Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date
in [Physics]
|
From: Huang on 7 Dec 2009 09:09 On Dec 7, 7:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 11:20 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Incorrect. Exactly the same situation. > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule and the > C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern on the screen, is the > C-60 molecule a wave or does aether exist? > > Detectors will, or won't, be placed at the exits to the slits while > the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). If detectors are placed at the > exits to the slits the instant before the C-60 molecule exits, the > C-60 molecule will always be detected exiting a single slit. If > detectors are removed at the last instant before the C-60 molecule > exits the slits, interference occurs. > > What is your explanation to the above? Are you one of those who > chooses to believe the C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slits > depending upon what is going to occur in the future? In Aether > Displacement, the C-60 molecule is always a particle and it always > enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave it creates > in the aether enters and exits multiple slits. > > > > 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). > > The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of an entrained aether. > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of > relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that > the state of the former is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > The connectedness between matter and the aether is what causes the > aether to be entrained by the matter which is the Earth. The > connectedness and the associated entrainment is not the reason for > gravity. The aether not being at rest when displaced is the reason for > gravity. > > Drill a million tiny holes into a bowling ball and put the bowling > ball into a tank of water and spin the bowling ball. The water becomes > entrained by the bowling ball.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hmmmm. Interesting. Well, here's what I know about gravity. It is a deformation of space, a deformation of dimension. There are such things as gravity waves (at least we're looking for them) and it's pretty obvious that they must exist at least in principle. This proves that dimension is a medium of wave propagation - at least in the case of gravity. Where people have failed to extend that view is in areas such as QM. But clearly - it is obvious to me that this view holds here as well. Dimansion is a medium of wave propagation on the quantum scale and the only difficulty is modelling it. Turns out it is not so difficult, but it is quite strange, trivial, paradoxical, and wierd. But it is what it is.
From: mpc755 on 7 Dec 2009 09:18 On Dec 7, 9:09 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 7:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 6, 11:20 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Incorrect. Exactly the same situation. > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule and the > > C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern on the screen, is the > > C-60 molecule a wave or does aether exist? > > > Detectors will, or won't, be placed at the exits to the slits while > > the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). If detectors are placed at the > > exits to the slits the instant before the C-60 molecule exits, the > > C-60 molecule will always be detected exiting a single slit. If > > detectors are removed at the last instant before the C-60 molecule > > exits the slits, interference occurs. > > > What is your explanation to the above? Are you one of those who > > chooses to believe the C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slits > > depending upon what is going to occur in the future? In Aether > > Displacement, the C-60 molecule is always a particle and it always > > enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave it creates > > in the aether enters and exits multiple slits. > > > > > 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). > > > The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of an entrained aether. > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of > > relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that > > the state of the former is at every place determined by connections > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > The connectedness between matter and the aether is what causes the > > aether to be entrained by the matter which is the Earth. The > > connectedness and the associated entrainment is not the reason for > > gravity. The aether not being at rest when displaced is the reason for > > gravity. > > > Drill a million tiny holes into a bowling ball and put the bowling > > ball into a tank of water and spin the bowling ball. The water becomes > > entrained by the bowling ball.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Hmmmm. Interesting. > > Well, here's what I know about gravity. It is a deformation of space, > a deformation of dimension. There are such things as gravity waves (at > least we're looking for them) and it's pretty obvious that they must > exist at least in principle. This proves that dimension is a medium of > wave propagation - at least in the case of gravity. > > Where people have failed to extend that view is in areas such as QM. > But clearly - it is obvious to me that this view holds here as well. > Dimansion is a medium of wave propagation on the quantum scale and the > only difficulty is modelling it. Turns out it is not so difficult, but > it is quite strange, trivial, paradoxical, and wierd. But it is what > it is. 'Dimension' is mathematics, not nature. A gravity wave is an aether wave. It doesn't matter if we are discussing the Earth or a C-60 molecule, aether displaced by a moving body forms a wave.
From: Huang on 7 Dec 2009 09:57 On Dec 7, 8:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 9:09 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 7:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 6, 11:20 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Incorrect. Exactly the same situation. > > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule and the > > > C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern on the screen, is the > > > C-60 molecule a wave or does aether exist? > > > > Detectors will, or won't, be placed at the exits to the slits while > > > the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). If detectors are placed at the > > > exits to the slits the instant before the C-60 molecule exits, the > > > C-60 molecule will always be detected exiting a single slit. If > > > detectors are removed at the last instant before the C-60 molecule > > > exits the slits, interference occurs. > > > > What is your explanation to the above? Are you one of those who > > > chooses to believe the C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slits > > > depending upon what is going to occur in the future? In Aether > > > Displacement, the C-60 molecule is always a particle and it always > > > enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave it creates > > > in the aether enters and exits multiple slits. > > > > > > 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). > > > > The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of an entrained aether. > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of > > > relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that > > > the state of the former is at every place determined by connections > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > > The connectedness between matter and the aether is what causes the > > > aether to be entrained by the matter which is the Earth. The > > > connectedness and the associated entrainment is not the reason for > > > gravity. The aether not being at rest when displaced is the reason for > > > gravity. > > > > Drill a million tiny holes into a bowling ball and put the bowling > > > ball into a tank of water and spin the bowling ball. The water becomes > > > entrained by the bowling ball.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Hmmmm. Interesting. > > > Well, here's what I know about gravity. It is a deformation of space, > > a deformation of dimension. There are such things as gravity waves (at > > least we're looking for them) and it's pretty obvious that they must > > exist at least in principle. This proves that dimension is a medium of > > wave propagation - at least in the case of gravity. > > > Where people have failed to extend that view is in areas such as QM. > > But clearly - it is obvious to me that this view holds here as well. > > Dimansion is a medium of wave propagation on the quantum scale and the > > only difficulty is modelling it. Turns out it is not so difficult, but > > it is quite strange, trivial, paradoxical, and wierd. But it is what > > it is. > > 'Dimension' is mathematics, not nature. > > A gravity wave is an aether wave. > > It doesn't matter if we are discussing the Earth or a C-60 molecule, > aether displaced by a moving body forms a wave.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dimension is math not nature ? Really ? Have you ever seen a ruler or a clock ? What do you suppose that these things measure ? Length is dimension. Time is dimension. These things are a a medium of wave propagation in GR, and I would also say that they are a medium of wave propagation in QM. You dont need the idea of aether really, dimension works just fine and does the same thing. You should change the name of your model to "dimension displacement theory" and then I would agree with you completely - you just need to model it mathematically. This is accomplished very easily as discussed above. gotta go do some things ....talk later
From: mpc755 on 7 Dec 2009 10:19 On Dec 7, 9:57 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 8:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 9:09 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 7:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 6, 11:20 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Incorrect. Exactly the same situation. > > > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule and the > > > > C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern on the screen, is the > > > > C-60 molecule a wave or does aether exist? > > > > > Detectors will, or won't, be placed at the exits to the slits while > > > > the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). If detectors are placed at the > > > > exits to the slits the instant before the C-60 molecule exits, the > > > > C-60 molecule will always be detected exiting a single slit. If > > > > detectors are removed at the last instant before the C-60 molecule > > > > exits the slits, interference occurs. > > > > > What is your explanation to the above? Are you one of those who > > > > chooses to believe the C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slits > > > > depending upon what is going to occur in the future? In Aether > > > > Displacement, the C-60 molecule is always a particle and it always > > > > enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave it creates > > > > in the aether enters and exits multiple slits. > > > > > > > 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). > > > > > The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of an entrained aether. > > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > > "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of > > > > relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that > > > > the state of the former is at every place determined by connections > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > > > The connectedness between matter and the aether is what causes the > > > > aether to be entrained by the matter which is the Earth. The > > > > connectedness and the associated entrainment is not the reason for > > > > gravity. The aether not being at rest when displaced is the reason for > > > > gravity. > > > > > Drill a million tiny holes into a bowling ball and put the bowling > > > > ball into a tank of water and spin the bowling ball. The water becomes > > > > entrained by the bowling ball.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Hmmmm. Interesting. > > > > Well, here's what I know about gravity. It is a deformation of space, > > > a deformation of dimension. There are such things as gravity waves (at > > > least we're looking for them) and it's pretty obvious that they must > > > exist at least in principle. This proves that dimension is a medium of > > > wave propagation - at least in the case of gravity. > > > > Where people have failed to extend that view is in areas such as QM. > > > But clearly - it is obvious to me that this view holds here as well. > > > Dimansion is a medium of wave propagation on the quantum scale and the > > > only difficulty is modelling it. Turns out it is not so difficult, but > > > it is quite strange, trivial, paradoxical, and wierd. But it is what > > > it is. > > > 'Dimension' is mathematics, not nature. > > > A gravity wave is an aether wave. > > > It doesn't matter if we are discussing the Earth or a C-60 molecule, > > aether displaced by a moving body forms a wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dimension is math not nature ? Really ? Have you ever seen a ruler or > a clock ? What do you suppose that these things measure ? > > Length is dimension. Time is dimension. These things are a a medium of > wave propagation in GR, and I would also say that they are a medium of > wave propagation in QM. > Length and time measure stuff. Dimension is not a medium. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein "according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." > You dont need the idea of aether really, dimension works just fine and > does the same thing. You should change the name of your model to > "dimension displacement theory" and then I would agree with you > completely - you just need to model it mathematically. This is > accomplished very easily as discussed above. > > gotta go do some things ....talk later Yes, it needs to be modeled mathematically and if you could do that, that would be huge! Of course, anything you model you can name whatever you want, but I would prefer it to be called Aether Displacement, Spacial Displacement or Spatial Displacement which all convey it is space which is being displaced.
From: mpc755 on 7 Dec 2009 10:26
On Dec 7, 9:57 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 8:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 9:09 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 7:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 6, 11:20 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Incorrect. Exactly the same situation. > > > > > If a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule and the > > > > C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern on the screen, is the > > > > C-60 molecule a wave or does aether exist? > > > > > Detectors will, or won't, be placed at the exits to the slits while > > > > the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). If detectors are placed at the > > > > exits to the slits the instant before the C-60 molecule exits, the > > > > C-60 molecule will always be detected exiting a single slit. If > > > > detectors are removed at the last instant before the C-60 molecule > > > > exits the slits, interference occurs. > > > > > What is your explanation to the above? Are you one of those who > > > > chooses to believe the C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slits > > > > depending upon what is going to occur in the future? In Aether > > > > Displacement, the C-60 molecule is always a particle and it always > > > > enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave it creates > > > > in the aether enters and exits multiple slits. > > > > > > > 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). > > > > > The Michelson-Morley experiment is evidence of an entrained aether. > > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > > "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of > > > > relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that > > > > the state of the former is at every place determined by connections > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > > > The connectedness between matter and the aether is what causes the > > > > aether to be entrained by the matter which is the Earth. The > > > > connectedness and the associated entrainment is not the reason for > > > > gravity. The aether not being at rest when displaced is the reason for > > > > gravity. > > > > > Drill a million tiny holes into a bowling ball and put the bowling > > > > ball into a tank of water and spin the bowling ball. The water becomes > > > > entrained by the bowling ball.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Hmmmm. Interesting. > > > > Well, here's what I know about gravity. It is a deformation of space, > > > a deformation of dimension. There are such things as gravity waves (at > > > least we're looking for them) and it's pretty obvious that they must > > > exist at least in principle. This proves that dimension is a medium of > > > wave propagation - at least in the case of gravity. > > > > Where people have failed to extend that view is in areas such as QM. > > > But clearly - it is obvious to me that this view holds here as well. > > > Dimansion is a medium of wave propagation on the quantum scale and the > > > only difficulty is modelling it. Turns out it is not so difficult, but > > > it is quite strange, trivial, paradoxical, and wierd. But it is what > > > it is. > > > 'Dimension' is mathematics, not nature. > > > A gravity wave is an aether wave. > > > It doesn't matter if we are discussing the Earth or a C-60 molecule, > > aether displaced by a moving body forms a wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dimension is math not nature ? Really ? Have you ever seen a ruler or > a clock ? What do you suppose that these things measure ? > > Length is dimension. Time is dimension. These things are a a medium of > wave propagation in GR, and I would also say that they are a medium of > wave propagation in QM. > Length and time measure stuff. Dimension is not a medium. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein "according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." > You dont need the idea of aether really, dimension works just fine and > does the same thing. You should change the name of your model to > "dimension displacement theory" and then I would agree with you > completely - you just need to model it mathematically. This is > accomplished very easily as discussed above. > > gotta go do some things ....talk later Yes, it needs to be modeled mathematically and if you could do that, that would be huge! Of course, anything you model you can name whatever you want, but I would prefer it to be called Aether Displacement. Aether Displacement conveys it is the 'stuff of space' which is being displaced. Spacial Displacement and Spatial Displacement also convey it is space which is being displaced, but they are not as physically descriptive as Aether Displacement because they convey it is space itself which is displaced and not the 'stuff of space'. Another reason Aether Displacement is better is because matter is compressed aether. Matter is compressed dimension doesn't cut it. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' By A. EINSTEIN http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. |