The True Origin of The Universe?

humbleteleskop said:
Yes, I claim the phenomena called "quantum entanglement" is simply a deterministically predictable manifestation of classical local probability, and not any kind of mysterious non-local quantum effect of instantaneous action over distance, as is currently believed to be a fact. Here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141815-Bell-s-theorem-spooky-lucky-streaks-!
Click to expand...

Claim what you like. Obviously you are wrong until you can show some evidence.

humbleteleskop said:
It's rather well known. See Wikipedia or Google. If I do that work for you Russty might again accuse me of plagiarism.
Click to expand...

No one laughed at the Wright brothers, and as I have mentioned, only doubt from one otherwise great scientist.
Other scientists did believe it would be achieved.

humbleteleskop said:
Yes, it is logical if you come up with a theory that before publishing you would want to discuss it with other people first. You seem to have a very low opinion about people on internet forums, so much that you believe it would be stupid for anyone genuine to even bother talking to them. But they are us, which includes you. Very interesting opinion.
Click to expand...


:)
Yeah, OK, and if you walk outside, you may also see an Elephant hanging over a cliff, with his tail tied to a Dandelion.
Gullibility actually comes to mind.
 
=humbleteleskop;3203816] You seem to have a very low opinion about people on internet forums, so much that you believe it would be stupid for anyone genuine to even bother talking to them. But they are us, which includes you. Very interesting opinion.
Click to expand...


Not a low opinion at all...Just a carefully measured opinion, encased in some cynicism, since as we all know, the Internet is available to every Tom, Dick and Harry.
Some forums though are privileged enough to have some reputable learned people on it...This one has a handful, that are also obvious.
 
paddoboy said:
Claim what you like. Obviously you are wrong until you can show some evidence.
Click to expand...

I did show very good evidence, which is so self-evident it's really a fact. You've got the link, see for yourself.


Yeah, OK, and if you walk outside, you may also see an Elephant hanging over a cliff, with his tail tied to a Dandelion.
Gullibility actually comes to mind.
Click to expand...

I don't think I understand what do you mean. Basically you think if there were internet forums in Einstein's time he would be stupid to even try discussing his theories there, or maybe you think it's just the people on the forums of today who are much stupider than they would be a century ago? Can you explain how do you arrive to your conclusion?
 
humbleteleskop said:
Not wrong, just different question. I'll answer your question after you answer mine, because I asked first and because I already answered your question before.
Click to expand...
It was rhetorical: the answer is that you aren't.
I don't know what could possibly be the thing you are talking about, and you forgot to mention.
Click to expand...
You who proclaims to know the history of science don't know that Galileo is generally regarded as its father?
 
humbleteleskop said:
I did show very good evidence, which is so self-evident it's really a fact. You've got the link, see for yourself.
Click to expand...

Great, get it peer reviewed then. :shrug:.

humbleteleskop said:
I don't think I understand what do you mean. Basically you think if there were internet forums in Einstein's time he would be stupid to even try discussing his theories there, or maybe you think it's just the people on the forums of today who are much stupider than they would be a century ago? Can you explain how do you arrive to your conclusion?
Click to expand...


The word stupid appears pretty close to your heart.
Einstein would have interacted with others, as he did anyway, and as I have explained somewhere to someone or other.
People such as Kurt Godel, David Hilbert just to name two, and also his former teacher.
He would not in anyway shape or form discuss on a forum open to any Tom Dick and Harry.
 
Russ_Watters said:
It was rhetorical: the answer is that you aren't.
Click to expand...

So you assume. It's just barking. Come over to that thread and show me the errors of my ways, if you can, please.


You who proclaims to know the history of science don't know that Galileo is generally regarded as its father?
Click to expand...

It's "science" then. I hate science? Ok, whatever, don't answer that question. You and your petty hallucinatory arguments, shoo, shooo!
 
paddoboy said:
Great, get it peer reviewed then. :shrug:.
Click to expand...

I'm showing you direct proof how modern science can be utterly wrong despite peer review and thousands of experiments and papers written. You refuse to look through my "telescope"? You know, if you want to see, you first must open your eyes. Wake up!
 
humbleteleskop said:
I'm showing you direct proof how modern science can be utterly wrong despite peer review and thousands of experiments and papers written. You refuse to look through my "telescope"? You know, if you want to see, you first must open your eyes. Wake up!
Click to expand...

I've checked it out briefly......Most beyond me, but again, get it peer reviewed.
What I see, and the comments, you do not have direct proof....Direct proof does not apply anyway to scientific theories.
Try again.
 
Russ_Watters said:
Have you attempted to have your ideas peer reviewed and published?
Click to expand...

Can you not think for yourself? Anyway, that one not yet. How many places are actually there that could publish it that you would consider authoritative enough to accept it as fact? Can you give me links to their websites?
 
paddoboy said:
I've checked it out briefly......Most beyond me, but again, get it peer reviewed.
Click to expand...

It's not beyond you, it's very, very simple. You haven't even read any of it.


What I see, and the comments, you do not have direct proof....Direct proof does not apply anyway to scientific theories.
Try again.
Click to expand...

Please post your comment in that thread and I'll explain about false assertion you're making.
 
humbleteleskop said:
Anyway, that one not yet.
Click to expand...
Then you can't claim the peer review process has failed.
How many places are actually there that could publish it that you would consider authoritative enough to accept it as fact? Can you give me links to their websites?
Click to expand...
You mean you don't already know? You haven't already read all recent, relevant research on the subject in those journals? That alone makes it clear that your idea is unworthy of publication.
 
Russ_Watters said:
You mean you don't already know? You haven't already read all recent, relevant research on the subject in those journals? That alone makes it clear that your idea is unworthy of publication.
Click to expand...

The question was about you and for you:
- How many paper publishing places are out there that you consider authoritative enough, and can you give me links to their websites?
 
humbleteleskop said:
The question was about you and for you:
- How many paper publishing places are out there that you consider authoritative enough, and can you give me links to their websites?
Click to expand...

Here is a list. Hopefully, you are not planning on sending anything to any of them, it will just waste their time.
 
humbleteleskop said:
The question was about you and for you:
- How many paper publishing places are out there that you consider authoritative enough, and can you give me links to their websites?
Click to expand...

if you were intelligent as you like to portray yourself to be,
then you wouldn't try to re-establish something that has been established for decades.
in stead of addressing things that need actual thinking(which i notice you never touch),
you just hop on the band wagon of all theories are incorrect nonsense.
and yet you think you are intelligent, but yet, never touches things that need intelligence, this speaks volumes.

focus on things that actually need attention..
 
origin said:
Here is a list.
Click to expand...

There is really not too many of them, and how come all of them are in English-speaking countries? I guess that's the language of alien shape-shifting reptilian overlords. Anyway, does "scientific journal" necessarily mean they are in business of actually publishing papers? I think I was seeing different names when I was looking for 'paper publishing' institutions last time.
 
krash661 said:
if you were intelligent as you like to portray yourself to be,
then you wouldn't try to re-establish something that has been established for decades.
in stead of addressing things that need actual thinking(which i notice you never touch),
you just hop on the band wagon of all theories are incorrect nonsense.
and yet you think you are intelligent, but yet, never touches things that need intelligence, this speaks volumes.

focus on things that actually need attention..
Click to expand...

Yep, particularly when the theories they are trying desperately to overthrow, are among the top echelons of scientific theory and more or less, set in concrete.
It's a wonder they are not singing the praises of Ptolemy and claiming a geocentric solar system. :)
Your observations about the "bandwagon" syndrome I also see as relevant...That along with some inbuilt desire to want to show the world that they need not take notice of the giants of times past and present, and need not align with what reputable books and scientific papers and data are telling them, rather that they are smart enough to be able to think independently, even if that independent thinking is wrong. And they wear that like a badge of honour. :shrug:
Instead of letting logic and common sense prevail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top