EMPHASED!! 2010/9/18 ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]>
> "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 > -- 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
