QM is quite a diverse range of ideas.
Perhaps you should give a brief definition of what you mean by QM.

For myself, I can only positivistically affirm quantum time and quantum energy.
But consider this:
If we made a machine that analyzed all your atoms so that it could perfectly predict your behavior
would you not go out of your way to defy it?

Boy did you miss the point. Its not really humor at all.

There is so much sophistry being said about 'dark matter'.
There is nothing complex about it at all.
The amount of matter in a galaxy used to be estimated by the amount of light
the galaxy emitted based on quite crude statistics. Then, because of gravitational
lensing, it was realized that there was just more matter than the stats had previously
suggested. Its nothing more than that. To somebody in another galaxy, objects
like the Earth would be effectively 'dark matter' because they do not emit light.

Nice, just as I pictured it in my mind. — René Descartes

Do you have a few billion dollars spare to help build it by any chance?
(Or even a few million to get started would be nice)
((or a publishing book-deal))

I think it will go beyond the speed of light. — René Descartes

Fantastic!
You win the prize which is to check-out the design that will take
humanity to the stars:



It should be a bit clearer to see the image, rather than the psychic impression.
Unless, of course, you are one of THOSE beings.

Is this humour? — Sapientia

If I get banned for saying it is not humor, then it is humor.

1. The Big Bang began 13.8 billion years ago

2. Galaxies are moving away from each other because space is expanding. One frequent analogy is that of colored spots on an expanding balloon. As the balloon blows up the spots on it move away from each other.

3. The Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with our galaxy, the Milkyway.

How is this possible?

According to 2, ALL galaxies should be getting farther and farther away from each other but the Andromeda galaxy is coming towards the Milkyway.

In addition there's evidence that such inter-galactic collisions have/are occured/occuring in the universe.

One explanation could be that galaxies acquire their own motion which results in this type of collision. However, isn't the global expansion greater than the local motions? — TheMadFool

Firstly we can only measure the radial velocity of Andromeda.
That means that we have no way of measuring its velocity on the left-right or up-down axes.
Only the forwards-backwards axis yields the blue-shift or red-shift.
It is thus unlikely that it will collide with the Milky Way.

Secondly, the velocities only of the most distant galaxies are moving away from us.
So there are small fluctuating amounts of velocity beyond the majority of velocities
which obey the expansion principle.

my argument was designated as 'gobbledegook' on Physics Forum. — Wayfarer

All that glisters is not gold.
Physics forum proves only one thing:
that much of academic physics is lower than
the lowest fundamentalist pseudo-religion.

So much of academia is just a mindless regurgitation of sophistry and jargon.

Of course, I am a psychic. — René Descartes

Me too.
I had a premonition - a really strong one about the boxing day tsunami,
about 9 months before it occurred. It was really odd - the first time I had tried to give
a reading for more than 10 years. Could not explain that with materialist psychology at all.

So you like my spaceship design, eh?
So how fast will a diamond spin before the centrifugal force rips it apart?
Assume a diamond 1meter x 10cm x 10cm.
(obviously artificial)

How close will that get to speed of light?
(or beyond that if you're not a relativist)

You'd have a lot to talk about with Hachem! Scientifically minded scientific skepticism, only he was obsessed with optics — fdrake

I'll keep a lookout for him, thanks.

The problems start right there. Einstein did not propose gravity to propagate at all. Gravity waves, yes, which act as the particle equivalent of excitations in the quantum field, but gravity itself (the sort that attracts two orbiting stars to each other) is just an effect observed by spacetime being curved by the two masses. There are no gravitons involved, and no propagation of anything. — noAxioms

Wrong.
Einstein claimed gravity propagates at lightspeed.



The entire point of LIGO was an attempt to try and prove this,
and even though they did not, Weiss was given the Nob prize for claiming just this.
Even a basic reading of the subject should clarify it.
Although it is a popular internet rumor that there is no propagation of gravity at lightspeed,
the formal articles all say there is.

Or do you reckon that the most widely read book in astrophysics reprinted more than
a million times, just plain 'got it wrong' and nobody ever noticed, hmmm?

You have a copy of Hawking's little book?
Checked that yourself have you?
I suggest you read my articles a little more closely old chap.
(After you flip through to p.94) - But that was a scan from the printed text, innit?

Didn't read it all, but the nature of the proof is pretty obvious in the initial diagram, and yes, it (speed-of-light gravity) would seem to inject energy into a closed system, with action not being balance by an opposite reaction.

The physics of instantaneous gravity seems flawed as well since it requires a simultaneity that is undefined without a frame. So OK, the frame of the mutual center of gravity is used, but that means that in different frames, the force on one object from another is different, which is contradictory. How can object X pull on me in different directions depending on reference frame? It could be measured, and the direction of force be used to determine an absolute reference frame.

Bottom line is I think your physics is off in the SOL example that spirals out, but I cannot yet put my finger on it. Such a simple proof must have been critiqued by the physics community. — noAxioms

That proof has never been critiqued by the physics community - because the physics
community does not comprehend critique any further than if they speak out of turn
and out of pecking-order they'll get their funding cut.

You cannot put your finger on it because you are looking for sophistic solutions.
The simple answer took a much longer complex route to arrive at than is presented.
By not reading the full argument, you sentence me as a witch - the simple is wrong
because its simple and the complex is too complex for you to bother with.

To answer your first point, the objective frame of reference will always be the sum of gravitational fields.
As regards the binary - the barycenter is very close to it as more distance objects alter this by little.

So who is the shepherd? — René Descartes

During various ages, we've had various shepherds.
Right now, I reckon its mostly me,
until I meet someone who better comprehends the world than I do,
I have to conclude that I carry that burden.
Sorry if that sounds egotistical, its not.
My ego would rather be a rock-star or cricketer than a philosopher.

Are humans a herd-animal, a pack-animal, a troupe-animal, a family-group animal, a solitary animal who periodically tolerates others' proximity, or simply a large group of braying jackasses? — Bitter Crank

All of the above, and then some...
Thats why there is good psychological evidence that we reincarnate to and from animal lives.

Could it be looked at as a complex version of schizophrenia? — CasKev

Well now, who is to say that the schizophrenic imagines the beings she talks to?
Perhaps they are real. Surely you've seen '12 monkeys'?

I believe you. All those are obviously correct. — René Descartes

So you have seen my spacecraft design?

The memory wave patterns when changing give the sense of duration or time. — Rich

But is the future real before we sense it?

Ah! So someone is actually reading. (Had to check first).

Here is my proof that gravity is instant:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/instant-gravity.htm
(my answer in short)
(ranked #1 at most search engines for 'instant gravity proof')

If you have more time, and want more detail:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htm

Also:
I am fairly close to completing an algorithm and article which demonstrate
how the principles of relativity would effect the bodies of the solar system
(if they indeed applied).

I am hoping to publish that about a week from today.
I'll place the link on this forum in the philosophy of science section.
By then you may have completed reading what I have written thus far
which I might add has taken me the better part of the last decade to author.

time for you to make some specific assertions — T Clark

okidoki
Relativity is bogus,
the moon landings were faked,
the war on drugs is an atrocity of the proportions of the holocaust,
the medical insurance monopoly is a scam
most cancer can be cured by diet
motor-cars are evil
Jesus is the same archetype as Poseidon
I have discovered empirical evidence of alien intelligence
and
I have also designed a spacecraft which is the quickest route to the stars
and which most likely could reach a speed beyond the velocity of light

and I have a very big grin on my face because
all of those assertions are entirely serious

welcome — Bitter Crank

Hey there was nothing bitter or cranky in that comment!
Have you been cured of your melancholy by by my wit already?

And no way to prove anyone but me is self-aware... — CasKev

There is actually. By conversing with me you implicitly agree that I exist,
or else there would be no point in conversing.

Some experiments don't end well. — Rich

Can we fix it before it ends badly?

The rock is not in your mind. It is a real quantum system wave pattern. — Rich

Are you suggesting that thinking is an act of objective observation,
and the object being 'thought of' always exists independently of the thinker?

Even if I imagine something nobody else had ever considered, then that
which is imagined is more real than that which is doing the imagining?

competence — T Clark

I could also add logic, and being indomitable.

Clearly: Relativity is contradictory and nothing more than pseudo-science.
(Ask me to back this up)

Space is space. Time is time.
'Space-time' is sophistry based on blatantly illogical pseudo-mathematics.
However, such an idea is very 'popular' which itself shifts the question into
the realm of metaphysics: What is knowledge?

We all know, black holes are denser region in space time and what we observe is a strong gravitational field and horizons. — Sunny S Koul

My apologies, but I reckon that black-holes do not exist, except as a modern-day mythology.
Do you care to hear my reasons, or do you dismiss anyone who takes this angle as being
not worth talking to?

What do you think the age of consent should be? — Tree Falls

As society advances the age of consent gets higher.
This is clear when we compare societies, but also animals.
So its not about being nasty to those who have a different age,
but about realizing that progress of the mind is the purpose
in having the highest possible age of consent. Of course, the
other side is that if the age is too high then that society starts
to shrink in purely physical terms.

Matter has become deadened Mind — Rich

I imagine a dead and lifeless rock.

Then that 'deadness' of the rock is still only an illusion because
it is still a subset of my living mind. And yet, the very capacity
for thinking of a 'dead' illusion - suggests that 'deadness' is a
very real phenomena - how would it be possible to imagine something
that does not exist - unless it had at least the potential to exist?

And so monism yields back to a very real dualism.

Fair point. But it becomes a troubling question as to why it is that
one has to deny the existence of one's own mind - for economic reasons.
Surely this implies that our economic model is deficient - or even self-defeating?
Destined to cataclysmic failures?

Perhaps consider self-reflective logic.
Lets assume that you are correct - my argument is a herd-like reaction.
But then you affirm the very existence of such herd-like reaction by claiming
that my argument is just that: a herd-like reaction. Thus you yourself are making
a typical herd-like reaction BECAUSE your own argument implies that such
reactions are therefore herd-like. Thus you prove yourself to be of the herd.

The way in which you do this is to simply invert the subject with the object
without any deeper self-reflection as to whether that fits the empirical world.

Sure, you are perhaps correct, in assuming that my point COULD be herd-like.
So many people do this, that I can hardly blame you for making such an assumption.

But had you followed through more deeply you would have to then evaluate your
own response in similar terms: What is so original about the nature of your own reply?

Moreover, the very word 'meme' is so riddled with malapropism, and that word itself
is a herd-like 'meme' - or rather - a cliche: A typical herd-like reaction.

A philosopher is someone who chooses to think.
Most people simply follow the herd, and allow others to think for them.
Even many who devote themselves to academic philosophy just do so
as a means to a scholastic careerist end.

The evidence that consciousness exists is the fist fundamental experience we all have.
Everything that follows on from that must be based on that as the first premise.

And yet, paradoxically, so many people just do not see it like that.
The whole notion of atoms and non-conscious particles
being the foundation of the universe seems to be little
more than reverse-psychology to try and get us to prove otherwise -
to explore the nature of our own being.

Many will scoff at that, and yet I spend much of my time
building computer algorithms depicting the laws of gravity and such,
so I am certainly well-immersed in the laws of physical nature -
more so than most. It actually is fairly amusing to see how so many
people argue against their very own existence, when all they actually
can really prove to themselves in all sincerity - is that existence.

There is no way I - or you - can prove that this is not just a dream.
But if this is an illusion - I still know that it is "I" that is suffering it.
(With apologies to Descartes and Kant)