Two slit experiment
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: In history the fact that the moon fits over the sun was proof of God
Next: Einstein - Special Relativity - a bird's eye view
From: Y.Porat on 8 Jun 2010 00:10 On Jun 7, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 7, 9:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 7, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 10:06 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:36 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > "Huang" <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:4d49a5fc-a034-4004-a839-9c0ed947395c(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >> > If I invent a tool (other than math) which can > > > > > >> > successfully model physical processes, then I would call that physics. > > > > > > >> No > > > > > > > Science (including physics) is : > > > > > > [1] qualitative > > > > > > [2] quantitative > > > > > > [3] predictive > > > > > > [4] reproducible > > > > > > [5] falsifiable > > > > > > Fine > > > > > > > Any physical theory which satisfies these things will be called > > > > > > physics - whether it is based on mathematics or not. > > > > > > It is it quantitative and predictive, then it is explained mathematically. > > > > > You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can > > > > accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are > > > > equivalent to mathematics. > > > > > And Im sure you'll agree that this is a question which is beyond the > > > > scope of a mathematical proof - > > > > There are tools other than mathematics for producing quantitatively > > > predictive results? > > > ---------------- > > my model i s based on mostly > > arithmetic > > and geometric structure descriptions !!! > > nothing like that in your fucken books so ?? > > moreover !!! > > as for now > > YOU HAVE NO CHANCE !!TO DESCRIBE IN A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA > > WHAT I DESCRIBE IN ONE > > SIMPLE 3D SKETCH !!! > > Even if you have a sketch, if you want a quantitative prediction, you > have to do a calculation, even a simple one. > > > moreover > > not the slightest mathematical thinking we needed for it > > yet you i bet you cant even immagine how much thinking reading > > experimental > > testing 'endless' many alternatives etc etc and testing it by > > experimental data was invested in it > > the only the simplest linear formula i was used > > in the specific weight analysis > > Y.Porat > > -------------------------- > > > Y.P > > ----------------------------- > > Y.P > > ------------------------- > > > Y.P > > ------------ -------------------- not at all !! give me an is otop of say Lead and i will give you not more then 2 at most) 3 possibilities what will be its exact Atomic weight !! with the error margins of the mass of 2 , 3 electron mass !!! (because i know exactly where Neutons can be attached to it and exactly the bond loss typical to those specific locations !! (it is fantastically innovative sorry you could not understand it until now !! may be because of too little time investment from you )) it seems to me that you still could not understand how important and revolutionary is the my book that is in your hands or you are not honest enough to admit it !! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------
From: Huang on 8 Jun 2010 12:20 None of this quibbling addresses the fact that if two objects are in the same inertial referance frame, then - if you regard one of them as being in a gravitational field then you have instantaneous information about the other. And if you regard one of them as being in an accelerated reference frame then you have spooky instantaneous information about the other. This - regardless of how far apart they are separated, and without the need for some nebulous "information aether".
From: Inertial on 8 Jun 2010 18:15
"Huang" <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f3fcd5ed-dea5-4f7e-8d11-d115541c6230(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > None of this quibbling addresses the fact that if two objects are in > the same inertial referance frame, Every object in the universe is in every inertial reference frame .. every frame includes the entire universe > then - if you regard one of them as > being in a gravitational field then you have instantaneous information > about the other. No .. you don't > And if you regard one of them as being in an > accelerated reference frame then you have spooky instantaneous > information about the other. No .. you don't > This - regardless of how far apart they are separated, and without the > need for some nebulous "information aether". Then how do you know both of them are (you are assuming) mutually at rest? There must be information exchanged or some physical mechanism in place the you can analyze that ensures it is. Regardless .. being able to say if we know two objects must have properties the same, then we know they must be the same is just a tautology, and not equivalent to entanglement. |