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 21 Jan 2010 11:43 On Jan 21, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 21, 9:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Every time buoys are placed at the exits to the slits the boat is > > detected exiting a single slit. To think the boat exits both slits and > > is able to create an interference pattern on the shore in and of > > itself simply because there are no buoys at the exits is absurd. > > Why is it absurd? Because it conflicts with your common sense? > In order to try and maintain a failed model, a model which failed from the very start, you simply added more absurdity to the model. The fact that you did not realize the boat creates a displacement wave in the water caused you to initially assume the boat created the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself. Now you are holding onto that failed model and doing every thing possible to maintain your state of denial. When it is pointed out to you the boat is creating a displacement wave in the water, you simply refuse to accept it. Even when it is pointed out to you and you see it with your own eyes, your refuse to accept it. You choose to maintain your belief in a failed model even though you have to ignore the experimental evidence of the boat always being detected exiting a single slit. Your model is so absurd you have to make stuff up like the boat actually exits both slits when not detected. Your model is so absurd you have to believe the boat enters one or both slits depending upon what is going to occur in the future. The boat is always detected exiting a single slit because the boat always exits a single slit. > > > > To think a boat enters one or multiple slits because of buoys placed > > at the exits to the slits in the future is absurd. > > Why is it absurd? Because it conflicts with your common sense? > > > > > > And you CERTAINLY don't know it for C-60 molecules. > > > Every time detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the C-60 > > molecule is detected exiting a single slit. To think the C-60 molecule > > exits both slits and is able to create an interference pattern in and > > of itself simply because there are no detectors at the exits is > > absurd. > > Why is it absurd? Because it conflicts with your common sense? > In order to try and maintain a failed model, a model which failed from the very start, you simply added more absurdity to the model. The fact that you did not realize the C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether caused you to initially assume the C-60 molecule created the interference pattern in and of itself. Now you are holding onto that failed model and doing every thing possible to maintain your state of denial. When it is pointed out to you the C-60 molecule is creating a displacement wave in the aether, you simply refuse to accept it. Even when it is pointed out to you and you see it with your own eyes where the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit, your refuse to accept it. You choose to maintain your belief in a failed model even though you have to ignore the experimental evidence of the C-60 molecule always being detected exiting a single slit. Your model is so absurd you have to make stuff up like the C-60 molecule actually exits both slits when not detected. Your model is so absurd you have to believe the C-60 molecule enters one or both slits depending upon what is going to occur in the future. The C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit because the C-60 molecule always exits a single slit. > > > To think a C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits because of > > detectors placed at the exits to the slits in the future is absurd. > > Why is it absurd? Because it conflicts with your common sense? > > > > You make these statements about what IS true about boats and > > > molecules, without any means to TEST whether what you believe is true > > > is actually true. Without the test, it's just faith. > > > > > in nature, regardless of what your model is forcing you to believe in > > > > in order for you to remain under the illusion in your mind the model > > > > has not failed. > > > > > > > > > > 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: PD on 21 Jan 2010 11:49 On Jan 21, 10:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 21, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 21, 9:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Every time buoys are placed at the exits to the slits the boat is > > > detected exiting a single slit. To think the boat exits both slits and > > > is able to create an interference pattern on the shore in and of > > > itself simply because there are no buoys at the exits is absurd. > > > Why is it absurd? Because it conflicts with your common sense? > > In order to try and maintain a failed model, a model which failed from > the very start, you simply added more absurdity to the model. What absurdity. There is no absurdity. Why is absurd? Because it conflicts with your common sense? A model only fails -- ONLY -- in science if its predictions do not match measurement. If you think models can fail for any other reason, science disagrees with you. Your metric that a model can fail if it conflicts with your common sense CERTAINLY isn't used by science. Period. > The fact > that you did not realize the boat creates a displacement wave in the > water caused you to initially assume the boat created the interference > pattern on the shore in and of itself. Now you are holding onto that > failed model and doing every thing possible to maintain your state of > denial. > > When it is pointed out to you the boat is creating a displacement wave > in the water, you simply refuse to accept it. Even when it is pointed > out to you and you see it with your own eyes, your refuse to accept > it. > > You choose to maintain your belief in a failed model even though you > have to ignore the experimental evidence of the boat always being > detected exiting a single slit. > > Your model is so absurd you have to make stuff up like the boat > actually exits both slits when not detected. I said no such thing. It was YOUR hypothetical model that you SUPPOSED existed and SUPPOSED made accurate predictions. I did not say such a model exists. I did not say that the hypothetical model actually does make accurate predictions. I did not say that we can now conclude that the boat actually exits both slits. You seem to have trouble distinguishing hypothetical fantasies from reality. > Your model is so absurd > you have to believe the boat enters one or both slits depending upon > what is going to occur in the future. > > The boat is always detected exiting a single slit because the boat > always exits a single slit. > > > > > > > > To think a boat enters one or multiple slits because of buoys placed > > > at the exits to the slits in the future is absurd. > > > Why is it absurd? Because it conflicts with your common sense? > > > > > And you CERTAINLY don't know it for C-60 molecules. > > > > Every time detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the C-60 > > > molecule is detected exiting a single slit. To think the C-60 molecule > > > exits both slits and is able to create an interference pattern in and > > > of itself simply because there are no detectors at the exits is > > > absurd. > > > Why is it absurd? Because it conflicts with your common sense? > > In order to try and maintain a failed model, a model which failed from > the very start, you simply added more absurdity to the model. The fact > that you did not realize the C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave > in the aether caused you to initially assume the C-60 molecule created > the interference pattern in and of itself. Now you are holding onto > that failed model and doing every thing possible to maintain your > state of denial. > > When it is pointed out to you the C-60 molecule is creating a > displacement wave in the aether, you simply refuse to accept it. Even > when it is pointed out to you and you see it with your own eyes where > the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit, your > refuse to accept it. > > You choose to maintain your belief in a failed model even though you > have to ignore the experimental evidence of the C-60 molecule always > being detected exiting a single slit. > > Your model is so absurd you have to make stuff up like the C-60 > molecule actually exits both slits when not detected. Your model is so > absurd you have to believe the C-60 molecule enters one or both slits > depending upon what is going to occur in the future. > > The C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit because the > C-60 molecule always exits a single slit. > > > > > > To think a C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits because of > > > detectors placed at the exits to the slits in the future is absurd. > > > Why is it absurd? Because it conflicts with your common sense? > > > > > You make these statements about what IS true about boats and > > > > molecules, without any means to TEST whether what you believe is true > > > > is actually true. Without the test, it's just faith. > > > > > > in nature, regardless of what your model is forcing you to believe in > > > > > in order for you to remain under the illusion in your mind the model > > > > > has not failed. > > > > > > > > > > > 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 21 Jan 2010 12:05 On Jan 21, 11:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 21, 10:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 21, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 21, 9:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Every time buoys are placed at the exits to the slits the boat is > > > > detected exiting a single slit. To think the boat exits both slits and > > > > is able to create an interference pattern on the shore in and of > > > > itself simply because there are no buoys at the exits is absurd. > > > > Why is it absurd? Because it conflicts with your common sense? > > > In order to try and maintain a failed model, a model which failed from > > the very start, you simply added more absurdity to the model. > > What absurdity. There is no absurdity. Why is absurd? Because it > conflicts with your common sense? > > A model only fails -- ONLY -- in science if its predictions do not > match measurement. If you think models can fail for any other reason, > science disagrees with you. > > Your metric that a model can fail if it conflicts with your common > sense CERTAINLY isn't used by science. Period. > > > > > The fact > > that you did not realize the boat creates a displacement wave in the > > water caused you to initially assume the boat created the interference > > pattern on the shore in and of itself. Now you are holding onto that > > failed model and doing every thing possible to maintain your state of > > denial. > > > When it is pointed out to you the boat is creating a displacement wave > > in the water, you simply refuse to accept it. Even when it is pointed > > out to you and you see it with your own eyes, your refuse to accept > > it. > > > You choose to maintain your belief in a failed model even though you > > have to ignore the experimental evidence of the boat always being > > detected exiting a single slit. > > > Your model is so absurd you have to make stuff up like the boat > > actually exits both slits when not detected. > > I said no such thing. It was YOUR hypothetical model that you SUPPOSED > existed and SUPPOSED made accurate predictions. I did not say such a > model exists. I did not say that the hypothetical model actually does > make accurate predictions. I did not say that we can now conclude that > the boat actually exits both slits. > > You seem to have trouble distinguishing hypothetical fantasies from > reality. > We are in agreement this is a hypothetical. This is your response to my post: "AND IF the model predicts *quantitatively* (and this means much more than "there is one" or "there isn't one") what the interference pattern looks like in both cases. Again, there isn't such a model, so this is all hypothetical. > 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. No, not because that's the only way to keep the model from failing. because it is BUILT INTO the model." You stated the boat exits one slit or both slits, in the hypothetical, depending upon what is going to occur in the future is BUILT INTO the model. There is no difference between a boat in water and a C-60 molecule in aether. Your refusal to acknowledge the boat creates an interference pattern because of the water is the same as your refusal to acknowledge the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern because of the aether, hypothetical or no hypothetical, is absurd.
From: PD on 21 Jan 2010 14:02 On Jan 21, 11:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 21, 11:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 21, 10:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 21, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 21, 9:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Every time buoys are placed at the exits to the slits the boat is > > > > > detected exiting a single slit. To think the boat exits both slits and > > > > > is able to create an interference pattern on the shore in and of > > > > > itself simply because there are no buoys at the exits is absurd. > > > > > Why is it absurd? Because it conflicts with your common sense? > > > > In order to try and maintain a failed model, a model which failed from > > > the very start, you simply added more absurdity to the model. > > > What absurdity. There is no absurdity. Why is absurd? Because it > > conflicts with your common sense? > > > A model only fails -- ONLY -- in science if its predictions do not > > match measurement. If you think models can fail for any other reason, > > science disagrees with you. > > > Your metric that a model can fail if it conflicts with your common > > sense CERTAINLY isn't used by science. Period. > > > > The fact > > > that you did not realize the boat creates a displacement wave in the > > > water caused you to initially assume the boat created the interference > > > pattern on the shore in and of itself. Now you are holding onto that > > > failed model and doing every thing possible to maintain your state of > > > denial. > > > > When it is pointed out to you the boat is creating a displacement wave > > > in the water, you simply refuse to accept it. Even when it is pointed > > > out to you and you see it with your own eyes, your refuse to accept > > > it. > > > > You choose to maintain your belief in a failed model even though you > > > have to ignore the experimental evidence of the boat always being > > > detected exiting a single slit. > > > > Your model is so absurd you have to make stuff up like the boat > > > actually exits both slits when not detected. > > > I said no such thing. It was YOUR hypothetical model that you SUPPOSED > > existed and SUPPOSED made accurate predictions. I did not say such a > > model exists. I did not say that the hypothetical model actually does > > make accurate predictions. I did not say that we can now conclude that > > the boat actually exits both slits. > > > You seem to have trouble distinguishing hypothetical fantasies from > > reality. > > We are in agreement this is a hypothetical. Then stop saying I'm insisting this is the actual fact. > > This is your response to my post: > > "AND IF the model predicts *quantitatively* (and this means much more > than "there is one" or "there isn't one") what the interference > pattern looks like in both cases. Again, there isn't such a model, so > this is all hypothetical. > > > 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. > > No, not because that's the only way to keep the model from failing. > because it is BUILT INTO the model." > > You stated the boat exits one slit or both slits, in the hypothetical, > depending upon what is going to occur in the future is BUILT INTO the > model. > > There is no difference between a boat in water and a C-60 molecule in > aether. If there is no difference, then you should be able to use the model for a boat in the water to make quantitative predictions of the interference patterns of the C-60 molecules passing through slits. When you have done this and shown that it matches observations *quantitatively*, THEN you will have a model. Not until then. Until then, your claim that there is no difference is an assertion without back-up. > Your refusal to acknowledge the boat creates an interference > pattern because of the water is the same as your refusal to > acknowledge the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern because > of the aether, hypothetical or no hypothetical, is absurd.
From: mpc755 on 21 Jan 2010 14:05
On Jan 21, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 21, 11:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 21, 11:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 21, 10:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 21, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 21, 9:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Every time buoys are placed at the exits to the slits the boat is > > > > > > detected exiting a single slit. To think the boat exits both slits and > > > > > > is able to create an interference pattern on the shore in and of > > > > > > itself simply because there are no buoys at the exits is absurd.. > > > > > > Why is it absurd? Because it conflicts with your common sense? > > > > > In order to try and maintain a failed model, a model which failed from > > > > the very start, you simply added more absurdity to the model. > > > > What absurdity. There is no absurdity. Why is absurd? Because it > > > conflicts with your common sense? > > > > A model only fails -- ONLY -- in science if its predictions do not > > > match measurement. If you think models can fail for any other reason, > > > science disagrees with you. > > > > Your metric that a model can fail if it conflicts with your common > > > sense CERTAINLY isn't used by science. Period. > > > > > The fact > > > > that you did not realize the boat creates a displacement wave in the > > > > water caused you to initially assume the boat created the interference > > > > pattern on the shore in and of itself. Now you are holding onto that > > > > failed model and doing every thing possible to maintain your state of > > > > denial. > > > > > When it is pointed out to you the boat is creating a displacement wave > > > > in the water, you simply refuse to accept it. Even when it is pointed > > > > out to you and you see it with your own eyes, your refuse to accept > > > > it. > > > > > You choose to maintain your belief in a failed model even though you > > > > have to ignore the experimental evidence of the boat always being > > > > detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > Your model is so absurd you have to make stuff up like the boat > > > > actually exits both slits when not detected. > > > > I said no such thing. It was YOUR hypothetical model that you SUPPOSED > > > existed and SUPPOSED made accurate predictions. I did not say such a > > > model exists. I did not say that the hypothetical model actually does > > > make accurate predictions. I did not say that we can now conclude that > > > the boat actually exits both slits. > > > > You seem to have trouble distinguishing hypothetical fantasies from > > > reality. > > > We are in agreement this is a hypothetical. > > Then stop saying I'm insisting this is the actual fact. > > > > > > > This is your response to my post: > > > "AND IF the model predicts *quantitatively* (and this means much more > > than "there is one" or "there isn't one") what the interference > > pattern looks like in both cases. Again, there isn't such a model, so > > this is all hypothetical. > > > > 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. > > > No, not because that's the only way to keep the model from failing. > > because it is BUILT INTO the model." > > > You stated the boat exits one slit or both slits, in the hypothetical, > > depending upon what is going to occur in the future is BUILT INTO the > > model. > > > There is no difference between a boat in water and a C-60 molecule in > > aether. > > If there is no difference, then you should be able to use the model > for a boat in the water to make quantitative predictions of the > interference patterns of the C-60 molecules passing through slits. > When you have done this and shown that it matches observations > *quantitatively*, THEN you will have a model. Not until then. Until > then, your claim that there is no difference is an assertion without > back-up. > It is not without backup. If a double slit experiment is preformed in a superfluid, the particle will create an interference pattern not in and of itself, but because of the superfluid. If you perform my gedanken, the aether wave associated with a detected photon will create interference with another photon. > > Your refusal to acknowledge the boat creates an interference > > pattern because of the water is the same as your refusal to > > acknowledge the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern because > > of the aether, hypothetical or no hypothetical, is absurd. > > |