🚀 go-pugleaf

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote 
> On 1/10/2010 4:51 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote >
>>> ----
>>> 1 Is there intelligent life anywhere in the Galaxy other than Earth?
>>> Look again
>>>
>>> 2 Does dark matter really exist?
>>> that must have been an illusion
>>>
>>> 3 Was there really a lost city called Atlantis?
>>> Not my house - a house of merchandise
>>> (house = place to live = city of treasure)
>>>
>>> 4 Does Qantum phase entanglement represent something real?
>>> Tourist who lost his way.
>>> (Is he a real citizen??)
>>>
>>> 5 Is there a binary, or greater, neutron star pair near enough to render
>>> humans extinct when they merge as a result of radiating gravity waves?
>>> Hermanas, La Cinta, La Ibense, Los Parientes, El Bar Angeles
>>> (to name a few)
>>>
>>> 6 Will a single theory-of-everything ever prevail?
>>> "I'm sorry" he said.
>>> ---
>>>
>>> "Look again" could equally apply to Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5. Ok, not Q6.
>>
>> No, it's most definitely a hit with Q1, looking for aliens.
> 
> Why not looking for dark matter



Your question on DM was whether it existed.

Your question on aliens was geographical, where are they.

LOOK AGAIN is best fitted to finding an object, not looking for an answer.





>>> "That must have been an illusion" could apply to Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4.
>>
>> No, best hit is obviously DARK MATTER,
> 
>> it matches the grammar of Quantum Entanglement but since it's proven
>> to exist it doesn't match the context.
> 
> Quantum entanglement exists in the mathematics, but the question 
> specifically relates to whether it represents something real. Perhaps 
> Quantum entanglement is a mathematical artefact


No physicists are discussing if QE is an illusion, they ARE discussing if DM is an illusion.

You change one atom and another changes, how is that an illusion?




>> I've heard your "I DUNNO" copout again and again, leave it.
> 
> Remember, I'm not saying that your matches are wrong. I'm saying that 
> other people won't be able to spot them, which will mess up the test. 
> You think the matches are self-evident, but they're not to me. I see no 
> reason to think they'd be self-evident to other people.
> 
> Sylvia


Very technical questions answered with quotes from a novel, you don't seem
to want to see how a targeted novel of quotes will be detectable.

Just ask me the 5 questions again with 5 page numbers.

Doing a backwards guess the question objective test is just not going to happen with you.

Ask and check the answers whether they answer your question.

Just make a judgment call if they're intelligent or random.

Why do you need 200 posts to see if a random quote answers a question?


Herc