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

quote:

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

If people have to register for the site, he doesn't have to let them on.

He could also tell us the name of his book, and we could buy it on Amazon. But he won't.

It does look that way.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:
Tis by invitation/registration only.

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

No point.
When a quantum physicist invites someone, the registration won't work.
When he sorts out the registration, he can't find the invitation.

Come on chaps can't you read the small print, I clearly laid out the requirements for anyone wanting to take part on my forum. Mike lacey is right of course, I can't have a load of uninformed bods scrawling graffitti on the playground wall and offending the invited grown ups.

Thus far the only person to have made anything like an intelligent comment concerning my remarks about quantum theory is David Scott way back on page 3 who said 'And doesn't the observation that the maths keeps working no matter what the opinions about the nature of reality the physicist doing it holds suggest that there is something about reality that remains unchanged whatever we believe'? I have written a short essay in response to that but it is 48 pages long and I don't know how to post the diagrams. I may include it in one my forthcoming books.

Everyone else (with the exception of the sound judgment demonstrated by Mike lacey) has talked aload of a balls.

Fake.


End.

Poor Mike Dudley

All confused and befuddley

do something useful - how do I post pics here?

No point in asking him - he Does Not Answer Questions.

If you upload pictures to eg. Flickr or Photobucket, you will be given the option of copying a "link for forums" or somesuch. Copy this, and click on the last but one icon on the "reply" page on which you type - its next to the </> symbol. Paste the link to the obvious, and Robert is your mothers' brother.

M

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:
Poor Mike Dudley

All confused and befuddley

do something useful - how do I post pics here?

Couldn't say, I'm too confused...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
No point in asking him - he Does Not Answer Questions.

Can you ask your buddy Sniper to tell us the title of his book?

one question ....................

whatever happened to Berlin Fritz?



SJB

quote:

Everyone else (with the exception of the sound judgment demonstrated by Mike lacey) has talked aload of a balls.

Sniper - do you include me in that category.

Sniper,

TrevP has entirely demolished you and your increasingly disturbed postings in a most polite and succinct manner.

Droodzilla has given you every opportunity to state plainly whatever it is you imagine you have achieved, again with the utmost tact and dignity.

You, however, have utterly failed to provide anything other than the most crass, empty- headed nonsense.

No book title.

No web page info.

No indication of where you do 'research'.

Not the least notion of your revolutionary new paradigm.

No solid information at all. None.

And you compared yourself to Galileo.

There is no choice but to conclude that you are a fantasist.

Are you aware that you appear to be the forum clown?

Sniper, in this century there is no need to suffer alone. There are many therapies and new drugs which may be able to help you. May I strongly suggest you visit your GP and start to help your self? Truly it may not be too late.

I wish you all the best.

Regards, Paul.

I don't think there is *any* solid info on QM, and it looks as if you are relying on other peoples inaccurate posts to say Sniper has compared himself to Galileo.

No wonder he ignores most of you.

Ah. Mr Lacey. I've been expecting you.

You seem to appear regularly in order to post something contrary simply for the sake of being contrary? Still each to his own.

This is from sniper himself;

[QUOTE]
Proving a theory takes sound argument on the one side and a receptiveness to that proof on the other. Ask Galileo. [QUOTE]

He ignores us because we, quite legitimately, request genuine information. There has been none whatever forthcoming. None.

Where is this book?

Where is this website?

Where are the diagrams?

Whom are these physicists who stole his notions?

Where does he teach QM?

Where is any evidence at all, however slight and however feeble, of his self vaunted research?

As I may have said, Sniper has avoided any and all requests for actual, real, substantive information.

Mongo,

I think you need to go back to the start and re-read the entire thread carefully. Get someone to help with the big words.

btw - I have just been commissioned to write another book - demolishing Dawkin's 'Unweaving the Rainbow'. It won't take long. 'Reweaving the Rainbow: An Appraisal of the Dangerous Ideas of Dennett and Dawkins'.

Mongo,

1/

If anyone wants to go back to the start they will note that all I did was to quote a significant number of highly respected physicists who believe that consciousness is primary in the universe. No one, least of all trevp has even attempted to refute anything I have quoted. Where I took a pop at Dennett or Dawkins I quoted them and gave reasoned argument. I even introduced a book written by professors that looked into the whole debate in detail (certainly in more detail than his beginners guide manages). Trevp tried to belittle this book 'Quantum Enigma' (which he has not read)by saying it was not peer reviewed - I proved that it was. Trevp said the double slit experiment was not a quantum experiment (no evidence given) I proved that it was. He has shown himself to be unworthy of being taken seriously and he has often been insulting.

2/ some people have said they do not agree with the physics professors, but no one has said why they do not agree. I have challenged them to do so but they have evaded the issue saying it is for me to prove my position not the other way round. I am not obliged by the rules of this forum or any other rule I am aware of elsewhere to defend the quotes I have given and nor is anyone here who disagrees with them obliged to say why they don't agree.

3/ However, I feel that if anyone disagrees with anything posted on any thread here then they should be the ones to back up their views. Despite many challenges trevp failed to offer even one argument. What he did do was try to turn the focus away from his inability to offer an argument or even an alternative view by way of quotes from other scientists. What he did do was say he had a beginners guide to quantum physics (but not that he had read it) and on this basis alone rejected the views of prize winning physics professors. The misdirection continued by pouring scorn on Nick Herbert (who has a PhD and has held many teaching and research positions unlike, I suspect trevp) rather than offer any insight. I never in fact quoted or discussed any of Herbert’s views (many of which are entirely conventional and sane)I merely quoted a list of interpretations but trevp (in order to belittle my views and misdirect the audience jumped on the fact that Herbert has a few unconventional views - something that in no way negates the views of the other scientists I quoted. far from demolishing my views he has singularly failed to offer any refutation whatsoever and has shown himself to be rather dim.

4/ The fact is there is NO evidence at all for any of the childish claims made by trevp or Mike Befuddley and your belief is entirely an act of faith. This is ironic really. You prove I am not a published author. You can't do it can you? You merely believe what you want to believe. You think I need your royalties? Put your money where your mouth is and make a wager.

Again, Mongo, if my views are so barking mad then it should be simplicity itself to demonstrate it - quote me and gives us all the benefit of your intellect. Naturally you should follow those demands you make of me. First tell everyone what qualifies you to have the views you have, after all this is your challenge to me. What degree do you have and where do you teach? What work have you had published? What is your job? And remember if you want to take me on in matters of the primacy of consciousness and qt then you take on a bunch of respected scientists. What are your arguments? Trevp wholly failed to offer one - perhaps you can pick up the gauntlet?

I have laid out the requirements for being told the details of my books, website and forum and I am not evading anything. I am merely waiting for someone stupid enough to take the challenge. Thus far you look like the most likely candidate.

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

quote:

Everyone else (with the exception of the sound judgment demonstrated by Mike lacey) has talked aload of a balls.

Sniper - do you include me in that category.

You have accused me of being irrational because I have researched something in depth (more depth than the authors of Quantum Enigma)and have come to a certain conclusion backed up by siginficant scientists that one view is correct and the others (to varying degrees)are wrong. You talk of the strength of my convictions as if you have a fool-proof method of measuring them but you don't. Who is being irrational here? I have offered you access to my work but you chose to withdraw yourself from any dialogue. Insofar as you have at least attempted to take a look at the terrain with an open mind and because I am a decent fellow I repeat my offer to you. Perhaps if you let me have your email address I will send you something but I dont want it discussed here as I don't think the audience is even remotely qualified or genuinely interested. I can well foresee (as do others)the type of stupidity that would follow based on my experiences thus far.

Sniper is a troll. Albeit, quite a dedicated one, with far too much time on his hands. We all fell for it.

There is nothing substantive in any of his posts. He cannot provide any evidence to support is claims of being significant researcher/philosopher in he field because there is none. I would estimate his age at about 14. Quite bright but socially inept.

We should ignore him until he goes away.

Ah but where is your wager winky? If winky's view is not wonky then put the money on the table. Put up or shut up says I. (again a total lack of evidence, reasoning, quotes or intelligence - just baseless observation and insult from you)

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

Trevp tried to belittle this book 'Quantum Enigma' (which he has not read)by saying it was not peer reviewed - I proved that it was. Trevp said the double slit experiment was not a quantum experiment (no evidence given) I proved that it was. He has shown himself to be unworthy of being taken seriously and he has often been insulting.

3/ However, I feel that if anyone disagrees with anything posted on any thread here then they should be the ones to back up their views. Despite many challenges trevp failed to offer even one argument. What he did do was try to turn the focus away from his inability to offer an argument or even an alternative view by way of quotes from other scientists. What he did do was say he had a beginners guide to quantum physics (but not that he had read it) and on this basis alone rejected the views of prize winning physics professors. The misdirection continued by pouring scorn on Nick Herbert (who has a PhD and has held many teaching and research positions unlike, I suspect trevp) rather than offer any insight. I never in fact quoted or discussed any of Herbert’s views (many of which are entirely conventional and sane)I merely quoted a list of interpretations but trevp (in order to belittle my views and misdirect the audience jumped on the fact that Herbert has a few unconventional views - something that in no way negates the views of the other scientists I quoted. far from demolishing my views he has singularly failed to offer any refutation whatsoever and has shown himself to be rather dim.

Sniper,

I have now requested twice that you cease publishing these attacks.

1. I have not tried to "belittle" the Quantum Enigma book. I simply pointed out that it was not peer reviewed. You say you have "proved" otherwise - how exactly?

2. I have not provided argument because it is not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of anything. On the other hand, you have singularly failed to produce any kind of rational argument - about anything! (I am repeating myself somewhat here but you don't seem to understand the basics of logic). All I tried to do with my original post was to introduce some perspective into your one-sided view of the subject. I have since been subject to all manner of insults from you (a couple of examples are in the above quotation).

3. Regarding the book which you dismiss as a "beginners book" (Introduction to Quantum Mechanics), I suggest that you read it before dismissing it (although as you have claimed in a previous post to have read "everything" you must already have done so - in which case you have not understood it).

4. Your supposition that I do not have a PhD is false.

I suggest that you follow Mongo's advice and get some medical help for your delusional state.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
Sniper is a troll. Albeit, quite a dedicated one, with far too much time on his hands. We all fell for it.

There is nothing substantive in any of his posts. He cannot provide any evidence to support is claims of being significant researcher/philosopher in he field because there is none. I would estimate his age at about 14. Quite bright but socially inept.

We should ignore him until he goes away.

If that's true (and I agree, it seems very plausible), Mike Lacey should be careful not to be caught in an inappropriate relationaship.

Not sure what you mean, Dud.. No need to explain, not that you would anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:
Ah. Mr Lacey. I've been expecting you.

You seem to appear regularly in order to post something contrary simply for the sake of being contrary? Still each to his own.

So?

Some people fall easily into pack / herd bullying mentality; I do hope you don't mind me remaining apart from that kind of person and having my own point of view.

quote:

This is from sniper himself;

[QUOTE]
Proving a theory takes sound argument on the one side and a receptiveness to that proof on the other. Ask Galileo. [QUOTE]

.

Is this your evidence of Sniper comparing himself to Galileo? It is no such thing.

It doers, however, mention Galileo.