - no.

No to 100% of climate scientists, all are crooks.

Did I say it is wrong?

As long you don’t impose your cult on others you can post portraits of 100% of climate scientists inside and outside of your house.

This is America.

 

Counterpart does NOT mean contradict. It means "two parts that complement one another". Like as in, Newton is to classical physics as Einstein is to modern physics.

And to be really pedantic about things some scholars actually do group TOR in with classical mechanics along with Newtonian physics and leave quantum mechanics as the counterpart branch of physics by itself. But, since the OP specifically said "modern physics", called Einstein a moron, and since most scholars adopt the classical/modern division instead of the classical/quantum division it's fairly safe to assume that this thread is about QM and TOR equally. But, I could be wrong. The OP could mediate that, but considering he has been rather terse in this thread I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

_Inquisitor_ appears quite angry. When I get angry I work on ways to not be angry, like getting laid. Perhaps _Inquisitor_ needs to get laid.

 

Thank you for the correction and the thoughtful, as usual, reply.

I will try to find an opportunity to reciprocate on what you said.

 

I always need to get laid!

After I get laid,

I always need to get laid.

Any reasonable objections to my arguments besides comments on my personality?

 

.

 

You are not worth the time.

 

There seem to be a lot of Creationist followers of politicised religion around here at the moment who appear to be quite ashamed to be open about their faith. We have several in play here at the moment that flatly deny being Creationist and yet their posts are quite clearly that; are they Poes or something else? to be honest, I find that aspect of them most interesting rather than the inane arguments they make; I don't think that I have seen so many people deny the lord three times before the rooster crows.

 

Only to your writings which get harder and harder to comprehend.

What were the experiments based on? THEORIES.

This is really strange for you to say because the whole theory of AGW came about because of scientists doing experiments. They dug ice cores. They sampled the atmosphere. They sampled CO2 emmissions. They measured tides. Etc. Etc.

Based on this research they came up with a theory of AGW. They did exactly as you say science should do, they conducted experiments that led to a theory. What the hell is your problem?

That's good for you. In this Country we don't execute people for being ignorant.

 

Many Creationists are afraid of being outed. They think people will make fun of them instead of discussing the facts.

If it quacks like a duck...