You seem to be unfamiliar with the quantum computer; because what I've stated about the quantum computer predicting all possible futures is one of the concepts behind it which made the government desire and fund the project even more.
I don't claim to be an expert
Now you state:
And I never claimed that I didn't study it. I actually said I'm pretty well studied in the subject.
Which is it?
So the false dichotomy you've set up for me to supposedly have to respond to is either I'm an expert or I haven't studied the subject at all? That's absurd. I'm not an expert, and I am well studied in the area. For example: I am pretty tall, and I am not seven foot five. The expert is a rarefied category. I know more about Inverse Galois Theory than 99.99999% of the human population, but I am still not an expert in the field.
You further state to my direct question as to if you can predict volcanoes, direction of hurricanes, and earthquakes:
Interesting because I've never know a weather forecaster to be 100% correct; not even close to 50% correct.
Do you work for CNN? That's a nice cut job. You asked me a series of questions. I responded with we can and then elaborated. Specifically, I said we can predict things with science. I then explained to why even perfectly predictable systems cannot be completely predicted due to simple computing power and measurement errors. Get out of here with that.
The fact that I will consume liquid water of some form within the next two days really isn't close to predicting the outcome of millions of voters this November.
Yes. That was the point. Predicting a single uncontentious election isn't exactly novel either.
Actually the possible outcomes approach 1 as the number of analytic behavior data increases. With no data the possibilities are infinite, but as data is compiled and correlated the number of possibilities shrinks -sometimes by a lot, sometime by a little- it is dependent upon the weight of the given variable and ones psychological makeup.
It's funny that you say as "number of analytic behavior data increases" because even in this pseudoscience you refuse to actually talk about you actually mean to say as the limit of this approaches infinity.
So now you're changing what the computer is doing? Where do these equations come from? Are they invariant across individuals? How do the inputs get calculated? What number of inputs do you need? A small number of inputs allows you to narrow from infinitely many world choices down to a manageable finite set?
That is not all it does; now, I know you're just making stuff up.
No? You're right. Quantum entanglement lets the government control your mind. I lied to you.
You seem to know so well what it's not. Please tell me what quantum entanglement is and how a quantum computer utilizes it. Or check out a textbook and verify what I said.
Technology Review, isn't just a magazine; it is a magazine created by MIT itself. Yes they did state that they were shocked that it registered more energy at the output then they applied at the input. Maybe you should go and set those MIT guys straight.
Okay. But it is a magazine. I don't see how I was being duplicitous. Give me the issue information
, and I will read the entry. I will then explain your error to you so that we can move on from this. They make have been surprised at their success, but that's not the same as saying "they stated that they didn't think it was possible" and "the same stuff professors and sciences have been saying was impossible for a very long time".
No. I was asking you, what you thought of Maxwell's theory; discounting the Gibbs-Heviside theory which gets propagated though Universities as Maxwell's
. However, you did answer the question when you stated:
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
No you didn't ask me that. You asked me what I thought of the BS they teach in college. I was asking for clarification pretty clearly about exactly you meant. I'm still not sure what your point is. Lorentz, Heaviside, Gibbs, and other physicists developed Maxwell's work after he passed away. Just in the same way that Maxwell developed on the work of Faraday, Gauss, Ampere, and Biot among others. I'll admit that I haven't read Maxwell's original work directly. I've see the H
notation forms. Is that what your issue is?
I find it interesting that you say that Heim's work has been discredited by the LHC, when their neutrino experiment actually was predictable by Heim's work. Yes, I know they said that there was a cable problem, but in their explanation they stated that they found a second problem that when fixed would register the speed of the neutrino as being faster than it was originally measured.
Where did this second problem get cited? I've never heard of it. Also, the LHC neutrino data is less conclusively in any case than the neutrino data measured from SN 1987A. There's no evidence for faster than light neutrinos that I'm aware of (so please cite some if you know of it), and the burden certainly hasn't been met to overturn the accepted evidence for their speeds.
I also find it interesting that NASA, and the USAF are spending million if not more trying to produce a hyper-drive engine by using Heim's work and his former assistant, and Heim's former assistant's assistant. I suppose that either those NASA and USAF scientists -which you lout as examples due to space exploration and such- are just idiots and they should really consult you before they do anything, or they know something which you do not.
You do realize that a physicist can be wrong in some areas and correct in others? Or that his ideas can be misguided yet still touching on something promising? I'm not saying that the guy is a hack, but most of his ideas just aren't well verified or are contradicted.
As did Bernays; once he seen how easy people were influence by the word Democracy in WWI.
Oh yes? What was his experiment exactly. I'd love to hear how he designed it.
I have been researching the quantum computer ever since I first heard of it in 1994. The claims don't change. However, there are multiple teams working on different models. I admit; I never got into cryptography -it was on of those things which I'm always meaning to start learning, but something always gets me side-tract.
I have studied Physics and Mathematics at multiple universities in my past. It was one of my physics professors who introduced me to Godel's Incompleteness theorem, which I find to this day to be absolutely fascinating; it got me questioning everything found in science and math.
I would like you to reproduce some of these claims from your sources in that case.
I also find Godel's incompleteness theorems fascinating. However, they only apply to some rather specific axiomatic structures so that they hardly call into question results in science and math. In fact, if we have a result, then Godel's theorem can't even be made to apply.