[questionposter]

mooeypoo, on 26 January 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

Okay, now you're not even reading. That's quite offensive.

Wouldn't that be ironic...

unless swan, the person who was making progress before you interrupted wants to take a swing (which he probably won't), you might as well just lock this topic, I already posted similar questions on another site.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 26 January 2012 - 03:57 AM

[questionposter]

I have confirmed on another website with dramatically less posts that atoms themselves don't violate relativity and thermodynamics, and even as a bonus that entanglement doesn't violate relativity.

[DrRocket]

questionposter, on 28 January 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

I have confirmed on another website with dramatically less posts that atoms themselves don't violate relativity and thermodynamics, and even as a bonus that entanglement doesn't violate relativity.

No kidding. You needed confirmation of that ?

Go read a book.

[questionposter]

DrRocket, on 28 January 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

No kidding. You needed confirmation of that ?

Go read a book.

No I needed someone who has something better to say than "go read a book".

[mooeypoo]

Are you serious? Go over the first 2 pages, multiple people took quite great care to explain to you. You were "refered to a book" when it became clear that your insistence on disagreeing with the theories that were explained is due to a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.


They don't owe you anything, they took their time to explain and clarify. I think you can be a little more fair and respectful to the multiple people who took the time to answer you in the beginning of this thread, questionposter.

Good to see we passed peer review.

[questionposter]

mooeypoo, on 29 January 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

Are you serious? Go over the first 2 pages, multiple people took quite great care to explain to you. You were "refered to a book" when it became clear that your insistence on disagreeing with the theories that were explained is due to a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.


They don't owe you anything, they took their time to explain and clarify. I think you can be a little more fair and respectful to the multiple people who took the time to answer you in the beginning of this thread, questionposter.

Good to see we passed peer review.

I didn't say you owned me anything, and it is in fact your assumptions that led to this conflict in the first place, for if you and others wouldn't have assumed that I though I was right, but rather I was only stating what should logically happen based on the culmination of information I have, you and others wouldn't have posted most of the things that were posted. The first two pages did not provide me with enough coherent information to determine that atoms in fact did not violate thermodynamics.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 29 January 2012 - 01:26 AM

[mooeypoo]

questionposter, on 29 January 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

... but rather I was only stating what should logically happen based on the culmination of information I have,...

To which people told you that your information you have is lacking and untrue, and you should compensate for that by reading the actual physics book.

And this assertion was supported, according to your own admission, by another forum.

The point is, questionposter, that in stead of insisting that "that's logical", just take a step back and listen to what people who actually studied this subject are telling you. You would've wasted a lot less of your time and learned a lot more if you had gone to the resources you were given. Last I check, books don't bite.

Quote

you and others wouldn't have posted most of the things that were posted. The first two pages did not provide me with enough coherent information to determine that atoms in fact did not violate thermodynamics.

You should read them again.

[questionposter]

mooeypoo, on 29 January 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

To which people told you that your information you have is lacking and untrue, and you should compensate for that by reading the actual physics book.

And this assertion was supported, according to your own admission, by another forum.

The point is, questionposter, that in stead of insisting that "that's logical", just take a step back and listen to what people who actually studied this subject are telling you. You would've wasted a lot less of your time and learned a lot more if you had gone to the resources you were given. Last I check, books don't bite.


You should read them again.

This is why I'm posted QM questions on the other site from now on.

[Samm]

questionposter, on 29 January 2012 - 02:45 AM, said:

This is why I'm posted QM questions on the other site from now on. I get answers faster without all this...

I think quality shouldn't be sacrificed for speed. As far as I can tell, some of the people here on this forum seem incredibly knowledgeable within their fields (I'm definitely not one of these people). But they've got lives to lead, and don't really have a great deal of time for answering everyone's questions. Maybe it's a good idea to read good physics books. I know that when I get out of high school (this is the final year, the pressure is on!), the first things on my reading list will be penned by Richard Feynman.