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: mpc755 on 2 Mar 2010 16:26 On Mar 2, 4:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 1:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 2, 4:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 2, 2:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 2, 2:04 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > I realize you are also conceptually challenged and cannot escape the > > > > indoctrination of the QM dogma which you exist in. > > > > You are hopeless and a pretender, and what's more, you lie to > > > yourself. > > > > You tell yourself that because no one talks to you, they must agree > > > with you. > > > You lied to yourself to allow yourself to think that no one believes > > > what quantum mechanics says. > > > You then lied to yourself to allow yourself to think that no one on > > > this newsgroup believes what quantum mechanics says. > > > You then lied to yourself that those people who do believe what > > > quantum mechanics says are conceptually challenged and indoctrinated. > > > > Pretty soon you'll have lied to yourself to allow yourself to think > > > that you are the savior of science, and that you are being persecuted > > > for your genius. A couple weeks later you'll put the gun in your > > > mouth. > > > The future does not determine the past. You have chosen to believe in > > absurd nonsense in order to stay in a state of delusional denial your > > theory has not failed. > > > The observed behaviors in every double slit, 'quantum eraser', and > > 'delayed choice' experiment is because of the physical wave in the > > aether propagating the available paths and the particle traveling a > > single path. Interference occurs whenever the paths are combined which > > alters the direction the particle travels. Detectors placed along a > > path causes decoherence of the wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and > > there is no interference.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The physical reality of the time flow over matter and light must be > included in what we consider the constitution of matter and light > themselves. > > Time flow is part of energy and field togetherness in Unification. > > Mitch Raemsch The observed behaviors in every double slit, 'quantum eraser', and 'delayed choice' experiment is because of the physical wave in the aether propagating the available paths and the particle traveling a single path. Interference occurs whenever the paths are combined which alters the direction the particle travels. Detectors placed along a path causes decoherence of the wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference.
From: spudnik on 3 Mar 2010 17:17
isn't the platypus a nonplacental mammal, as in, What does her milk taste like?... please, don't bother with the pro-hominemania of your supposed status as a practicing and/or trained physicist, or netdoggy! proabably most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results, a la Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon, in assinging all of the energy of the wave-front as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) of a particle, whence the wave-energy was somehow collected by the photoeletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a) just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b) show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned to absorb a particular frequency of light. so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just one cycle of the frequency? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/ --The Ides of March Are Coming: Pro-Impeachment Democrat Wins Nomination in Texas! http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100303kesha_victory.html |