A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 01:13 On Feb 15, 4:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 2:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 3:29 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every > > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits > > > > > > > > > > > > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the > > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern. > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated > > > > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave? > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having > > > > > > > > > > > > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the > > > > > > > > > > > greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling > > > > > > > > > > > and unable to answer such a simple question. > > > > > > > > > > > > Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically > > > > > > > > > > > behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been > > > > > > > > > > > willing to answer this question and their answer was the future > > > > > > > > > > > determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > > > > > > > slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits > > > > > > > > > > > in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense, > > > > > > > > > > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you > > > > > > > > > > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC? > > > > > > > > > > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is > > > > > > > > > > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still > > > > > > > > > > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving > > > > > > > > > > toward the observer. > > > > > > > > > > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this > > > > > > > > > > statement is absurd nonsense or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > but you do > > > > > > > > > > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question. > > > > > > > > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle > > > > > > > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties > > > > > > > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these > > > > > > > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of > > > > > > > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects > > > > > > > > called quantum objects. > > > > > > > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are > > > > > > > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. > > > > > > > > You just assert that it is so. > > > > > > > > > > and as such it always > > > > > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically > > > > > > > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical > > > > > > > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the > > > > > > > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single > > > > > > > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation > > > > > > > > > of QM for now. > > > > > > > > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits > > > > > > > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60 > > > > > > > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon > > > > > > > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will > > > > > > > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being, > > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. > > > > > > > > > > That is absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without > > > > > > > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and > > > > > > > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting > > > > > > > > this or asserting that. > > > > > > > > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to > > > > > > > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't > > > > > > > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you > > > > > > > > > choose to believe. > > > > > > > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all. > > > > > > > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what > > > > > > > > is absurd nonsense and what is not. > > > > > > > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so > > > > > > > > what you CHOOSE to believe. > > > > > > > > That's called faith, not science. > > > > > > > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith > > > > > > > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium > > > > > > > is material or believing the future determines the past? > > > > > > > You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding. > > > > > > Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical > > > > > material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is > > > > > displaced by matter. > > > > > > The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense. > > > > > Sorry, but just SAYING it's absurd nonsense doesn't make it absurd > > > > nonsense. > > > > We've been around and around and around the block on this and you are > > > > still too dense to figure it out. > > > > How do you KNOW it's absurd nonsense, other than just SAYING it's > > > > absurd nonsense. > > > > If you don't have a method for independently determining that, then > > > > it's just an empty assertion. > > > > > > > That's the point. You have to have an independent method for > > > > > > *checking* which of the two statements is more likely. > > > > > > > What's your method for that independent determination? > > > > > > My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors > > > > > in every double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > Bullshit, and we've been around and around and around on this too. > > > > Your SAYING it doesn't make it so. > > > > Just out of curiosity, why do you and other knowledgable people waste > > > your time trying to explain things to people like mpc755? > > > You really believe the reason for the observed behavior in a double > > slit experiment are because the future determines the past? > > It doesn't hinge on what one chooses to believe. You think it does. It > doesn't. > 'You' do not understand what is occurring physically in a double slit experiment so you invent a new type of object. A particle which in and of itself 'waves'. In order to maintain the delusion such an object exists you are required to believe in the absurd nonsense of the future determining the past. Once 'you' realize a moving particle has an associated aether wave there is no need for this non-existent made up object of matter which in and of itself waves and there is no reason to have to choose to believe in the absurd nonsense the future determines the past. > > > > > He's > > > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly > > > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little > > > capability to deal with the real world around him. The kind of > > > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond > > > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world-- > > > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad, > > > really. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for > > > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life? > > > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and > > > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up > > > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have. I really > > > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think > > > they're mentally healthy enough. And I gather that after years of > > > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing. > > > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them? > > > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious. > >
From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 01:15 On Feb 15, 4:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 2:53 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > What ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits > > > > > > > > > > > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern. > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated > > > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave? > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having > > > > > > > > > > > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well? > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the > > > > > > > > > > greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling > > > > > > > > > > and unable to answer such a simple question. > > > > > > > > > > > Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically > > > > > > > > > > behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been > > > > > > > > > > willing to answer this question and their answer was the future > > > > > > > > > > determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > > > > > > slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits > > > > > > > > > > in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense, > > > > > > > > > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you > > > > > > > > > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC? > > > > > > > > > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is > > > > > > > > > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still > > > > > > > > > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving > > > > > > > > > toward the observer. > > > > > > > > > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this > > > > > > > > > statement is absurd nonsense or not? > > > > > > > > > > > but you do > > > > > > > > > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question. > > > > > > > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle > > > > > > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties > > > > > > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these > > > > > > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of > > > > > > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects > > > > > > > called quantum objects. > > > > > > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are > > > > > > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. > > > > > > > You just assert that it is so. > > > > > > > > > and as such it always > > > > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically > > > > > > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical > > > > > > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the > > > > > > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single > > > > > > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation > > > > > > > > of QM for now. > > > > > > > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits > > > > > > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60 > > > > > > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon > > > > > > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will > > > > > > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being, > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. > > > > > > > > > That is absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without > > > > > > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and > > > > > > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting > > > > > > > this or asserting that. > > > > > > > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to > > > > > > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't > > > > > > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you > > > > > > > > choose to believe. > > > > > > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all. > > > > > > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what > > > > > > > is absurd nonsense and what is not. > > > > > > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so > > > > > > > what you CHOOSE to believe. > > > > > > > That's called faith, not science. > > > > > > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith > > > > > > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium > > > > > > is material or believing the future determines the past? > > > > > > You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding.. > > > > > Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical > > > > material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is > > > > displaced by matter. > > > > > The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense. > > > > Sorry, but just SAYING it's absurd nonsense doesn't make it absurd > > > nonsense. > > > Saying the future determines the past is absurd nonsense. > > > > We've been around and around and around the block on this and you are > > > still too dense to figure it out. > > > How do you KNOW it's absurd nonsense, other than just SAYING it's > > > absurd nonsense. > > > If you don't have a method for independently determining that, then > > > it's just an empty assertion. > > You see? All you have is the ASSERTION that it is absurd. You have no > way of determining independently, other than to just repeat over and > over and over again, "It's absurd, it's absurd, it's absurd. Absurd, > absurd, absurd." > > > > > > > > That's the point. You have to have an independent method for > > > > > *checking* which of the two statements is more likely. > > > > > > What's your method for that independent determination? > > > > > My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors > > > > in every double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > Bullshit, and we've been around and around and around on this too. > > > Your SAYING it doesn't make it so. > > > Inventing a new type of object because you do not realize a 'particle' > > has an associated aether wave is absurd. > > There you go again. > Yes, because to invent a new type of object in order to 'explain' the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment and to then have to believe the future determines the past in order to support this new type of object 'you' made up simply because 'you' are unwilling and unable to understand a moving particle has an associated aether wave is absurd. > > > > > > My method for that independent determination is, beside the absurd > > > > nonsense of QM, a particle travels a single path and waves propagate > > > > available paths. > > > > But a C-60 molecule is neither a particle or a wave. > > > Just SAYING the C-60 molecule is a particle doesn't make it so. > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > Or do you just CHOOSE based on what you LIKE? > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave. > >
From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 01:17 On Feb 16, 12:56 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4fd7fda0-5219-4728-89ed-00407156d2cb(a)k11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 15, 1:08 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:285f58e2-a468-4257-8051-fa7249dc0e72(a)m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com.... > > On Feb 15, 12:35 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > As I have said at least three times now, > > > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether. > > > > ____________________________________ > > > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So > > > > why > > > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, > > > > and > > > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that > > > > procedure determine the speed of the ether? > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > > As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the speed of > > > the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't > > > measure your speed relative to the aether. > > > > Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for a > > > fifth time? > > > > ______________________________________ > > > I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the ether. > > > You > > > measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and the > > > difference is your speed relative to the ether. That is because > > > according > > > to > > > you, light moves at a constant speed relative to the ether. So if you > > > measure the speed of light, and subtract if from c, that must give you > > > your > > > speed relative to the ether. > > > > So say you measure that light is moving at 2 x 10^8 m/s relative to you. > > > We > > > know it is moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s relative to the ether, therefore you > > > are > > > moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s - 2 x 10^8 m/s = 1 x 10^8 m/s relative to the > > > ether. > > > > Why doesn't that procedure determine your speed relative to the ether? > > > Not sure this link will work, but this is a link to the two posts I > > made having to do with the train and the embankment and the time on > > the clocks and the lightning strikes. > > > I realize you are not going to understand what I have written, but > > this is why the light is not detected at other than 'c' for either the > > Observers on the embankment or the Observers on the train: > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre... > > > _____________________________________________ > > I didn't ask about trains, or embankments, or anything like that. I asked > > you why you can't measure the relative speed of the ether by the simple > > process I described above. Why can't you? Or can you? > > In order to answer the question I used Einstein's train gedanken with > water/aether at rest with respect to the embankment. > > _________________________ > You didn't answer the question. Why doesn't the procedure I have described > above provide the relative speed of the ether? Or does it? It doesn't. You will have to go back and read the posts you refuse to read in order to understand why.
From: BURT on 16 Feb 2010 01:17 On Feb 15, 10:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 4:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:29 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every > > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits > > > > > > > > > > > > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the > > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern. > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated > > > > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave? > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having > > > > > > > > > > > > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the > > > > > > > > > > > greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling > > > > > > > > > > > and unable to answer such a simple question. > > > > > > > > > > > > Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically > > > > > > > > > > > behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been > > > > > > > > > > > willing to answer this question and their answer was the future > > > > > > > > > > > determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > > > > > > > slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits > > > > > > > > > > > in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense, > > > > > > > > > > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you > > > > > > > > > > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC? > > > > > > > > > > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is > > > > > > > > > > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still > > > > > > > > > > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving > > > > > > > > > > toward the observer. > > > > > > > > > > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this > > > > > > > > > > statement is absurd nonsense or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > but you do > > > > > > > > > > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question. > > > > > > > > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle > > > > > > > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties > > > > > > > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these > > > > > > > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of > > > > > > > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects > > > > > > > > called quantum objects. > > > > > > > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are > > > > > > > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. > > > > > > > > You just assert that it is so. > > > > > > > > > > and as such it always > > > > > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically > > > > > > > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical > > > > > > > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the > > > > > > > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single > > > > > > > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation > > > > > > > > > of QM for now. > > > > > > > > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits > > > > > > > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60 > > > > > > > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon > > > > > > > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will > > > > > > > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being, > > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. > > > > > > > > > > That is absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without > > > > > > > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and > > > > > > > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting > > > > > > > > this or asserting that. > > > > > > > > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to > > > > > > > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't > > > > > > > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you > > > > > > > > > choose to believe. > > > > > > > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all. > > > > > > > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what > > > > > > > > is absurd nonsense and what is not. > > > > > > > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so > > > > > > > > what you CHOOSE to believe. > > > > > > > > That's called faith, not science. > > > > > > > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith > > > > > > > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium > > > > > > > is material or believing the future determines the past? > > > > > > > You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding. > > > > > > Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical > > > > > material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is > > > > > displaced by matter. > > > > > > The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense. > > > > > Sorry, but just SAYING it's absurd nonsense doesn't make it absurd > > > > nonsense. > > > > We've been around and around and around the block on this and you are > > > > still too dense to figure it out. > > > > How do you KNOW it's absurd nonsense, other than just SAYING it's > > > > absurd nonsense. > > > > If you don't have a method for independently determining that, then > > > > it's just an empty assertion. > > > > > > > That's the point. You have to have an independent method for > > > > > > *checking* which of the two statements is more likely. > > > > > > > What's your method for that independent determination? > > > > > > My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors > > > > > in every double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > Bullshit, and we've been around and around and around on this too. > > > > Your SAYING it doesn't make it so. > > > > Just out of curiosity, why do you and other knowledgable people waste > > > your time trying to explain things to people like mpc755? He's > > > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly > > > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little > > > capability to deal with the real world around him. The kind of > > > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond > > > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world-- > > > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad, > > > really. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for > > > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life? > > > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and > > > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up > > > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have. I really > > > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think > > > they're mentally healthy enough. And I gather that after years of > > > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing. > > > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them? > > > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious. > > > Sometimes I ask myself the same question. > > Did you notice the poster you're responding to refuses to answer my > question as to the validity of your 'understanding' of the behaviors > in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is due to the future > determining the past? > > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The big waves are all comming from the little waves. It is all the same wavelength for subatomic or atomic. Their small waves can't fit through two slits under any condition. Pure ather reveals the large universal wave that is not even manifest outside of this experiment. God has infered the truth of the wave nature of the subatomic by something much larger that we have access to. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 01:19
On Feb 16, 12:57 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:70e0e369-7438-4571-b8c6-43b05ca13546(a)h12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 15, 1:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:cc37a395-3b16-4471-9964-d9db63246254(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com.... > > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > As I have said at least three times now, > > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether. > > > ____________________________________ > > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So > > > why > > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, > > > and > > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that > > > procedure determine the speed of the ether? > > > How do you measure the speed of light and how do you determine it is > > different from 'c'? Are you using a mirror or synchronized clocks? > > > _______________________________ > > Use whatever measuring apparatus you like. > > > What you are incapable of understanding is everything is under the > > effects of the aether. As I said in one of my original posts which it > > would help you understand the point I am making. The atomic clocks the > > Observers on the train are using are offset because of their state > > with respect to the aether. > > > So, I will ask you again. How is the light to be measured? > > > ________________________________ > > You must already have some means of measuring light speed, or you couldn't > > claim the speed was constant relative to the ether. Use that. > > It is all explained in the posts you refuse to read. > > ________________________ > Read them all. Didn't see it, sorry. Perhaps you could repost your answer.. > Tx Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. Think of the train and the embankment in Einstein's train gedanken to be filled with water. Consider the water to be at rest with respect to the embankment. Consider the clocks on the train to consist of paddles for the second hand. Let's have three Observers on the embankment all standing at M and they synchronize their clocks. Now, have two of the Observers walk to A and B from M. As two of the Observers walk towards A and B they are walking through the water. This increases the water pressure on the paddle and their clocks 'tick' slower than the Observer at M. Once the Observers get to A and B they stop and now their clocks 'tick' at the same rate as the clock at M, even though if you could see the time on all three clocks simultaneously the clocks at A and B would be slightly behind the clock at M. There are three Observers on the train at M'. Since the train is moving through the water the clocks on the train are already 'ticking' slower than the clocks on the embankment due to the increase the water pressure the clocks are under because the clocks are moving relative to the water while the clocks on the embankment are at rest with respect to the water. The three Observers on the train synchronize their clocks. Two of the Observers start walking towards A' and B'. The Observer walking towards B' will have his clock 'tick' the slowest as they walk because their clock not only has to deal with the train moving through the water but their clock also has to deal with the additional rate at which the clock is moving relative to the water because the Observer walking towards B' is walking against the flow of the water. The Observer walking towards A' is walking with the flow of water and their clock will actually tick faster than the clock which remains at M'. Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. The water propagates through the water at rest with respect to the embankment. The light from the lightning strikes arrives at M simultaneously. This correlates with the time on the clocks at A and B. The light from the lightning strikes at B/B' arrives at M' and then the light from the lightning strikes at A/A' arrives at M'. Now, if the Observers on the train do not know their state with respect to the water they will conclude the lightning strike at B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike at A/A'. This matches to what the clocks at B' and A' say occurred. The reason for this is because when the clock was walked to B' it was under additional water pressure and 'ticked' slower than the clock walked to A'. Let's use some numbers to try and make this less confusing. The three Observers on the train synchronize their clocks to be 12:00:00. Let's say it takes them one minute, as determined by an outside observer, to walk to A' and B'. Because the clock being walked to B' is under additional water pressure, when the Observer gets to B', their clock will read 12:00:59. The clock being walked to A', since it is under less water pressure and ticks faster, will read 12:01:01. Now, if the lightning strikes take place at this moment and the light from B/B' reaches M' and then the light from A/A' reaches M' all three Observers agree the lightning strike at B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike at A/A' because the clock at B/ B' read 12:00:59 and the clock at A/A' read 12:01:01 at the time of the lightning strikes. Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature. When the Observers arrive at A and B their clocks will be slightly behind the clock at M because the clocks moved relative to the aether at rest with respect to the embankment. Lets say the clock at M reads 12:01:00 and the clocks at A and B read 12:01:00.5. The Observers at A and B, using SR, know their clocks ticked slower than the clock at M and factoring this in the Observers at A and B reset their clocks accordingly to 12:01:00. If you could see all three clocks simultaneously all three will be the same time. Follow-up post: When the Observers arrive at A' and B' they also factor in the SR calculations based up their motion relative to the clock at M'. When the Observers arrive at A' and B' their clocks stated the time as 12:01:01.5 and 12:00:59.5, respectively. If the Observers at A' and B' assume the aether is at rest with respect to the train they will conclude their clocks 'ticked' slower than the clock at M' as they walked towards A' and B' and moved relative to the train. As stated in the previous post this is not actually the case. The Observers at A' and B' reset their clocks to 12:01:01 and 12:00:59, respectively. If you could see the clocks at A', M', and B' simultaneously the clocks would read 12:01:01, 12:01:00, and 12:00:59, respectively. It is easy to understand how lightning strikes on the embankment arrive at the 'correct' times regardless if there are lightning strike at A and B which arrive at M or a single lightning strike at M which arrives at A and B. It is not as straight forward when discussing the lightning strikes on the train. Let's first assume the Observers on the train do not realize they are moving relative to the water. Lightning strikes at A/ A' and B/B' determined to be simultaneous by the Observer at M on the embankment will occur at A' at 12:01:01 and at B' at 12:00:59. The train is moving relative to the water the light waves propagate through. The light from B' is flowing with the water relative to the train and the light from A' is flowing against the water relative to the train. The light from B' will arrive prior to the light from A'. When the three Observers on the train discuss when the lightning strikes occurred, they are all in agreement the lightning strike at B' occurred prior to the lightning strike at A'. If there is a single lightning strike at M' at 12:01:01. The light waves propagating towards B' are propagating against the flow of water relative to the train and the light waves propagating towards A' are propagating with the flow of water relative to the train. Let's assume it takes two seconds for the light waves to reach B' and one second for the light waves to reach A'. When the light waves reach the Observers at A' and B' both of their clocks read 12:01:02. When the three Observers discuss when the lightning strike occurred at M', they are all in agreement the lightning strike at M' occurred at 12:01:01. Now, again for the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are moving relative to the water the light waves propagate through and factor this in when determining when the lightning strikes occurred in nature, the Observers on the train, and in fact any Observer in any frame of reference, will all arrive at the same conclusion as to when the lightning strikes occurred in nature. |