A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 11:41 On Feb 18, 9:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 7:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 16, 6:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 16, 10:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > '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'. > > > > > > It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe. > > > > > What I choose to believe > > > > It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe. > > > Since 'you' do not understand what is occurring in nature in a double > > slit experiment 'you' invented a new type of object. Obviously, this > > was unnecessary and a mistake. > > On what basis is it a mistake? How can you tell when the > identification of a new object type is a mistake? > Because the more correct answer than the future determining the past in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is the moving C-60 molecule, a particle of matter, physically travels a single path and the associated aether displacement wave propagates the available paths. > > The particle has a physical aether > > wave. so. the new type of object was a mistake but for whatever > > 'reasoning' beyond the more correct explanation of what is occurring > > in nature, 'you' insist a particle of matter is able to create an > > interference pattern in and of itself in a double slit experiment. > > > This state of denial you choose to exist in has now forced you to > > choose to believe the future determines the past. > > > A moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement > > wave. > > > > > is matter and the aether are different states > > > > of the same material. What I choose to believe is a moving C-60 > > > > molecule and its associated aether displacement wave are a 'one > > > > something'. With this understanding of nature I do not need to invent > > > > a new type of object or choose to believe the future determines the > > > > past. My choices allow for a better understanding of nature than > > > > yours. > > > > > > > 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 18 Feb 2010 11:43 On Feb 18, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 16, 6:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 16, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > And you take his refusal to answer you to be assent to your claim that > > > > > it's absurd? > > > > > Yes. > > > > Good for you. You're a nutjob. Enjoy your medications. > > > Of course the posters refusal to answer the question shows they think > > your notion of the C-60 molecule entering one or multiple slits > > depending upon detectors being placed at the exits or not in the > > future is absurd. > > So if people ignore you, then they are agreeing with you? > Why don't you ask the poster directly, and not make any conclusion > until you have an answer? > Or do you make up answers in the absence of evidence? Why yes, yes you > do. > > > > > Why wouldn't the poster simply respond with a 'yes' if they agreed > > with your absurd nonsense? The poster's non-answer demonstrates they > > suffer from delusional denial just like you do. > > So a non-answer means "no"? > > Nice. So if nobody responds to you at all, you'll take that as > implicit agreement with everything you say? > > Have you had a change in medication lately? > The other posters says they are ignoring my posts when it comes to their having to respond to the future determining the past being the reason for the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment with C-60 molecule and then the poster asks a question as to the speed of light with respect to objects moving with respect to the aether. Either the poster has a short term memory loss issue or the poster knows the future does not determine the past. > > > > A C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated aether > > displacement wave. The displacement wave enters and exits the > > available slits and creates interference when exiting the slits. The > > interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detectors > > at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated > > displacement wave (the waves are turned into chop) and there is no > > interference. > > > > > > > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also. > > > > > > On what basis would he realize that? You don't have a basis either. > > > > > You just make the empty assertion that it's "absurd, absurd, absurd, > > > > > just absurd nonsense". Empty assertion. > > > > > If the poster agreed with you that the future determines the past why > > > > didn't he just respond stating so? The posters silence is deafening.. > >
From: mpalenik on 18 Feb 2010 11:47 On Feb 18, 11:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 17, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 16, 6:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 16, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > And you take his refusal to answer you to be assent to your claim that > > > > > > it's absurd? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > Good for you. You're a nutjob. Enjoy your medications. > > > > Of course the posters refusal to answer the question shows they think > > > your notion of the C-60 molecule entering one or multiple slits > > > depending upon detectors being placed at the exits or not in the > > > future is absurd. > > > So if people ignore you, then they are agreeing with you? > > Why don't you ask the poster directly, and not make any conclusion > > until you have an answer? > > Or do you make up answers in the absence of evidence? Why yes, yes you > > do. > > > > Why wouldn't the poster simply respond with a 'yes' if they agreed > > > with your absurd nonsense? The poster's non-answer demonstrates they > > > suffer from delusional denial just like you do. > > > So a non-answer means "no"? > > > Nice. So if nobody responds to you at all, you'll take that as > > implicit agreement with everything you say? > > > Have you had a change in medication lately? > > The other posters says they are ignoring my posts when it comes to > their having to respond to the future determining the past being the > reason for the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment with > C-60 molecule and then the poster asks a question as to the speed of > light with respect to objects moving with respect to the aether. > > Either the poster has a short term memory loss issue or the poster > knows the future does not determine the past. > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated aether > > > displacement wave. The displacement wave enters and exits the > > > available slits and creates interference when exiting the slits. The > > > interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detectors > > > at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated > > > displacement wave (the waves are turned into chop) and there is no > > > interference. > > > > > > > > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also. > > > > > > > On what basis would he realize that? You don't have a basis either. > > > > > > You just make the empty assertion that it's "absurd, absurd, absurd, > > > > > > just absurd nonsense". Empty assertion. > > > > > > If the poster agreed with you that the future determines the past why > > > > > didn't he just respond stating so? The posters silence is deafening. > > mpc755, I do not agree with anything you have said on this newsgroup ever about any subject. Based on your posts, however, I don't believe it's possible to have a rational discussion with you, so I am not going to. Do not take that as a sign of my implicit agreement with what you say.
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 11:48 On Feb 18, 9:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 7:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 16, 6:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 16, 10:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > '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'. > > > > > > It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe. > > > > > What I choose to believe > > > > It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe. > > > Since 'you' do not understand what is occurring in nature in a double > > slit experiment 'you' invented a new type of object. Obviously, this > > was unnecessary and a mistake. > > On what basis is it a mistake? How can you tell when the > identification of a new object type is a mistake? > On the basis a new type of object is not required and because the more correct answer than the future determining the past, which you are required to believe in order to justify the new type of object, in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is the moving C-60 molecule, a particle of matter, physically travels a single path and the associated aether displacement wave propagates the available paths. > > The particle has a physical aether > > wave. so. the new type of object was a mistake but for whatever > > 'reasoning' beyond the more correct explanation of what is occurring > > in nature, 'you' insist a particle of matter is able to create an > > interference pattern in and of itself in a double slit experiment. > > > This state of denial you choose to exist in has now forced you to > > choose to believe the future determines the past. > > > A moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement > > wave. > > > > > is matter and the aether are different states > > > > of the same material. What I choose to believe is a moving C-60 > > > > molecule and its associated aether displacement wave are a 'one > > > > something'. With this understanding of nature I do not need to invent > > > > a new type of object or choose to believe the future determines the > > > > past. My choices allow for a better understanding of nature than > > > > yours. > > > > > > > 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 18 Feb 2010 11:51
On Feb 18, 11:47 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 11:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 16, 6:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > And you take his refusal to answer you to be assent to your claim that > > > > > > > it's absurd? > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Good for you. You're a nutjob. Enjoy your medications. > > > > > Of course the posters refusal to answer the question shows they think > > > > your notion of the C-60 molecule entering one or multiple slits > > > > depending upon detectors being placed at the exits or not in the > > > > future is absurd. > > > > So if people ignore you, then they are agreeing with you? > > > Why don't you ask the poster directly, and not make any conclusion > > > until you have an answer? > > > Or do you make up answers in the absence of evidence? Why yes, yes you > > > do. > > > > > Why wouldn't the poster simply respond with a 'yes' if they agreed > > > > with your absurd nonsense? The poster's non-answer demonstrates they > > > > suffer from delusional denial just like you do. > > > > So a non-answer means "no"? > > > > Nice. So if nobody responds to you at all, you'll take that as > > > implicit agreement with everything you say? > > > > Have you had a change in medication lately? > > > The other posters says they are ignoring my posts when it comes to > > their having to respond to the future determining the past being the > > reason for the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment with > > C-60 molecule and then the poster asks a question as to the speed of > > light with respect to objects moving with respect to the aether. > > > Either the poster has a short term memory loss issue or the poster > > knows the future does not determine the past. > > > > > A C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated aether > > > > displacement wave. The displacement wave enters and exits the > > > > available slits and creates interference when exiting the slits. The > > > > interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detectors > > > > at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated > > > > displacement wave (the waves are turned into chop) and there is no > > > > interference. > > > > > > > > > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also. > > > > > > > > On what basis would he realize that? You don't have a basis either. > > > > > > > You just make the empty assertion that it's "absurd, absurd, absurd, > > > > > > > just absurd nonsense". Empty assertion. > > > > > > > If the poster agreed with you that the future determines the past why > > > > > > didn't he just respond stating so? The posters silence is deafening. > > mpc755, I do not agree with anything you have said on this newsgroup > ever about any subject. Based on your posts, however, I don't believe > it's possible to have a rational discussion with you, so I am not > going to. Do not take that as a sign of my implicit agreement with > what you say. I'm not asking you to agree with anything I have said. But the fact that you are unwilling to say that, yes, you believe the C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slits depending upon their being detectors at the exits to the slits, or not, when the C-60 molecule gets there in the future speaks volumes in terms of the absurdity to which you think that is. You silence is deafening. |