DrSpy

But quantum mechanics does not see the tree in a state of conventional matter, therefore you cant have F=MA, therefore Newtonian does not apply.

Your argument has many assumptions, and they are not part of the quantum theory I am talking about.

My answer is that there is no answer.  If the tree is truly not being observed, then the tree could theoretically be in a state of quantum superposition. 

A quantum superposition means the tree is standing and falling at the same time, which means it could be making sound and not making sound at the same time, and even still the tree exists and does not exist at the same time.

It is a theory that Einstein could not reconcile.  "God does not play dice with the universe"

I love free speech.  I am just wondering if some people need to be reminded of what proper behavior is.

English is such an imprecise language it can be difficult to convey a critical clean thought.

We learn that 90% of communication is non-verbal, so we are left with only 10% to try to use on a platform like this.

Calling people names, and trying to call them out  I don't even think is permitted in an informal world.

Marbles in his mouth Joe does not think he knows everything.  He listens, and he listens well.

Listening and respecting other's expertise is not a DJT skillset.

Well, I think it is only crazy if he does not pair my pancreas with some fava beans and a nice bottle of chianti.  

But that is just me.

That was not my belief for the record.  That is what he is claiming :)

Trump is going to get re-elected.

He is going to argue the following:

a). He is the best to get the country out of the depression/recession, cause it was perfect, like the phone call before the pandemic

b). The pandemic was Chinas fault

c)  The pandemic response was Obama's fault

d). Hard hit areas are metro areas, typically Democratic, so it is easy to blame Democratic leadership on poor outcomes

e). He deploys the military as a sign it is a war, which has a very powerful message.

And as LInoln said....   You don't want to swap horses while crossing a stream.  

 

I don't see how the subject is that far different from the description that you are so upset about.  The point of the details is to clarify the details.  Sometimes not even this is enough, it gets referred to comments.  

What is the difference?

But quantum mechanics says that the tree both makes a sound and does not make a sound at the same time.  And only by adding the measuring device does it actually make a sound.

Yes, I knew this was Spy v Spy.  I remember some video games on the C64 with them I think.

You. are correct I am replacing  Schrodginers cat with the tree.  Another way to look at it is by using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.  Because we detected noise, the tree can no longer be in its true position of no noise.

I thought it was kinda funny.    It is a tough crowd here.

Does quantum mechanics not say that the tree falls without making a sound and making a sound at the same time, and we disrupt it by detecting it?

I have no problem having an open period to hash out the definitions.

I did not realize that everything stated in a forum needed to be qualified and quantified.   I will gladly debate the concept of oil as renewable with you.  A forum is no the venue.  Comments like "Sock Puppet" are inappropriate conduct.

If you want to initiate a debate on this topic and invite me I will review and answer.

I will not, however, respond to a friendly forum with statements like "Your Sock Puppet"

Does quantum mechanics prove that if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, it does not make a noise?

@fauxlaw.  I am less concerned about the rate of use then I am the impact of use.

The carbon cycle is very delicate, and it is accepted that we as humans have pushed the carbon cycle beyond what it would naturally go.  Plus we have compromised the carbon cycle with deforestations, wood being an exceptionally dense carbon store.

Oil and coal are denser carbon stores, and whilst there is a chance for them to renew, that chance is very low considering the footprint we have put on the planet, removing virtually all locations where natural coal and oil could form.

Need breeds ingenuity and unless it becomes cost-effective to invest in the research and technology, people won't do it.

So the question begs, is morality related to an individual's ecological behavior..  Perhaps a question pointed closer to you fauxlaw would be "Would god expect people to be ecologically sound."

Renewable is the term.    What is an acceptable time period for renewal?  Let's look at a bog or a marsh.  It is generally accepted that it takes millions of years to for oil, coal or other petroleums to be created from biomass.  The carbon in oil/gas etc is not part of the regular carbon cycle.

Therefore when you extract it from the ground and burn it, you are adding carbon back to the environment that it has not seen for millions of years.

Burn grass, it produces  C0, C02, CH4, etc etc. etc.  Grow plants, and they take in CO2 and use the carbon to make the structure, which you burn, turns into the gasses I mentioned.....  carbon cycle.  

Hello,

I have started a debate and did not anticipate a huge response.  If my opponent agrees, is there any way we can increase the size of the response?

He/She has provided 12 articles, and after 4 hours of reading, I realize I may need more space to address/refute them. 

Are there any options?

Thanks

I don't get the thesis.  I am probably the dumbest person on this site, so please forgive me.   

Please also tell me what message you are conveying with your avatar.