Reply by October 16, 20182018-10-16
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 2:42:03 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 03:42:29 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > > bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > > > >> Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. > > > > > > Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. > > > > > Are you not dee LIGHTful? > > Google narcissist if necessary.
John Larkin is our resident example of the breed, but NT seems to be making a bid to outdo him. He certainly has the same unreasonable confidence in the accuracy of his misconceptions. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by October 16, 20182018-10-16
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 8:38:17 AM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > > >On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 03:42:29 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > >> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > > > >> >> Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. > >> > > >> > Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. > >> > > >> Are you not dee LIGHTful? > > > >Google narcissist if necessary. > > > Why does _anyone_ read Slowman's bullshit anymore?
Why does anybody read krw's delusions anymore? My opinions have been known to change, so there's the potential for an interesting difference. Krw's opinions never change, no matter how wrong they are, so there really is no point in keeping up with them. I only read his postings because they are so easy to jeer at. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by October 16, 20182018-10-16
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 03:42:29 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: >> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > >> >> Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. >> > >> > Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. >> > >> Are you not dee LIGHTful? > >Google narcissist if necessary. >
Why does _anyone_ read Slowman's bullshit anymore?
Reply by October 16, 20182018-10-16
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 03:42:29 UTC+1, Robert Baer  wrote:
> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
> >> Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. > > > > Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. > > > Are you not dee LIGHTful?
Google narcissist if necessary. NT
Reply by October 16, 20182018-10-16
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 1:42:29 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Sunday, 14 October 2018 06:29:36 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > >>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >>>> On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:06:38 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: > >>>>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:03:01 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 08:38:16 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In certain cases, one can achieve what LOOKS like negative time delay. > >>>>>>>> Input pulse has a (relatively) slow rise time, and feeds a fast > >>>>>>>> op-amp set to sense low threshold of the rise...output pops up beyond > >>>>>>>> logic threshold BEFORE input. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What would happen if a computer were built of negative time delay gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Isaac Asimov invented it in 1947, and published his first paper on it in 1948. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Yes, I remember the book. > >>>> > >>>> You don't. All three items were originally published in "Astounding Science Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fiction" > >>> * And THEN it was published and printed in a BOOK. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact > >>>> > >>>>> He takes all of the credit in Science FICTION. > >>>>> I am talking about science FACT. > >>>> > >>>> That is Robert Baer's deluded opinion. He is about a reliable at distinguishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about science could be written on the head of pin in large letters. > >>>> > >>>>> Remember, "what LOOKS like negative time delay". > >>>> > >>>> He can't even back-track gracefully. It was a moronic interjection, and he's silly enough not to realise this. > >>> * I guess you cannot READ; NO back-tracking, that is exactly what said. > >>> Perhaps you think i said there was a negative time delay. > >>> Build the circuit as described, and see for yourself..an apparent > >>> negative time delay. > >> > >> Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. > > > > Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. > > > Are you not dee LIGHTful?
The illumination I provide does seem to be of a nature that you can't perceive. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by October 16, 20182018-10-16
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 1:39:00 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 4:29:36 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: > >> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >>> On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:06:38 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: > >>>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:03:01 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 08:38:16 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In certain cases, one can achieve what LOOKS like negative time delay. > >>>>>>> Input pulse has a (relatively) slow rise time, and feeds a fast > >>>>>>> op-amp set to sense low threshold of the rise...output pops up beyond > >>>>>>> logic threshold BEFORE input. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What would happen if a computer were built of negative time delay gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :) > >>>>> > >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline > >>>>> > >>>>> Isaac Asimov invented it in 1947, and published his first paper on it in 1948. > >>>>> > >>>> Yes, I remember the book. > >>> > >>> You don't. All three items were originally published in "Astounding Science Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fiction" > >> * And THEN it was published and printed in a BOOK. > >> > >>> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact > >>> > >>>> He takes all of the credit in Science FICTION. > >>>> I am talking about science FACT. > >>> > >>> That is Robert Baer's deluded opinion. He is about a reliable at distinguishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about science could be written on the head of pin in large letters. > >>> > >>>> Remember, "what LOOKS like negative time delay". > >>> > >>> He can't even back-track gracefully. It was a moronic interjection, and he's silly enough not to realise this. > >> > >> * I guess you cannot READ; NO back-tracking, that is exactly what said. > > > > Reading is one thing. Comprehending the non-thinking going on is another. > > > >> Perhaps you think i said there was a negative time delay. > >> Build the circuit as described, and see for yourself..an apparent > >> negative time delay. > > > > Only if you have absolutely no insight into what is going on. > > * I know exactly what happens and why.
You may think you do. Your confidence about your grasp of your misconceptions is just another misconception.
> > Read up on "constant fraction discriminators" sometime. > * Has nothing to with "my" circuit.
Since your circuit was a moronic thought experiment, who cares? -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by Robert Baer October 15, 20182018-10-15
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Sunday, 14 October 2018 06:29:36 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: >>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>>> On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:06:38 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: >>>>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:03:01 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 08:38:16 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In certain cases, one can achieve what LOOKS like negative time delay. >>>>>>>> Input pulse has a (relatively) slow rise time, and feeds a fast >>>>>>>> op-amp set to sense low threshold of the rise...output pops up beyond >>>>>>>> logic threshold BEFORE input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What would happen if a computer were built of negative time delay gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :) >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline >>>>>> >>>>>> Isaac Asimov invented it in 1947, and published his first paper on it in 1948. >>>>>> >>>>> Yes, I remember the book. >>>> >>>> You don't. All three items were originally published in "Astounding Science Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fiction" >>> * And THEN it was published and printed in a BOOK. >>> >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact >>>> >>>>> He takes all of the credit in Science FICTION. >>>>> I am talking about science FACT. >>>> >>>> That is Robert Baer's deluded opinion. He is about a reliable at distinguishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about science could be written on the head of pin in large letters. >>>> >>>>> Remember, "what LOOKS like negative time delay". >>>> >>>> He can't even back-track gracefully. It was a moronic interjection, and he's silly enough not to realise this. >>> * I guess you cannot READ; NO back-tracking, that is exactly what said. >>> Perhaps you think i said there was a negative time delay. >>> Build the circuit as described, and see for yourself..an apparent >>> negative time delay. >> >> Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. > > Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. >
Are you not dee LIGHTful?
Reply by Robert Baer October 15, 20182018-10-15
tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 October 2018 06:29:36 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: >> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>> On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:06:38 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: >>>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:03:01 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 08:38:16 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In certain cases, one can achieve what LOOKS like negative time delay. >>>>>>> Input pulse has a (relatively) slow rise time, and feeds a fast >>>>>>> op-amp set to sense low threshold of the rise...output pops up beyond >>>>>>> logic threshold BEFORE input. >>>>>> >>>>>> What would happen if a computer were built of negative time delay gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :) >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline >>>>> >>>>> Isaac Asimov invented it in 1947, and published his first paper on it in 1948. >>>>> >>>> Yes, I remember the book. >>> >>> You don't. All three items were originally published in "Astounding Science Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fiction" >> * And THEN it was published and printed in a BOOK. >> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact >>> >>>> He takes all of the credit in Science FICTION. >>>> I am talking about science FACT. >>> >>> That is Robert Baer's deluded opinion. He is about a reliable at distinguishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about science could be written on the head of pin in large letters. >>> >>>> Remember, "what LOOKS like negative time delay". >>> >>> He can't even back-track gracefully. It was a moronic interjection, and he's silly enough not to realise this. >> * I guess you cannot READ; NO back-tracking, that is exactly what said. >> Perhaps you think i said there was a negative time delay. >> Build the circuit as described, and see for yourself..an apparent >> negative time delay. > > Save yourself the time. He'll never get real. > > > NT >
Thanks.
Reply by Robert Baer October 15, 20182018-10-15
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 4:29:36 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: >> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>> On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:06:38 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: >>>> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:03:01 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 08:38:16 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In certain cases, one can achieve what LOOKS like negative time delay. >>>>>>> Input pulse has a (relatively) slow rise time, and feeds a fast >>>>>>> op-amp set to sense low threshold of the rise...output pops up beyond >>>>>>> logic threshold BEFORE input. >>>>>> >>>>>> What would happen if a computer were built of negative time delay gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :) >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline >>>>> >>>>> Isaac Asimov invented it in 1947, and published his first paper on it in 1948. >>>>> >>>> Yes, I remember the book. >>> >>> You don't. All three items were originally published in "Astounding Science Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fiction" >> * And THEN it was published and printed in a BOOK. >> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact >>> >>>> He takes all of the credit in Science FICTION. >>>> I am talking about science FACT. >>> >>> That is Robert Baer's deluded opinion. He is about a reliable at distinguishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about science could be written on the head of pin in large letters. >>> >>>> Remember, "what LOOKS like negative time delay". >>> >>> He can't even back-track gracefully. It was a moronic interjection, and he's silly enough not to realise this. >> >> * I guess you cannot READ; NO back-tracking, that is exactly what said. > > Reading is one thing. Comprehending the non-thinking going on is another. > >> Perhaps you think i said there was a negative time delay. >> Build the circuit as described, and see for yourself..an apparent >> negative time delay. > > Only if you have absolutely no insight into what is going on.
* I know exactly what happens and why.
> > Read up on "constant fraction discriminators" sometime.
* Has nothing to with "my" circuit.
>
Reply by October 14, 20182018-10-14
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 10:31:32 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 October 2018 06:29:36 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > > bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:06:38 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: > > >> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > >>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:03:01 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > > >>>> On Wednesday, 10 October 2018 08:38:16 UTC+1, Robert Baer wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> In certain cases, one can achieve what LOOKS like negative time delay. > > >>>>> Input pulse has a (relatively) slow rise time, and feeds a fast > > >>>>> op-amp set to sense low threshold of the rise...output pops up beyond > > >>>>> logic threshold BEFORE input. > > >>>> > > >>>> What would happen if a computer were built of negative time delay gates? The output would appear before the input occurred. Since the input would sometimes be undecided when the output occurred, the output would determine the input. So take a standard computer, swap labels on inputs & outputs, and there you have it, a faster than light future predicting computer. In fact the slower it is, the faster it is :) > > >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline > > >>> > > >>> Isaac Asimov invented it in 1947, and published his first paper on it in 1948. > > >>> > > >> Yes, I remember the book. > > > > > > You don't. All three items were originally published in "Astounding Science Fiction" which is a periodical (now called "Analog Science Fact and Fiction" > > * And THEN it was published and printed in a BOOK. > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact > > > > > >> He takes all of the credit in Science FICTION. > > >> I am talking about science FACT. > > > > > > That is Robert Baer's deluded opinion. He is about a reliable at distinguishing fact from fiction as Cursitor Doom, and what he knows about science could be written on the head of pin in large letters. > > > > > >> Remember, "what LOOKS like negative time delay". > > > > > > He can't even back-track gracefully. It was a moronic interjection, and he's silly enough not to realise this. > > * I guess you cannot READ; NO back-tracking, that is exactly what said. > > Perhaps you think i said there was a negative time delay. > > Build the circuit as described, and see for yourself..an apparent > > negative time delay. > > Save yourself the time. He'll never get real.
Amusing. NT believes all kinds of nonsense, so his idea of "real" is in the same league with krw and Cursitor Doom. Robert Baer is just dim, so it's actually a different problem. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney