Albert,

I will study your post carefully. Thanks.

Hahnemannian's pseudophysics is amazing. Scientific words in syntactically-correct sentences, yet meaningless. Pity poor Carl.

Oops, is this too rational for this board?

Jus' passin' through.

"Hahnemannian's pseudophysics is amazing. Scientific words in syntactically-correct sentences, yet meaningless. Pity poor Carl."

Is that right?

People with 10th-grade understanding of physics and zero understanding of homeopathy need to stay out of this discussion; this is big-people talk, okey-dokey?

By the way, appropriate name, mousie.

---------

Edit: Ps. "syntactically-correct" does not get a hyphen because it ends in "ly." They teach that in the 11th grade, or maybe in the 7th. Also, keep passing (through); you'll eventually graduate and be able to intelligently participate in big-people discussions. And next time ask your daddy if you should open your big mouth before making a fool of yourself, okay?

[ 12. July 2003, 01:22: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444B ]

__________________
Albert, also<br />Hahnemannian444<br />#5904

Mmm..nice debating style Hahnemannian. Always good to see the crankiness behind the gentle homeopath's facade.

Your got your advanced physics training from where?

Hahnemannian, try this one for starters

"Tachyons are theorized "phantom photos" [edit to: "phantom photons"] said to "accompany photons" or light particles. That's a mistake. They don’t accompany light particles; they are the same substance, only they’re out of phase or not en rapport with themselves as photons due to their nutating [sic] at a higher rate on a consequently higher plane of existence than their positions as quantum particles of electromagnetic radiation, but they all coincide in exactly the same space"

Nice statement. Now where is your evidence for this? Empty speculation is not good enough. If it's a mistake you need empirical evidence or a mathematically coherent (absence of hyphen, thanks for the grammar lesson) disproof of the principle you claim is a mistake. Do you have either or is this just more windy clever-sounding (note correct use of hyphen) rhetoric from the world of pseudoscience? Don't be afraid to use proper mathematical formalisms I can always get it checked later if it's more than I can manage.

Okay, big mouth, let's hear you explain what tachyons are.

I wouldn't give a plug nickle that you have a clue and can avoid exposing your obviously materialistic nonsense in talking about a non-physical particle.

Let's hear it, big mouth.

__________________
Albert, also<br />Hahnemannian444<br />#5904

1. It is your speculation not mine, so it is hard to define what you mean by it

2. In real science, tachyons are hypothetical superluminal particles that have been proposed to exist in various theories, but never proven, and do not form a coherent part of any current model of physics either quantum or relativistic. So they may well not exist at all. If they exist they would be another perfectly routine 'materialist' particle not something from the other side of this false dichotomy you invoke.

But to return to 1 above, it's your speculation so it's your responsibility to provide supportive evidence. But I think you can't so we have the usual resort to personal abuse. I'm ready with the apologies if you can produce the goods.

Okay, little man, where was the thing that was there till the man died?

Let's see your model of the universe explain the obvious that every child understands and yet which idiotic academics in ivory towers assume cannot be explained.

"Superluminal particles," huh?

Why don't you just say that you don't know anything about the subject and then shut up about it?

And, by the way, how do you explain ultramolecular particles, mousie, and why are you here anyway?

If we pay you, will you go away or get dead?

__________________
Albert, also<br />Hahnemannian444<br />#5904

once, they brought a 2nd grade child to me. they wanted me to talk to him because he had hit a boy at school. i asked the child, 'did you hit him?' he answered, 'no, he hit me first.'

i don't know mr. mouse, but i know albert, and he has some interesting ideas. its a pity he can't discuss them like an intelligent adult, a personna that is congruent with his capabilities, but instead degenerates to the level of a 7 year old. answer the damned questions albert, and let's get on with it.

i'll add a couple, since i'm unclear about the implications you intend to have accompany your statements:

1. do you believe in god, or soul, or spiritual essences, or such?

2. do you feel that 'your' immaterial particles and so forth offer an entre to more or less direct knowledge of these parallel (?) realms of existence?

[ 12. July 2003, 11:04: Message edited by: bwv11 ]

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

I know the personality type of the mouse.

They sustain allopathic medicine.

That makes them complicit in the trillions of mass murders by allopaths.

I don't degenerate anywhere in dealing with such people.

Like Hahnemann, Lippe, P.P. Wells and the like, I stand up to such people and openly say that I'd gladly personally execute them all in a second rather than allow them to one second more sustain allopathic medicine in diseases.

If they haven't already, they're going to murder your grandparents, your parents, your children and all of the people you love and admire.

So off with his head and back to Hell!

I'd gladly do it myself.

He didn't ask me any coherent questions he could answer himself.

Besides, he doesn't have the slightest idea what tachyons are nor any of the rest of it.

He is just an ignorant materialist who thinks he's a scientist.

These people ignore our natural laws; they aren't in the slightest bit scientists.

They're just ignorant academics with big mouths who need to be shut up because they always stick their arrogant faces where they don't belong.

Because he's a criminal, his kind needs to be executed, but our societies are too ignorant to do it, so I tell them to shut up and expose them whenever they choose to cross swords with me because I've seen their handiwork far too many times already.

To become an academic, you only have to acquiesce to a bunch of half-truths and lies, so he's obviously nothing more than a sniveling worm in a position of power who's clearly abused it before since he attempted to do so with me.

They have the brains of frogs, and we'd all be better off if they were dead or if they'd at least shut up till they get dead.

Now, if you want to defend someone like mousie who defends murderous allopaths, we're going to have a real problem because I despise such people more than can be imagined since they are just as guilty as the actual killers if not more so for quietly sustaining the ongoing mass murders.

Two million people just in Usa [edit: every year] are murdered by allopaths.

He's unknowingly defending that because he's ignorant as hell.

Besides, he's the stupid one who doesn't know anything about a subject and yet had the audacity to call what I explained pseudo-science.

Let's hear mousie explain homeopathic pharmacology or death, or any other subject I mentioned in an attempt to help others understand the subject.

No way; he's too stupid, but he certainly has a big enough mouth to call me names.

Better think twice before doing that to one of us.

Now to your questions:

"do you believe in god, or soul, or spiritual essences, or such?"

I had a near-death experience in 1971, so belief has no part in the answer; and I'm rather sure from the way you asked it that you don't know what's meant by the Soul.

"do you feel that 'your' immaterial particles and so forth offer an entre to more or less direct knowledge of these parallel (?) realms of existence?"

What does that mean?

Etheric particles cannot be accessed by anything physical.

There's no such thing as "more or less direct knowledge of these parallel (?) realms of existence" except controlled clairvoyance.

And why are you two calling them my particles and my ideas?

I simply stated well-known facts about non-physical particles in modern physics.

These are not my ideas.

[ 12. July 2003, 16:26: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444B ]

__________________
Albert, also<br />Hahnemannian444<br />#5904