Light is the unified form of the universe
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 26 May 2010 14:18 On May 26, 2:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 1:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 12:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 11:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 26, 10:37 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Physics is the study of what occurs physically in nature. Physics is > > > > > > the "physics of nature". > > > > > > One of the best ways to illustrate that you have no idea what you're > > > > > talking about is to use self-referential sentences like the above.. It > > > > > merely shows that you have no idea what you even mean in your own mind > > > > > what "physical" means. You can't characterize what "physical" means, > > > > > and so you end up with sentences like, "You know... physical. Physics > > > > > is about the stuff that's... physical. And about what physically > > > > > occurs. Yeah, that physical stuff." > > > > > > PD > > > > > For those who are intuitive, defining physics as the 'physics of > > > > nature' is easily understood. For you I will define it further, > > > > physics is understanding what occurs physically in nature. > > > > Ah, so let's capture that, shall we? "Self-referential sentences are > > > perfectly understandable to those who are intuitive. For those who are > > > not intuitive, uttering another self-referential statement is the only > > > recourse." > > > > Here's some fun then: Define "physical" without the use of "physics", > > > "physical", "physically" or any other form of the word "physical" in > > > the definition of "physical". Can you do that? > > > I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > > > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > You have to tell me what "physical" means to you in order for me to > even know what you mean by "occurs physically in nature". > When you can define what "physical" means, then we can talk about your > question. I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: - The future determining the past - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is different than Maxwell's displacement current - Mass is not conserved. The following are the most correct physical explanations to date: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - The aether displaced by the matter which are the plates extends past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter. - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is the same conceptually as Maxwell's displacement current. - Matter and aether are different states of the same material. The material is mæther. Mæther has mass. Aether and matter have mass. Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. In E=mc^2, Energy is effect of matter transitioning to aether. Mass is conserved. My preferred concept of a photon is that it propagates as a wave through the aether (decompressed) and is detected as a quantum of mæther (compressed). The ability of the wave to be detected as a quantum of mæther occupies a very small region of the wave itself. In a double slit experiment the photon wave enters and exits both slits. The photon 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The photon wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Detecting the photon 'particle' causes decoherence of the photon wave and there is no interference. If detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the photon 'particle' is always detected exiting a single slit because the photon 'particle' always enters and exits a single slit. Mæther has mass. Aether and matter have mass. Aether and matter are different states of mæther. Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. '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. Mass does not convert to energy. Matter converts to aether. As the mæther transitions from matter to aether it increases in volume. The physical effect the increase in volume has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. Mass is conserved.
From: mpc755 on 26 May 2010 14:21 On May 26, 2:15 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 5/26/2010 12:53 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 1:47 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 5/26/2010 12:30 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>> On May 26, 11:53 am, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On May 26, 10:37 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> Physics is the study of what occurs physically in nature. Physics is > >>>>> the "physics of nature". > > >>>> One of the best ways to illustrate that you have no idea what you're > >>>> talking about is to use self-referential sentences like the above. It > >>>> merely shows that you have no idea what you even mean in your own mind > >>>> what "physical" means. You can't characterize what "physical" means, > >>>> and so you end up with sentences like, "You know... physical. Physics > >>>> is about the stuff that's... physical. And about what physically > >>>> occurs. Yeah, that physical stuff." > > >>>> PD > > >>> For those who are intuitive, > > >> Science is the study of nature. Your intuition is of no help. The > >> cat has an intuition there's a mouse about. That's not science. > > > It is intuition based upon scientific experimental evidence. > > Stop hawking nonsense. A particle always detected exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always exits a single slit is nonsense only to those who choose to believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. It is the Copenahageners who are hawking nonsense. Why is the particle always detected exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment whether the particle be a photon or a C-60 molecule? Because the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit. Every experiment ever performed ALWAYS detects the particle exiting a single slit. This is experimental evidence of the particle ALWAYS exiting a single slit. If your theory does not support the experimental evidence of the particle ALWAYS entering and exiting a single slit then your theory is incorrect and incomplete. My preferred concept of a photon is that it propagates as a wave through the aether (decompressed) and is detected as a quantum of mæther (compressed). The ability of the wave to be detected as a quantum of mæther occupies a very small region of the wave itself. In a double slit experiment the photon wave enters and exits both slits. The photon 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The photon wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Detecting the photon 'particle' causes decoherence of the photon wave and there is no interference. If detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the photon 'particle' is always detected exiting a single slit because the photon 'particle' always enters and exits a single slit. Mæther has mass. Aether and matter have mass. Aether and matter are different states of mæther. Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. '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. Mass does not convert to energy. Matter converts to aether. As the mæther transitions from matter to aether it increases in volume. The physical effect the increase in volume has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. Mass is conserved.
From: PD on 26 May 2010 14:24 On May 26, 1:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 2:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 1:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 12:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 26, 11:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 26, 10:37 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Physics is the study of what occurs physically in nature. Physics is > > > > > > > the "physics of nature". > > > > > > > One of the best ways to illustrate that you have no idea what you're > > > > > > talking about is to use self-referential sentences like the above. It > > > > > > merely shows that you have no idea what you even mean in your own mind > > > > > > what "physical" means. You can't characterize what "physical" means, > > > > > > and so you end up with sentences like, "You know... physical. Physics > > > > > > is about the stuff that's... physical. And about what physically > > > > > > occurs. Yeah, that physical stuff." > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > For those who are intuitive, defining physics as the 'physics of > > > > > nature' is easily understood. For you I will define it further, > > > > > physics is understanding what occurs physically in nature. > > > > > Ah, so let's capture that, shall we? "Self-referential sentences are > > > > perfectly understandable to those who are intuitive. For those who are > > > > not intuitive, uttering another self-referential statement is the only > > > > recourse." > > > > > Here's some fun then: Define "physical" without the use of "physics", > > > > "physical", "physically" or any other form of the word "physical" in > > > > the definition of "physical". Can you do that? > > > > I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > > > > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > > You have to tell me what "physical" means to you in order for me to > > even know what you mean by "occurs physically in nature". > > When you can define what "physical" means, then we can talk about your > > question. > > I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > And how am I to answer your question what "occurs physically in nature" until you can tell me what you believe the word "physical" means? I believe you have no idea what the word even means, and so you will not understand any answer to the question. It's like a man asking how many yellows it costs to buy a bushel of apples. The response would naturally be, "What do you think 'yellow' means?" Your response would be to offer to define yellow after being told how many yellows it costs to buy a bushel of apples. PD
From: mpc755 on 26 May 2010 15:16 On May 26, 2:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 1:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 2:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 1:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 26, 12:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 26, 11:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 26, 10:37 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Physics is the study of what occurs physically in nature. Physics is > > > > > > > > the "physics of nature". > > > > > > > > One of the best ways to illustrate that you have no idea what you're > > > > > > > talking about is to use self-referential sentences like the above. It > > > > > > > merely shows that you have no idea what you even mean in your own mind > > > > > > > what "physical" means. You can't characterize what "physical" means, > > > > > > > and so you end up with sentences like, "You know... physical. Physics > > > > > > > is about the stuff that's... physical. And about what physically > > > > > > > occurs. Yeah, that physical stuff." > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > For those who are intuitive, defining physics as the 'physics of > > > > > > nature' is easily understood. For you I will define it further, > > > > > > physics is understanding what occurs physically in nature. > > > > > > Ah, so let's capture that, shall we? "Self-referential sentences are > > > > > perfectly understandable to those who are intuitive. For those who are > > > > > not intuitive, uttering another self-referential statement is the only > > > > > recourse." > > > > > > Here's some fun then: Define "physical" without the use of "physics", > > > > > "physical", "physically" or any other form of the word "physical" in > > > > > the definition of "physical". Can you do that? > > > > > I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > > > > > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > > > You have to tell me what "physical" means to you in order for me to > > > even know what you mean by "occurs physically in nature". > > > When you can define what "physical" means, then we can talk about your > > > question. > > > I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > > > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > And how am I to answer your question what "occurs physically in > nature" until you can tell me what you believe the word "physical" > means? > > I believe you have no idea what the word even means, and so you will > not understand any answer to the question. > > It's like a man asking how many yellows it costs to buy a bushel of > apples. The response would naturally be, "What do you think 'yellow' > means?" Your response would be to offer to define yellow after being > told how many yellows it costs to buy a bushel of apples. > > PD Just answer the questions with your definition of what occurs physically in nature means. Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: - The future determining the past - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is different than Maxwell's displacement current - Mass is not conserved. The following are the most correct physical explanations to date: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - The aether displaced by the matter which are the plates extends past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter. - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is the same conceptually as Maxwell's displacement current. - Matter and aether are different states of the same material. The material is mæther. Mæther has mass. Aether and matter have mass. Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. In E=mc^2, Energy is effect of matter transitioning to aether. Mass is conserved. My preferred concept of a photon is that it propagates as a wave through the aether (decompressed) and is detected as a quantum of mæther (compressed). The ability of the wave to be detected as a quantum of mæther occupies a very small region of the wave itself. In a double slit experiment the photon wave enters and exits both slits. The photon 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The photon wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Detecting the photon 'particle' causes decoherence of the photon wave and there is no interference. If detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the photon 'particle' is always detected exiting a single slit because the photon 'particle' always enters and exits a single slit. Mæther has mass. Aether and matter have mass. Aether and matter are different states of mæther. Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. '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. Mass does not convert to energy. Matter converts to aether. As the mæther transitions from matter to aether it increases in volume. The physical effect the increase in volume has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. Mass is conserved.
From: PD on 26 May 2010 15:23
On May 26, 2:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 2:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 1:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 26, 2:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 26, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 26, 1:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 26, 12:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 26, 11:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 26, 10:37 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Physics is the study of what occurs physically in nature. Physics is > > > > > > > > > the "physics of nature". > > > > > > > > > One of the best ways to illustrate that you have no idea what you're > > > > > > > > talking about is to use self-referential sentences like the above. It > > > > > > > > merely shows that you have no idea what you even mean in your own mind > > > > > > > > what "physical" means. You can't characterize what "physical" means, > > > > > > > > and so you end up with sentences like, "You know... physical. Physics > > > > > > > > is about the stuff that's... physical. And about what physically > > > > > > > > occurs. Yeah, that physical stuff." > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > For those who are intuitive, defining physics as the 'physics of > > > > > > > nature' is easily understood. For you I will define it further, > > > > > > > physics is understanding what occurs physically in nature. > > > > > > > Ah, so let's capture that, shall we? "Self-referential sentences are > > > > > > perfectly understandable to those who are intuitive. For those who are > > > > > > not intuitive, uttering another self-referential statement is the only > > > > > > recourse." > > > > > > > Here's some fun then: Define "physical" without the use of "physics", > > > > > > "physical", "physically" or any other form of the word "physical" in > > > > > > the definition of "physical". Can you do that? > > > > > > I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > > > > > > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > > > > You have to tell me what "physical" means to you in order for me to > > > > even know what you mean by "occurs physically in nature". > > > > When you can define what "physical" means, then we can talk about your > > > > question. > > > > I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > > > > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > > And how am I to answer your question what "occurs physically in > > nature" until you can tell me what you believe the word "physical" > > means? > > > I believe you have no idea what the word even means, and so you will > > not understand any answer to the question. > > > It's like a man asking how many yellows it costs to buy a bushel of > > apples. The response would naturally be, "What do you think 'yellow' > > means?" Your response would be to offer to define yellow after being > > told how many yellows it costs to buy a bushel of apples. > > > PD > > Just answer the questions with your definition of what occurs > physically in nature means. > So your response is, "Use your own definition of 'yellow' to tell me how many yellows it costs to buy a bushel of apples." I want to make it plain, not only to other readers but also to you, that you don't have the foggiest idea what "physical" means, and so you don't even know what you're asking for. Since this is now obvious, the follow-up question is whether you have any sense of dignity at all. Dignity is the thing that causes embarrassment when you are caught in your own mess, and it is what makes normal people stop perpetuating their mess. If you have no embarrassment, then you don't have any dignity. If you have embarrassment but can't stop perpetuating your mess, then you are a victim of your own self-destructive compulsions. PD |