• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

Anders Lindman said:
It was about measuring the future.
Click to expand...

No here you said:

Anders Lindman said:
First of all, time is not a dimension.
Click to expand...

That is the claim I am addressing. You switched to "measuring the future" which sounds like word salad. You can or cannot measure TIME. We've already shown you can.

You didn't measure the future and you never will.
Click to expand...

Are you using "measure" as "predict" ? The two are different words with different definitions.

And how are seconds NOT a unit of MEASUREMENT of time ? Your refusal to accept that one CAN measure the future is based on your ASSUMPTION that time isn't a dimension, proven wrong already by the fact it can be MEASURED.

You're running around in circles.

Measurements as actions can only happen in the now. Data about measurements can be accumulated of course. My hypothesis that the past is ever growing amount of information still stands.
Click to expand...

Not it doesn't. If time isn't a dimension then there is no past, therefore nothing can accumulate in the past. If time IS a dimension then you are still wrong.
 
The universe as a quantum computation seems plausible to me. Quantum bits/states are entangled, so that they are non-locally correlated. The whole universe can be seen as a huge non-locally entangled quantum state. This means that there is only one simultaneous now, not separate nows as in Einstein's relativity, since separate nows are not non-locally entangled as far as I know.
 
Belz... said:
If time isn't a dimension then there is no past, therefore nothing can accumulate in the past.
Click to expand...

The past is information in the now. The amount of information is always increasing which creates the arrow of time. So the past can exist without time being a dimension. The universe can be a quantum computation of some kind. The universal quantum state contains both space, energy and matter and also the information about the past.
 
I found something that confirms the view I posted about above:

"In Decoding Reality, Vedral argues that we should regard the entire universe as a gigantic quantum computer. Wacky as that may sound, it is backed up by hard science. The laws of physics show that it is not only possible for electrons to store and flip bits: it is mandatory. For more than a decade, quantum-information scientists have been working to determine just how the universe processes information at the most microscopic scale." -- http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/03/the-universe-is-a-quantum-computer.html
 
Anders Lindman said:
...
Click to expand...

But I try to have some kind of connection to related facts.

Really? When does that part start?

That sounds a bit far-fetched to me...

And zero-point energy does not?

So the problem you have with nuclear power plants is that you don't understand enough about how they work and why. And out of that ignorance, you postulate something evil and nefarious, but equally incomprehensible and nebulous (free energy).

I'm wondering why you don't believe the people who do know how nuclear plants work. Do you hate us?
 
JayUtah said:
But I try to have some kind of connection to related facts.

Really? When does that part start?

That sounds a bit far-fetched to me...

And zero-point energy does not?

So the problem you have with nuclear power plants is that you don't understand enough about how they work and why. And out of that ignorance, you postulate something evil and nefarious, but equally incomprehensible and nebulous (free energy).

I'm wondering why you don't believe the people who do know how nuclear plants work. Do you hate us?
Click to expand...

I believe nuclear power plants are real. At the same time I have the option open that they could be water fuel plants. Does it mean that I say that people who claim to know nuclear power plants directly are liars? No, because if I did I wouldn't believe nuclear power plants are real.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Because then Saturn V could not be the kind of rocket that could carry the LEM etc.
Click to expand...

But if you argue the Moon landings were fake then the LM wasn't real either -- it was just a mockup. You're telling us the VAB is smaller than it really is, and that the Apollo crews were small animatronics. So you have no problem mocking up the whole Apollo environment at reduced scale to support your Small Rocket theory. Why not simply a smaller LM too? What's so magical about the LM that it can't be shrunk down too?

Sheesh, you're so bad at this that you can't even come up with conspiracy theories that are consistent with themselves, much less ones that briefly brush up against fact.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I believe nuclear power plants are real. At the same time I have the option open that they could be water fuel plants. Does it mean that I say that people who claim to know nuclear power plants directly are liars? No, because if I did I wouldn't believe nuclear power plants are real.
Click to expand...

Pure equivocation. You believe that they're "real" but you don't necessarily believe that they're powered by nuclear energy.

I'm telling you that I know that they're real, and further that they use the commonly accepted principles of nuclear fission to produce electrical energy. I have personal experience and the appropriate understanding.

Please explain again how you wouldn't be calling me a liar by saying that they really work in some other way.
 
JayUtah said:
But if you argue the Moon landings were fake then the LM wasn't real either -- it was just a mockup. You're telling us the VAB is smaller than it really is, and that the Apollo crews were small animatronics. So you have no problem mocking up the whole Apollo environment at reduced scale to support your Small Rocket theory. Why not simply a smaller LM too? What's so magical about the LM that it can't be shrunk down too?

Sheesh, you're so bad at this that you can't even come up with conspiracy theories that are consistent with themselves, much less ones that briefly brush up against fact.
Click to expand...

No, the VAB seems to be the correct size after all. The lunar module seems to me impossibly improbable with pressurized cabin yet extremely thin walls. And landing that thing live on television on the moon surface where huge amounts of boulders are everywhere? It doesn't compute imo.
 
JayUtah said:
Pure equivocation. You believe that they're "real" but you don't necessarily believe that they're powered by nuclear energy.

I'm telling you that I know that they're real, and further that they use the commonly accepted principles of nuclear fission to produce electrical energy. I have personal experience and the appropriate understanding.

Please explain again how you wouldn't be calling me a liar by saying that they really work in some other way.
Click to expand...

Ah, now I see the problem. I hold several possibilities in my mind at the same time. Often people only hold one claim in their mind at a time. So I believe the nuclear power plants are real and powered by nuclear fission that heats water to generate steam to drive turbines that are connected to generators that produce electricity. At the same time I hold the possibility in my mind that this may be a false view, a Big Lie hoax, and that nuclear power plants are in reality water fuel plants. Instead of either or I use both and. If I had to choose only one option today I would choose the view that nuclear power plants are real and uses nuclear fission just like how they are described.
 
Anders Lindman said:
...
Click to expand...

No, the VAB seems to be the correct size after all.

Then can we finally dispense with the silly notions of short rockets, scaled-down assembly buildings, and Munchkin astronauts? Can we please agree that the Saturn V, the building it was assembled in, and the crews and spacecraft it contained were of the reported sizes?

The lunar module seems to me impossibly improbable...

And you got your engineering degree where? And how many spacecraft have you personally built and flown?

...with pressurized cabin yet extremely thin walls.

Are you claiming the LM pressure-vessel walls could not have contained the reported cabin atmosphere? If that's your claim, please show me your computations.

And landing that thing live on television on the moon surface where huge amounts of boulders are everywhere?

What boulders would those be?

It doesn't compute imo.

I'm sure it doesn't. But the question is whether it fails to compute for you because there's something wrong with the reported facts, or whether it fails to compute because you don't know enough.

Keeping in mind that you don't think things through, and that you admit happily spewing unsupported hogwash, which do you think is the case here?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ah, now I see the problem. I hold several possibilities in my mind at the same time. Often people only hold one claim in their mind at a time. So I believe the nuclear power plants are real and powered by nuclear fission that heats water to generate steam to drive turbines that are connected to generators that produce electricity. At the same time I hold the possibility in my mind that this may be a false view, a Big Lie hoax, and that nuclear power plants are in reality water fuel plants. Instead of either or I use both and. If I had to choose only one option today I would choose the view that nuclear power plants are real and uses nuclear fission just like how they are described.
Click to expand...
And I hold the possibility that they may in reality be quantum bunny powered. Which has just as much evidence for it and logic as your belief. Why should anyone take either belief seriously?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ah, now I see the problem. I hold several possibilities in my mind at the same time.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. They can't both be true.

Your problem is, whether for sheer entertainment value or because you have a severe cognitive dysfunction, that you cannot distinguish fact from fantasy.
 
Last edited:
JimOfAllTrades said:
And I hold the possibility that they may in reality be quantum bunny powered. Which has just as much evidence for it and logic as your belief. Why should anyone take either belief seriously?
Click to expand...

A things nuclear is a potential hoax imo. For example, experts suddenly said that radioactive radiation is dangerous. Is it really?
 
JayUtah said:
Irrevant. They can't both be true.

Your problem is, whether for sheer entertainment value or because you have a severe cognitive dysfunction, that you cannot distinguish fact from fantasy.
Click to expand...

Of course not. But it's dangerous imo to cling to ideas too much based on only what authorities have told us. People cling for example to the belief in nuclear weapons as it being an undeniable truth. I disagree. I think the claim that nuclear weapons are real should be questioned.
 
JayUtah said:
No, the VAB seems to be the correct size after all.

Then can we finally dispense with the silly notions of short rockets, scaled-down assembly buildings, and Munchkin astronauts? Can we please agree that the Saturn V, the building it was assembled in, and the crews and spacecraft it contained were of the reported sizes?
Click to expand...

Not entirely drop the idea, no, because there is still a possibility that the real Saturn V rockets were smaller than they claim, especially since NASA doesn't present the original blueprints for Saturn V as far as I know.
 
Anders Lindman said:
...
Click to expand...

Not entirely drop the idea, no, because there is still a possibility that the real Saturn V rockets were smaller than they claim...

Irrelevant.

...especially since NASA doesn't present the original blueprints for Saturn V as far as I know.

Are you saying there's no documentation of the purported dimensions of the Saturn V?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom