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: mpalenik on 18 Feb 2010 12:24
On Feb 18, 12:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> You said, "This is due to how the wave function collapses as it passes
> through the slits".
>
> Is the 'wave-function' physically passing through one slit or multiple
> slits or is the wave-function not physical and what occurs in a double
> slit experiment is magic?

It's magic, and it turns out that it's actually fluffy white bunnies
that create the interference pattern out of the carrots that they
harvest out of the enchanted forest.

I told you, I already know that you don't have the capacity to
understand any rational arguments I make that relate to actual quantum
mechanics. So, if you'd like to discuss the fluffy white bunnies some
more, I'll be glad to comply. But I am not going to try to discuss
physics with you. It would be a gigantic waste of my time.
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 12:31
On Feb 18, 12:24 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > You said, "This is due to how the wave function collapses as it passes
> > through the slits".
>
> > Is the 'wave-function' physically passing through one slit or multiple
> > slits or is the wave-function not physical and what occurs in a double
> > slit experiment is magic?
>
> It's magic, and it turns out that it's actually fluffy white bunnies
> that create the interference pattern out of the carrots that they
> harvest out of the enchanted forest.
>
> I told you, I already know that you don't have the capacity to
> understand any rational arguments I make that relate to actual quantum
> mechanics.  So, if you'd like to discuss the fluffy white bunnies some
> more, I'll be glad to comply.  But I am not going to try to discuss
> physics with you.  It would be a gigantic waste of my time.

You are not discussing physics. You are discussing magic. You have no
idea what is occurring in a double slit experiment so you just label
the physical behaviors 'wave-function collapse' and stick your head in
the sand.

If you agree the future determines the past and the C-60 molecule
enters one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being,
detectors at the exits to the slits in the future why don't you just
say so?

Because you don't believe the future determines the past and
understand it to be absurd nonsense, that's why.
From: mpalenik on 18 Feb 2010 12:50
On Feb 18, 12:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:24 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 12:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > You said, "This is due to how the wave function collapses as it passes
> > > through the slits".
>
> > > Is the 'wave-function' physically passing through one slit or multiple
> > > slits or is the wave-function not physical and what occurs in a double
> > > slit experiment is magic?
>
> > It's magic, and it turns out that it's actually fluffy white bunnies
> > that create the interference pattern out of the carrots that they
> > harvest out of the enchanted forest.
>
> > I told you, I already know that you don't have the capacity to
> > understand any rational arguments I make that relate to actual quantum
> > mechanics.  So, if you'd like to discuss the fluffy white bunnies some
> > more, I'll be glad to comply.  But I am not going to try to discuss
> > physics with you.  It would be a gigantic waste of my time.
>
> You are not discussing physics. You are discussing magic. You have no
> idea what is occurring in a double slit experiment so you just label
> the physical behaviors 'wave-function collapse' and stick your head in
> the sand.

How dare you call the fluffy white bunnies magic. They're not going
to be happy when I tell them what you said!
From: PD on 18 Feb 2010 13:04
On Feb 18, 10:35 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The point is, your argument boils down to "the only people I see
> convinced of alternate dimensions are the people who believe in
> alternate dimensions," but that's a circular argument.  The only way
> for that to hold water would be if the people who believe in them had
> always believed in them.  Nobody is born knowing these things.  We all
> had to learn and change our opinions at some point.

Exactly. And the key here is the method by which one determines
whether one's opinion should be changed. It is the investigative
approach that must be agreed upon. If one wants to choose what
opinions to keep, regardless of that approach, then one removes
oneself from being advised by nature which opinions are right and
which are wrong.


> If your argument is that there are some people who will never be
> convinced, I completely agree with that.  There are also some people
> who will never be convinced of evolution.  And you could make the same
> argument "the only people who believe in evolution are the people who
> believe in evolution."  It's a circular argument and it means nothing.

From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 13:09
On Feb 18, 12:50 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:24 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 12:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 18, 12:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> > > > You said, "This is due to how the wave function collapses as it passes
> > > > through the slits".
>
> > > > Is the 'wave-function' physically passing through one slit or multiple
> > > > slits or is the wave-function not physical and what occurs in a double
> > > > slit experiment is magic?
>
> > > It's magic, and it turns out that it's actually fluffy white bunnies
> > > that create the interference pattern out of the carrots that they
> > > harvest out of the enchanted forest.
>
> > > I told you, I already know that you don't have the capacity to
> > > understand any rational arguments I make that relate to actual quantum
> > > mechanics.  So, if you'd like to discuss the fluffy white bunnies some
> > > more, I'll be glad to comply.  But I am not going to try to discuss
> > > physics with you.  It would be a gigantic waste of my time.
>
> > You are not discussing physics. You are discussing magic. You have no
> > idea what is occurring in a double slit experiment so you just label
> > the physical behaviors 'wave-function collapse' and stick your head in
> > the sand.
>
> How dare you call the fluffy white bunnies magic.  They're not going
> to be happy when I tell them what you said!

Does the future determine the past?

Your silence is deafening. Your silence is evidence you understand the
concept of the future determining the past is absurd nonsense.

It's Ok. You're correct. The future does not determine the past and it
is absurd nonsense to believe it does.

A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
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