"Exalt , well , no, i emhased it virtually to show the point that article's like this contain falsifications 'an sich' embedded or by association with occult science.
-concider it or don't, well, leads like this are taking other people towards the article without pointing out towards the conflicting matters. probably you were not aware of this , and probably people following the lead are not , but leaving a part out of its contexts in this way is dangerous and arose my suspicion. And of course , no , i am not a physician, i never said i was , i work in a car factory,with my hands. But i'm better than a shitload of them.I was studying all the books you see, and i think its a good idea for you to do so, this is encouraging. Its not a very good idea to jump over the material. Like the Bell's theoreme,one has to be aware of all this kind of contamination. Greetz, the log lady, Burps! 2010/9/18 MarshaV <[email protected]> > > Adrie, > > > I've posted a lot of stuff. Consider it or don't. Maybe the book > will arrive today, and I will have more to post. > > By the way, are you a physicist? And why you exalt what > you point out? I don't. > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Sep 18, 2010, at 11:13 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > > > But you forgot the rest of the article Marsha > > > > I isolated a part from the article further on as i am very good in > Nonlocal > > &local reality's. > > > > comment on isolated part > > > > Their treatment of two-slit interference ranks right up there with (but > > differs interestingly from) Feynman’s famous “comes in lumps” approach, > and > > their nontechnical description of Bell’s theorem is one of the best I’ve > > seen, and by far the least mathematical. > > > > > > 3 problems > > trying to ridicule Feynman is not a very good idea, this is adressed at > the > > autor. > > > > The Bell theorem. > > The theorem is specifically rejected by most of the scientifical > > world,because its a limp home formula. > > it is under controverse since it was stated.Its rubbish. > > > > MR PIRSIG, specifically rejects the theoreme, in one of his annotations > on > > LILA'S CHILD,in a earlier stage of history. > > He recognised very early that it was crap, and i happen to agree with him > > and 99% of science. > > PIRSIG rejects it for a reason, this is very easy to find back. > > > > > > Nb, i was already pointing out in a conversation with Mr Buchanan, some > time > > ago, that PIRSIG rejects the theoreme > > It is still to be found back in the archives, or in the annotations > > made upon LILA. > > > > > > this is only 1 leech to kill, there are more in the article... > > sincerely yours , Pontius PILATUS, landlord of judea, the man on the > > mountain. > > > > > > > > > > 2010/9/18 MarshaV <[email protected]> > > > >> > >> > >> from American Journal of Physics Review of Quantum Enigma: > >> > >> > >> Take space-time, for example. We organize our perceptions into events, > and > >> for many purposes it is illuminating to represent those events as points > in > >> an abstract four-dimensional continuum. This is so useful that most of > us > >> reify this abstract scheme, believing that we inhabit a world that is > such a > >> four- (or, for a few of us, ten-) dimensional continuum. The reification > of > >> abstract time and space goes so far back in human history that it’s easy > to > >> miss the intellectual sleight of hand. The reification of electric and > >> magnetic fields is more recent but also came to be taken for granted, > until > >> it started to unravel (for some of us) with the arrival of quantum > >> electrodynamics. The strongest hints of how we have been fooling > ourselves > >> emerge when we try to reify quantum states, and thereby run into “the > >> measurement problem” and “quantum nonlocality.” > >> > >> > >> http://quantumenigma.com/reviews-our-responses/ > >> > >> ___ > >> > >> > >> Moq_Discuss mailing list > >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > >> Archives: > >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > parser > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > > > ___ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > -- parser Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
