We don't know... What is quantum mechanics really?

Wired LHC article

@BrianK

Interesting reads.

I was gonna joke about Lou hiding under a kitchen sink for fear of meteors, but seems he's still out for another week.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Well, the people in Chelyabinsk had reason to:

http://rt.com/news/meteorite-crash-urals-chelyabinsk-283/

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@tomazkid

I know, but I kept coming across people online who were expecting the bigger asteroid yesterday to hit us, wiping out all life. All sorts of coverups were being discussed, in a very familiar manner.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

I know, but I kept coming across people online who were expecting the bigger asteroid yesterday to hit us, wiping out all life. All sorts of coverups were being discussed, in a very familiar manner.

I'd recommend everyone get involved in some local astronomy group. You'll find out quickly how unorganized and egotistical they can be. If they could one up NASA or EAS they would in the heartbeat. They all leverage the power of competition to beat a path to discovery. Very quickly the concept of a worldwide conspiracy falls to the wayside. It's an impossibility.

OTOH, if these guys went out, spent $200, and calculated their own trajectories I'd be duly impressed. They, don't bother with the effort of actually understanding how to do this. It's much easier to claim the sky is falling when you don't actually make any effort to ascertain if the evidence says you're right or not.

Easter Island heads have bodies and these bodies have petroglyphs of canoes and they found the diggers also uncovered evidence of the technology that was used to move the large statues upright. (For spoilers - it wasn't alien spaceships.)

Why Meteors explode in the air

Oh look, "science" catches up to Sitchin again:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305145821.htm

For reference: http://www.world-mysteries.com/pex_2.htm
Scroll to the 300,000 section...

LHC: two teams of rivals

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Oh look, "science" catches up to Sitchin again: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305145821.htm For reference: http://www.world-mysteries.com/pex_2.htm Scroll to the 300,000 section...

Citing your own sources for you is always fun...

Stichin:
"300,000
The Anunnaki toiling in the gold mines mutiny. Enki and Ninhursag create Primitive Workers through genetic manipulation of Ape woman; they take over the manual chores of the Anunnaki. Enlil raids the mines, brings the Primitive Workers to the Edin in Mesopotamia. Given the ability to procreate, Homo Sapiens begins to multiply."

Science:
"About 300,000 years ago, the time the Neanderthals are believed to have split from the ancestral human lineage. It was not until more than 100,000 years later that anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record" Seems to me this says Homo Sapiens started 200K years ago.

Also "Hammer said the newly discovered Y chromosome variation is extremely rare" Thus, this mutation is not a defining characteristic of Homo Sapiens as a species. Instead it is a very rare, subset.

As another note: Nothing about this demonstrated Stichin's supposition of non-natural evolutionary causes. Even if Stichin got the year right we can't accept him to be fully true until we fully confirm all parts of his postulate. (Note giving you lots of credit there as I'd hardly consider Stichin's Folly to be a solid postulate. Along with it's easily seen that Stichin hasn't yet been confirmed to get the year right either. )

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: Oh look, "science" catches up to Sitchin again: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305145821.htm For reference: http://www.world-mysteries.com/pex_2.htm Scroll to the 300,000 section... Citing your own sources for you is always fun... Stichin: "300,000 The Anunnaki toiling in the gold mines mutiny. Enki and Ninhursag create Primitive Workers through genetic manipulation of Ape woman; they take over the manual chores of the Anunnaki. Enlil raids the mines, brings the Primitive Workers to the Edin in Mesopotamia. Given the ability to procreate, Homo Sapiens begins to multiply." Science: "About 300,000 years ago, the time the Neanderthals are believed to have split from the ancestral human lineage. It was not until more than 100,000 years later that anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record" Seems to me this says Homo Sapiens started 200K years ago. Also "Hammer said the newly discovered Y chromosome variation is extremely rare" Thus, this mutation is not a defining characteristic of Homo Sapiens as a species. Instead it is a very rare, subset. As another note: Nothing about this demonstrated Stichin's supposition of non-natural evolutionary causes. Even if Stichin got the year right we can't accept him to be fully true until we fully confirm all parts of his postulate. (Note giving you lots of credit there as I'd hardly consider Stichin's Folly to be a solid postulate. Along with it's easily seen that Stichin hasn't yet been confirmed to get the year right either. )

Sure, BrianK, it's just another "coincidence" that he was in the ball park where as prior to this, "science" was ~200,000 years off.

As time goes on, "coincidences" with Sitchin keep appearing. Funny, no?

this video gets it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2xW3j9naj8E

Last edited by Lou on 06-Mar-2013 at 04:37 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 06-Mar-2013 at 04:37 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Sure, BrianK, it's just another "coincidence" that he was in the ball park where as prior to this, "science" was ~200,000 years off.

Stichin claimed 300K. The science you quoted is showing HomoSapiens started around 200K years ago. There's quite a large error factor in your 'coincidence'.

Science was off by 200K years? Something you never seem to get is Science says - 'With the best current available evidence we conclude X. And we reserve the right to improve upon that as better evidence becomes available.'.

Quote:

As time goes on, "coincidences" with Sitchin keep appearing. Funny, no?

The only 'coincidence' here is both Stichin and Science have 0s in their best estimates.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Sure, BrianK, it's just another "coincidence" that he was in the ball park where as prior to this, "science" was ~200,000 years off. Stichin claimed 300K. The science you quoted is showing HomoSapiens started around 200K years ago. There's quite a large error factor in your 'coincidence'. Science was off by 200K years? Something you never seem to get is Science says - 'With the best current available evidence we conclude X. And we reserve the right to improve upon that as better evidence becomes available.'. Quote: As time goes on, "coincidences" with Sitchin keep appearing. Funny, no? The only 'coincidence' here is both Stichin and Science have 0s in their best estimates.

Once again BrianK, your reading comprehension is full of fail. The article is about the origin of the Y chromosome pinning it to around 338,000 years ago.

As Sitchin translated, native females were implanted...hence the X chromosome won't have been touched.

A few months ago, my primary troller linked a youtube video where the author of the video discredited John Brandenburg as someone who has never published a scientic paper.

I submit this: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00678073?no-access=true

Troller discredited.

Mind you, this troll reports me for calling him out as the troll that he indeed is. As the old saying goes "once a troll, always a troll". Funny how during my "ban" said resident troll first class #1 did not make one post in this thread.

Last edited by Lou on 06-Mar-2013 at 06:27 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 06-Mar-2013 at 06:26 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Once again BrianK, your reading comprehension is full of fail. The article is about the origin of the Y chromosome pinning it to around 338,000 years ago.

You appear to be the one with a reading comprehension problem as this article is clearly not about the origin of the Y chromosome. But, instead is an origin of a sub-type of the Y chromosome that the vast majority of us males on earth do not contain.

I'll quote your article to you again. Bolding is added by me here for emphasis. Quote:

The discovery and analysis of an extremely rare African American Y chromosome

This article is clearly not about the Y chromosome but a particular sub-type of the Y Chromosome. This was a branching of the Y chromosome happened about 338K years ago at Quote:

, a time when anatomically modern humans had not yet evolved,"

Nothing here in any way was used to claim the 195K years ago origin of Homo Sapiens must be pushed back 140K more years to around 300K.

Quote:

As Sitchin translated, native females were implanted...hence the X chromosome won't have been touched.

As Stichin fictionalized indeed native females were implanted. Nothing here indicates that this incredibly small % of the Homo Sapien population happened through the fictionalized means.

One other interesting point is this Y mutation is extremely rare. So rare that the scientists aren't sure they're done Quote:

It is likely that other divergent lineages will be found, whether in Africa or among African-Americans in the U.S. and that some of these may further increase the age of the Y chromosome tree."

If they find more data they expect it likely it'll push even earlier. You can read making Stichin's 'coincidence' even more wrong.

Also, you may want to do some research into biological evolution. XY chromosomes are thought to have evolved from a single autosome forbear. The estimated age in animals when that is thought to have taken place is about 300Million years ago. It may help you understand that indeed this paper is not the 'the origin of the Y chromosome ' you claim it to be.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Mar-2013 at 07:01 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

A few months ago, my primary troller linked a youtube video where the author of the video discredited John Brandenburg as someone who has never published a scientic paper.

Please back up your claims with evidence.

@Lou

Quote:

Oh look, "science" catches up to Sitchin again:

I will believe in the concept of science catching up with Sitchin when I see NASA successfully launch a spacecraft made of wattle and daub, using cow dung as a heat shield, just like Sitchin described the assembly of a spacecraft while ignoring the previous paragraph where the Sumerian author described the process of making the bricks to build the ziggurat( or as Sitchin says, Spaceship)
At least when I read old Sci-fi written by E. E. 'Doc'Smith, or Isaac Asimov, they acknowledge that the book I am reading is a work of fiction, and they keep the fiction separate from other works of scientific facts

They are also more entertaining and better written.

The fantasy that Sitchin wrote requires an intelligent lifeform to evolve on a planet that spends most of its time beyond the orbit of Neptune, yet be capable of living comfortably on a planet that has liquid water. This is glossed over by claiming that Nibiru is a "radiant planet". If Nibiru constantly gave off sufficient energy to support a lifeform able to thrive at Earthly temperatures, this planet would have lit up the sky for a survey like WISE, yet none of the discoveries made using satellites IR detectors resembled the requirements of "Nibiru"

One other comment on your last post before you took your "holiday" from this thread. Who are the followers of Einstein? I do not use GR because it was postulated by Einstein, I use it because it is the current best fit to the observable universe. When something else supersedes GR as the "current best fit" then I will use the new best fit method. What I have never done, and never will do is follow a theory simply because of the name on the front cover. Regardless if that name is Einstein, or Brandenburg. Harameins CRAP would not be anything other than CRAP even if Hawking published it. I did not make this point earlier as you were not in a position to reply.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Regardless if that name is Einstein, or Brandenburg. Harameins CRAP would not be anything other than CRAP even if Hawking published it

Note - After a few hundred posts defending him, Lou actually admitted that Haramein was truly CRAP and wasn't a serious points.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: A few months ago, my primary troller linked a youtube video where the author of the video discredited John Brandenburg as someone who has never published a scientic paper. Please back up your claims with evidence.

Evidence? You mean that thing when asked of you that you always point back at me for?

Well, here it is as posted by my troller: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=33688&forum=4&start=2680&viewmode=flat&order=0#688187

What's amusing about the video that my troller posted is that the video itself is evidence of exactly what it's debunking, it proclaims "I told you so" facts that are completely false, yet my troller post it as fact.

And oh look, I make a post after I don't even know how long and then shortly there after, my troller posts. Co-inky dink? I think not.

Last edited by Lou on 07-Mar-2013 at 02:54 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 07-Mar-2013 at 02:52 PM.