xxx
Monkeymind
Karma: −994
Thank you very much for your response and your offer.
Good enough. Since I am demonstrating intellectual honesty and openess by reading everything you ask, can we agree to this? If I say I understand it but but that I disagree, will you then try to make the case for this half-silvered mirror experiment, or are we done?
Thank you for your patience. It is really appreciated.
OK, I am sorry I responded to your insulting post in kind. I was afraid it would come to this. First I am accused of trolling. Not being serious and not understanding. Now insulting responses.
I have learned to expect this when I challenge religious folks beliefs, I didn’t expect it from this community.
However, I can take and dish it out -if that’s what you want. Otherwise. I call truce.
OK, I will. I told you I would, but I have to answer all the responses. I will do that regardless of weather I think it is pointless, because I think it is respecting the forum.
But it would be helpful if you point out my mistakes. What if I read all this stuff and then still make the same “mistakes.” How will I ever know?
I am beginning to think it is a diversion. 2morrow I will read it all and I will be back.
x
x AND I don’t think I know better. I only suspect that the SM I am describing will get better results because the principals make better sense than what we are currently using.
But I want to elaborate on something I said about why questions. Been thinking about this the last few days, after being asked what good is knowing why.
You ask why and: your parents say “Because I said so.” your teachers say “because smart people say so” your preachers say “because the bible says so.”
You get tired or maybe conditioned by this and so: You stop asking the why questions.
If we had more of the why answers maybe the what questions would make more sense. Maybe we would have less what questions.
x
x
x
x
OK, I will do this later today or tomorrow, but unless you wrote the article, I’m not sure we can properly address all the issues that may come up. I will relate everything that you throw at me directly back at this particular article. Already though that has it’s own probs. You told me you didn’t think that EY was talking about arrows that do not point anywhere. You said, in effect, that you weren’t sure. He might actually be saying that.
Will you address the posts I have made so far? I have gone to every link thus far, but I can see how I can potentially spend days, weeks or perhaps months and years, b4 ever getting back to my questions. I am a bit leary of all this because of my experiences. At 9 years old, I was tossed out of Vacation Bible School for asking “what about the dinosaurs” during the Adam and Eve story. My mom was called and I was sent home from school at age 12 for asking the teacher questions (Ha! math teacher BTW). And I was forced out of the military for not accepting (with very good reason) the party line about LOS microwave equipment. In all these instances, it was because I asked questions. I got no answers but was told I was being disruptive. In the first two cases, I literally got NO answers! In the last example, I was told to use ear plugs (no answers here either). They said that might eliminate the headaches the equipment was causing. Of course they didn’t know that I was communicating with the Turkish officers there on base who learning English to apply to the very same equipment. Our boys were being trained on the same faulty equipment that we sold the Turks and phasing out. Their gvnt told them this: The microwaves can cause HA’s, seizures, cancer, insanity and death. Now shut up an do your job!
So I hope you can see why I do not just accept authority blindly! I am not trying to be difficult. I just am, so it comes out that way!
x
My bad, I meant no dimension. 0 is for counting. Numbers can do anything apparently. Words can not. Mathematicians say they understand each other and perhaps they do. Perhaps I just can’t use EY’s magic tool yet?
Yes, “we should not really apply mutually exclusive terms.” And thank you for using the word concept when relating to wave and particle. I think the whole issue is knowing the dif between concepts and objects. Physics should be about objects. Of course all words are concepts, but if they can not resolve down to objects, they should not be used in ones hypothesis or theory.
Thanx for the link, hopefully I will be able to get to it.
x
x
x
x