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: spudnik on 8 May 2010 17:32 yeah, and "A=mcc" -- maether, the *really* perfect gas. so, now, all that you have to do is laboriously show that this theory accounts for all of the phenomena of the other theory(s), instead of asserting a handwavingology (as in scare-quoting, "I have a dream!") "Exactly what occurs -- exactly & with decimal points!" > This is exactly what occurs when the mæther decompresses. thus: to reiterate, for the sake of Obispo, above, Fermat had to prove the very special case, n=4, because his proof only applied to prime exponents, excepting two (plus the lemma on multiples of prime exponents). thus: yeah, OK; so, what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?..." what is the shape of the wave of light? > Aether is matter times the second power of the speed of light. thus: spatially, there are "mutually inscribed tetrahedra," meaning that the vertices of one lie on the faces of the other, and vise versa. thus: the formalism of relativity isn't needed, if one does not presume that Pascal's vacuum was perfect (and still is) a la "Newtonian optics" or ray-tracing, and the calculus-launch problemma of the brachistochrone. thus: how about this: show us that your theory agrees with Sophie Germaine; then, tackle the remaining primes. thus: NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_ for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but, this is just the original "vectors." compare Lanczos' biquaternions with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. "wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants," totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism -- time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability (of dimensionality !-) thus: try a search on Gauss & Ceres. or "go" to wlym.com. > This problem and its solution are found in a paper by Ceplecha, 1987, thus: the problem appears to be, "some observers measure the angle to the marker, relative to the other observers," which would not give you the distance *on a plane*, because of similar trigona. Gauss meaasured the curvature of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine, triangulatin' that contested area .-) thus: notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway, I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy, who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind. thus: sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may have read in an article about his retirement. > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, > capNtrade e.g.). > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > his real "proof" is _1599_; > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 17:59 On May 8, 5:32 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > yeah, and "A=mcc" -- maether, > the *really* perfect gas. so, now, all that you have > to do is laboriously show that this theory accounts > for all of the phenomena of the other theory(s), instead > of asserting a handwavingology (as in scare-quoting, > "I have a dream!") > > "Exactly what occurs -- exactly & with decimal points!" > The following is an explanation of what occurs in nature in a 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. Following the explanation are two experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment When the downgraded photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is maintained. This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downgraded photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0. Figures 3 and 4 here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf Show the interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. If you were to combine the two images and add the peaks together and add the valleys together you would have the interference pattern of the original photon. This is evidence the downgraded photon pair maintain the original photons momentum and have opposite angular momentums. Nothing is erased. There is no delayed choice. Physical waves in the aether are traveling both the red and blue paths and when the paths are combined the waves create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement: Experiment #1: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns created at D0. Experiment #2: Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' travels. > > This is exactly what occurs when the mæther decompresses. > > thus: > to reiterate, for the sake of Obispo, above, > Fermat had to prove the very special case, n=4, > because his proof only applied to prime exponents, > excepting two (plus the lemma on multiples of prime exponents). > > thus: > yeah, OK; so, what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?..." > what is the shape of the wave of light? > Mæther decompressing is the cause. Energy is the effect. The transition of matter to aether is what physically occurs. The effects of this physical occurrence is energy. There is a cause (mæther decompressing) and an effect energy. Aether has mass. Energy is an effect. > > Aether is matter times the second power of the speed of light. > > thus: > spatially, there are "mutually inscribed tetrahedra," > meaning that the vertices of one lie on the faces > of the other, and vise versa. > > thus: > the formalism of relativity isn't needed, if > one does not presume that Pascal's vacuum was perfect > (and still is) a la "Newtonian optics" or ray-tracing, and > the calculus-launch problemma of the brachistochrone. > > thus: > how about this: > show us that your theory agrees with Sophie Germaine; then, > tackle the remaining primes. > > thus: > NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_ > for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and > "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but, > this is just the original "vectors." > > compare Lanczos' biquaternions > with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, > to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. > > "wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants," > totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism -- > time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability > (of dimensionality !-) > > thus: > try a search on Gauss & Ceres. or > "go" to wlym.com. > > > This problem and its solution are found in a paper by Ceplecha, 1987, > > thus: > the problem appears to be, > "some observers measure the angle to the marker, > relative to the other observers," > which would not give you the distance *on a plane*, > because of similar trigona. Gauss meaasured the curvature > of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure > of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine, > triangulatin' that contested area .-) > > thus: > notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and > the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway, > I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy, > who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind. > > thus: > sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but > later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may > have read in an article about his retirement. > > > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, > > capNtrade e.g.). > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > >http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: > "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They > can ?!?" > * His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; > so?
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 18:06 On May 8, 5:32 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > yeah, and "A=mcc" -- maether, > the *really* perfect gas. Aether is uncompressed mæther. Matter is compressed mather. The equation should read: A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter. Both sides of the equation consist of mæther in different states. > so, now, all that you have > to do is laboriously show that this theory accounts > for all of the phenomena of the other theory(s), instead > of asserting a handwavingology (as in scare-quoting, > "I have a dream!") > > "Exactly what occurs -- exactly & with decimal points!" > > > This is exactly what occurs when the mæther decompresses. > > thus: > to reiterate, for the sake of Obispo, above, > Fermat had to prove the very special case, n=4, > because his proof only applied to prime exponents, > excepting two (plus the lemma on multiples of prime exponents). > > thus: > yeah, OK; so, what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?..." > what is the shape of the wave of light? > This is my preferred concept of a photon: http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif Where the 'particle' moves within the wave similar to: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif > > Aether is matter times the second power of the speed of light. > > thus: > spatially, there are "mutually inscribed tetrahedra," > meaning that the vertices of one lie on the faces > of the other, and vise versa. > > thus: > the formalism of relativity isn't needed, if > one does not presume that Pascal's vacuum was perfect > (and still is) a la "Newtonian optics" or ray-tracing, and > the calculus-launch problemma of the brachistochrone. > > thus: > how about this: > show us that your theory agrees with Sophie Germaine; then, > tackle the remaining primes. > > thus: > NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_ > for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and > "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but, > this is just the original "vectors." > > compare Lanczos' biquaternions > with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, > to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. > > "wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants," > totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism -- > time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability > (of dimensionality !-) > > thus: > try a search on Gauss & Ceres. or > "go" to wlym.com. > > > This problem and its solution are found in a paper by Ceplecha, 1987, > > thus: > the problem appears to be, > "some observers measure the angle to the marker, > relative to the other observers," > which would not give you the distance *on a plane*, > because of similar trigona. Gauss meaasured the curvature > of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure > of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine, > triangulatin' that contested area .-) > > thus: > notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and > the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway, > I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy, > who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind. > > thus: > sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but > later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may > have read in an article about his retirement. > > > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, > > capNtrade e.g.). > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > >http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: > "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They > can ?!?" > * His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; > so?
From: PD on 8 May 2010 20:21 On May 8, 3:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders....(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > > > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > > > > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > > > > > > > You would. > > > > > > > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > > > > > > > Physics today: > > > > > > > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > > > > > > > - mistakes energy for cause. > > > > > > > Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what > > > > > > physics today really says. > > > > > > It does both those things exactly. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave > > > > > function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a > > > > > double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many > > > > > books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical > > > > > construct > > > > > No, it isn't. As I said, you should study up on what physics today > > > > really says, rather than looking up comic-book articles about stuff or > > > > making things up. > > > > > > and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a > > > > > double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand > > > > > the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in > > > > > nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. > > > > > > The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass > > > > > converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature > > > > > there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' > > > > > physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs > > > > > physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy. > > > > > 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. > > > > > I'm sorry, you said mainstream physics "mistakes energy for cause". > > > > Nothing like that is true, and nothing you've said in the paragraph > > > > above supports that contention. > > > > That is exactly what 'mainstream' physics does. > > > > I can ask you the simple question and your refusal to answer it is > > > evidence of 'mainstream' physics inability to understand energy is an > > > effect of what physically occurs. > > > Don't be ridiculous. I'm not the spokesman for mainstream physics and > > I'm not your trained monkey. > > I don't answer your questions because you're a dirtbag, not because > > there is no mainstream physics understanding. > > > Just because you are not provided something you sulk and whine and > > demand should not be evidence to you that the something doesn't exist. > > It just means that you are a whining baby with severe emotional > > problems who goes after things the wrong way. > > > PD > > You insist I read many, many books in order to 'understand' mass is > not conserved when mass is conserved. I don't insist anything of you. I suggest you do that, yes. I don't why you would steadfastly refuse to read something that is at least partially in opposition to your point of view. Do you only read that which you fully agree with? Are you afraid of reading?
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 20:41
On May 8, 8:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 3:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 8, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > > > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > > > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > > > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > > > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > > > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > > > > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > > > > > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > You would. > > > > > > > > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > > > > > > > > Physics today: > > > > > > > > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > > > > > > > > - mistakes energy for cause. > > > > > > > > Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what > > > > > > > physics today really says. > > > > > > > It does both those things exactly. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave > > > > > > function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a > > > > > > double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many > > > > > > books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical > > > > > > construct > > > > > > No, it isn't. As I said, you should study up on what physics today > > > > > really says, rather than looking up comic-book articles about stuff or > > > > > making things up. > > > > > > > and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a > > > > > > double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand > > > > > > the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in > > > > > > nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. > > > > > > > The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass > > > > > > converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature > > > > > > there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' > > > > > > physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs > > > > > > physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy. > > > > > > 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. > > > > > > I'm sorry, you said mainstream physics "mistakes energy for cause". > > > > > Nothing like that is true, and nothing you've said in the paragraph > > > > > above supports that contention. > > > > > That is exactly what 'mainstream' physics does. > > > > > I can ask you the simple question and your refusal to answer it is > > > > evidence of 'mainstream' physics inability to understand energy is an > > > > effect of what physically occurs. > > > > Don't be ridiculous. I'm not the spokesman for mainstream physics and > > > I'm not your trained monkey. > > > I don't answer your questions because you're a dirtbag, not because > > > there is no mainstream physics understanding. > > > > Just because you are not provided something you sulk and whine and > > > demand should not be evidence to you that the something doesn't exist.. > > > It just means that you are a whining baby with severe emotional > > > problems who goes after things the wrong way. > > > > PD > > > You insist I read many, many books in order to 'understand' mass is > > not conserved when mass is conserved. > > I don't insist anything of you. I suggest you do that, yes. I don't > why you would steadfastly refuse to read something that is at least > partially in opposition to your point of view. Do you only read that > which you fully agree with? Are you afraid of reading? Since I understand mass is conserved and, in terms of E=mc^2, energy is the effect of mæther decompressing, I prefer to conceptually understand how nature works physically and what causes the effect of energy. For example, any particle in a double slit experiment is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. This is evidence the particle ALWAYS enters a single slit. Since I understand the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether wave which enters and exits multiple slits, I prefer to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment. |