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 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.
From: mpalenik on 18 Feb 2010 11:56
On Feb 18, 11:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I understand quantum mechanics, PD understands quantum mechanics, you
clearly do not understand quantum mechanics. And it's pointless
trying to discuss it in this ambiguous popular science-lingo. I also
don't believe that you would properly understand any response I could
give you.

The presence of a detector will determine whether or not there is an
interference pattern. This is due to how the wave function collapses
as it passes through the slits. This determines whether the particle
passes through one slit or both. There are no "aether-displacement
waves". This is all I'm saying on the subject. I'm not going to get
sucked into a pointless discussion.
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 11:59
On Feb 18, 2:30 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8e724cb5-1db0-47c2-aa3d-5ed7150295ea(a)f15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 12:40 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:c7b417f4-cdc4-414a-a24c-3f2e7fc4c67d(a)t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com....
> > On Feb 16, 11:55 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:3c8112b0-e86e-4fdb-a9f6-6c390200aa01(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 16, 9:26 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > My tabletop is not in a spaceship, and there is no train on the
> > > > > > spaceship.
>
> > > > > > Here is my question. Lets just take the first half this time:
>
> > > > > > 1. We place two atomic clocks on a tabletop at the centre of a 1
> > > > > > metre
> > > > > > ruler. We separate them very slowly so they are at either end of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > metre ruler. We record the time taken (according to the clocks)
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > light
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > travel 1 metre in a vacuum. Will the speed of light measured in
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > manner
> > > > > > be c or some other value?
>
> > > > > Is the aether at rest with respect to the table top?
>
> > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether.
>
> > > > The the tabletop is the train.
>
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > No, a tabletop is a tabletop. Its not a train. And you haven't
> > > > answered
> > > > my
> > > > question. Will the speed of light measured in this manner be c or some
> > > > other
> > > > value? It is a pretty simple question. Why won't you answer it?
>
> > > I have answered it several times. If you want to understand how the
> > > clocks on the tabletop behave read my posts and replaced 'train' with
> > > 'tabletop'.
>
> > > _______________________________________
> > > Or, you could simply answer my question. Its pretty simple. Will the
> > > speed
> > > be measured as c, or some different value.
>
> > > I will make it easy for you:
>
> > > If the earth is moving at velocity v with respect to the ether, and we
> > > perform the very simple experiment above, then will the measured speed
> > > of
> > > light in a vacuum be measured as c in a laboratory on earth?
>
> > > Well?
>
> > Replace 'earth' with 'train' and read my responses if you want to know
> > the answer.
>
> > ____________________________
> > So you refuse to answer (again). Shows how much confidence you have in
> > your
> > own theories.
>
> I have a great deal of confidence in my theory but why am I going to
> waste my time having to go back through my posts and replace 'train'
> with 'tabletop', or replace 'train' with 'Earth'?
>
> __________________________________
> Nobody is asking you to. I am asking you a very simple question about your
> theory. Say the earth is moving at speed v relative to the ether. The speed
> of light in the direction the earth is travelling is measured in a
> laboratory on earth. What is its measured speed?
>
> If you think the clocks being moved on a moving tabletop or the clocks
> being moved on the flat bed cars of a moving train makes a difference
> then this 'conversation' is pointless.
>
> _________________________________
> There are in fact 4 possibilities:
>
> a) c
> b) c+v
> c) c-v
> d) something else.
>
> You could just answer 'a', 'b', 'c' or 'd'. That is only typing a single
> character; that's not too much work for you, is it?

If you want to understand how the Observers on an object moving at 'v'
with respect to the aether determine the speed of light based upon
'synchronized' clocks, read my posts discussing the simultaneity of
lightning strikes as determined by Observers on a train.

Simply answering the question above is not going to get us anywhere.
You have to understand what is physically occurring in nature to the
atomic clocks and the light with respect to the aether in order to
understand how it is the Observers on the train 'measure' the speed of
light.
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 12:04
On Feb 18, 11:56 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I understand quantum mechanics, PD understands quantum mechanics, you
> clearly do not understand quantum mechanics.  And it's pointless
> trying to discuss it in this ambiguous popular science-lingo.  I also
> don't believe that you would properly understand any response I could
> give you.
>
> The presence of a detector will determine whether or not there is an
> interference pattern.  This is due to how the wave function collapses
> as it passes through the slits.  This determines whether the particle
> passes through one slit or both.  There are no "aether-displacement
> waves".  This is all I'm saying on the subject.  I'm not going to get
> sucked into a pointless discussion.

The fact that you will not answer the question speaks volumes.

I asked you how it is the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a
single slit and how it is the C-60 molecule is able to create an
interference pattern on the screen when the detectors are removed from
the exits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s).

Obfuscation, denial, delusion. In other words, more of the same from
the Copenhageners.

The question is very simple. The other poster believes the C-60
molecule enters one slit or multiple slits depending on their being
detectors at the exits, or not, in the future.

Do you agree with this?

Instead of posting the absurd nonsense above you could have simply
responded with a 'yes' or 'no'.

Of course that is all you are willing to say on the subject because
you know the future does not determine the past and to think such is
absurd nonsense.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
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