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 14:15 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. When my gedanken is performed, 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. > >
From: PD on 21 Jan 2010 17:15 On Jan 21, 1:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. You don't know if that pattern matches experiment. If it doesn't, then you don't know whether it's because of the superfluid or not. You don't know until the model matches experiment. YOU DON'T KNOW. > > When my gedanken is performed, the aether wave associated with a > detected photon will create interference with another photon. Scientists don't claim to know the results of an experiment before it's done. You do. Why? > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 21 Jan 2010 17:23 On Jan 21, 5:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 21, 1:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > You don't know if that pattern matches experiment. If it doesn't, then > you don't know whether it's because of the superfluid or not. You > don't know until the model matches experiment. YOU DON'T KNOW. > > > > > When my gedanken is performed, the aether wave associated with a > > detected photon will create interference with another photon. > > Scientists don't claim to know the results of an experiment before > it's done. You do. Why? > Because, obviously, since the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit, this is experimental evidence, at least for us who are not delusional, that the particle always exits a single slit. The particle is creating an interference pattern because of its associated aether wave. When the experiment is performed with a superfluid and a particle, there will be an interference formed by the particle because of the interference created by the displacement wave the particle creates in the superfluid. It is not a matter of 'if' this will occur when the experiment is performed it is a matter of 'when' the experiment is performed. > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 21 Jan 2010 17:35 On Jan 21, 4:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 21, 5:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 1:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > You don't know if that pattern matches experiment. If it doesn't, then > > you don't know whether it's because of the superfluid or not. You > > don't know until the model matches experiment. YOU DON'T KNOW. > > > > When my gedanken is performed, the aether wave associated with a > > > detected photon will create interference with another photon. > > > Scientists don't claim to know the results of an experiment before > > it's done. You do. Why? > > Because, obviously, since the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a > single slit, this is experimental evidence, at least for us who are > not delusional, that the particle always exits a single slit. No, it is not obvious. That is an extrapolation that is not at all obvious. You choose to believe it even though it's not obvious. That's because you're a bonehead. > > The particle is creating an interference pattern because of its > associated aether wave. > > When the experiment is performed with a superfluid and a particle, > there will be an interference formed by the particle because of the > interference created by the displacement wave the particle creates in > the superfluid. > > It is not a matter of 'if' this will occur when the experiment is > performed it is a matter of 'when' the experiment is performed. Really? Are you going to do it? > > > > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 21 Jan 2010 17:44
On Jan 21, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 21, 4:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 21, 5:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 21, 1:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > You don't know if that pattern matches experiment. If it doesn't, then > > > you don't know whether it's because of the superfluid or not. You > > > don't know until the model matches experiment. YOU DON'T KNOW. > > > > > When my gedanken is performed, the aether wave associated with a > > > > detected photon will create interference with another photon. > > > > Scientists don't claim to know the results of an experiment before > > > it's done. You do. Why? > > > Because, obviously, since the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a > > single slit, this is experimental evidence, at least for us who are > > not delusional, that the particle always exits a single slit. > > No, it is not obvious. That is an extrapolation that is not at all > obvious. > You choose to believe it even though it's not obvious. > That's because you're a bonehead. > > > > > The particle is creating an interference pattern because of its > > associated aether wave. > > > When the experiment is performed with a superfluid and a particle, > > there will be an interference formed by the particle because of the > > interference created by the displacement wave the particle creates in > > the superfluid. > > > It is not a matter of 'if' this will occur when the experiment is > > performed it is a matter of 'when' the experiment is performed. > > Really? Are you going to do it? > Hopefully, after I preform my other experiment where the aether wave of a detected photon creates 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |