i stand on what i posted.
it's already been Demonstrated.
K. P. Collins
Jeffrey S. Dutky wrote:
> kenneth Collins wrote:
> > Jeffrey S. Dutky wrote:
> > > julien colomb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill Todd a *crit :
> > > >
> > > > > Mea culpa (see previous amending post) to the several people
> > > > > who responded. I'm still less than convinced that 'non-
> > > > > deterministic' and 'random' are synonymous,
> > > >
> > > > just think of atom's desintegration, a phenomen (near the only)
> > > > that the researcher thinks it's completly random: the number of
> > > > desintegration per second is determined, but wich desintegrate
> > > > is random. So that's not synonymous.
> > >
> > > The number of disintigrations/second in radioactive decay is
> > > no more deterministic than the choice of which atoms in your
> > > sample are going to decay in any given second. While we can
> > > say things about what the average rate of decay per second is
> > > over some longer period of time, the actuall number of
> > > disintigrations in any given second will be normally
> > > distributed around the average value. For any given second
> > > you may get more or fewer disintigrations and you can't
> > > predict which.
> > >
> > > This 'random' behavior can be observed to one degree or
> > > another in almost all phenomena. While some of this is
> > > likely due to 'experimental error' some of it is also
> > > inate in the pheonomena.
> > >
> > > - Jeff Dutky
> > Forgive me, please, but what you say is Demonstrably-False,
> > and has been Demonstrably-False ever since Plank studied
> > 'black-body' radiation in the late 1800s.
> > it's a real knee-slapper that, given all the data produced
> > in 'particle accelerators', 'physics' remains 'blind' to
> > this one thing.
>> I will forgive you, sir, when you define these terms you seem
> bent upon grossly misusing. It is clear to me, and I would
> expect to nearly everyone else in these newsgroups, that
> your useage of the term "Demonstrably-False" bears no relation
> what-so-ever to it's conjoined (any typically lower case) roots
> nor to their common use by either laymen or professionals.
>> To all appearances you are either a crank (otherwise sane and
> well meaning but clearly ill-informed) or a psychotic. While
> your ranting is occasionally amusing and possibly instructive
> (as an object lesson) they are otherwise worthless. I would
> advise you to seriously consider a career in charlatanism.