Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Logic]
|
Prev: The purpose of the Peano Axioms
Next: Abbreviating First Order Logic With Identity and Membership
From: mpc755 on 10 May 2010 19:06 On May 10, 6:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 5:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I'm not ignoring any information obtained in experiment. The > > > > > > > current model is fully consistent with experimental data. > > > > > > > > And no, I didn't say there was a "new understanding". What I said is > > > > > > > that there is more and newer experimental information available than > > > > > > > what de Broglie had at the time he tried to understand things.. New > > > > > > > information is useful for coming up with an improved understanding. > > > > > > > Only in your state of delusional denial would having to disregard the > > > > > > experimental evidence of the C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected > > > > > > exiting a single slit and having to choose to believe the future > > > > > > determines the past would that be considered an improved understanding > > > > > > of the physics of nature. > > > > > > I'm not disregarding anything. The current model is FULLY consistent > > > > > with all the experimental data, with none of it disregarded. > > > > > It is not consistent with the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a > > > > single slit. > > > > Yes, it is. It is COMPLETELY compatible with the C-60 molecule always > > > being detected at a single slit when a detector is placed at the > > > slit(s). In fact, the current model says that's exactly what should > > > happen. > > > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs. > > Yes, a theory has to match experimental data without disregarding it. > And it does. > You claimed the current theory disregards that data. That is another > factual error. > > > > > Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in > > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future > > determines the past. > > Don't be ridiculous. If I were the only person who believed it, > wouldn't it be named after me? If I were the only person who believed > in it, then why is it so readily available in books everywhere you > look? Are you so brain-dead stupid that you can't see this? > > What you perhaps mean is that I'm the only person among the small > class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all and > that believes in it. But the small class of people who will pay the > slightest attention to you at all doesn't span all of science at all. > You are the only person on this forum who chooses to believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered the question and your answer is the future determines the past. No one else on this forum can even answer the question. Therefore, anyone on this forum who chooses to believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM who can not answer the question or chooses to believe the future determines the past does not understand the physics of nature. The future does not determine the past. The C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > You must be under the impression that if you don't understand > something, that science will fall all over itself in hordes to > convince you and to help you understand. It does not occur to you that > you are an insufferable human being that most people don't have the > patience to interact with. > > > > > The whole point of physics is understanding the physics of nature. > > Yes, indeed, but what I'm trying to discuss with you now is a > statement that you made that is simply factually incorrect. You said > that photons are always detected as particles. If you cannot get facts > correct, then you will not be able to obtain any understanding of > nature, as you'll be starting with factually incorrect statements. > A photon is detected as a quantum of mæther. A quantum of mæther is a particle. > If you start with lies that you make up, then you will not arrive at a > correct understanding of nature. > If you start with the future determines the past and a C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of itself you will never understand the physics of nature.
From: PD on 11 May 2010 08:56 On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 6:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 5:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > And no, I'm not ignoring any information obtained in experiment. The > > > > > > > > current model is fully consistent with experimental data. > > > > > > > > > And no, I didn't say there was a "new understanding". What I said is > > > > > > > > that there is more and newer experimental information available than > > > > > > > > what de Broglie had at the time he tried to understand things. New > > > > > > > > information is useful for coming up with an improved understanding. > > > > > > > > Only in your state of delusional denial would having to disregard the > > > > > > > experimental evidence of the C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected > > > > > > > exiting a single slit and having to choose to believe the future > > > > > > > determines the past would that be considered an improved understanding > > > > > > > of the physics of nature. > > > > > > > I'm not disregarding anything. The current model is FULLY consistent > > > > > > with all the experimental data, with none of it disregarded. > > > > > > It is not consistent with the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a > > > > > single slit. > > > > > Yes, it is. It is COMPLETELY compatible with the C-60 molecule always > > > > being detected at a single slit when a detector is placed at the > > > > slit(s). In fact, the current model says that's exactly what should > > > > happen. > > > > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs. > > > Yes, a theory has to match experimental data without disregarding it. > > And it does. > > You claimed the current theory disregards that data. That is another > > factual error. > > > > Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in > > > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future > > > determines the past. > > > Don't be ridiculous. If I were the only person who believed it, > > wouldn't it be named after me? If I were the only person who believed > > in it, then why is it so readily available in books everywhere you > > look? Are you so brain-dead stupid that you can't see this? > > > What you perhaps mean is that I'm the only person among the small > > class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all and > > that believes in it. But the small class of people who will pay the > > slightest attention to you at all doesn't span all of science at all. > > You are the only person on this forum who chooses to believe in the > Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered the question and your > answer is the future determines the past. > > No one else on this forum can even answer the question. Correction: No one else on this tiny little forum WISHES to answer the question for you, because you have a severely repellent personality. > > Therefore, anyone on this forum who chooses to believe in the > Copenhagen interpretation of QM who can not answer the question or > chooses to believe the future determines the past does not understand > the physics of nature. >
From: mpc755 on 11 May 2010 09:07 On May 11, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 6:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 10, 5:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > And no, I'm not ignoring any information obtained in experiment. The > > > > > > > > > current model is fully consistent with experimental data. > > > > > > > > > > And no, I didn't say there was a "new understanding". What I said is > > > > > > > > > that there is more and newer experimental information available than > > > > > > > > > what de Broglie had at the time he tried to understand things. New > > > > > > > > > information is useful for coming up with an improved understanding. > > > > > > > > > Only in your state of delusional denial would having to disregard the > > > > > > > > experimental evidence of the C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected > > > > > > > > exiting a single slit and having to choose to believe the future > > > > > > > > determines the past would that be considered an improved understanding > > > > > > > > of the physics of nature. > > > > > > > > I'm not disregarding anything. The current model is FULLY consistent > > > > > > > with all the experimental data, with none of it disregarded. > > > > > > > It is not consistent with the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a > > > > > > single slit. > > > > > > Yes, it is. It is COMPLETELY compatible with the C-60 molecule always > > > > > being detected at a single slit when a detector is placed at the > > > > > slit(s). In fact, the current model says that's exactly what should > > > > > happen. > > > > > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs. > > > > Yes, a theory has to match experimental data without disregarding it. > > > And it does. > > > You claimed the current theory disregards that data. That is another > > > factual error. > > > > > Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in > > > > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future > > > > determines the past. > > > > Don't be ridiculous. If I were the only person who believed it, > > > wouldn't it be named after me? If I were the only person who believed > > > in it, then why is it so readily available in books everywhere you > > > look? Are you so brain-dead stupid that you can't see this? > > > > What you perhaps mean is that I'm the only person among the small > > > class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all and > > > that believes in it. But the small class of people who will pay the > > > slightest attention to you at all doesn't span all of science at all. > > > You are the only person on this forum who chooses to believe in the > > Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered the question and your > > answer is the future determines the past. > > > No one else on this forum can even answer the question. > > Correction: No one else on this tiny little forum WISHES to answer the > question for you, because you have a severely repellent personality. > No one else answers the question because it requires the stating of absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past. Let's try it again and see what occurs. For all you Copenhageners out there: A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of itself. How is this possible? It isn't. The C-60 molecule does not create an interference pattern in and of itself. The C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit because it ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. When the associated aether displacement wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. > > > > Therefore, anyone on this forum who chooses to believe in the > > Copenhagen interpretation of QM who can not answer the question or > > chooses to believe the future determines the past does not understand > > the physics of nature. > >
From: PD on 11 May 2010 09:08 On May 11, 8:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 10, 6:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 5:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I'm not ignoring any information obtained in experiment. The > > > > > > > > > > current model is fully consistent with experimental data. > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I didn't say there was a "new understanding". What I said is > > > > > > > > > > that there is more and newer experimental information available than > > > > > > > > > > what de Broglie had at the time he tried to understand things. New > > > > > > > > > > information is useful for coming up with an improved understanding. > > > > > > > > > > Only in your state of delusional denial would having to disregard the > > > > > > > > > experimental evidence of the C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected > > > > > > > > > exiting a single slit and having to choose to believe the future > > > > > > > > > determines the past would that be considered an improved understanding > > > > > > > > > of the physics of nature. > > > > > > > > > I'm not disregarding anything. The current model is FULLY consistent > > > > > > > > with all the experimental data, with none of it disregarded.. > > > > > > > > It is not consistent with the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a > > > > > > > single slit. > > > > > > > Yes, it is. It is COMPLETELY compatible with the C-60 molecule always > > > > > > being detected at a single slit when a detector is placed at the > > > > > > slit(s). In fact, the current model says that's exactly what should > > > > > > happen. > > > > > > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs. > > > > > Yes, a theory has to match experimental data without disregarding it. > > > > And it does. > > > > You claimed the current theory disregards that data. That is another > > > > factual error. > > > > > > Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in > > > > > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future > > > > > determines the past. > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. If I were the only person who believed it, > > > > wouldn't it be named after me? If I were the only person who believed > > > > in it, then why is it so readily available in books everywhere you > > > > look? Are you so brain-dead stupid that you can't see this? > > > > > What you perhaps mean is that I'm the only person among the small > > > > class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all and > > > > that believes in it. But the small class of people who will pay the > > > > slightest attention to you at all doesn't span all of science at all. > > > > You are the only person on this forum who chooses to believe in the > > > Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered the question and your > > > answer is the future determines the past. > > > > No one else on this forum can even answer the question. > > > Correction: No one else on this tiny little forum WISHES to answer the > > question for you, because you have a severely repellent personality. > > No one else answers the question because it requires the stating of > absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past. No one else answers it because hardly anyone with any sense talks to you at all. > > Let's try it again and see what occurs. > > For all you Copenhageners out there: > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits > to the slits. The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single > slit. A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed and > removed from the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule creates an > interference pattern in and of itself. > > How is this possible? > > It isn't. > > The C-60 molecule does not create an interference pattern in and of > itself. The C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit because it > ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. When the associated aether > displacement wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters > the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule > causes decoherence of the associated aether wave (i.e. turns it into > chop) and there is no interference. > > > > > > Therefore, anyone on this forum who chooses to believe in the > > > Copenhagen interpretation of QM who can not answer the question or > > > chooses to believe the future determines the past does not understand > > > the physics of nature. > >
From: mpc755 on 11 May 2010 09:24
On May 11, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 8:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 10, 6:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 6:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 10, 5:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I'm not ignoring any information obtained in experiment. The > > > > > > > > > > > current model is fully consistent with experimental data. > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, I didn't say there was a "new understanding". What I said is > > > > > > > > > > > that there is more and newer experimental information available than > > > > > > > > > > > what de Broglie had at the time he tried to understand things. New > > > > > > > > > > > information is useful for coming up with an improved understanding. > > > > > > > > > > > Only in your state of delusional denial would having to disregard the > > > > > > > > > > experimental evidence of the C-60 molecule ALWAYS being detected > > > > > > > > > > exiting a single slit and having to choose to believe the future > > > > > > > > > > determines the past would that be considered an improved understanding > > > > > > > > > > of the physics of nature. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not disregarding anything. The current model is FULLY consistent > > > > > > > > > with all the experimental data, with none of it disregarded. > > > > > > > > > It is not consistent with the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a > > > > > > > > single slit. > > > > > > > > Yes, it is. It is COMPLETELY compatible with the C-60 molecule always > > > > > > > being detected at a single slit when a detector is placed at the > > > > > > > slit(s). In fact, the current model says that's exactly what should > > > > > > > happen. > > > > > > > The current model HAS to say that because that is what occurs. > > > > > > Yes, a theory has to match experimental data without disregarding it. > > > > > And it does. > > > > > You claimed the current theory disregards that data. That is another > > > > > factual error. > > > > > > > Think about this. You are the only person who chooses to believe in > > > > > > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and your answer is the future > > > > > > determines the past. > > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. If I were the only person who believed it, > > > > > wouldn't it be named after me? If I were the only person who believed > > > > > in it, then why is it so readily available in books everywhere you > > > > > look? Are you so brain-dead stupid that you can't see this? > > > > > > What you perhaps mean is that I'm the only person among the small > > > > > class of people who will pay the slightest attention to you at all and > > > > > that believes in it. But the small class of people who will pay the > > > > > slightest attention to you at all doesn't span all of science at all. > > > > > You are the only person on this forum who chooses to believe in the > > > > Copenhagen interpretation of QM who has answered the question and your > > > > answer is the future determines the past. > > > > > No one else on this forum can even answer the question. > > > > Correction: No one else on this tiny little forum WISHES to answer the > > > question for you, because you have a severely repellent personality. > > > No one else answers the question because it requires the stating of > > absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past. > > No one else answers it because hardly anyone with any sense talks to > you at all. > No one else answers the question because it requires the stating of absurd nonsense such as the future determines the past. Let's try it again and see what occurs. For all you Copenhageners out there: A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of itself. How is this possible? It isn't. The C-60 molecule does not create an interference pattern in and of itself. The C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit because it ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. When the associated aether displacement wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. |