Wonderful!!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
From: mpc755 on 19 Jan 2010 17:36 On Jan 19, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 4:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 19, 3:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Which leads us back to IF the model which makes the most accurate > > > > quantitative predictions is of a boat creating an interference pattern > > > > on the shore in and of itself, you insist this is what physically > > > > occurs in nature. > > > > Yes, IF this were the case, yes. Even if I thought the water was > > > responsible. If I did not have a model of the water that showed that > > > IT was just as good as predicting it, then I would say that water has > > > nothing to do with the boat's interference pattern. This doesn't deny > > > the water's existence. It just says there is no working model that > > > says the water has anything to do with the interference pattern, > > > especially since I WOULD have a working model of the boat that tells > > > me where the interference pattern comes from. > > > Then your model does not reflect nature. > > And this you claim to know without scientific test. Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the boat is in the slits. Whenever the detectors are at the exits to the slits, the boat is detected exiting a single slit. When the detectors are not at the exits to the slits, the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore. Do you insist the boat enters one or both slits depending upon their being detectors at the exits to the slits when the boat gets there in the future, or are you ready at this point to acknowledge the model is a failed model and the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore because of the water?
From: PD on 19 Jan 2010 17:41 On Jan 19, 4:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 4:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 19, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 3:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Which leads us back to IF the model which makes the most accurate > > > > > quantitative predictions is of a boat creating an interference pattern > > > > > on the shore in and of itself, you insist this is what physically > > > > > occurs in nature. > > > > > Yes, IF this were the case, yes. Even if I thought the water was > > > > responsible. If I did not have a model of the water that showed that > > > > IT was just as good as predicting it, then I would say that water has > > > > nothing to do with the boat's interference pattern. This doesn't deny > > > > the water's existence. It just says there is no working model that > > > > says the water has anything to do with the interference pattern, > > > > especially since I WOULD have a working model of the boat that tells > > > > me where the interference pattern comes from. > > > > Then your model does not reflect nature. > > > And this you claim to know without scientific test. > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the boat is in > the slits. Whenever the detectors are at the exits to the slits, the > boat is detected exiting a single slit. When the detectors are not at > the exits to the slits, the boat creates an interference pattern on > the shore. > > Do you insist the boat enters one or both slits depending upon their > being detectors at the exits to the slits when the boat gets there in > the future, or are you ready at this point to acknowledge the model is > a failed model and the boat creates an interference pattern on the > shore because of the water? Does the model get the predicted observations right? Then it isn't a failed model.
From: mpc755 on 19 Jan 2010 17:48 On Jan 19, 5:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 4:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 19, 4:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 19, 3:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Which leads us back to IF the model which makes the most accurate > > > > > > quantitative predictions is of a boat creating an interference pattern > > > > > > on the shore in and of itself, you insist this is what physically > > > > > > occurs in nature. > > > > > > Yes, IF this were the case, yes. Even if I thought the water was > > > > > responsible. If I did not have a model of the water that showed that > > > > > IT was just as good as predicting it, then I would say that water has > > > > > nothing to do with the boat's interference pattern. This doesn't deny > > > > > the water's existence. It just says there is no working model that > > > > > says the water has anything to do with the interference pattern, > > > > > especially since I WOULD have a working model of the boat that tells > > > > > me where the interference pattern comes from. > > > > > Then your model does not reflect nature. > > > > And this you claim to know without scientific test. > > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the boat is in > > the slits. Whenever the detectors are at the exits to the slits, the > > boat is detected exiting a single slit. When the detectors are not at > > the exits to the slits, the boat creates an interference pattern on > > the shore. > > > Do you insist the boat enters one or both slits depending upon their > > being detectors at the exits to the slits when the boat gets there in > > the future, or are you ready at this point to acknowledge the model is > > a failed model and the boat creates an interference pattern on the > > shore because of the water? > > Does the model get the predicted observations right? Then it isn't a > failed model. Of course QM is a failed model. The fact you just had to insist the boat enters one or both slits, never mind the fact the boat always enters a single slit, depending upon what is going to occur in the future has just failed your model. You do realize, in nature, the boat always enters and exits a single slit and it is because of the water the boat is able to create the interference pattern on the shore? You do realize your model is failed from the start but you refuse to accept it and just keeping making it more failed, if that is even possible, but the additional nonsense like the future determining the past.
From: PD on 19 Jan 2010 17:53 On Jan 19, 4:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 5:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 4:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 19, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 4:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 19, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 3:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Which leads us back to IF the model which makes the most accurate > > > > > > > quantitative predictions is of a boat creating an interference pattern > > > > > > > on the shore in and of itself, you insist this is what physically > > > > > > > occurs in nature. > > > > > > > Yes, IF this were the case, yes. Even if I thought the water was > > > > > > responsible. If I did not have a model of the water that showed that > > > > > > IT was just as good as predicting it, then I would say that water has > > > > > > nothing to do with the boat's interference pattern. This doesn't deny > > > > > > the water's existence. It just says there is no working model that > > > > > > says the water has anything to do with the interference pattern, > > > > > > especially since I WOULD have a working model of the boat that tells > > > > > > me where the interference pattern comes from. > > > > > > Then your model does not reflect nature. > > > > > And this you claim to know without scientific test. > > > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the boat is in > > > the slits. Whenever the detectors are at the exits to the slits, the > > > boat is detected exiting a single slit. When the detectors are not at > > > the exits to the slits, the boat creates an interference pattern on > > > the shore. > > > > Do you insist the boat enters one or both slits depending upon their > > > being detectors at the exits to the slits when the boat gets there in > > > the future, or are you ready at this point to acknowledge the model is > > > a failed model and the boat creates an interference pattern on the > > > shore because of the water? > > > Does the model get the predicted observations right? Then it isn't a > > failed model. > > Of course QM is a failed model. The fact you just had to insist the > boat enters one or both slits, I insisted no such thing. I said IF there were such a model, then yes, I would insist on it. Since there is no such model, I don't insist on it. First you have to have a model that makes accurate predictions, you see. > never mind the fact the boat always > enters a single slit, depending upon what is going to occur in the > future has just failed your model. > > You do realize, in nature, the boat always enters and exits a single > slit and it is because of the water the boat is able to create the > interference pattern on the shore? Why would I realize that, when there's been no test of that model against experimental measurement? > > You do realize your model is failed from the start but you refuse to > accept it and just keeping making it more failed, if that is even > possible, but the additional nonsense like the future determining the > past. It's not my model, it's a HYPOTHETICAL model YOU proposed as an analogy. And it wouldn't fail until its predictions conflicted with experimental results. I know you don't like it. Repeating yourself doesn't change anything.
From: mpc755 on 19 Jan 2010 17:57
On Jan 19, 5:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 4:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 5:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 19, 4:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 19, 4:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 3:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Which leads us back to IF the model which makes the most accurate > > > > > > > > quantitative predictions is of a boat creating an interference pattern > > > > > > > > on the shore in and of itself, you insist this is what physically > > > > > > > > occurs in nature. > > > > > > > > Yes, IF this were the case, yes. Even if I thought the water was > > > > > > > responsible. If I did not have a model of the water that showed that > > > > > > > IT was just as good as predicting it, then I would say that water has > > > > > > > nothing to do with the boat's interference pattern. This doesn't deny > > > > > > > the water's existence. It just says there is no working model that > > > > > > > says the water has anything to do with the interference pattern, > > > > > > > especially since I WOULD have a working model of the boat that tells > > > > > > > me where the interference pattern comes from. > > > > > > > Then your model does not reflect nature. > > > > > > And this you claim to know without scientific test. > > > > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the boat is in > > > > the slits. Whenever the detectors are at the exits to the slits, the > > > > boat is detected exiting a single slit. When the detectors are not at > > > > the exits to the slits, the boat creates an interference pattern on > > > > the shore. > > > > > Do you insist the boat enters one or both slits depending upon their > > > > being detectors at the exits to the slits when the boat gets there in > > > > the future, or are you ready at this point to acknowledge the model is > > > > a failed model and the boat creates an interference pattern on the > > > > shore because of the water? > > > > Does the model get the predicted observations right? Then it isn't a > > > failed model. > > > Of course QM is a failed model. The fact you just had to insist the > > boat enters one or both slits, > > I insisted no such thing. I said IF there were such a model, then yes, > I would insist on it. Since there is no such model, I don't insist on > it. > Again, we are discussing the analogy where the 'correct' model, according to you, is of the boat creating the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself. When the experiment is performed where buoys are placed at the exits to the slits while the boat is in the slits, the boat does not create an interference pattern on the shore. When the experiment is performed where buoys are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the boat is in the slits, the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore. You insist the boat enters one or both slits depending upon what is going to occur in the future because that is the only way you know how to keep your model from failing. > First you have to have a model that makes accurate predictions, you > see. > > > never mind the fact the boat always > > enters a single slit, depending upon what is going to occur in the > > future has just failed your model. > > > You do realize, in nature, the boat always enters and exits a single > > slit and it is because of the water the boat is able to create the > > interference pattern on the shore? > > Why would I realize that, when there's been no test of that model > against experimental measurement? > > > > > You do realize your model is failed from the start but you refuse to > > accept it and just keeping making it more failed, if that is even > > possible, but the additional nonsense like the future determining the > > past. > > It's not my model, it's a HYPOTHETICAL model YOU proposed as an > analogy. > And it wouldn't fail until its predictions conflicted with > experimental results. > > I know you don't like it. Repeating yourself doesn't change anything. |