Posts by bohm

34

"Jehovah's Witnesses do better after surgery without transfusion" - Article (July 3, 2012)

by Da.Furious in

this article from 2012 published by the birmingham news showed up on my facebook page.. what i would have liked to see in the statistics is the inclusion of total jws refusing blood transfusion and their survival rate not only the ones taht surviced, taking about only survivors is not like for like comparison in my opinion with patients who take blood transfusion and then dont survive.. .

.

bohm

Alternative interpretation (have not read the article): No-blood treatment kill all but the weakest patients.

34

Is truth relative?

by Pinku in

seeing various/changing laws on the same action, some may feel truth is relative, and there is no such thing as right and wrong.. yet a closer look at beneath the details would show that truth is not relative, and everyone knows what is right and wrong.. driving in the night by putting the head-light off is wrong, but right when country is in war with another country.

behind both the conflicting laws, the truth is same: safety and welfare of the people.

this is true of notion about what is right and wrong:.

bohm

Oubliette: I was ofcourse being sarcastic, CL "clarified" a comment by copy-pasting someone else and slightly change the wording (see above); It is becoming a theme with CL that he insist on others educating/not knowing about certain subjects without being able to talk about them in his own words, see the "what is logic" thread where we heard people on the forum was not very logical.

My comments re. wikipedia is only related to posts on a forum, in which case I think wikipedia is better to support a simple claim than an article on quantum cosmology which does not discuss the claim*.

* However it has been pointed out to me this may be because I am a jackass with a reading disability.

34

Is truth relative?

by Pinku in

seeing various/changing laws on the same action, some may feel truth is relative, and there is no such thing as right and wrong.. yet a closer look at beneath the details would show that truth is not relative, and everyone knows what is right and wrong.. driving in the night by putting the head-light off is wrong, but right when country is in war with another country.

behind both the conflicting laws, the truth is same: safety and welfare of the people.

this is true of notion about what is right and wrong:.

bohm

Coded logic:

Vacuum space set at an energy density of <0 with a wave function of zero (pages 2 and 3 opening perameters and step 6)

WTF? Where in the paper is the wave function zero? equation 6, the trivial pseduo-solution to the wheeler-dewitt equation? The solution explicitly ruled out later in eqn. 9? are you joking?

when I sit down and read a peer reivewed scientfic article - I ACTUALLY READ THEM. I don't just give it a currsory scan and then emphatically state "this doesn't have anything to do with what your talking about." Because had you actually done that - you wouldn't be in the uncomfortable position you're in right now desperately seeking some Red Herring to distract from massive blunder you've made.

lol, I think I touched a nerve here. Good on you that you ACTUALLY READ THEM. I am happy to be informed that I am in company with someone with a better grasp of QG than myself, however in that case i am happily looking forward to hearing your informed answers to my questions regarding the HV article. However what massive blunder are we talking about? the bit about pointing out you plagiarised someone elses work? yah that one is really massive.. totally a red herring. Please angrily lecture me some more about when to properly cite sources and when to plagiarise them.

CL: Please cite an elementary textbook in physics that shows quantum mechanics requires the existance of time.

Ah how nice of you to handily re-phrase my point. Let me explain. All elementary textbooks on QM I know of include the time-evolving Schrodinger equation which assumes the existence of time. The article you cited assumes the existence of space-time. No elementary textbook on QM SHOW that time must exist. The paper you cite --which is on a formal point about a particular geometry-- does not SHOW time must exist. Let us also remind ourselves that the geometry the paper you cite discuss may not be the geometry of our universe, but I am sure you are aware of that since it is stated in the first and last paragraph of the cited article which you "ACTUALLY READ" lol

WTF?!! I DID cite a Wikipedia article on cosmic infaltion! Serriously dude, what is your problem? Learn how to read.

... my point related to the instances where you did not cite wikipedia. Again you are just inventing a false context, this is really quite silly of you.

You're accusing me of having not read it? Wow, you are unbelievable.

I am sorry, but when a person write:

CL: I apologies about the plain text, it was the only location of the paper I could find where you didn't have to pay to download it as a PDF

and post a garbled version of the paper where all the equations are wrong one might be mislead to think he did not read it. This is my error, I now accept you did read the paper. Sorry.

CL Being logical and being a jack ass are not the same thing

I totally agree lol.

54

London Press Conference on CULTS and UNDUE INFLUENCE - Aug 22, 2014

by Watchtower-Free in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtkhwfsnq7o&list=uuz1w0ll081jjiycjb298pow.

.

bohm

Enzo: you forgot one thing iin your description: Enzo : an independent thinker

Aww how cute! the problem is your thinking is completely independent of what other people are asking you about. I know, I know, your many academic credentials allows you not to be bogged down with any sensible interaction...

Hassan BAD enzo GOOD

54

London Press Conference on CULTS and UNDUE INFLUENCE - Aug 22, 2014

by Watchtower-Free in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtkhwfsnq7o&list=uuz1w0ll081jjiycjb298pow.

.

bohm

It is good to see Enzo FINALLY answering a question heads on /sarcasm

you are angry
you are on a crusade
there are four mabjiblion people on earth who want to talk to you so dont be upset that your family shuns you
answers an unrelated question.
here is a random link to a book i have not read
you do not have to read my posts
my posts are for those people with an open mind
you properly need a psychiatrist
(nothing)
you dont like me
you are damaged in the head
hassan is not an expert
I only recognize what a (court-recognized professional, mental health professional, my pet hamster, my handler at the asylum) says. Please listen to (some person not in the selected category)
unintelligeble nonsense
an insult written in italian
I have awesome knowledge I am here to share

34

Is truth relative?

by Pinku in

seeing various/changing laws on the same action, some may feel truth is relative, and there is no such thing as right and wrong.. yet a closer look at beneath the details would show that truth is not relative, and everyone knows what is right and wrong.. driving in the night by putting the head-light off is wrong, but right when country is in war with another country.

behind both the conflicting laws, the truth is same: safety and welfare of the people.

this is true of notion about what is right and wrong:.

bohm

Coded logic:

Re. the first citation you write:

Vilenkin used a model of a closed space time with zero energy and then shank it down to a zero radius. When he did this the "nothing" became unstable and virtual particle paris formed and vacuume energy caused expansion (i.e. the "nothing" changed)

Actually, Vilenkin studied the HHH model of inflation in quantum gravity and showed (1) it could be re-derived from more general principles and (2) it had certain unphysical features like tachyons (a polite way to say it is not workable as it is). I have now read the paper and I cannot see any parts of the paper where they indicate they study the model with radius shrunk to zero and claims the model in this case would be unstable, specifically I believe a radius of zero lie outside the valid regime for the HHH model. What page/equations/lines of the paper is it you find to support this claim regarding zero radius universe?

(I apologies about the plain text, it was the only location of the paper I could find where you didn't have to pay to download it as a PDF).

So you have not read it? how then do you know your summary is correct when it is not at all supported by the abstract? The paper is freely available from arxiv.

As regards to my fourth citation (...) It's a paper by Friedan discussing how the non-linear sigma model shows that our universe might have formed higher dimensions (up to 26) from a starting point of just 2 dimensions.

but then is it not more accurate to say in some models of the universe the laws of physics are not absolute in some sense but we do not really know?

You continue:

In regards to my sixth citation the paper shows that even at the plank scale the Lorentz Covariance can be preserved. The basic problem with gravity is how to quantize space-time geometry (think of quantized space-time geometry like a lattice structure of grid points). The problem with any lattice structure is that it breaks Lorentz invariance. Noncommutative geometry solves this problem by maintaining Lorentz invariance and space-time structure at small length scales. While there are probably much better papers linking quantum mechanics to time this is the only one I could cite that I somewhat understand.

Now that is a very nice description of some of the problems facing QG and string theory. I tried to put it into google and lo and behold I get the following article: http://scienceandnonduality.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/noncommutative-geometry-holography-and-solipsism/

Comparing the referenced article against yours gives: (referenced article in yellow)

The basic problem with gravity is how to quantize space-time geometry

The basic problem in quantum gravity is how to quantize space-time geometry.

A quantized space-time geometry is like a lattice structure of grid points that replaces the space-time continuum: (image of a 2d square lattice)

(think of quantized space-time geometry like a lattice structure of grid points).

The problem with any lattice structure is that it breaks Lorentz invariance.

The problem with any lattice structure is that it breaks Lorentz invariance and cannot be considered as fundamental.

Noncommutative geometry solves this problem by maintaining Lorentz invariance and space-time structure at small length scales.

A noncommutative geometry solves this problem by maintaining Lorentz invariance while effectively introducing a grid of lattice points through a noncommutative structure at small length scales.

Obviously re-phrasing someones elses work to make it appear like your own is not exactly conving me you have a very firm grasp of what you write. At any rate this is completely tangential to how the reference is actually used; if your point is simply that most formulations of physics include time then that is obvious by opening any elementary textbook in physics; you do not need to cite a fairly obscure paper on non-commutative spacetimes.

I appologize if I came off as trying to browbeat anyone. That is the complete opposite of what I want to do. In the past I have cited much more accessible resources (Wikipedia and various scientfic pop magazines) but invariably someone always jumps up and points out "Hey, those aren't science! Anyone one can write that crap!"

At this point you should then point out to the person that your claim is still true and give him additional references. These are by the way often found at the bottom of the wikipedia page.

It is much, much better to cite wikipedia than choose an article on inflationary cosmology which do not even discuss the point you are interested in, or at least do not discuss it any more than hundreds of other articles on physics. The purpose of referencing work should be to make the text more accessible for a reader by ensuring he or she can check the claims in his own time, not to jazz up ones written work by the most hard-to-read articles you yourself have not even read. I believe we have had this discussion before regarding logic.

Finally, for gods sake, if you are going to plagiarize something DON'T change the wording SLIGHTLY. It is much better to copy it in full and later claim to not have done it on purpose.

34

Is truth relative?

by Pinku in

seeing various/changing laws on the same action, some may feel truth is relative, and there is no such thing as right and wrong.. yet a closer look at beneath the details would show that truth is not relative, and everyone knows what is right and wrong.. driving in the night by putting the head-light off is wrong, but right when country is in war with another country.

behind both the conflicting laws, the truth is same: safety and welfare of the people.

this is true of notion about what is right and wrong:.

bohm

Coded Logic, (/pinku):

It is ofcourse commendable that you use references to back up your statements but I cannot help to notice the references often do not match the claim being made. For instance:

Even NOTHING itself changes [2].

Reference 2 is a article in ArXiv (or rather, a garbled version of an article from ArXiv in plaintext) by Mithani & Vilenkin on a particular recent proposal by Hartle, Hawking and Hertog on quantum cosmology which (in a particular setting) could give rise to inflation. They derive this result from other considerations and show (and this is the important bit) that the model of this sort have unphysical features which in the oppinion of MV make it unphysical. I skimmed the article but what I have written is apparent by just reading the abstract. How does that support your claim?

Moving on to another claim:

Even the laws themselves are not absolute. They are conditional upon the properties of space time and energy [4].

This may be the case, however from reference 4 (which is only a bullet list from wikipedia):

Several general properties of physical laws have been identified ... Physical laws are: (...)

Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)

again, how does that support your claim in any non-trivial sense? or do you simply mean: Physical laws make use of physical concepts, therefore they are not absolute. I hardly see how anyone could deny that and I see no indication that Pinku does.

Then moving on there is the claim:

But physical principles still require the use of time [6].

Again this may very well be true, however reference 6 is a discussion on a particular geometry introduced in 1947 by Snyder. The very first line of the article is: "The possiblity that space-time may be noncommutative in the sence that (equation indicating non-commutation of space-time) has appeared recently in String theory". Again I fail to see how an article that discuss a particular proposal indicated by String theory and which assumes space-time coordinates can be construed to support your claim.

Again, it is commendable to introduce citations of technical work to support claims, however the use of citations to brow-beat people without technical knowledge is clearly fallicious and harmfull, a bit akin to the story of the child and the naked emporer. Do you actually understand your citations 2 and 4 and can you in that case ellaborate on how they support your claims? (mind I am not asking you to argue that the claims as such are true).

280

the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.

by Crazyguy in

my question is since it looks as though mammoths were alive after the flood and we know elephants are then how much food was needed to feed just these four animals for the time they were on the ark.

also was the ark, 500 feet long, big enough to hold the amount of food needed for just these 4 animals.. .

.

bohm

the net acceleration of an object inside a spherical object a at distance r from center of a is equal to the acceleration caused by a point object of similar mass to that of distance less than r to the center of a. the result is easy to verify.

in other words no acceleratin in the center of earth and less acceleration in a mineshaft. Also no acceleration inside a hollow sphere. Hope that clears something up.

83

Blown away-- where to go from here

by All for show in

jw
friends

i stumbled upon this website a few weeks ago due to the jw.org ridiculousness, since then i haven't been able to pull myself away.

the thoughts, feelings, and concerns i have had the past few years aren't just mine.

it's global.

bohm

Afs: How did they get so off base? Where do it go wrong? Were they well intentioned and they got too much power?

i would say around rutherford, however it was never very good. Why not download a really old wt and read aN article on your own to form an oppinion?

23

Minor Update to circuit accounting scam

by Justnowout in

many outside are now aware of the scam.... the brother announces a "deficit" at the assemblies.

what they dont announce is that the so called expenses include a predetermined donation to the branch.

meaning, the assembly hall is paid for so the basic expenses should be utilities, maybe some speaker expenses and a 52nd share of property taxes and the like.... however the "deficit" always seems to run into the thousands with "expenses incured" totaling 7-10k.

bohm

Jehovah need gas money for the chariot