Superfluous reasons to thow an accusation. Only difference is, is my accusation(s) ae brought forward with proof. If you sat downand paid as much attention to the theory i presented here, to the illustrations i brought forth about Guest, then maybe you wouldn't remain as ignorant. And i am not even finished, hold on.
Why I Like The Transactional Interpretation
- Thread starter Reiku
- Start date
Superfluous reasons to thow an accusation. Only difference is, is my accusation(s) ae brought forward with proof. If you sat downand paid as much attention to the theory i presented here, to the illustrations i brought forth about Guest, then maybe you wouldn't remain as ignorant. And i am not even finished, hold on.
I have been tempted to create an account somewhat like Guest, where I pretend I'm initially interested in the vomitus nonsense you spew and then I thump you down like a ginger step child but I haven't. To be honest you aren't worth the time. Besides, I smack you down easily enough with just this account.
Besides, I thought Cpt was a sock puppet of mine? So if Guest is either a sock puppet of mine or Cpt, doesn't that mean he's a sock puppet of mine? Or have you retracted your accusation that Cpy is a sock puppet of mine?
Cpt and I (and I would imagine Guest) have analysed this theory enough. What we're asking you to do is easy for us. We've been able to do it for years. There's nothing complicated (from our point of view) about what we're asking you.
Except you never answer any questions we ask you.
I'm sure Ben will be willing to check the IP addresses of Cpt, myself and Guest to check we aren't sock puppets of one another. I can account for the IPs where my account has posted in this thread and none of them are proxies.
Besides, you kept saying you were going to report my posts to a mod for flaming, when all I was doing is pointing out errors in your posts.
In theory, it doesn't always work that way.
Besides, if you weren't,, i had great fun.
You have all wasted away my work on this thread for no reason whatsoever. I pray Ben has only kept it here because of the ignorance shown.
Anyway, i'm on holiday. Not gonna waste any more time here.
Catchya
I have nothing to spin.
Now, go learn about the transactional interpretation, and if you have, why are you so defiant of the work shown? And even if one did not know all of it's ins and outs, which i am sure would take intimate lessons with Dr Cramer, it does not level one's ability to talk about a subject.
If that was the case, anyone who came into the physics and math section would run when they mentioned big bang.
I think the problem with this thread Reiku is that you haven't shown any actual work, so what this mysterious phantom work you keep talking about actually is, noone knows except you. Rambling is not the same as constructing a physical argument and supporting it with facts and derivations. All you've done is ramble, and then point to Dr. Wolf and Michio Kaku as your sources. I seriously doubt Dr. Wolf would like to be credited for inspiring the drivel you've posted here. Imagine I kept citing Oprah Winfrey and Deepak Chopra as my sources whenever I talk about quantum physics- they are not authorities on the matters being discussed, so it would be an invitation to have the thread cesspooled, like pretty much everything you post here.
You're not answering my question. Could you try again?
Then honestly, i cannot answer every question.
Now, anyone who wants to make a mockery of this thread, i named this ''Why I Like The Transactional Interpretation.''
I never intended this for why anyone else liked or disliked it, only that i can say, that i have given proper work, nothing is wrong, and if it is the lack of math, then give me time, i ask. I am on holiday, and i only drop in here once a day the now.
But the math i know on the subject is limited, so unless people are expecting something more miraculous, your wasting your time. This is going to be as good as it gets, other than giving excellent citations and links, which will not be the dreaded Dr Wolf.
Cpt made a point that i mentioned him. So what? When did a physicist not have a scientific view? I can assure you, i bet the good Dr is a greately more vastly intelligent on this subject than any of us. And besides, i would have been penalized a while back if it waas nearly as bad as Cpt made it out. Without him/her flouting stupid non-relationed subjects like Deepak and Oprah...
I mean when did a physicist become so proud, they cannot talk on a tv chat show?? Is there something i am missing? I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, unless it is the subjects they where talking about?
Look, this is all i have to say for now. Move it if you want Ben. I really couldn't care less now.
You're not answering my question. Could you try again?
I did answer your question. This one, mind..
''Reiku - have you been lying to me? ''
You challenged me on PhysOrg in September. That's 10 months ago and not once have you done viable maths, here or PhysOrg. You spend huge amounts of time posting what you claim is viable maths but you are constantly shown to be wrong.
It would take 45 seconds to type out the Lagrangian for the harmonic oscillator. And yet you didn't. Because you couldn't.
That doesn't stop him from being wrong. Nor does it stop you from being wrong whenever you say "Dr Wolf agrees with me!" when he doesn't or wouldn't.
No, you didn't because the answer to that question is "Yes, I've been lying".
Really?
Well, i have been thinking to myself, about the work i am currently doing, and sciforums will just get in the way of any progress. I am afterall taking two more advanced subjects at college, which is already squeezing more than enough time out of the days.
I have decided, sciforums is only a place of extra work now, that i don't need.
You should have known that if you know about relativity and quantum mechanics.
Firstly, I don't for a second believe you're capable of doing that. Secondly, you claim to be doing work 4~6 years ahead of your current level of learning. The black hole stuff you tried to post, but got it all wrong, is 4th year at Cambridge and you claim to be learning it at whatever no-name college you go to. So obviously you lie about the kind of material you do.
The things we ask you to do are very simple and straight forward. But you don't even realise that because you lie about the level of material you do. What would take us seconds to do, you have never even heard of and certainly don't know the mathematics of.
But rather than invest some time learning how to multiply out (a+b)(c+d) you waste days of time and effort writing your BS essays. Every last one of them gets moved to Pseudo. They are debunked with ease. And yet you still think there's something to them?! How do you plan to advance physics when you don't even know differential equations and certainly don't know Dirac notation?
If you are going to stop posting your crappy essays I'm willing to bet that it's because you don't want to have people rip them apart every time and you don't like being reminded what a failure your work is.
I can't help but sometimes read and smurk at what you write. You are afterall... a ''professional??''
My essays are not bullshit. Take for instance the Transactional thread. I noticed many if not the one personal asked if i could apply the Hamiltonian to certain applications, and addmitadly, i could not. The same as the fact i bet you could not apply the same conditions to many of your works.
Why did ''they'' not just ask me about the probability theorems behind the work, or maybe even work behind the Generalized Absorber Theories, the main focus behind the very theory itself? As i said, i have no more time to waste here, because too much time is taken up as it is.
Enjoy.