It looks like the blog author forgot to put down his equations and controlled experiments that prove his point.
posted on 03/07/2013 5:49:11 AM PST
His "out" is that he says it would take instruments far in advanced of today's technology to be able to prove his point - which means he cannot, or at least has not, been able to prove his point mathematically. The essence of his problem may lie in his own self-contradictory statements, to wit,
"It is not that the act of observation that alters reality. In fact the physical nature of the "observation" small though it may be is sufficient to alter the metrics of sub atomic particles."
If someone can point out the practical difference between a physical act of observation and the fact that an observation has physical impact, I would appreciate it.
posted on 03/07/2013 6:25:26 AM PST
(If more sane people carried guns, fewer crazies would get off a second shot.)
No longer a requirement. All that’s needed is a “feeling”.
posted on 03/07/2013 7:33:46 AM PST
(The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson