DrDawkinstein Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Saw this video made by DC Tom, or at least his younger hippie brother. Pretty good explanation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Amazing. I've always said that there are two types of people: those who truly understand physics, and everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Amazing. I've always said that there are two types of people: those who truly understand physics, and everyone else. Or no one really understands it. Remember Einstein rejected quantum theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Or no one really understands it. Remember Einstein rejected quantum theory. Not because he didn't understand it. Hell, he arguably created it (re: photoelectric effect). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smears Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I read some blog on some website that calling it the "god" particle is offensive. People may find it hard to believe I guess. Also read that some doctor named Simoncini claims most cancers are a form of fungus that can be cleaned or treated with Sodium Bicarbonate. (baking soda) Also apricot seeds?? Im not an expert but its interesting to read some alternate views of treatment other than Chemo or radiation treatments. Im by far not an expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I read some blog on some website that calling it the "god" particle is offensive. People may find it hard to believe I guess. Everything is offensive to someone. I'm sure I just offended someone with that observation. And offended someone else observing that my observation was offensive to someone. Also read that some doctor named Simoncini claims most cancers are a form of fungus that can be cleaned or treated with Sodium Bicarbonate. (baking soda) Also apricot seeds?? Im not an expert but its interesting to read some alternate views of treatment other than Chemo or radiation treatments. Im by far not an expert. Of course baking soda and apricot seeds cure cancer. The treatment goes something like: Diagnosed with cancer Eat apricot seeds. Die, from cancer. Cancer stops growing - i.e. cancer is cured. Q.E.D. Saw this video made by DC Tom, or at least his younger hippie brother. Pretty good explanation... youtube.com/watch?v=QG8g5JW64BA I have that shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Everything is offensive to someone. I'm sure I just offended someone with that observation. And offended someone else observing that my observation was offensive to someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Not because he didn't understand it. Hell, he arguably created it (re: photoelectric effect). Use your own interpretation. But I believe his "God doesn't roll dice!" statment made it plain his thoughts on quantum theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Use your own interpretation. But I believe his "God doesn't roll dice!" statment made it plain his thoughts on quantum theory Einstein was wrong. Of course God plays dice with the universe. How else can you explain this man's career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Use your own interpretation. I will, thank you. You should too. It's far better in formed than yours is. But I believe his "God doesn't roll dice!" statment made it plain his thoughts on quantum theory It made it plain that he didn't understand it? Because if you know anything about quantum theory, you'd know that represents a pretty accurate understanding of it (and like I said: THE MAN INVENTED IT. Won a Nobel Prize for it - and not, notably, for relativity. Look it up.) Now if you're saying he didn't ACCEPT it...then maybe you'd have a point (which is still a debatable one. As I said earlier, Schroedinger's interpretation was a dead end, enough that Einstein was probably right to question the probabilistic nature of it. Heisenberg's interpretation, notably, didn't have that problem to nearly the same degree.) But you didn't write "accept", you wrote "understand". If you meant "accept", you should have wrote that. I only responded to what you wrote...if you can't be bothered to write what you mean, don't spin that back on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts