Frannie
Gold Member
- Feb 27, 2019
- 6,880
- 347
- 135
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #221
Actually according to Karl Heisenberg
Uncertainty principle, also called Heisenberg uncertainty principle or indeterminacy principle, statement, articulated (1927) by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature. Ordinary experience provides no clue of this principle. It is easy to measure both the position and the velocity of, say, an automobile, because the uncertainties implied by this principle for ordinary objects are too small to be observed.
But you keep pretending that a blurry photo of something that happened billions of years ago that may no longer even exist explains something.
It does if you are religious and want to believe, we are different because my standards are higher than yours, no exceptions.
So why is it that real physics is abandoned when looking thru telescopes?
Play on, if you can figure it out that is
You want to complain about telescope images when you don't know how a motor drive can enable one to stay focused on an object for a long period of time?
You do realize that the longer you try to ignore it, the more foolish you seem.
Focusing on something that you do not know what it is only yields an idiot focusing, but have no fear people will still buy the cripples golden books
Watch the market kid
Oh I forgot all your money is wrapped up in dull saws
You're getting less coherent by the post. Been drinking?
You claimed that telescopes couldn't focus on distant, faint objects because the earth rotated. Obviously, you did not know that even amateur astronomers have had motor drives for their scopes for a long time. I challenged you to learn about them, so once again, have you figured out how telescopes work yet?
Having a motor drive is one thing, tuning it to exactly the rotation and speed of the earth is another. However this means nothing because if you do manage to get a clear image (which you won't) you still will have an image that explains nothing.
Seriously you clowns need to look up the definition of theoretical physics.
Besides I am far more interested in quantum entanglement for wireless atomically stored data computing anyway. It's real, is being developed as farting astrophysicist make up a new bs theory of the day
Then went are starting threads ranting about astrophysics?
When if ever you figure out what the word theoretical means you will know how stupid you are.
I won't hold my breath waiting