Dubbelosix

Yes? Where about's? I was borne in Morley. I now live in Scotland. And sure, we make mistakes all the time, only that, your suggestion baffles me as the word I should have used. suggestion*

the wave function can fundamentally slow* there could, be in an over many .... How about we toss word salad in there?

Why would I put in the word slow, where you would put it? I look back and it doesn't even make grammatical sense. Hold to that thought because this could have been an innocent question, except... you don't seem to realise questioning someone's ability to speak English, could actually be offensive to someone borne in Leeds? lol... This forum has had many surprises. And I mean that in a good way. I have learned quickly about how to trend here.

why? Put those other words into a sentence and only replace the one word and give it back to me... you are the one claiming so you have to do this.

So you keep informing us when will you inform me exactly, what you are confused about? What is it, in other words, in my use of my language is confounding you so?

What isn't right? Go back to your own suggestions of what words should be inserted where and tell me if any of it made sense to you, because it made no sense to me my friend. Seriously, you and the last poster strange have avoided the questions like it was the hell of Mordor. Or Mordred?

Do it again, nice and clearly, with no talk about words that might fit the bill, or any incapability of me talking the English language, or is this too superfluous for you?

Also, strange has not answered my question, to get this back on track and stop pretending we have such subtle feelings. Your statement was a shock and nothing more. Move on. really, you want to continue this? Go get my quote and tell me where I went wrong. I'm tired of this, let's drop it. If not, fine, quote away and tell me what EXACTLY what you don't understand.

Please, your comment was as insulting as mine. In fact mine was a statement of action, not one directed personally, as you did. My response was borne out of your own actions. I have feelings too... I passed my English exams and studied aspects of it, you would not have. I do not have time for people who say things like this to me, I have seen it happen to other people on forums and never approved of it.

Preaching? Is this what you call this? To be honest, I found your accusation I am incapable of speaking English insulting and annoying. Especially when I am English and it is a requisite in every respect. Can you maybe understand that? I understand you are not English, but at least have some empathy over the fact, I am English and saying I cannot speak my own language, is an insult. Of course, I see all sorts of languages, variations of the English language, and I am tolerant. Maybe, if you are American, you will call me a snowflake.

Yeah, trust me, you don't have a leg to stand on either. You have a past experience with me which makes this totally bias - you don't act like the other posters here I hold to regard. There is something about your knowledge which is lacking, and has fuck all to do with your nationality. I am still angry about that remark. And yeah, an attack on my ability to speak English, is a remark on me being English. site double posts deleted It's a total red herring anyway and I am considering reporting both of you. I've never remarked on someone's ability to speak in English and even in difficult cases made sure I never made arguments with them over it. I think its a horrible way to conclude the value of what someone may be saying. Seriously, maybe you've done this in the past as a tactic to argue your way through something.... I find it .... not very tactful.

i still asked you, what nationality you were? What does any of your accusations before that serve? You got it totally wrong and you just admitted it? My response is not futile but expected with the ignorance of your statements.

And I told you there was no typo and you continued with your accusation I was incapable of speaking in the English language... I mean seriously, don't dig it any further.

What faulty text? You've made up a situation you totally believe. I am telling you. I meant what I wrote. You're the one who started adding in faulty text's because you did not believe I was writing English.. I mean really, fuck off. How do you expect me to take that? I find that very insulting. Even an educated guess would even conclude I am from the British isles, from my own moniker.

How dare you. What nationality are you? I am English, English was not a study for me, it is a requisite. You don't get to preach to me if it is good English, unless you are an Englishman? Trust me, the English subject is not only requisite in house, but also in school. Please do not tell me how to translate my English into physics unless you have better methods, in which, I am all ears. If you are American and you think you speak English, then don't even lecture me on speaking English when you speak a bastardisation of it. You did after all come from the British colonies. But hey, to talk about that would just patronise your understanding of English, right?

Simplify the math and explain it. I cant follow this properly without the written work and explanations. This should be a non-trivial situation for every paper and any article. Unfortunately, it isn't.

I am English, do you want to try again, or maybe try and patronise me again? No doubt, it brought a smile to my face no less, in the rudeness of it all lol

Really? I don't even know what you both are on about. No offense to anyone, but the last poster was trying to insert words into my sentences when it wouldn't even make sense. Is this normal? And by the way, don't ever use that ''idea this thread existed somewhere'' as some kind of diversion tactic. You do realize I have asked you more than twice to provide evidence to your claim?

Oh no, is written right. As for me a random process by definition is process outside the deterministic laws of nature.

enter the X files, specifically film 1, arctic scene.

No. Now I know what evidence is... I have seen something, people may consider paranormal. I also know of other witnesses as well, which adds to the evidence of my own claim. I would not wish to discuss it these days, but essentially, the whole point of a good claim is that it has evidence. There was recent articles where the brain was measured to have activity, quite a few moments after death. Many articles proclaimed this was an after life death experience --- of course it isn't really... the brain is just dying at a slower rate than the rest of the body. If you are dying in those last moments it will not last long. And you are likely to be delusional anyway.

I won't even look at the response, however, if point particles are not actually pointlike, discontinuities of the electromagnetic field do occur. It has been speculated by other scientists, maybe the gravitational field may even take a discontinuity over the boundary of a non-zero radius particle. Other discontinuities exist in theoretical physics, such as the creation of virtual particles, but they tend to exist only for a short period of time (an energy in this case owed back to the vacuum). On the other hand, the theory of observable matter actually involves a concept of the ''longer lived virtual particle,'' that is, it is possible particles have arisen much similar to virtual particles and allowed to live in an irreversible process. So they will take on features, identical to those of observable particles. Renormalization processes may be hinted at but I would warn to search for other dynamics. The whole point of gravity however taking such a discontinuity over the boundary was suggested to act like a Poincare stress.

Ah, but a good theory should be falsifiable, I am just questionable how certain people approach that, even on forums like this. The idea of creative thought should always be commended, but ignorant idea's based on old dated idea's need to be overthrown in the invent of new physics coming to our door, literally almost every year. The old standard model, for instance, has actually been remodelled, many times over, even when predicted physics has not officially entered the standard model. That is because it takes time to experimentally confirm what is being said, and that takes equally good experimental physicists, like A. Eddington once was, taking Einstein seriously to measure the bending of light around the earth/and effects of the moon. Since it was a full eclipse.

Ah, a thread, maybe on the same chapter but certainly, not on the same page as my other thread, that is, are things actually random in nature? The uncertainty principle was not really a theory of randomness, it was about the information we can gain at the expense of a complimentary observable. This view is quite different to the idea that things have to be inherently random. Even a decay process does not need to be random, we can make it entirely deterministic by rearranging the energy levels of an atom, a process known as the quantum zeno effect, which is actually a special case of decoherence which also involves a concept of entanglement. Though, technically speaking, a lot of physics may not even pertain to this ''infinite phase space.'' Certainly, the finite Hilbert space is attractive for physical reasons. Can you continue a bit on the bit I highlighted, I would like to know why you said this? There are actual physical reasons in physics, situations in which you can make the radius of a particle go to zero, it will experience infinite self energies. I would like to know in what situation does a frequency become infinite in extent? Is it some classification of an infinite dimensional space, like you might encounter in some exotic idea's about Hilbert space?

I will take a look, I don't know of any deterministic processes that lead to it. If that is so, will you provide what you said, that is, that quantum mechanics adequately explains how the interference pattern emerges in quantum mechanics? I've tried to be careful to reply to you, will you answer this because you stated it a few posts back and this explanation would have my complete attention. After all, this is what this thread is about, not what the other poster is really talking about or challenging. Again, how do uncorrelated photons, know which path to take in a single particle double slit experiment? Seriously, unless there is a wave function governing the whole experiment, the situation does not make sense as a ''random process'' I just spoke to my friend David, he was a physicist for NASA back in the olden days, and even has had his work reintroduced into modern physics. Alas, I explained the situation, he understood it quickly and even in his experience, admitted the situation is strange and that we do not know everything. David lives in the same town as me. I did, obviously ask him whether he thought deterministic theories where ''off the board'' and he replied. ''not at all, and in fact, we need to consider them.''