What is the disagreement to aether?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: 4-vector dot A = invariant => A is a 4-vector?
Next: Capacitance theory of gravity - interesting theory
From: PD on 2 Mar 2010 11:17 On Mar 2, 9:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 10:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 8:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > That is more of your inability to see how incorrect you really are. > > > > > > > There is not one 'physicist' on this forum willing to state they also > > > > > > > choose to believe the future determines the past. > > > > > > > Sure there is. > > > > > > This is more of your delusional denial. No one believes the future > > > > > determines the past other than you. > > > > > See? This is another one of those blank assertions. > > > > Your assertion there are others on this forum willing to state they > > > also choose to believe the future determines the past is not support > > > by the evidence. > > > You have chosen this forum to decide whether there is ANYONE that > > believes the future influences the past. This is like standing at a > > train station at rush hour and waiting to see if anyone is willing to > > state that platypuses are mammals, and hearing no answer, deciding > > that no one believes platypuses are mammals. > > What I originally said was "There is not one 'physicist' on this forum > willing to state they also choose to believe the future determines the > past." > > Your response was "Sure there is." And I went on to state that they aren't doing that in response to YOUR posts, because physicists do not typically respond to your posts, except for me. Just because you do not find kangaroos in your back yard does not mean there are no kangaroos. Nor can you demand proof of kangaroos by demanding they show up in your back yard when you call them. You are being IGNORED by physicists, except for me. > > Since no one on this forum, besides yourself has stated they choose to > believe the future determines the past my statement is still correct > and your assertion that there is is not supported by the evidence. > > This is just more of your delusional denial. > > > If you want to find out what scientists think, then go to where > > scientists WRITE what they think. This is not the place for that. > > This is a place where you are the only person who has stated the > future determines the past. This is a place where you have said others > have stated the future determines the past which is incorrect. Yes, it is true that others have stated this. Just not in posts in response to you. Because physicists do not typically respond to your posts, except for me. This is because you're a whack job. But you know that. > > This is a place where your delusional denial is evident. > > The future does not determine the past. What occurs physically in > nature is the wave propagates the available paths and the particle > travels a single path. If you were not conceptually deficient you > would be able to apply this knowledge to any double slit, 'delayed > choice', or 'quantum eraser' experiment and you would then understand > what occurs physically in nature. > > > > > > > I've already told you I'd be happy to point you to numerous books > > > > where it is stated by physicists that the future is seen determining > > > > the past. > > > > What you do not realize is the future does not determine the past. I > > > have explained to you why thinking the future determines the past is > > > due to your failed theory. > > > > In any experiment where you think the future determines the past all > > > that is occurring physically in nature is the wave is propagating the > > > available paths and the particle travels a single path. If you were > > > conceptually able to understand this then you would realize the future > > > does not determine the past.> That is in black and white, and I can assure you that I'm > > > > not going to manufacture a book and plant it in a book store near you > > > > to fool you. You're not paranoid delusional, are you? > > > > > You can also clamp your hands over your ears and say, "No-no-no-no-no- > > > > no-no! I won't believe it and you CAN'T MAKE ME!!!" This is of course > > > > true. I don't try to convince table legs. > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > They're just not talking to you. > > > > > > Have you figured out how to get physicists to answer that question yes > > > > > > or no? > > > > > > When people don't talk to you, do you know what they're thinking by > > > > > > reading their minds? Or do you just make it up what they think? > > > > > > > You make up a lot of things. That's because you're mental. > > > > > > > > There is not one non- > > > > > > > physicist on this forum willing to state they also choose to believe > > > > > > > the future determines the past. > > > > > > > And why do the opinions of non-physicists matter on this subject? > > > > > > > > No one chooses to believe the future > > > > > > > determines the past but you. > > > > > > > That's simply wrong. Would you like some book references so you can > > > > > > see other people that believe this? Or do they have to come to a loon > > > > > > to directly talk to the loon to try to convince the loon, because the > > > > > > loon wants it that way? > > > > > > > > Do you know why that is? Because the > > > > > > > future does not determine the past. > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > When a photon is detected by the material which is the human body it > > > > > > > decompresses and the effect this expansion has on the neighboring > > > > > > > mather generates heat. > > > > > > > > > Considering that you are a loon, most physicists aren't > > > > > > > > the least bit interested in talking with you at all. When they do, > > > > > > > > they usually engage with you for one or two posts and then give up in > > > > > > > > disgust. Personally, I find you perversely amusing, which accounts for > > > > > > > > my long (and pointless) conversations with you. > > > > > > > > > I don't have any pretense of trying to convince you of something you > > > > > > > > are determined not to believe. That would be like teaching algebra to > > > > > > > > a table leg. All I'm pointing out to you is that you've got nothing > > > > > > > > but assertion behind what you do believe. Even a table leg could > > > > > > > > figure that out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It just boils your blood to ask a question, doesn't it? Asking > > > > > > > > > > > > questions makes you feel stupid, and you've felt stupid your whole > > > > > > > > > > > > life, so you'll be damned if you're going to ask a question. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not at all. I am always willing to ask a question when I do not > > > > > > > > > > > understand something. > > > > > > > > > > > How about photons and heat? Understand them? You were almost asking > > > > > > > > > > questions about them earlier. Almost. > > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > > When a photon is detected what occurs physically in nature is the > > > > > > > > > aether wave collapses when detected into a quantum of mather. When a > > > > > > > > > photon interacts with the material which is the human body the quantum > > > > > > > > > of mather expands in three dimensional space as it transitions to > > > > > > > > > aether and the physical effects this expansion has on the neighboring > > > > > > > > > mather generates heat. > > > > > > > > > See? Can't ask a question. The question almost comes out and then it > > > > > > > > just gets lodged in your throat like a chicken bone. Can't do it. It's > > > > > > > > a pathological problem. But you know you've got problems, so I don't > > > > > > > > have to tell you that. > > > > > > > > > > > > It just so happens I understand a moving C-60 > > > > > > > > > > > molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know you have an emotional problem, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The photon > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a directed/pointed wave in the aether which when detected collapses > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a quantum of mather. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the quantum of mather is detected in the material which is the > > > > > > > > > > > > > human body the mather decompresses. The physical effect of this > > > > > > > > > > > > > decompression on the neighboring mather is heat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > photon and now there is no longer a photon so the photon is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'absorbed'. After the photon is 'absorbed' there is 'heat', so 'heat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > radiates'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I certainly didn't say that. I don't know where you got this stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you can stop just making stuff up and start asking simple > > > > > > > > > > > > > > questions, you'll get answers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All your statements do is mimic results. Your statements do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not explain what occurs physically in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is another example you will not understand. The poster responded > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with 'Heat is radiated by photons'. What is physically occurring in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nature to cause 'heat' to exist and to be radiated? None of that is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > answered with meaningless statements like 'Absorbed photon'. What does > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the photon physically exist as in order for it to be absorbed? What we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > get from the poster is a meaningless 'Absorbed photon causes heat to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be radiated'. That is not a description of what occurs physically in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nature. I realize you cannot understand the point I am trying to make > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because you are conceptually deficient but the fact remains a > > > ... > > > read more » > >
From: mpc755 on 2 Mar 2010 12:14 On Mar 2, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 9:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 2, 10:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 1, 8:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > That is more of your inability to see how incorrect you really are. > > > > > > > > There is not one 'physicist' on this forum willing to state they also > > > > > > > > choose to believe the future determines the past. > > > > > > > > Sure there is. > > > > > > > This is more of your delusional denial. No one believes the future > > > > > > determines the past other than you. > > > > > > See? This is another one of those blank assertions. > > > > > Your assertion there are others on this forum willing to state they > > > > also choose to believe the future determines the past is not support > > > > by the evidence. > > > > You have chosen this forum to decide whether there is ANYONE that > > > believes the future influences the past. This is like standing at a > > > train station at rush hour and waiting to see if anyone is willing to > > > state that platypuses are mammals, and hearing no answer, deciding > > > that no one believes platypuses are mammals. > > > What I originally said was "There is not one 'physicist' on this forum > > willing to state they also choose to believe the future determines the > > past." > > > Your response was "Sure there is." > > And I went on to state that they aren't doing that in response to YOUR > posts, because physicists do not typically respond to your posts, > except for me. > > Just because you do not find kangaroos in your back yard does not mean > there are no kangaroos. Nor can you demand proof of kangaroos by > demanding they show up in your back yard when you call them. > > You are being IGNORED by physicists, except for me. > Point to one post, besides yours, on this forum where another poster states the future determines the past. You can't. But you insist others have posted the future determines the past. That is delusional denial. > > > > Since no one on this forum, besides yourself has stated they choose to > > believe the future determines the past my statement is still correct > > and your assertion that there is is not supported by the evidence. > > > This is just more of your delusional denial. > > > > If you want to find out what scientists think, then go to where > > > scientists WRITE what they think. This is not the place for that. > > > This is a place where you are the only person who has stated the > > future determines the past. This is a place where you have said others > > have stated the future determines the past which is incorrect. > > Yes, it is true that others have stated this. Just not in posts in > response to you. Because physicists do not typically respond to your > posts, except for me. > Link to the post. > > This is because you're a whack job. But you know that. > It is to be delusional denial to think the future determines the past when the associated wave physically propagates the available paths and the particle travels a single path. In any double slit, 'delayed choice', or 'quantum eraser' experiment this is what occurs physically in nature.
From: PD on 2 Mar 2010 13:26 On Mar 2, 11:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 2, 9:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 2, 10:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 8:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > That is more of your inability to see how incorrect you really are. > > > > > > > > > There is not one 'physicist' on this forum willing to state they also > > > > > > > > > choose to believe the future determines the past. > > > > > > > > > Sure there is. > > > > > > > > This is more of your delusional denial. No one believes the future > > > > > > > determines the past other than you. > > > > > > > See? This is another one of those blank assertions. > > > > > > Your assertion there are others on this forum willing to state they > > > > > also choose to believe the future determines the past is not support > > > > > by the evidence. > > > > > You have chosen this forum to decide whether there is ANYONE that > > > > believes the future influences the past. This is like standing at a > > > > train station at rush hour and waiting to see if anyone is willing to > > > > state that platypuses are mammals, and hearing no answer, deciding > > > > that no one believes platypuses are mammals. > > > > What I originally said was "There is not one 'physicist' on this forum > > > willing to state they also choose to believe the future determines the > > > past." > > > > Your response was "Sure there is." > > > And I went on to state that they aren't doing that in response to YOUR > > posts, because physicists do not typically respond to your posts, > > except for me. > > > Just because you do not find kangaroos in your back yard does not mean > > there are no kangaroos. Nor can you demand proof of kangaroos by > > demanding they show up in your back yard when you call them. > > > You are being IGNORED by physicists, except for me. > > Point to one post, besides yours, on this forum where another poster > states the future determines the past. > > You can't. But you insist others have posted the future determines the > past. > > That is delusional denial. > > > > > > > > Since no one on this forum, besides yourself has stated they choose to > > > believe the future determines the past my statement is still correct > > > and your assertion that there is is not supported by the evidence. > > > > This is just more of your delusional denial. > > > > > If you want to find out what scientists think, then go to where > > > > scientists WRITE what they think. This is not the place for that. > > > > This is a place where you are the only person who has stated the > > > future determines the past. This is a place where you have said others > > > have stated the future determines the past which is incorrect. > > > Yes, it is true that others have stated this. Just not in posts in > > response to you. Because physicists do not typically respond to your > > posts, except for me. > > Link to the post. You bet. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/abb27b82ac47b35f http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e2d42e35688b5247 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/36b0334eaa15d4f2 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c1d88cbe3b3dea20 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c84141a830fd0573 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c8c11b50da17e930 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a9b966ede393846a http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0ccb99331e8042ae http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/30e55de35b48249c http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/30e55de35b48249c http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/010f2327fdd9618f http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/eeae942e93a61e1a http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1f1b170547cd0a47 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/12be9bfb27bf946e http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c8cddb26b6403b6f http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/27fae277adf15d38 That took me two minutes. I don't know why you couldn't do the same, spend another five minutes and come up with 25 more. Now, have a talk with yourself and just remind yourself that nothing you say is true just because you say it's true. No physicist other than me sustains a conversation with you because you're a whack job. > > > > > This is because you're a whack job. But you know that. > > It is to be delusional denial to think the future determines the past > when the associated wave physically propagates the available paths and > the particle travels a single path. In any double slit, 'delayed > choice', or 'quantum eraser' experiment this is what occurs physically > in nature.
From: mpc755 on 2 Mar 2010 13:40 On Mar 2, 1:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 11:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 2, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 2, 9:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 2, 10:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 1, 8:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > That is more of your inability to see how incorrect you really are. > > > > > > > > > > There is not one 'physicist' on this forum willing to state they also > > > > > > > > > > choose to believe the future determines the past. > > > > > > > > > > Sure there is. > > > > > > > > > This is more of your delusional denial. No one believes the future > > > > > > > > determines the past other than you. > > > > > > > > See? This is another one of those blank assertions. > > > > > > > Your assertion there are others on this forum willing to state they > > > > > > also choose to believe the future determines the past is not support > > > > > > by the evidence. > > > > > > You have chosen this forum to decide whether there is ANYONE that > > > > > believes the future influences the past. This is like standing at a > > > > > train station at rush hour and waiting to see if anyone is willing to > > > > > state that platypuses are mammals, and hearing no answer, deciding > > > > > that no one believes platypuses are mammals. > > > > > What I originally said was "There is not one 'physicist' on this forum > > > > willing to state they also choose to believe the future determines the > > > > past." > > > > > Your response was "Sure there is." > > > > And I went on to state that they aren't doing that in response to YOUR > > > posts, because physicists do not typically respond to your posts, > > > except for me. > > > > Just because you do not find kangaroos in your back yard does not mean > > > there are no kangaroos. Nor can you demand proof of kangaroos by > > > demanding they show up in your back yard when you call them. > > > > You are being IGNORED by physicists, except for me. > > > Point to one post, besides yours, on this forum where another poster > > states the future determines the past. > > > You can't. But you insist others have posted the future determines the > > past. > > > That is delusional denial. > > > > > Since no one on this forum, besides yourself has stated they choose to > > > > believe the future determines the past my statement is still correct > > > > and your assertion that there is is not supported by the evidence. > > > > > This is just more of your delusional denial. > > > > > > If you want to find out what scientists think, then go to where > > > > > scientists WRITE what they think. This is not the place for that. > > > > > This is a place where you are the only person who has stated the > > > > future determines the past. This is a place where you have said others > > > > have stated the future determines the past which is incorrect. > > > > Yes, it is true that others have stated this. Just not in posts in > > > response to you. Because physicists do not typically respond to your > > > posts, except for me. > > > Link to the post. > > You bet. > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/abb27b82ac4... Incorrect: "However, no information can travel backward in time." > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e2d42e35688b5247 > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/36b0334eaa1... > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c1d88cbe3b3dea20 Incorrect, qualification: "Hence, any *realistic* interpretation would seem to have to accept causation backward in time" > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c84141a830fd0573 > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c8c11b50da17e930 Incorrect: Nothing in there about the future determining the past. > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a9b966ede393846a > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0ccb99331e8042ae > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/30e55de35b4... > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/30e55de35b4... > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/010f2327fdd9618f > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/eeae942e93a61e1a > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1f1b170547cd0a47 > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/12be9bfb27bf946e > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c8cddb26b6403b6f > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/27fae277adf... > > That took me two minutes. > > I don't know why you couldn't do the same, spend another five minutes > and come up with 25 more. > > Now, have a talk with yourself and just remind yourself that nothing > you say is true just because you say it's true. > > No physicist other than me sustains a conversation with you because > you're a whack job. > The future does not determine the past. As you can tell from the qualifications in most of the links you have posted there isn't much confidence at all about what is occurring in 'delayed choice' and 'quantum eraser' experiments. Unfortunately, the dogma of QM keeps those indoctrinated from understanding the physical wave propagates the available paths and the particle physically travels a single path. With this more correct understanding of what occurs physically in nature the uncertainty of understanding the experiments is removed. > > > > > This is because you're a whack job. But you know that. > > > It is to be delusional denial to think the future determines the past > > when the associated wave physically propagates the available paths and > > the particle travels a single path. In any double slit, 'delayed > > choice', or 'quantum eraser' experiment this is what occurs physically > > in nature. > >
From: paparios on 2 Mar 2010 14:04
On 2 mar, 15:40, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 1:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 2, 11:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 2, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 2, 9:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 2, 10:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 8:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > That is more of your inability to see how incorrect you really are. > > > > > > > > > > > There is not one 'physicist' on this forum willing to state they also > > > > > > > > > > > choose to believe the future determines the past. > > > > > > > > > > > Sure there is. > > > > > > > > > > This is more of your delusional denial. No one believes the future > > > > > > > > > determines the past other than you. > > > > > > > > > See? This is another one of those blank assertions. > > > > > > > > Your assertion there are others on this forum willing to state they > > > > > > > also choose to believe the future determines the past is not support > > > > > > > by the evidence. > > > > > > > You have chosen this forum to decide whether there is ANYONE that > > > > > > believes the future influences the past. This is like standing at a > > > > > > train station at rush hour and waiting to see if anyone is willing to > > > > > > state that platypuses are mammals, and hearing no answer, deciding > > > > > > that no one believes platypuses are mammals. > > > > > > What I originally said was "There is not one 'physicist' on this forum > > > > > willing to state they also choose to believe the future determines the > > > > > past." > > > > > > Your response was "Sure there is." > > > > > And I went on to state that they aren't doing that in response to YOUR > > > > posts, because physicists do not typically respond to your posts, > > > > except for me. > > > > > Just because you do not find kangaroos in your back yard does not mean > > > > there are no kangaroos. Nor can you demand proof of kangaroos by > > > > demanding they show up in your back yard when you call them. > > > > > You are being IGNORED by physicists, except for me. > > > > Point to one post, besides yours, on this forum where another poster > > > states the future determines the past. > > > > You can't. But you insist others have posted the future determines the > > > past. > > > > That is delusional denial. > > > > > > Since no one on this forum, besides yourself has stated they choose to > > > > > believe the future determines the past my statement is still correct > > > > > and your assertion that there is is not supported by the evidence.. > > > > > > This is just more of your delusional denial. > > > > > > > If you want to find out what scientists think, then go to where > > > > > > scientists WRITE what they think. This is not the place for that. > > > > > > This is a place where you are the only person who has stated the > > > > > future determines the past. This is a place where you have said others > > > > > have stated the future determines the past which is incorrect. > > > > > Yes, it is true that others have stated this. Just not in posts in > > > > response to you. Because physicists do not typically respond to your > > > > posts, except for me. > > > > Link to the post. > > > You bet. > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/abb27b82ac4... > > Incorrect: "However, no information can travel backward in time." > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e2d42e35688b5247 > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/36b0334eaa1... > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c1d88cbe3b3dea20 > > Incorrect, qualification: "Hence, any *realistic* interpretation would > seem to have to accept > causation backward in time" > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c84141a830fd0573 > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c8c11b50da17e930 > > Incorrect: Nothing in there about the future determining the past. > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a9b966ede393846a > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0ccb99331e8042ae > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/30e55de35b4... > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/30e55de35b4... > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/010f2327fdd9618f > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/eeae942e93a61e1a > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1f1b170547cd0a47 > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/12be9bfb27bf946e > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c8cddb26b6403b6f > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/27fae277adf... > > > That took me two minutes. > > > I don't know why you couldn't do the same, spend another five minutes > > and come up with 25 more. > > > Now, have a talk with yourself and just remind yourself that nothing > > you say is true just because you say it's true. > > > No physicist other than me sustains a conversation with you because > > you're a whack job. > > The future does not determine the past. As you can tell from the > qualifications in most of the links you have posted there isn't much > confidence at all about what is occurring in 'delayed choice' and > 'quantum eraser' experiments. > > Unfortunately, the dogma of QM keeps those indoctrinated from > understanding the physical wave propagates the available paths and the > particle physically travels a single path. With this more correct > understanding of what occurs physically in nature the uncertainty of > understanding the experiments is removed. > > > > > > > This is because you're a whack job. But you know that. > > > > It is to be delusional denial to think the future determines the past > > > when the associated wave physically propagates the available paths and > > > the particle travels a single path. In any double slit, 'delayed > > > choice', or 'quantum eraser' experiment this is what occurs physically > > > in nature. > > Why do you insist in writing nonsense and lies? I directed you to the scientific papers explaining in detail how these quantum real experiments are carried out. You know nothing of any of the subjects you write about, so your only hope is just write to yourself and wait that somebody will answer which, by the way, usually is yourself again. Get help and quick...you are loosing your mind fast. Miguel Rios |