May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Luck | Main | Working »



Its the second time.


viagra online buy levitra order cialis buy xanax
buy ambien buy soma buy xenical buy kamagra


On personal opinion, I find this very helpful.
Guys, I have also posted some more relevant info further on this, not sure if you find it useful:



course this happens - according to U-51 the americans found the enigma machine - not the english :o)


I've been a big fan of his Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics ever since I found about it while researching Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. It's cool stuff.

Bruce Harrison

Scott -- sorry to be weighing in on this so late -- I'm catching up on your posts.

I've been thinking about the retrocausality experiment you describe. I believe I've found a flaw in it. The assumption that the scientists are making is that the quantum state of the split photon pair does not resolve (into either wave or particle) until the photons pass through the slits. The problem with the supposition is that the scientists have no idea at what point the quantum resolution occurs.

By having the photons split and having one travel through a fiber-optic core that slows it down is beside the point. If the photon pairs are somehow linked, as the supposition goes, then the 'lagging' photon may resolve into particle form at the moment its pair resolves. So as it leaves the fiber optic core, it may already be resolved into particle state, and may have done so at the moment the 'leading' photon resolves into particle state. There's simply no way to tell when the resolution happened, hence the experiment appears to prove nothing.

It reminds me of a scientist's supposition that I once read in Scientific American that discussed moire patterns. If you take two sheets of plastic, each of which has a series of vertical lines on them of different frequency, when you overlay the two plastic sheets and move the top sheet perpindicular to the bottom, you see the appearance of an interference pattern which moves faster than the top sheet is moving.

From this, the supposition was made that if you were able to superimpose two light beams of different frequencies over one another, the resulting moire-like pattern could exceed the speed of light.

The flaw in the theory is that the moire pattern appears to move, but in actuality does not. It's an illusion of movement rather than movement itself -- thus not exceeding the speed of light, although it could appear to.

The same with the photon experiment you describe. It might appear that the resolution happens when the second photon passes the slits, but it could have happended simultaneously with the first photon's resolution.

Still, it's an interesting concept. But even if it is true, and retrocausality can occur, it still leaves the question of how did it all start. So whether or not we can control the universe through retrocausality, it still doesn't answer the question of how it all came into being.

But thanks for trying. It is interesting to think it through, and I appreciate you making the effort.

Steve Hajec

Are you sure you nailed these issues, or is it just a case of retrocausality?


If they prove Retrocausality that would mean they could change it so they disproved it, meaning they didn't disprove it. It's a paradox.

Matthew Kovich

"The Dilbert Future" was the first thing I ever read by you.

My friend bought it for me.

Now I'm the proud owner of your two non-fiction books, various dilbert books, a dilbert calendar and have more planned to buy for the next time I'm bored/convince myself I have money to waste.

The Dilbert Future is still my favorite work of yours (next to, maybe, God's Debris). And this blog. This blog is rad.


"[That's what I said, only better. -- Scott]"

Heh, well that's your job.

But as far as I can tell, we aren't saying the same thing at all - I genuinely marvel that you think so. It is simply not the case that "DNA evidence shows that ape-human fossil records have been badly misinterpreted."

The article refers to some (not new) evidence that we have to take seriously. For the moment, that's all it is. People have posted about the scientific method. That involves coming up with hypotheses and how to test them. 'Evidence' relates to testing of a specific hypothesis.

This is different to deciding what you want to be true in advance and deciding afterwards that belated and misrepresented media reports of cherry-picked studies fit what you want to be true.

This discipline restricts what scientists are allowed to claim, which is also part of what gives science its power.


While retrocausality may be true I can prove that that piece of crap "The Secret" is complete and utter BS. If there was any way that laws of attraction had any possibility of actually working the way they say they do then casinos would never make any money. Have you ever met a gambler that did not truly believe they were going to winn the big jackpot. Hell I have met many gamblers that all they talk about is how much they win. They really believe they are winning. They still leave the casino with less money than they had when they entered even though they think they won. I truly believing you would win worked these people would actually win. I can guarantee they don't because the casinos continue to operate and people continue to steal to feed their gambling habits. The only possible explanation would be if both the casino and the gambler won. How likely is that. My favorite part of this is "Oprah believes in it." Of course she does. It works for her. She is a billionaire television star. She has an army of people catering to her every whim. Pretty much anything she asks for at any time someone will start making it happen. That doesn't mean the universe is changing to suit her, it means she has the resources to pay someone to get stuff for her.


The title of your next book: Donuts and Free Will.


It is up to others to judge your forecasts, it has no value if you do that yourself.


"The scientists still haven’t figured out that the way you go back in time is by going forward until you circle back to where you started."

Sounds like those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

The Goose

Now, I just skimmed the article, because I had a long day and now I'm on my second glass of wine, but I do see the hallmarks of crap. It starts with some "background" science and drops the names of real physicists (Feynman and Wheeler). But then there you are, with some guy nobody has ever heard of, hmmmmmmm, maybe not. Just cross out all the name-dropping stuff that doesn't address the issue at hand, and see what you're left with.


You might find this interesting:

How to create a universe from "pinching off" a black hole:


Sorry, Scott, but:

"1. DNA evidence shows that ape-human fossil records have been badly misinterpreted. (Nailed it.)" Only 'badly misinterpreted' by hack journalists, religious nutjobs, and certain cartoonists. The scientific community has not been so fooled by the hype in the papers. As I previously blogged, this is OLD news, more than a decade old, and as so many others have pointed out, has not diminished evolution in any way.

"2. Iran is acting like a democracy (lots of public political disagreements with elected officials that will likely influence policies)." Really, Scott, all forms of government -- including despots/tyrants/dictators/etc. -- act in some ways like a democracy because they involve other humans. There are only a few ways of getting something done in any form of government, and they will at times resemble democracy. Again, this is not news.

"3. Free will is soon to be disproved (assuming retrocausality is proved)." Others have pointed out that presuming this retrocausality is real (which I believe is not), it will not have any impact on free will -- which does exist, your non-explanations notwithstanding. I suggest you speak with a few physicists (remember, you're famous, so this will work) and they'll gladly explain why this retrocausality won't work.

"4. My Donut Theory of the Universe is gaining support (okay, Einstein thought of it first but forgot to call it the Donut Theory)." Others have also pointed out here that Einstein did not come up with anything resembling your 'Donut Theory of the Universe' which only serves to show that you're good at infrequently coming up with interesting thought experiments, but not good at the underlying science involved -- and not good at understanding any explanations which disagree with your pre-conceived notions, so you dismiss them out of hand.

"5. Intelligent Design is about to be scientifically validated (the designers are humans via retrocausality)." Again, others have also pointed out that ID is not going to be 'scientifically validated' by this so-called retrocausality. You're simply confused about what the experiment is going to attempt, as well as what any results will mean.

Please take my advice and consult directly with the people involved -- I'm certain they love Dilbert, and would be thrilled to actually hear from you. They'd give you more information than you'd possibly want to know -- but at least you'd know more than you do now.

So, as I see it, you 'nailed' nothing, except for the 'spooky' part -- which others have also posted.

I'm surprised that you didn't provide any scientific evidence for your version of positive visualizations and affirmations -- I've supplied it before, but will again: it's the reticular activation system in the human brain.

John Q Public

That's 100% BS. So scientists did some voodoo and a miniscule light particle did some weird flip-flop. These are PHOTONS. TIINNY. All you need to know about quantam mechanics is that sh%# happens when you make things small enough. You still can't practically use this.


I'm not sure if the present can change the past, but it sure can change the history of the past. Politicians do it all the time.


I think you "nailed it" with the "I'm spooky" comment, I will give you that.


Wow is this satire or are you really this up yourself?

Dilbert sheep don't attack me.


Scott, I'm behind you all the way on this one. I see that you are indeed a supporter of the Intelligent Design theory, in spite of your previous denials. I always noticed you were a supporter, although I found it curious you always denied that you were. But clearly you are more comfortable admitting that you are in favor of ID provided it is via retrocausality (which is fine with me, that has always been the reason I have always been in favor of it).

bloodrage bob

you are SOOOOOO right about that SOB einstein, scott. that old fraud stole several of MY groundbreaking nobel-prize-worthy physics ideas, TOO. like the one for the ray gun? and the death ray. and the thought ray. and the "get chicks in the mood" ray.

- ray


You know, if you really think hard (on a Monday morning no less) you will know that Intelligent Design has already been proven by scientists. It has been for a very long time.

What do you think we do when we mess with DNA? Is that UN-intelligent Design?

So here are the poor scientists trying to force everyone to believe that ID is BS when it is being done by humans all the time.

Maybe they can go back and have Darwin's ship sink so they aren't now stupid enough to cling to his failed theories.


I have my own Doughnut Theory (cleverly differentiated by the Canadian spelling):
People are like doughnuts. Some are sweet, some are nutty, some are frosted, and some are just holes.

The comments to this entry are closed.