Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Anitmatter in Thunderbolts??
Next: Why Pendulum as a clock do not shows, what General Theory of Relativity predicts?
From: Huang on 6 Dec 2009 15:38 On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 12:35 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 6, 8:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 6, 12:02 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 5, 10:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 5, 11:01 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Choosing to believe a moving C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, > > > > > > > enters, travels through, and exits multiple slits simultaneously > > > > > > > without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in > > > > > > > momentum, is a more correct physical description of the observed > > > > > > > behaviors of C-60 molecules in a double slit experiment vs. the moving > > > > > > > C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether is incorrect. > > > > > > > C60 is neither wave nor particle. It is indeterminate whether it is > > > > > > one or the other. > > > > > > > If you ASK "which way" then nature will tell you, simply because you > > > > > > modified the very nature of the experiment by asking such a question > > > > > > in the first place. It behaves like a particle because that is the > > > > > > FORMAT of the output required by the question "which way?" . > > > > > > > If you do NOT ask which way, then it behaves like a wave. > > > > > > > The experiments and the evidence has been repeated thousands of times > > > > > > in labs all over the world. C60 is not a wave, and is not a particle. > > > > > > It is indeterminately either one or the other. And if you ask a > > > > > > certain way, you will get a corresponding output. > > > > > > > The only way to model this sensibly is by using a composition of > > > > > > existent magnitudes and nonexistent magnitudes. THAT makes sense where > > > > > > nothing else can. > > > > > > Nonsense. The particle is on a deterministic path. The C-60 molecule > > > > > creates a displacement wave in the aether. > > > > > > It is no different than a boat in the water passing through one of > > > > > multiple slits. The bow wave the boat creates in the water enters and > > > > > exits the slits ahead of the boat. The waves that exit the slits the > > > > > boat does not travel through will pass out ahead of the path the boat > > > > > is traveling and create interference with all of the waves that are > > > > > exiting all of the slits ahead of the boat. This interference will > > > > > alter the direction the boat travels. > > > > > > If you place buoys at the exits to all of the slits and the buoys turn > > > > > the bow wave into chop and interference does not occur and the > > > > > direction the boat travels is not altered, do you say the buoys > > > > > represent ASKING 'which way' so the boat behaved like a particle? If > > > > > you do not place any buoys at the exits to the slits and the bow wave > > > > > exiting all of the slits creates interference and alters the direction > > > > > the boat travels, do you say since there being no buoys represents not > > > > > ASKING 'which way' so the boat behaves like a wave? Of course not, you > > > > > realize the boat is creating a bow wave in the water. There is a boat > > > > > and a wave. The double slit experiment performed with C-60 molecules > > > > > is no different than a boat in the water. The C-60 molecule creates a > > > > > displacement wave in the aether. There is a C-60 molecule and a wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > You dont have to post 10 times, you could just post IN ALL CAPS and > > > > get the same effect. > > > > > Consider two magnitudes a and b, a exists and has magnitude 10, b does > > > > not exist and has magnitude 1. > > > > > Now compose these magnitudes. You will notice a couple things right > > > > away : > > > > [1] It is indeterminate whether the combined magnitude is continuous > > > > or discrete. > > > > [2] It is indeterminate whether you multiplied or added these things a > > > > and b. > > > > [3] This situation is exactly analogous to a probabilistic problem > > > > from orthodox mathematics, just worded differently. > > > > [4] Provides a mechanism for modelling things like wave-particle > > > > duality. > > > > [5] Provides a mechanism for modelling dark matter, gravity, and all > > > > kinds of things. > > > > [6] Provides a way to say that determinacy is equivalent to > > > > indeterminacy. > > > > [7] Explains the fundamental essence of mathematics as a kind of > > > > absolute truth, nonexistence is absolute falsehood and is singular, > > > > and in the middle you have conjecture. Truth, falsehood, and > > > > conjecture in the middle. It all fits very nicely. > > > > [8] I could go on, and on, and on.... > > > > > Look at it this way. I ask you to get a random quantity of rope from a > > > > bag, you cannot see inside the nag. You dont know if the pieces in the > > > > bag are discrete chunks, or a continuous spool. > > > > > Now let it be indeterminate whether the rope is continuous or > > > > discrete. > > > > > If I ASK how may pieces, then your answer MUST be discrete output and > > > > the rope behaved discretely. If I DO NOT ask how many pieces, then the > > > > output is forced to be continuous by default and you MUST produce a > > > > continuous random chunk of rope, the rope must behave as if > > > > continuous. > > > > > Wave particle duality is no different. Quit beating yourself up - the > > > > problem is solved. > > > > A double slit experiment is performed with a boat. All you know from > > > the experiment is where the boat is launched from and when there are > > > buoys placed at the exits to the slits the boat behaves the same as it > > > does in a single slit experiment and when there aren't buoys at the > > > exits to the slits and you perform the experiment over and over again, > > > the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore. > > > > You are adamant all there is in the experiment is a boat, the slits, > > > and the shore. You are unwilling or unable to understand water exists > > > and the moving boat is creating a bow wave in the water. > > > > You conclude when detectors are placed at the exits to the slits you > > > ASK 'which way' and the boat is a particle. > > > > You conclude when detectors are not placed at the exits to the slits > > > you do not ASK 'which way' and the boat is a wave. > > > > Choosing to believe water does not exist doesn't make your conclusions > > > any less incorrect. > > > > Wave particle duality: A moving body creates an aether wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > You are talking about aether waves, you do not need the concept of > > aether. You already have dimension and the concept of dimension works > > just fine for GR or anything else. I understand why people use the > > word aether, but it is not neccesary. > > > Dimension is a medium of wave propagation. I agree completely with > > what you are saying. But you dont need this aether stuff, all you need > > is dimension. > > > Dimension is a medium of wave propagation. > > > This view is highly amenable to formal modelling but you would need to > > compose existent magnitudes with nonexistent magnitudes. If you do > > that, then YES dimension becomes a medium of wave propagation and > > physics would actually be unified. > > > In many ways I DO agree with what you are saying, but you must realize > > that the only way to model it is by composing existent magnitudes with > > nonexistent magnitudes. Most people dont want to buy into that idea, > > regardless of how well it works, there is a cultural reluctance to > > these ideas which is completely based on human bias. > > My interpretation of modeling is mathematics. Mathematics is the judge > and jury as to the validity of a theory. But, mathematics is not > nature. I have not heard of magnitudes before but my guess as to what > you are implying is the 'magnitude' that something is a wave vs. the > 'magnitude' something is a particle. But I disagree completely with a > C-60 molecule being a wave at any magnitude. > > Now, if you want to re-interpret magnitude to include aether, then you > might have something. 'Dimension' is a mathematical construct, not > nature. The aether is necessary. The aether is physical. The aether is > required in order to have a more correct physical description of > nature. > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat > creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or > does water exist? > > A double slit experiment performed with C-60 molecules is evidence of > the existence of aether.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - A magnitude is a very simple idea. 5 liters, 20 centimeters, 6 miles, 2,000 watts...etc . These are all magnitudes. What I was referring to above was magnitudes of length. Quantities of dimension measured as length. If you have 10 meters which exists, and one meter which does not exist, you can compose them to obtain an existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, which has expected length 10. Any probabilistic problem can be reworded in terms of existential indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. Yes....all of these procedures are trivial. They have to be. Triviality is inherent to QM.
From: mpc755 on 6 Dec 2009 20:12 On Dec 6, 3:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 6, 12:35 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 6, 8:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 6, 12:02 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 5, 10:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 5, 11:01 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Choosing to believe a moving C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, > > > > > > > > enters, travels through, and exits multiple slits simultaneously > > > > > > > > without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in > > > > > > > > momentum, is a more correct physical description of the observed > > > > > > > > behaviors of C-60 molecules in a double slit experiment vs. the moving > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether is incorrect. > > > > > > > > C60 is neither wave nor particle. It is indeterminate whether it is > > > > > > > one or the other. > > > > > > > > If you ASK "which way" then nature will tell you, simply because you > > > > > > > modified the very nature of the experiment by asking such a question > > > > > > > in the first place. It behaves like a particle because that is the > > > > > > > FORMAT of the output required by the question "which way?" . > > > > > > > > If you do NOT ask which way, then it behaves like a wave. > > > > > > > > The experiments and the evidence has been repeated thousands of times > > > > > > > in labs all over the world. C60 is not a wave, and is not a particle. > > > > > > > It is indeterminately either one or the other. And if you ask a > > > > > > > certain way, you will get a corresponding output. > > > > > > > > The only way to model this sensibly is by using a composition of > > > > > > > existent magnitudes and nonexistent magnitudes. THAT makes sense where > > > > > > > nothing else can. > > > > > > > Nonsense. The particle is on a deterministic path. The C-60 molecule > > > > > > creates a displacement wave in the aether. > > > > > > > It is no different than a boat in the water passing through one of > > > > > > multiple slits. The bow wave the boat creates in the water enters and > > > > > > exits the slits ahead of the boat. The waves that exit the slits the > > > > > > boat does not travel through will pass out ahead of the path the boat > > > > > > is traveling and create interference with all of the waves that are > > > > > > exiting all of the slits ahead of the boat. This interference will > > > > > > alter the direction the boat travels. > > > > > > > If you place buoys at the exits to all of the slits and the buoys turn > > > > > > the bow wave into chop and interference does not occur and the > > > > > > direction the boat travels is not altered, do you say the buoys > > > > > > represent ASKING 'which way' so the boat behaved like a particle? If > > > > > > you do not place any buoys at the exits to the slits and the bow wave > > > > > > exiting all of the slits creates interference and alters the direction > > > > > > the boat travels, do you say since there being no buoys represents not > > > > > > ASKING 'which way' so the boat behaves like a wave? Of course not, you > > > > > > realize the boat is creating a bow wave in the water. There is a boat > > > > > > and a wave. The double slit experiment performed with C-60 molecules > > > > > > is no different than a boat in the water. The C-60 molecule creates a > > > > > > displacement wave in the aether. There is a C-60 molecule and a wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > You dont have to post 10 times, you could just post IN ALL CAPS and > > > > > get the same effect. > > > > > > Consider two magnitudes a and b, a exists and has magnitude 10, b does > > > > > not exist and has magnitude 1. > > > > > > Now compose these magnitudes. You will notice a couple things right > > > > > away : > > > > > [1] It is indeterminate whether the combined magnitude is continuous > > > > > or discrete. > > > > > [2] It is indeterminate whether you multiplied or added these things a > > > > > and b. > > > > > [3] This situation is exactly analogous to a probabilistic problem > > > > > from orthodox mathematics, just worded differently. > > > > > [4] Provides a mechanism for modelling things like wave-particle > > > > > duality. > > > > > [5] Provides a mechanism for modelling dark matter, gravity, and all > > > > > kinds of things. > > > > > [6] Provides a way to say that determinacy is equivalent to > > > > > indeterminacy. > > > > > [7] Explains the fundamental essence of mathematics as a kind of > > > > > absolute truth, nonexistence is absolute falsehood and is singular, > > > > > and in the middle you have conjecture. Truth, falsehood, and > > > > > conjecture in the middle. It all fits very nicely. > > > > > [8] I could go on, and on, and on.... > > > > > > Look at it this way. I ask you to get a random quantity of rope from a > > > > > bag, you cannot see inside the nag. You dont know if the pieces in the > > > > > bag are discrete chunks, or a continuous spool. > > > > > > Now let it be indeterminate whether the rope is continuous or > > > > > discrete. > > > > > > If I ASK how may pieces, then your answer MUST be discrete output and > > > > > the rope behaved discretely. If I DO NOT ask how many pieces, then the > > > > > output is forced to be continuous by default and you MUST produce a > > > > > continuous random chunk of rope, the rope must behave as if > > > > > continuous. > > > > > > Wave particle duality is no different. Quit beating yourself up - the > > > > > problem is solved. > > > > > A double slit experiment is performed with a boat. All you know from > > > > the experiment is where the boat is launched from and when there are > > > > buoys placed at the exits to the slits the boat behaves the same as it > > > > does in a single slit experiment and when there aren't buoys at the > > > > exits to the slits and you perform the experiment over and over again, > > > > the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore. > > > > > You are adamant all there is in the experiment is a boat, the slits, > > > > and the shore. You are unwilling or unable to understand water exists > > > > and the moving boat is creating a bow wave in the water. > > > > > You conclude when detectors are placed at the exits to the slits you > > > > ASK 'which way' and the boat is a particle. > > > > > You conclude when detectors are not placed at the exits to the slits > > > > you do not ASK 'which way' and the boat is a wave. > > > > > Choosing to believe water does not exist doesn't make your conclusions > > > > any less incorrect. > > > > > Wave particle duality: A moving body creates an aether wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > You are talking about aether waves, you do not need the concept of > > > aether. You already have dimension and the concept of dimension works > > > just fine for GR or anything else. I understand why people use the > > > word aether, but it is not neccesary. > > > > Dimension is a medium of wave propagation. I agree completely with > > > what you are saying. But you dont need this aether stuff, all you need > > > is dimension. > > > > Dimension is a medium of wave propagation. > > > > This view is highly amenable to formal modelling but you would need to > > > compose existent magnitudes with nonexistent magnitudes. If you do > > > that, then YES dimension becomes a medium of wave propagation and > > > physics would actually be unified. > > > > In many ways I DO agree with what you are saying, but you must realize > > > that the only way to model it is by composing existent magnitudes with > > > nonexistent magnitudes. Most people dont want to buy into that idea, > > > regardless of how well it works, there is a cultural reluctance to > > > these ideas which is completely based on human bias. > > > My interpretation of modeling is mathematics. Mathematics is the judge > > and jury as to the validity of a theory. But, mathematics is not > > nature. I have not heard of magnitudes before but my guess as to what > > you are implying is the 'magnitude' that something is a wave vs. the > > 'magnitude' something is a particle. But I disagree completely with a > > C-60 molecule being a wave at any magnitude. > > > Now, if you want to re-interpret magnitude to include aether, then you > > might have something. 'Dimension' is a mathematical construct, not > > nature. The aether is necessary. The aether is physical. The aether is > > required in order to have a more correct physical description of > > nature. > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat > > creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or > > does water exist? > > > A double slit experiment performed with C-60 molecules is evidence of > > the existence of aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > A magnitude is a very simple idea. 5 liters, 20 centimeters, 6 miles, > 2,000 watts...etc . These are all magnitudes. > > What I was referring to above was magnitudes of length. Quantities of > dimension measured as length. If you have 10 meters which exists, and > one meter which does not exist, you can compose them to obtain an > existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, which has expected > length 10. > > Any probabilistic problem can be reworded in terms of existential > indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. > > Yes....all of these procedures are trivial. They have to be. > Triviality is inherent to QM. A sentence like "existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, which has expected length 10" is nonsense. Same for one meter of length which does not exist. This is all due to the nonsense required in QM. QM requires all of this nonsense because it doesn't understand a moving body has an associated aether wave. Once you understand aether exists and is responsible for the wave portion of the observed behaviors in the double slit experiment, the nonsense goes away. I think QM is very, very, incorrect in how it describes nature. In Aether Displacement all of the nonsense goes away. When a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule, there is a moving C-60 molecule and the displacement wave it creates in the aether. A particle AND a wave. Let's back up a minute. Answer the following: If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or does water exist?
From: mpc755 on 6 Dec 2009 20:14 On Dec 6, 3:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > My interpretation of modeling is mathematics. Mathematics is the judge > > and jury as to the validity of a theory. But, mathematics is not > > nature. I have not heard of magnitudes before but my guess as to what > > you are implying is the 'magnitude' that something is a wave vs. the > > 'magnitude' something is a particle. But I disagree completely with a > > C-60 molecule being a wave at any magnitude. > > > Now, if you want to re-interpret magnitude to include aether, then you > > might have something. 'Dimension' is a mathematical construct, not > > nature. The aether is necessary. The aether is physical. The aether is > > required in order to have a more correct physical description of > > nature. > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat > > creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or > > does water exist? > > > A double slit experiment performed with C-60 molecules is evidence of > > the existence of aether.- Hide quoted text - > > A magnitude is a very simple idea. 5 liters, 20 centimeters, 6 miles, > 2,000 watts...etc . These are all magnitudes. > > What I was referring to above was magnitudes of length. Quantities of > dimension measured as length. If you have 10 meters which exists, and > one meter which does not exist, you can compose them to obtain an > existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, which has expected > length 10. > > Any probabilistic problem can be reworded in terms of existential > indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. > > Yes....all of these procedures are trivial. They have to be. > Triviality is inherent to QM. A sentence like "existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, which has expected length 10" is nonsense. Same for one meter of length which does not exist. This is all due to the nonsense required in QM. QM requires all of this nonsense because it doesn't understand a moving body has an associated aether wave. Once you understand aether exists and is responsible for the wave portion of the observed behaviors in the double slit experiment, the nonsense goes away. I think QM is very, very, incorrect in how it describes nature. In Aether Displacement all of the nonsense goes away. When a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule, there is a moving C-60 molecule and the displacement wave it creates in the aether. A particle AND a wave. Let's back up a minute. Answer the following: If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or does water exist?
From: mpc755 on 6 Dec 2009 20:18 On Dec 6, 3:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > My interpretation of modeling is mathematics. Mathematics is the judge > > and jury as to the validity of a theory. But, mathematics is not > > nature. I have not heard of magnitudes before but my guess as to what > > you are implying is the 'magnitude' that something is a wave vs. the > > 'magnitude' something is a particle. But I disagree completely with a > > C-60 molecule being a wave at any magnitude. > > > Now, if you want to re-interpret magnitude to include aether, then you > > might have something. 'Dimension' is a mathematical construct, not > > nature. The aether is necessary. The aether is physical. The aether is > > required in order to have a more correct physical description of > > nature. > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat > > creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or > > does water exist? > > > A double slit experiment performed with C-60 molecules is evidence of > > the existence of aether.- Hide quoted text - > > A magnitude is a very simple idea. 5 liters, 20 centimeters, 6 miles, > 2,000 watts...etc . These are all magnitudes. > > What I was referring to above was magnitudes of length. Quantities of > dimension measured as length. If you have 10 meters which exists, and > one meter which does not exist, you can compose them to obtain an > existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, which has expected > length 10. > > Any probabilistic problem can be reworded in terms of existential > indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. > > Yes....all of these procedures are trivial. They have to be. > Triviality is inherent to QM. A sentence like "existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, which has expected length 10" is nonsense. Same for one meter of length which does not exist. This is all due to the nonsense required in QM. QM requires all of this nonsense because it doesn't understand a moving body has an associated aether wave. Once you understand aether exists and is responsible for the wave portion of the observed behaviors in the double slit experiment, the nonsense goes away. I think QM is very, very, incorrect in how it describes nature. In Aether Displacement all of the nonsense goes away. When a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule, there is a moving C-60 molecule and the displacement wave it creates in the aether. There is a particle AND a wave. The particle and the wave are separate entities working as one. Let's back up a minute. Answer the following: If a double slit experiment is performed with a boat and the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore, is the boat a wave or does water exist?
From: YBM on 6 Dec 2009 20:58
mpc755 wrote: > [garbage] It is your new line: "I've posted it three times, so this is true"? |