New theory to revolutionize quantum physics. - Page 3

bluestarultor · 06-17-2010, 12:36 AM

Dude, that's harsh. There are valid reasons to ask those questions. Just because they've been answered doesn't mean the questions are bad.

Kim · 06-17-2010, 12:40 AM

Calling him an idiot is out of line.

Lumenskir · 06-17-2010, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Many astronomers/philosophers/thinkers throughout history made amazing leaps in science, but opposition would exile them, kill them or even call them idiots. And their work became a big step in understanding the universe.

I was going to point out how this is a gigantic logic hilarity, but Bill Watterson got to it like 20 years ago.

Geminex · 06-17-2010, 01:01 AM

Ok, insults are out of line. My apologies.

And I have no problem at all with Earl questioning! Questions are vital.
But to ask the question, not bothering to find an answer (not that I think there is one, but that's besides the point), then parading that question out as some incredible achievement that should "revolutionise" physics?

And what's worse, when he gets called out on it, he doesn't attempt to defend his theory, instead preferring to compare himself to the great minds of history, and call his critics close-minded?

I mean goddammit, let's treat our peers with respect, but there has to be a limit.

bluestarultor · 06-17-2010, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geminex

Ok, insults are out of line. My apologies.

And I have no problem at all with Earl questioning! Questions are vital.
But to ask the question, not bothering to find an answer (not that I think there is one, but that's besides the point), then parading that question out as some incredible achievement that should "revolutionise" physics?

And what's worse, when he gets called out on it, he doesn't attempt to defend his theory, instead preferring to compare himself to the great minds of history, and call his critics close-minded?

I mean goddammit, let's treat our peers with respect, but there has to be a limit.

No, you're right in that regard, but there were gentler ways to say it.

At any rate, time is a complex topic that's difficult to understand, and our units ARE arbitrary. On the other hand, so are the meter, the gram, and everything else. We've built our math around them, but the math itself is solid. You could easily replace it all with different units and scale it into the same ratios and it would come out fine.

Professor Smarmiarty · 06-17-2010, 04:39 AM

Don't post crazy shits while I'm on holiday. Before I get back here is some class reading:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...me-an-illusion

**Satan's Onion** · 06-17-2010, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilEarl

Time is an illusion. ...

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams

"Ford," said Arthur, "would you please tell me what the hell is going on?"

"Drink up," said Ford, "you've got three pints to get through."

"Three pints?" said Arthur. "At lunchtime?"

The man next to Ford grinned and nodded happily. Ford ignored him. He said, "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."

"Very deep," said Arthur, "you should send that in to the Reader's Digest. They've got a page for people like you."

Geminex · 06-17-2010, 06:25 AM

Naaaah. Evilearl's a Vogon at best. I dunno, though. Let's find out. Hey, Earl, d'you write poetry?

Ryanderman · 06-17-2010, 08:19 AM

Did the first post actually mention anything remotely related to quantum physics? This is bothering me.

The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk · 06-17-2010, 10:56 AM

No, it did not. It basically said "Time is not real, because I don't understand it!", and left it at that. Though I could be mistaken, because I stopped reading when he said that time was a constant, when we all know damn well that it isn't.

That statement alone lead me to beleive he has no idea what he's talking about.

06-17-2010, 12:40 AM	#22
Kim adorable Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 12,950	Calling him an idiot is out of line. __________________ this post is about how to successfully H the Kimmy

06-17-2010, 08:19 AM	#29
Ryanderman Beard of Leadership Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 827	Did the first post actually mention anything remotely related to quantum physics? This is bothering me. __________________ ~Your robot reminds me of you. You tell it to stop, it turns. You tell it to turn, it stops. You tell it to take out the trash, it watches reruns of Firefly.~

06-17-2010, 01:01 AM	#24
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	Ok, insults are out of line. My apologies. And I have no problem at all with Earl questioning! Questions are vital. But to ask the question, not bothering to find an answer (not that I think there is one, but that's besides the point), then parading that question out as some incredible achievement that should "revolutionise" physics? And what's worse, when he gets called out on it, he doesn't attempt to defend his theory, instead preferring to compare himself to the great minds of history, and call his critics close-minded? I mean goddammit, let's treat our peers with respect, but there has to be a limit.

06-17-2010, 04:39 AM	#26
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	Don't post crazy shits while I'm on holiday. Before I get back here is some class reading: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...me-an-illusion

06-17-2010, 06:25 AM	#28
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	Naaaah. Evilearl's a Vogon at best. I dunno, though. Let's find out. Hey, Earl, d'you write poetry?