There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 13:48 On Mar 25, 10:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 9:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 10:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > By not being able to provide physical explanations for the following > > > > > you are stating, "Because I said so". > > > > > No. It's because experiments say so. Experiments are how we consult > > > > nature. Thereby, it is nature that says so, whether you understand or > > > > accept the physical explanations or not. > > > > > You demand a physical explanation that you will accept before you are > > > > willing to believe what physicists say. Sorry, you won't get that. > > > > What you will get is a comparison of models against experimental data. > > > > The model that matches experimental data is the one that is right, > > > > because nature has selected the model that is right, via experiment. > > > > Then what that model says is right, whether you buy the physical > > > > explanation or not. > > > > > I do understand what you want from science. You just aren't going to > > > > get it. You may not be happy with that, but that's too bad. > > > > > Somewhere along the line, you must have gotten the impression that the > > > > goal of science was to provide physical explanations that you are > > > > inclined to believe. It is not the goal of science to do so. Any > > > > demands on your part to get it anyway are going to be ignored. > > > > The poster said it best when quoting Newton, "Hypotheses non fingo": > > > > "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these > > > properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. > > > For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a > > > hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based > > > on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental > > > philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred > > > from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by > > > induction." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo) > > > > Newton was able to make correct predictions. Newton realized this was > > > different than understanding the cause of gravity. > > > Exactly. > > Your inability to physically explain the following is evidence you > feign hypothesis: You don't get that your spluttering accusations about what you think should matter just DON'T MATTER. You're right that Newton did not feign hypothesis. He presented a MODEL which works and which accurately (at the time, with the measurements available) predicted experimental measurements. His model, as noted by Gauss, involved the concept of "action at a distance" for which the best explanation available was that of a field that permeated space. This leaves open the question about whether there is a further physical explanation for a field in space. In science, this does not matter that there is an open question about what a field is. What matters is that the model that includes the concept of a field WORKS. I realize that you find this unacceptable, and you are attempting to bait science to provide that which you find acceptable. You are barking up the wrong tree. I've already acknowledged to you that models leave open questions. You'd like to hammer on that a while. Feel free. You're barking up the wrong tree. Science builds models that WORK, and "working" means this and ONLY this: that it makes quantitative predictions that accurately matches experimental measurement. You may not consider that "working". You may think that it's not working unless it provides a physical explanation for open questions in the model. You're barking up the wrong tree. You need to acknowledge the difference between what you want and what science provides. > > - 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 > > 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 > - Pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter 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.
From: mpc755 on 25 Mar 2010 13:50 On Mar 25, 1:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 10:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 9:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 10:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > By not being able to provide physical explanations for the following > > > > > > you are stating, "Because I said so". > > > > > > No. It's because experiments say so. Experiments are how we consult > > > > > nature. Thereby, it is nature that says so, whether you understand or > > > > > accept the physical explanations or not. > > > > > > You demand a physical explanation that you will accept before you are > > > > > willing to believe what physicists say. Sorry, you won't get that.. > > > > > What you will get is a comparison of models against experimental data. > > > > > The model that matches experimental data is the one that is right, > > > > > because nature has selected the model that is right, via experiment. > > > > > Then what that model says is right, whether you buy the physical > > > > > explanation or not. > > > > > > I do understand what you want from science. You just aren't going to > > > > > get it. You may not be happy with that, but that's too bad. > > > > > > Somewhere along the line, you must have gotten the impression that the > > > > > goal of science was to provide physical explanations that you are > > > > > inclined to believe. It is not the goal of science to do so. Any > > > > > demands on your part to get it anyway are going to be ignored. > > > > > The poster said it best when quoting Newton, "Hypotheses non fingo": > > > > > "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these > > > > properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses.. > > > > For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a > > > > hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based > > > > on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental > > > > philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred > > > > from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by > > > > induction." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo) > > > > > Newton was able to make correct predictions. Newton realized this was > > > > different than understanding the cause of gravity. > > > > Exactly. > > > Your inability to physically explain the following is evidence you > > feign hypothesis: > > You don't get that your spluttering accusations about what you think > should matter just DON'T MATTER. > > You're right that Newton did not feign hypothesis. He presented a > MODEL which works and which accurately (at the time, with the > measurements available) predicted experimental measurements. His > model, as noted by Gauss, involved the concept of "action at a > distance" for which the best explanation available was that of a field > that permeated space. This leaves open the question about whether > there is a further physical explanation for a field in space. In > science, this does not matter that there is an open question about > what a field is. What matters is that the model that includes the > concept of a field WORKS. > > I realize that you find this unacceptable, and you are attempting to > bait science to provide that which you find acceptable. You are > barking up the wrong tree. > > I've already acknowledged to you that models leave open questions. > You'd like to hammer on that a while. Feel free. You're barking up the > wrong tree. > > Science builds models that WORK, and "working" means this and ONLY > this: that it makes quantitative predictions that accurately matches > experimental measurement. > > You may not consider that "working". You may think that it's not > working unless it provides a physical explanation for open questions > in the model. You're barking up the wrong tree. > > You need to acknowledge the difference between what you want and what > science provides. > 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 are 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. Your inability to physically explain the following is evidence you feign hypothesis: - 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 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.
From: PD on 25 Mar 2010 13:53 On Mar 25, 12:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 1:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 10:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 25, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 25, 9:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 25, 10:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > By not being able to provide physical explanations for the following > > > > > > > you are stating, "Because I said so". > > > > > > > No. It's because experiments say so. Experiments are how we consult > > > > > > nature. Thereby, it is nature that says so, whether you understand or > > > > > > accept the physical explanations or not. > > > > > > > You demand a physical explanation that you will accept before you are > > > > > > willing to believe what physicists say. Sorry, you won't get that. > > > > > > What you will get is a comparison of models against experimental data. > > > > > > The model that matches experimental data is the one that is right, > > > > > > because nature has selected the model that is right, via experiment. > > > > > > Then what that model says is right, whether you buy the physical > > > > > > explanation or not. > > > > > > > I do understand what you want from science. You just aren't going to > > > > > > get it. You may not be happy with that, but that's too bad. > > > > > > > Somewhere along the line, you must have gotten the impression that the > > > > > > goal of science was to provide physical explanations that you are > > > > > > inclined to believe. It is not the goal of science to do so. Any > > > > > > demands on your part to get it anyway are going to be ignored. > > > > > > The poster said it best when quoting Newton, "Hypotheses non fingo": > > > > > > "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these > > > > > properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. > > > > > For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a > > > > > hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based > > > > > on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental > > > > > philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred > > > > > from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by > > > > > induction." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo) > > > > > > Newton was able to make correct predictions. Newton realized this was > > > > > different than understanding the cause of gravity. > > > > > Exactly. > > > > Your inability to physically explain the following is evidence you > > > feign hypothesis: > > > You don't get that your spluttering accusations about what you think > > should matter just DON'T MATTER. > > > You're right that Newton did not feign hypothesis. He presented a > > MODEL which works and which accurately (at the time, with the > > measurements available) predicted experimental measurements. His > > model, as noted by Gauss, involved the concept of "action at a > > distance" for which the best explanation available was that of a field > > that permeated space. This leaves open the question about whether > > there is a further physical explanation for a field in space. In > > science, this does not matter that there is an open question about > > what a field is. What matters is that the model that includes the > > concept of a field WORKS. > > > I realize that you find this unacceptable, and you are attempting to > > bait science to provide that which you find acceptable. You are > > barking up the wrong tree. > > > I've already acknowledged to you that models leave open questions. > > You'd like to hammer on that a while. Feel free. You're barking up the > > wrong tree. > > > Science builds models that WORK, and "working" means this and ONLY > > this: that it makes quantitative predictions that accurately matches > > experimental measurement. > > > You may not consider that "working". You may think that it's not > > working unless it provides a physical explanation for open questions > > in the model. You're barking up the wrong tree. > > > You need to acknowledge the difference between what you want and what > > science provides. > > In the image on the right here... I see no reason why you would cut and paste a repetitive post like that, which is not at all responsive to the remarks I just made to you, unless it is just important to you to be able to talk over people to hear yourself speak. Just please remember that what you want science to provide, science does not provide. Why would you shop for a canoe at a car dealership?
From: paparios on 25 Mar 2010 13:56 On 25 mar, 13:43, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 1:37 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Have you contacted Yoon-Ho Kim, Rong Yu, Sergei P. Kulik, Yanhua Shih > > or Marlan O. Scully, about the wrongness of their setup and their > > interpretation of results? > > > Wait a moment....we already know the answer....you are indeed an > > idiot!!! > > > Miguel Rios > > The existing experimental setup is not 'wrong'. > So what the hell are you whining about? Are you really that stupid? Wait a moment...we already know the answer....of course!!! Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 25 Mar 2010 13:58
On Mar 25, 1:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 12:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I see no reason why you would cut and paste a repetitive post like > that, which is not at all responsive to the remarks I just made to > you, unless it is just important to you to be able to talk over people > to hear yourself speak. I'm waiting for you to describe what occurs physically in nature in the list below. 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 are 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. Your inability to physically explain the following is evidence you feign hypothesis: - 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 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. |