If you could have any question answered - what would it be?

trevp,

I could take offense at being called a liar but I view you as being like a child. One may be mistaken as to your meaning but lying involves intent to deceive and I have no such intent. You on the other hand have sought to misrepresent my views by aligning them with the views of david icke and some of the more bizarre views held by Herbert* - a contemptible tactic born of the frustration you feel for not having presented one iota of evidence for your view that all the scientists I quoted are wrong. When and if you do this I will be pleased to pull your evidence or view to pieces quoting respected sciencists and providing sound logical reasoning. You obviously need to learn a good deal more before you realise how little it is you know - your comments re. the double slit experiment confirm this. If you dont want to produce any evidence for your bizarre view (the view you know more about quantum science than the scientists I quoted)then skulk away with your tail between your legs. You are out of your depth here.

* I have just looked at herbert's website and i agree with you that in some respects at least he lacks credibilty - but I have not quoted any of his bizarre views have I? No, I have not.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:
trevp,

I could take offense at being called a liar but I view you as being like a child. One may be mistaken as to your meaning but lying involves intent to deceive and I have no such intent. You on the other hand have sought to misrepresent my views by aligning them with the views of david icke and some of the more bizarre views held by Herbert* - a contemptible tactic born of the frustration you feel for not having presented one iota of evidence for your view that all the scientists I quoted are wrong. When and if you do this I will be pleased to pull your evidence or view to pieces quoting respected sciencists and providing sound logical reasoning. You obviously need to learn a good deal more before you realise how little it is you know - your comments re. the double slit experiment confirm this. If you dont want to produce any evidence for your bizarre view (the view you know more about quantum science than the scientists I quoted)then skulk away with your tail between your legs. You are out of your depth here.

* I have just looked at herbert's website and i agree with you that in some respects at least he lacks credibilty - but I have not quoted any of his bizarre views have I? No, I have not.

Sniper,

For the LAST time:

I have NEVER sought to align your views with those of David Icke.

I DO NOT hold the view that I know more about quantum science than quantum scientists.

If you are NOT lying, then you are deluded.

I have requested in my previous post that you desist from publishing misrepresentations of my posts and you have not done so. Again, please stop this. NOW.

quote:

You say I am being irrational because you assume I am not right but what if I am? Would I still be irrational? Sometimes science has only progressed because of the conviction of one man who went against the grain. Just because so many othe others are confused does not mean I have to be nor does it mean that you have to be. Trevp is another story however.

Hi Sniper. My view is that there is no consensus about the correct interpretation of QM, so anyone who claims to know for sure is, to an extent, irrational. Even if you turn out to be right, you are still irrational *now*, as the strength of your conviction is not proportionate to the available evidence.

However... The practice of scientific inquiry needs its heretics, if it is to make progress in the long run. As long as the majority of scientists continue to do "normal science" (i.e. work at fleshing out established scientific paradigms) a few mad scientists (or visionaries, if you prefer) working on the fringes are a good thing for the health of the scientific enterprise as a whole.

However... Bear in mind the success rate of these heretics is low. We're only tempted to think otherwise because the history of science only records the ones that succeeded and were absorbed into the mainstream. For every Galileo, there are probably hundreds of also-rans.

In sum, you're entitled to your opinion about the correct interpretation of QM, but I've seen little on this thread that would rationally warrant the strength of your conviction. You are entitled to feel strongly that you are right, but, generally, history is not kind to scientific heretics.

Saying all that, I will definitely read the QE book at some point. Why not post details of your book here too, so I can get a better idea of where you're coming from?

Regards
Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:


If you are intrigued by their commentary you might like to read my own book on the subject the details of which I will provide you with as an when you have finished Quantum Enigma and if you so desire. You may then come to see that my conviction is based on the fact that I know considerably more about this subject than you or Trevp have hitherto supposed. At 500 pages it has more detail, breadth, depth and precision than Quantum Enigma and surveys the whole terrain from respected scientific authority to New Age mumbo-jumbo from the ultra materialist to religious arguments showing how each are fundamentally flawed perspectives and introducing in some detail how to resolve all the current interpretation problems.

Some years ago I demonstrated beyond any doubt that the tried and tested methods for doing something were simlistic and fundamentally flawed. The 'authority' of the day (who would have had to give me their jobs if they accepted my view)refused to look at the evidence stating that:'If the current way of doing things were simplistic and fundamentally flawed someone would have noticed and no one has so they ain't'. This bunch of no-hopers then employed one of my staff to implement my changes using slightly different labels and terminology and claiming it as their own work rather than face losing face. Sometimes someone is just right and all the others are wrong.

Don't be so modest - where can we buy your book?

Also, please give some more details of the "authority" that ripped you off.

Pulling up a chair... Waiting with baited breath...

Really Important Stuff Explained by Mr Modest?
or maybe:-
A Dummies Guide to Quantum Mechanics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQHaGhC7C2E

Tom Lehrer - Lobachevsky

ATB from George

P vs NP?

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:


different labels and terminology and claiming it as their own work rather than face losing face. Sometimes someone is just right and all the others are wrong.

Don't be so modest - where can we buy your book?

Also, please give some more details of the "authority" that ripped you off.

Amazon. If you had shown some interest in the subject matter I would happily have sent you a free copy in the form of a large pdf file.

As for the authority that ripped me off - if I gave the details I would be accused of being immodest. Its ancient history and I moved on a long time ago.

I had thought to post the whole first chapter here - it gives an overview of the whole terrain and is a relatively easy read (compared with other chapters)but I don't think I will bother. Too many people disagreeing with every word because they can't understand simple english, simple concepts or anything that negates their previously accumulated prejudices whilst offering nothing by way of an intelligent refutation - I can well imagine the tedium. I do this stuff for a day job I dont want to be doing it in my spare time. However, if anyone here has any serious academic qualifications in physics and/or philosophy and if genuinely interested and can prove it I will email them the first chapter and we can go from there. Any debate over the contents can be argued on my website forum.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sniper:

Some years ago I demonstrated beyond any doubt that the tried and tested methods for doing something were simlistic and fundamentally flawed. The 'authority' of the day (who would have had to give me their jobs if they accepted my view)refused to look at the evidence stating that:'If the current way of doing things were simplistic and fundamentally flawed someone would have noticed and no one has so they ain't'. This bunch of no-hopers then employed one of my staff to implement my changes using slightly different labels and terminology and claiming it as their own work rather than face losing face. Sometimes someone is just right and all the others are wrong.
QUOTE]

It sounds to me like the personality problems someone's displaying here have also made themselves felt in his place of work.

Ouch!

quote:

Any debate over the contents can be argued on my website forum.

Sniper, a link to this website might help?

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

quote:

Any debate over the contents can be argued on my website forum.

Sniper, a link to this website might help?

I might have missed it, but we don't even know the title of Mr Sniper's book yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

Amazon. If you had shown some interest in the subject matter I would happily have sent you a free copy in the form of a large pdf file.

No, I am happy that you should get the royalties from your endeavour. What is the title of your book?

Derry,

But thus far you have yet to demonstrate you have any interest in the subject matter. Where are your postings on this thread?

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

quote:

Any debate over the contents can be argued on my website forum.

Sniper, a link to this website might help?

Tis by invitation/registration only.

OK, that is it. I'm calling BS on the existence Mr Sniper's publications as described here.

Lol. Hilarious. How much do you wish to wager?

Pointless to wager. You're not going to deliver.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

quote:

Any debate over the contents can be argued on my website forum.

Sniper, a link to this website might help?

Tis by invitation/registration only.

Fine, but that's the end of the line for me too, I'm afraid.

Regards
Nigel

Aww come on. Someone ought to stick their neck out. Oh ye of little faith.

Why would you have a website that one can "register" on and then not tell anybody what the .url is?

I believe Scrooge had a descriptive, although he was applying it to christmas at the time...

Sniper ( who I have never met) seems to be a decent chap who clearly knows what he is talking about.

I have no doubt that should he disclose the URL of his website plenty of people would rapidly crayon all over it.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Sniper ( who I have never met) seems to be a decent chap who clearly knows what he is talking about.

I have no doubt that should he disclose the URL of his website plenty of people would rapidly crayon all over it.

QED.