ELECTRONS TRAVELING IN SPACE

Painius wrote:

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

Painius I thought of the fast vibrating as the answer,and those at
Stony Brook must have had that cross their minds,but in QM reality it
is
not the answer. One electron can be in two places at the same time. You
are using common sense,and if common sense worked in QM Einstien would
like it,and Bohr,and Feynman would understand it. Trebert

I don't think the problem is "common sense", TB...

Okay, science is so hung up on how they think that
studying something, making measurements and stuff like
that, *affects* and *changes* the subject under study.

This is illustrated by the simple idea of measuring the
amount of voltage in an electrical circuit...

Say you have a circuit with a 50 volt battery, and you
want to know how much of this voltage is dropped
across one of the elements in the circuit, say, a simple
resistor. You may be familiar with Ohm's Law, which
tells us that...

E = I x R

...or the "Electromotive force" (voltage) is equal to the
"Intensity of current" multiplied by the "Resistance" of
the resistor.

So if a resistance is fixed and doesn't change, then the
amount of the voltage is determined by the amount of
the current through the resistor. To measure the voltage
across the resistor in our circuit, you would place the
two leads of a voltmeter across the resistor, one lead at
each end.

Do you see why the measurement you get on the meter
would be slightly smaller than the precise voltage that is
actually dropped by the resistor?

When you hook up the voltmeter leads to the ends of
the resistor, some of the current in the circuit must now
go through the meter to drive the indicator and show the
amount of voltage. So a tiny bit less current is going
through the resistor than when the meter is not attached.

If you look above at Ohm's Law again, we see that a
decrease in I (current) means a corresponding decrease
in E (voltage). However, this decrease is so small (since
the current through the voltmeter is so small) that the
difference between the voltage reading on the meter and
the actual voltage across the resistor is functionally the
same.

But the fact remains that the two voltages are *not*
precisely the same. And scientists believe that this
difference, while insignificant for most applications,
becomes extremely significant when studying quantum
effects. It was in fact this idea which led to the principle
of uncertainty in quantum theory.

Personally, i think it's a lotta hooey.

You really are lost, aren't you.

What exactly is it that you believe to be "a lotta hooey"???

And you say *i'm* lost?

I think it's a lotta hooey that science is so hung up on
how the study of something alters the subject under
study.

Like i said.

kicks the tires a bit

Nope, still no clue penetration here.

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"An applied ripple action implies time and momentum
reciprocal dependent directed surface tension not
instantaneous field wide reaction."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Painius wrote:

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

Painius I thought of the fast vibrating as the answer,and those at
Stony Brook must have had that cross their minds,but in QM reality
it
is
not the answer. One electron can be in two places at the same time.
You
are using common sense,and if common sense worked in QM Einstien
would
like it,and Bohr,and Feynman would understand it. Trebert

I don't think the problem is "common sense", TB...

Okay, science is so hung up on how they think that
studying something, making measurements and stuff like
that, *affects* and *changes* the subject under study.

This is illustrated by the simple idea of measuring the
amount of voltage in an electrical circuit...

Say you have a circuit with a 50 volt battery, and you
want to know how much of this voltage is dropped
across one of the elements in the circuit, say, a simple
resistor. You may be familiar with Ohm's Law, which
tells us that...

E = I x R

...or the "Electromotive force" (voltage) is equal to the
"Intensity of current" multiplied by the "Resistance" of
the resistor.

So if a resistance is fixed and doesn't change, then the
amount of the voltage is determined by the amount of
the current through the resistor. To measure the voltage
across the resistor in our circuit, you would place the
two leads of a voltmeter across the resistor, one lead at
each end.

Do you see why the measurement you get on the meter
would be slightly smaller than the precise voltage that is
actually dropped by the resistor?

When you hook up the voltmeter leads to the ends of
the resistor, some of the current in the circuit must now
go through the meter to drive the indicator and show the
amount of voltage. So a tiny bit less current is going
through the resistor than when the meter is not attached.

If you look above at Ohm's Law again, we see that a
decrease in I (current) means a corresponding decrease
in E (voltage). However, this decrease is so small (since
the current through the voltmeter is so small) that the
difference between the voltage reading on the meter and
the actual voltage across the resistor is functionally the
same.

But the fact remains that the two voltages are *not*
precisely the same. And scientists believe that this
difference, while insignificant for most applications,
becomes extremely significant when studying quantum
effects. It was in fact this idea which led to the principle
of uncertainty in quantum theory.

Personally, i think it's a lotta hooey.

You really are lost, aren't you.

What exactly is it that you believe to be "a lotta hooey"???

And you say *i'm* lost?

I think it's a lotta hooey that science is so hung up on
how the study of something alters the subject under
study.

Like i said.

kicks the tires a bit

Nope, still no clue penetration here.

Wait till you get to the City Park, then there will be plenty of penetration
there.

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ...

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

. . .
Personally, i think it's a lotta hooey.

You really are lost, aren't you.

What exactly is it that you believe to be "a lotta hooey"???

And you say *i'm* lost?

I think it's a lotta hooey that science is so hung up on
how the study of something alters the subject under
study.

But you yourself just provided an example??? Are you so fixated on just
brushing off examples that you even brush off your own???

Try to focus on the subject, John.

The example i provided was evidence that the amount of
the alteration is insignificant, at least here in the realm of the
"non-quantum" material level.

What i'm wondering here, John, is why science gets so
fixated on this altering-by-studying/measuring getting more
and more significant as the quantum level is approached.

Because it gets "more and more significant as the quantum level is
approached"

Why is that hard to understand???

Because i can find very little evidence that they're doing much
about it... other than offering up things like the "Principle of
Uncertainty" and such. In other branches of science, those
who don't want to have an effect on their subjects of study
often go to *great pains* to ensure this won't happen...

You want to study how a lion takes a baby giraffe at a water
hole without getting his head kicked off by momma giraffe,
then you get there *before* the animals do, and you find
someplace to hide.

What are quantum physicists doing to lessen the impact of
their "presence" so that their studies, measurements and
conclusions will be more accurate?...

Practically _nothing_ that i can find. It seems as though they
have given up. And without accurate measuring techniques,
how can they even *call* quantum theory a "scientific" one?
How can it possibly be referred to as a "fundamental branch
of physics"?

Hmmm???

And i also sometimes wonder why i even try to explain my
thoughts to you. You seem so fixated on Saturday Night
Live! It seems that all your responses to me begin like the
Jane Curtin - Dan Aykroyd comedy routine, "Point --
Counterpoint" where Jane begins the discussion point, and
Dan (Zinni) counters with...

"PAINE, YOU IGNORANT SLUT"

Sounds about right (although I have no evidence that you are a "SLUT")

g good one!

--
SMILE! as if you'd really been moooned!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

"Art Deco" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

Painius I thought of the fast vibrating as the answer,and those at
Stony Brook must have had that cross their minds,but in QM reality
it
is
not the answer. One electron can be in two places at the same time.
You
are using common sense,and if common sense worked in QM Einstien
would
like it,and Bohr,and Feynman would understand it. Trebert

I don't think the problem is "common sense", TB...

Okay, science is so hung up on how they think that
studying something, making measurements and stuff like
that, *affects* and *changes* the subject under study.

This is illustrated by the simple idea of measuring the
amount of voltage in an electrical circuit...

Say you have a circuit with a 50 volt battery, and you
want to know how much of this voltage is dropped
across one of the elements in the circuit, say, a simple
resistor. You may be familiar with Ohm's Law, which
tells us that...

E = I x R

...or the "Electromotive force" (voltage) is equal to the
"Intensity of current" multiplied by the "Resistance" of
the resistor.

So if a resistance is fixed and doesn't change, then the
amount of the voltage is determined by the amount of
the current through the resistor. To measure the voltage
across the resistor in our circuit, you would place the
two leads of a voltmeter across the resistor, one lead at
each end.

Do you see why the measurement you get on the meter
would be slightly smaller than the precise voltage that is
actually dropped by the resistor?

When you hook up the voltmeter leads to the ends of
the resistor, some of the current in the circuit must now
go through the meter to drive the indicator and show the
amount of voltage. So a tiny bit less current is going
through the resistor than when the meter is not attached.

If you look above at Ohm's Law again, we see that a
decrease in I (current) means a corresponding decrease
in E (voltage). However, this decrease is so small (since
the current through the voltmeter is so small) that the
difference between the voltage reading on the meter and
the actual voltage across the resistor is functionally the
same.

But the fact remains that the two voltages are *not*
precisely the same. And scientists believe that this
difference, while insignificant for most applications,
becomes extremely significant when studying quantum
effects. It was in fact this idea which led to the principle
of uncertainty in quantum theory.

Personally, i think it's a lotta hooey.

You really are lost, aren't you.

What exactly is it that you believe to be "a lotta hooey"???

And you say *i'm* lost?

I think it's a lotta hooey that science is so hung up on
how the study of something alters the subject under
study.

Like i said.

kicks the tires a bit

Nope, still no clue penetration here.

Well, Mother, you might try going someplace quiet and
actually attempting to *thimk* about it. This is no real
guarantee that you'll get a clue, but heck...

....who knows *what* profound thought you might come
up with?

I'm hopeful it will be better than your usual abbreviated
screed.

--
SMILE! as if you'd really been moooned!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:02:20 -0500, "honestjohn"
wrote:


"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Painius wrote:

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

Painius I thought of the fast vibrating as the answer,and those at
Stony Brook must have had that cross their minds,but in QM reality
it
is
not the answer. One electron can be in two places at the same time.
You
are using common sense,and if common sense worked in QM Einstien
would
like it,and Bohr,and Feynman would understand it. Trebert

I don't think the problem is "common sense", TB...

Okay, science is so hung up on how they think that
studying something, making measurements and stuff like
that, *affects* and *changes* the subject under study.

This is illustrated by the simple idea of measuring the
amount of voltage in an electrical circuit...

Say you have a circuit with a 50 volt battery, and you
want to know how much of this voltage is dropped
across one of the elements in the circuit, say, a simple
resistor. You may be familiar with Ohm's Law, which
tells us that...

E = I x R

...or the "Electromotive force" (voltage) is equal to the
"Intensity of current" multiplied by the "Resistance" of
the resistor.

So if a resistance is fixed and doesn't change, then the
amount of the voltage is determined by the amount of
the current through the resistor. To measure the voltage
across the resistor in our circuit, you would place the
two leads of a voltmeter across the resistor, one lead at
each end.

Do you see why the measurement you get on the meter
would be slightly smaller than the precise voltage that is
actually dropped by the resistor?

When you hook up the voltmeter leads to the ends of
the resistor, some of the current in the circuit must now
go through the meter to drive the indicator and show the
amount of voltage. So a tiny bit less current is going
through the resistor than when the meter is not attached.

If you look above at Ohm's Law again, we see that a
decrease in I (current) means a corresponding decrease
in E (voltage). However, this decrease is so small (since
the current through the voltmeter is so small) that the
difference between the voltage reading on the meter and
the actual voltage across the resistor is functionally the
same.

But the fact remains that the two voltages are *not*
precisely the same. And scientists believe that this
difference, while insignificant for most applications,
becomes extremely significant when studying quantum
effects. It was in fact this idea which led to the principle
of uncertainty in quantum theory.

Personally, i think it's a lotta hooey.

You really are lost, aren't you.

What exactly is it that you believe to be "a lotta hooey"???

And you say *i'm* lost?

I think it's a lotta hooey that science is so hung up on
how the study of something alters the subject under
study.

Like i said.

kicks the tires a bit

Nope, still no clue penetration here.

Wait till you get to the City Park, then there will be plenty of penetration
there.

So, are you enjoying being so ow3n3d by Art Deco? Are you comfortable
paying him him rent on your mental space?

Just wondering.

ESL!

--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005

"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely

"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."

"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes

Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler.
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.

WWFSMD?

"Bookman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:02:20 -0500, "honestjohn"
wrote:


"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Painius wrote:

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

Painius I thought of the fast vibrating as the answer,and those
at
Stony Brook must have had that cross their minds,but in QM
reality
it
is
not the answer. One electron can be in two places at the same
time.
You
are using common sense,and if common sense worked in QM Einstien
would
like it,and Bohr,and Feynman would understand it. Trebert

I don't think the problem is "common sense", TB...

Okay, science is so hung up on how they think that
studying something, making measurements and stuff like
that, *affects* and *changes* the subject under study.

This is illustrated by the simple idea of measuring the
amount of voltage in an electrical circuit...

Say you have a circuit with a 50 volt battery, and you
want to know how much of this voltage is dropped
across one of the elements in the circuit, say, a simple
resistor. You may be familiar with Ohm's Law, which
tells us that...

E = I x R

...or the "Electromotive force" (voltage) is equal to the
"Intensity of current" multiplied by the "Resistance" of
the resistor.

So if a resistance is fixed and doesn't change, then the
amount of the voltage is determined by the amount of
the current through the resistor. To measure the voltage
across the resistor in our circuit, you would place the
two leads of a voltmeter across the resistor, one lead at
each end.

Do you see why the measurement you get on the meter
would be slightly smaller than the precise voltage that is
actually dropped by the resistor?

When you hook up the voltmeter leads to the ends of
the resistor, some of the current in the circuit must now
go through the meter to drive the indicator and show the
amount of voltage. So a tiny bit less current is going
through the resistor than when the meter is not attached.

If you look above at Ohm's Law again, we see that a
decrease in I (current) means a corresponding decrease
in E (voltage). However, this decrease is so small (since
the current through the voltmeter is so small) that the
difference between the voltage reading on the meter and
the actual voltage across the resistor is functionally the
same.

But the fact remains that the two voltages are *not*
precisely the same. And scientists believe that this
difference, while insignificant for most applications,
becomes extremely significant when studying quantum
effects. It was in fact this idea which led to the principle
of uncertainty in quantum theory.

Personally, i think it's a lotta hooey.

You really are lost, aren't you.

What exactly is it that you believe to be "a lotta hooey"???

And you say *i'm* lost?

I think it's a lotta hooey that science is so hung up on
how the study of something alters the subject under
study.

Like i said.

kicks the tires a bit

Nope, still no clue penetration here.

Wait till you get to the City Park, then there will be plenty of
penetration
there.

So, are you enjoying being so ow3n3d by Art Deco? Are you comfortable
paying him him rent on your mental space?

Just wondering.

I you going to start paying me rent, then?

Painius wrote:

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ...

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

. . .
Personally, i think it's a lotta hooey.

You really are lost, aren't you.

What exactly is it that you believe to be "a lotta hooey"???

And you say *i'm* lost?

I think it's a lotta hooey that science is so hung up on
how the study of something alters the subject under
study.

But you yourself just provided an example??? Are you so fixated on just
brushing off examples that you even brush off your own???

Try to focus on the subject, John.

The example i provided was evidence that the amount of
the alteration is insignificant, at least here in the realm of the
"non-quantum" material level.

What i'm wondering here, John, is why science gets so
fixated on this altering-by-studying/measuring getting more
and more significant as the quantum level is approached.

Because it gets "more and more significant as the quantum level is
approached"

Why is that hard to understand???

Because i can find very little evidence that they're doing much
about it... other than offering up things like the "Principle of
Uncertainty" and such. In other branches of science, those
who don't want to have an effect on their subjects of study
often go to *great pains* to ensure this won't happen...

You want to study how a lion takes a baby giraffe at a water
hole without getting his head kicked off by momma giraffe,
then you get there *before* the animals do, and you find
someplace to hide.

What are quantum physicists doing to lessen the impact of
their "presence" so that their studies, measurements and
conclusions will be more accurate?...

Practically _nothing_ that i can find. It seems as though they
have given up. And without accurate measuring techniques,
how can they even *call* quantum theory a "scientific" one?
How can it possibly be referred to as a "fundamental branch
of physics"?

Hmmm???

Since you refuse to educate yourself about the actual science, you must
fall back to posting whines and ad hominems.

And i also sometimes wonder why i even try to explain my
thoughts to you. You seem so fixated on Saturday Night
Live! It seems that all your responses to me begin like the
Jane Curtin - Dan Aykroyd comedy routine, "Point --
Counterpoint" where Jane begins the discussion point, and
Dan (Zinni) counters with...

"PAINE, YOU IGNORANT SLUT"

Sounds about right (although I have no evidence that you are a "SLUT")

g good one!

Saucerhead high five!

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"An applied ripple action implies time and momentum
reciprocal dependent directed surface tension not
instantaneous field wide reaction."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

Double-A wrote:

Painius wrote:
"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ...

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

. . .
Personally, i think it's a lotta hooey.

You really are lost, aren't you.

What exactly is it that you believe to be "a lotta hooey"???

And you say *i'm* lost?

I think it's a lotta hooey that science is so hung up on
how the study of something alters the subject under
study.

But you yourself just provided an example??? Are you so fixated on just
brushing off examples that you even brush off your own???

Try to focus on the subject, John.

The example i provided was evidence that the amount of
the alteration is insignificant, at least here in the realm of the
"non-quantum" material level.

What i'm wondering here, John, is why science gets so
fixated on this altering-by-studying/measuring getting more
and more significant as the quantum level is approached.

Because it gets "more and more significant as the quantum level is
approached"

Why is that hard to understand???

Because i can find very little evidence that they're doing much
about it... other than offering up things like the "Principle of
Uncertainty" and such. In other branches of science, those
who don't want to have an effect on their subjects of study
often go to *great pains* to ensure this won't happen...

You want to study how a lion takes a baby giraffe at a water
hole without getting his head kicked off by momma giraffe,
then you get there *before* the animals do, and you find
someplace to hide.

What are quantum physicists doing to lessen the impact of
their "presence" so that their studies, measurements and
conclusions will be more accurate?...

Practically _nothing_ that i can find. It seems as though they
have given up. And without accurate measuring techniques,
how can they even *call* quantum theory a "scientific" one?
How can it possibly be referred to as a "fundamental branch
of physics"?

Hmmm???



The philosophy in quantum theory is more than just the idea that a
voltmeter's attachment will affect the volage levels in a circuit. It
is a more profound and mystical belief that the mere ability to measure
something, fundamentally alters its physical reality. Years of
frustration in resolving such mysteries as those in the double-slit
experiment have reinforced such a philosophy. However, in my opinion
it stems from an accurate overall lack of understanding of the
phenomenon being observed, and in physically influencing the experiment
in ways that are not understood. Yes, some of the ideas in QM seem to
be enshrining ignorance in a fundamentalist way. In the future new
ways of measurement will be discovered, and those might not follow the
old uncertainty rules.

Double-A

Perhaps if you learned some real physics you might understand.


And i also sometimes wonder why i even try to explain my
thoughts to you. You seem so fixated on Saturday Night
Live! It seems that all your responses to me begin like the
Jane Curtin - Dan Aykroyd comedy routine, "Point --
Counterpoint" where Jane begins the discussion point, and
Dan (Zinni) counters with...

"PAINE, YOU IGNORANT SLUT"

Sounds about right (although I have no evidence that you are a "SLUT")

g good one!

--
SMILE! as if you'd really been moooned!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net


--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"An applied ripple action implies time and momentum
reciprocal dependent directed surface tension not
instantaneous field wide reaction."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Double-A wrote:

Painius wrote:
"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ...

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

. . .
Personally, i think it's a lotta hooey.

You really are lost, aren't you.

What exactly is it that you believe to be "a lotta hooey"???

And you say *i'm* lost?

I think it's a lotta hooey that science is so hung up on
how the study of something alters the subject under
study.

But you yourself just provided an example??? Are you so fixated on
just
brushing off examples that you even brush off your own???

Try to focus on the subject, John.

The example i provided was evidence that the amount of
the alteration is insignificant, at least here in the realm of the
"non-quantum" material level.

What i'm wondering here, John, is why science gets so
fixated on this altering-by-studying/measuring getting more
and more significant as the quantum level is approached.

Because it gets "more and more significant as the quantum level is
approached"

Why is that hard to understand???

Because i can find very little evidence that they're doing much
about it... other than offering up things like the "Principle of
Uncertainty" and such. In other branches of science, those
who don't want to have an effect on their subjects of study
often go to *great pains* to ensure this won't happen...

You want to study how a lion takes a baby giraffe at a water
hole without getting his head kicked off by momma giraffe,
then you get there *before* the animals do, and you find
someplace to hide.

What are quantum physicists doing to lessen the impact of
their "presence" so that their studies, measurements and
conclusions will be more accurate?...

Practically _nothing_ that i can find. It seems as though they
have given up. And without accurate measuring techniques,
how can they even *call* quantum theory a "scientific" one?
How can it possibly be referred to as a "fundamental branch
of physics"?

Hmmm???



The philosophy in quantum theory is more than just the idea that a
voltmeter's attachment will affect the volage levels in a circuit. It
is a more profound and mystical belief that the mere ability to measure
something, fundamentally alters its physical reality. Years of
frustration in resolving such mysteries as those in the double-slit
experiment have reinforced such a philosophy. However, in my opinion
it stems from an accurate overall lack of understanding of the
phenomenon being observed, and in physically influencing the experiment
in ways that are not understood. Yes, some of the ideas in QM seem to
be enshrining ignorance in a fundamentalist way. In the future new
ways of measurement will be discovered, and those might not follow the
old uncertainty rules.

Double-A

Perhaps if you learned some real physics you might understand.

Perhaps if you sought a mental health professional, you'd be normal.

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Painius wrote:

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ...

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message .. .

"Painius" wrote in message
...

. . .
Personally, i think it's a lotta hooey.

You really are lost, aren't you.

What exactly is it that you believe to be "a lotta hooey"???

And you say *i'm* lost?

I think it's a lotta hooey that science is so hung up on
how the study of something alters the subject under
study.

But you yourself just provided an example??? Are you so fixated on
just
brushing off examples that you even brush off your own???

Try to focus on the subject, John.

The example i provided was evidence that the amount of
the alteration is insignificant, at least here in the realm of the
"non-quantum" material level.

What i'm wondering here, John, is why science gets so
fixated on this altering-by-studying/measuring getting more
and more significant as the quantum level is approached.

Because it gets "more and more significant as the quantum level is
approached"

Why is that hard to understand???

Because i can find very little evidence that they're doing much
about it... other than offering up things like the "Principle of
Uncertainty" and such. In other branches of science, those
who don't want to have an effect on their subjects of study
often go to *great pains* to ensure this won't happen...

You want to study how a lion takes a baby giraffe at a water
hole without getting his head kicked off by momma giraffe,
then you get there *before* the animals do, and you find
someplace to hide.

What are quantum physicists doing to lessen the impact of
their "presence" so that their studies, measurements and
conclusions will be more accurate?...

Practically _nothing_ that i can find. It seems as though they
have given up. And without accurate measuring techniques,
how can they even *call* quantum theory a "scientific" one?
How can it possibly be referred to as a "fundamental branch
of physics"?

Hmmm???

Since you refuse to educate yourself about the actual science, you must
fall back to posting whines and ad hominems.

And i also sometimes wonder why i even try to explain my
thoughts to you. You seem so fixated on Saturday Night
Live! It seems that all your responses to me begin like the
Jane Curtin - Dan Aykroyd comedy routine, "Point --
Counterpoint" where Jane begins the discussion point, and
Dan (Zinni) counters with...

"PAINE, YOU IGNORANT SLUT"

Sounds about right (although I have no evidence that you are a "SLUT")

g good one!

Saucerhead high five!

Coffee boi dick lick.