Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 6 Dec 2009 22:51 On Dec 6, 10:40 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 5:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > This is my Unified Theory. Great. Why don't you start your own thread and see what kind of responses you get for your Unified Theory. This thread is titled Aether Displacement.
From: mpc755 on 6 Dec 2009 22:52 On Dec 6, 9:51 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. > It requires no energy because no chemical bonds are broken, nor are > they reformed after passing through the slit. It is a quantum > phenomena and is trivial. Saying it is a 'quantum phenomena' is saying its magic. > NON-TRIVIAL reactions may require or release energy - trivial ones DO > NOT. But in any case, there is no chemical reaction. > The molecule may be regarded as a wave. It may be regarded as a > particle. It is indeterminate whether it is one or the other, until > you pose a question in such a way that it FORCES THE ANSWER to be > formatted as one or the other. The molecule is not a wave. The molecule is a particle, always. > it is all very obvious. > If I tell you to "give me a random number", you dont have any idea > whether I want discrete or continuous output. My question is > ambiguous. If I change the question "give me a random integer" or > "give me a random real", then I have modified the question > signifigantly. That is what wave particle duality is all about. It is > DIRT SIMPLE. 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 22:55 On Dec 6, 10:40 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 5:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > <snip> > This is my Unified Theory. Great. Why don't you start your own thread and see what kind of responses you get for your Unified Theory. This thread is titled Aether Displacement.
From: mpc755 on 6 Dec 2009 22:56 On Dec 6, 9:51 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. > It requires no energy because no chemical bonds are broken, nor are > they reformed after passing through the slit. It is a quantum > phenomena and is trivial. Saying it is a 'quantum phenomena' is saying its magic. > NON-TRIVIAL reactions may require or release energy - trivial ones DO > NOT. But in any case, there is no chemical reaction. > The molecule may be regarded as a wave. It may be regarded as a > particle. It is indeterminate whether it is one or the other, until > you pose a question in such a way that it FORCES THE ANSWER to be > formatted as one or the other. The molecule is not a wave. The molecule is a particle, always. > it is all very obvious. > If I tell you to "give me a random number", you dont have any idea > whether I want discrete or continuous output. My question is > ambiguous. If I change the question "give me a random integer" or > "give me a random real", then I have modified the question > signifigantly. That is what wave particle duality is all about. It is > DIRT SIMPLE. 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: Huang on 6 Dec 2009 23:20
On Dec 6, 9:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 9:51 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. > > It requires no energy because no chemical bonds are broken, nor are > > they reformed after passing through the slit. It is a quantum > > phenomena and is trivial. > > Saying it is a 'quantum phenomena' is saying its magic. > > > NON-TRIVIAL reactions may require or release energy - trivial ones DO > > NOT. But in any case, there is no chemical reaction. > > The molecule may be regarded as a wave. It may be regarded as a > > particle. It is indeterminate whether it is one or the other, until > > you pose a question in such a way that it FORCES THE ANSWER to be > > formatted as one or the other. > > The molecule is not a wave. The molecule is a particle, always. That is where you are not just wrong, you are in fact very wrong. > > it is all very obvious. > > If I tell you to "give me a random number", you dont have any idea > > whether I want discrete or continuous output. My question is > > ambiguous. If I change the question "give me a random integer" or > > "give me a random real", then I have modified the question > > signifigantly. That is what wave particle duality is all about. It is > > DIRT SIMPLE. > > 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? Completely different situation. I would call this the fallacy of bad analogies. > 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 ... The sentence "existentially indeterminate length of magnitude 11, which has expected length 10" is perfectly, and thoroughly sensible. The only thing it suffers from is teh fact that it is inherently trivial, but as it turns out triviality is not such an evil thing and the apporach is both sensible and indeed useful. What I would like to see is hot you can make mathematical sense of aether, after Michaelson-Morely completely blew that out of the water, (perhaps if only temporariliy but nevertheless). |