Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 12:36
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 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.

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.

A moving C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated
aether displacement wave.
From: Ste on 15 Feb 2010 13:40
On 15 Feb, 17:27, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 6:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Feb, 23:46, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 14, 2:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not really
> > > > interested in learning geometry, or talking about completely
> > > > hypothetical "grooves in spacetime".
>
> > > And as many people have repeatedly tried to explain to you, the answer
> > > simply is geometry.  When you accellerate, you rotate in spacetime.
> > > Why?  Because that's what accelleration means.  That's what it means
> > > to be travelling with a certain velocity with respect to something
> > > else.  It means that you're both "facing different directions".  Every
> > > effect predicted by relativity can be explained simply by the fact
> > > that two different observers at different speeds are "facing different
> > > directions" in spacetime--because that's what it means to be moving
> > > with respect to something else.  It means that you have a different t
> > > and x axis.
>
> > Mark, if you consider this an answer, then you simply haven't
> > understood the question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> And if you think there's more to it than that, then you haven't
> understood the answer.  The above explains everything about relativity
> and there's no ambiguity when you understand it.
>
> Going back to the fitting a ladder into a barn analogy, it's like you
> have a ladder to long to fit into the barn, you turn it at an angle,
> and it fits, and then someone starts asking you what "physically"
> happened to the ladder.  You say "well, it got rotated, so it's
> shorter in the horizontal direction".  Then the person keeps demanding
> a physical explanation, and you say you just rotated the ladder, so it
> takes up a bit more space in the vertical and less in the horizontal
> but the total length of the ladder didn't change.  And then the person
> you're talking to says that he refuses to believe that mathematical
> things like angles can affect the things that you can put the ladder
> inside of  So then, you try to say that it's like trying to pack a box
> and turning all of the objects so they fit into the box the best way.
> And then he says "well, there's no doubt that rotating objects is
> useful for packing boxes but it doesn't explain what physically
> happened to the ladder," so you try to explain one more time and he
> says you didn't understand the question.  And when you tell him that
> you can even *calculate* the length and height of the ladder after
> rotating it, he says that's an abstract mathematical question and has
> no bearing on what's physically happening.
>
> Velocity is rotation, just rotation in a way that you're not used to
> being able to rotate.  There's nothing else to explain.  You
> accellerate something, it rotates.  That's a physical answer.

But you could give a simple demonstration of spatial rotation. Indeed,
people knew how to rotate things in space long before formal geometry
was ever developed.

But "rotation into time" is totally meaningless in the sense that it's
supposed to have any analogy with spatial rotation. It's a bit like
"light follows a groove in space" - the supposed concrete analogy
actually introduces more confusion.

I mean, if this "rotation into time" means "at any one instant, you
cannot see the whole item", then it would be easier just to say that.
On the other hand, if it means "the item gets physically shorter in
the direction of travel", then it would be easier just to say that.
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 13:44
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.

>
> A moving C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated
> aether displacement wave.

From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 13:51
On Feb 15, 12:40 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 17:27, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 6:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 14 Feb, 23:46, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 14, 2:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not really
> > > > > interested in learning geometry, or talking about completely
> > > > > hypothetical "grooves in spacetime".
>
> > > > And as many people have repeatedly tried to explain to you, the answer
> > > > simply is geometry.  When you accellerate, you rotate in spacetime.
> > > > Why?  Because that's what accelleration means.  That's what it means
> > > > to be travelling with a certain velocity with respect to something
> > > > else.  It means that you're both "facing different directions".  Every
> > > > effect predicted by relativity can be explained simply by the fact
> > > > that two different observers at different speeds are "facing different
> > > > directions" in spacetime--because that's what it means to be moving
> > > > with respect to something else.  It means that you have a different t
> > > > and x axis.
>
> > > Mark, if you consider this an answer, then you simply haven't
> > > understood the question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > And if you think there's more to it than that, then you haven't
> > understood the answer.  The above explains everything about relativity
> > and there's no ambiguity when you understand it.
>
> > Going back to the fitting a ladder into a barn analogy, it's like you
> > have a ladder to long to fit into the barn, you turn it at an angle,
> > and it fits, and then someone starts asking you what "physically"
> > happened to the ladder.  You say "well, it got rotated, so it's
> > shorter in the horizontal direction".  Then the person keeps demanding
> > a physical explanation, and you say you just rotated the ladder, so it
> > takes up a bit more space in the vertical and less in the horizontal
> > but the total length of the ladder didn't change.  And then the person
> > you're talking to says that he refuses to believe that mathematical
> > things like angles can affect the things that you can put the ladder
> > inside of  So then, you try to say that it's like trying to pack a box
> > and turning all of the objects so they fit into the box the best way.
> > And then he says "well, there's no doubt that rotating objects is
> > useful for packing boxes but it doesn't explain what physically
> > happened to the ladder," so you try to explain one more time and he
> > says you didn't understand the question.  And when you tell him that
> > you can even *calculate* the length and height of the ladder after
> > rotating it, he says that's an abstract mathematical question and has
> > no bearing on what's physically happening.
>
> > Velocity is rotation, just rotation in a way that you're not used to
> > being able to rotate.  There's nothing else to explain.  You
> > accellerate something, it rotates.  That's a physical answer.
>
> But you could give a simple demonstration of spatial rotation. Indeed,
> people knew how to rotate things in space long before formal geometry
> was ever developed.

And so because it is older and more familiar, then it is acceptable,
whereas something that is newer and less familiar is less acceptable?

>
> But "rotation into time" is totally meaningless in the sense that it's
> supposed to have any analogy with spatial rotation.

Analogies are always limited. When you say that house walls are like
bridge piers, you have to identify in what ways they are alike and
what ways they are not alike. To people for whom the analogy is
familiar, the distinction is easy. For people for whom it is not
familiar, it is easy to get confused and think they are not the same
at all.

Likewise, you have a limited sense of what "rotation" means, and you
don't have any visual concept of what general rotation means --
because you are limited to the spatial context. If you had a better
understanding of the *essence* of rotation that is not limited to the
specific instance, then the analogy would make much more sense. In a
way, you suffer the same limitation of someone who only thinks of
mammals as being tetrapod land animals. For this person, who has a
limited understanding of what mammals are, the idea of bats and whales
being mammals would just make no sense at all, because they aren't
tetrapod land animals.

> It's a bit like
> "light follows a groove in space" - the supposed concrete analogy
> actually introduces more confusion.
>
> I mean, if this "rotation into time" means "at any one instant, you
> cannot see the whole item",

No, it does not mean that.

> then it would be easier just to say that.
> On the other hand, if it means "the item gets physically shorter in
> the direction of travel", then it would be easier just to say that.

No, it does not mean that either.

Stop trying to pigeonhole things into things you PRESENTLY understand,
and try to expand your understanding to include what it REALLY means.

PD
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 14:05
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?


>
>
> > A moving C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated
> > aether displacement wave.
>
>

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights