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: PD on 22 Jan 2010 17:06 On Jan 22, 4:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 4:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 22, 11:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 22, 12:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 22, 10:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The known set of experimental results is the particle ALWAYS exits a > > > > > single slit because when there are detectors at the exits to the slits > > > > > the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > No, there is MORE evidence to check, not just that. There is the > > > > interference pattern that is present when there are no detectors at > > > > the slit. There are delayed choice experiments. There are quantum > > > > eraser experiments. There are experiments like the ones that Aspect et > > > > al. did. You need to account for ALL those bits of evidence. AD does > > > > not make quantitative predictions of the observations in those cases. > > > > QM does. QM therefore wins. > > > > All that is occurring in any 'delayed choice' or 'quantum eraser' or > > > any experiment by Aspect and others is the aether wave travels > > > available paths and the 'particle' travels a single path. > > > Show that your model can make accurate predictions of what is > > observed. Show through a derivation that, according to aether > > displacement, that result MUST happen and no other, including > > quantitative values. That's what AD has to show, because QM does it, > > as does any physical theory. > > QM is not a physical theory. QM is made up nonsense. What nonsense? > There is no such > thing as the future determining the past or quantum erasers or delayed > choice or which-way or erasing which-way. HOW DO YOU KNOW there is no such thing? Other than just saying you don't believe it? How do you check whether there is such a thing or not? > > All that is occurring in any of the experiments is the wave travels > available paths and the particle travels a single path. > > You do understand how a wave behaves, don't you? You do understand how > a particle behaves don't you? > > You do understand 'Wave-particle duality', correct? > > Well, the 'wave' in 'wave'-particle duality behaves as a wave does and > propagates available paths and the 'particle' in wave-'particle' > duality behaves as a particle does and travels a single path. > > Or have you had to also redefine what a wave and what a particle are > in QM also? > > Wave-particle duality: The wave propagates available paths and the > particle travels a single path. That's certainly not what wave-particle duality means. You've taken a term used by physicists and given it a wholly different meaning. That's why what you say sounds a little like physics but is not really physics at all. It's like someone who can speak gibberish that SOUNDS like German, even though most of the words are just made up. > > A photon has an associated 'particle' which travels a single path and > an associated aether wave which propagates available paths. > > Or do you not understand what a wave and what a particle are in QM > absurdity? Oh, I know what they are in QM. What you say they are is something wholly different. > > > > > > If you look at the image on the right here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... > > > > All that is occurring is the aether wave associated with the photon is > > > traveling both the red and blue paths while the photon 'particle' > > > travels a single path. When the red and blue paths are combined the > > > aether waves create interference and alter the direction the > > > 'particle' travels (D1 and D2). If the paths are not combined there is > > > no interference (D3 and D4). > > > > No need for the future to determine the past. No 'quantum erasers'. No > > > 'delayed choice'. No 'which-way'. No 'erasing which-way'. No > > > absurdity. > > > > A moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave. > > > > > > An experiment has never been performed where the particle was detected > > > > > exiting multiple slits. And do you know why that is? Because the > > > > > particle never exits multiple slits. > > > > > > You make up the 'fact' the particle exits multiple slits when you do > > > > > not look for it because you do not understand what occurs physically > > > > > in nature. > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > -- by experimental test of unique predictions. > > > > > > > > And here you sit wasting time doing everything but that. > >
From: mpc755 on 22 Jan 2010 17:08 On Jan 22, 5:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 4:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 22, 4:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 22, 11:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 22, 12:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 22, 10:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > The known set of experimental results is the particle ALWAYS exits a > > > > > > single slit because when there are detectors at the exits to the slits > > > > > > the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > No, there is MORE evidence to check, not just that. There is the > > > > > interference pattern that is present when there are no detectors at > > > > > the slit. There are delayed choice experiments. There are quantum > > > > > eraser experiments. There are experiments like the ones that Aspect et > > > > > al. did. You need to account for ALL those bits of evidence. AD does > > > > > not make quantitative predictions of the observations in those cases. > > > > > QM does. QM therefore wins. > > > > > All that is occurring in any 'delayed choice' or 'quantum eraser' or > > > > any experiment by Aspect and others is the aether wave travels > > > > available paths and the 'particle' travels a single path. > > > > Show that your model can make accurate predictions of what is > > > observed. Show through a derivation that, according to aether > > > displacement, that result MUST happen and no other, including > > > quantitative values. That's what AD has to show, because QM does it, > > > as does any physical theory. > > > QM is not a physical theory. QM is made up nonsense. > > What nonsense? > > > There is no such > > thing as the future determining the past or quantum erasers or delayed > > choice or which-way or erasing which-way. > > HOW DO YOU KNOW there is no such thing? Other than just saying you > don't believe it? How do you check whether there is such a thing or > not? > > > > > > > All that is occurring in any of the experiments is the wave travels > > available paths and the particle travels a single path. > > > You do understand how a wave behaves, don't you? You do understand how > > a particle behaves don't you? > > > You do understand 'Wave-particle duality', correct? > > > Well, the 'wave' in 'wave'-particle duality behaves as a wave does and > > propagates available paths and the 'particle' in wave-'particle' > > duality behaves as a particle does and travels a single path. > > > Or have you had to also redefine what a wave and what a particle are > > in QM also? > > > Wave-particle duality: The wave propagates available paths and the > > particle travels a single path. > > That's certainly not what wave-particle duality means. That's not what wave-particle duality means to you because you do not understand nature. In nature the wave propagates available paths and the particle travels a single path. But this is just something else you do not understand and made up in order to support the absurdity of QM. > You've taken a > term used by physicists and given it a wholly different meaning. > That's why what you say sounds a little like physics but is not really > physics at all. It's like someone who can speak gibberish that SOUNDS > like German, even though most of the words are just made up. > > > > > A photon has an associated 'particle' which travels a single path and > > an associated aether wave which propagates available paths. > > > Or do you not understand what a wave and what a particle are in QM > > absurdity? > > Oh, I know what they are in QM. What you say they are is something > wholly different. > > > > > > > If you look at the image on the right here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... > > > > > All that is occurring is the aether wave associated with the photon is > > > > traveling both the red and blue paths while the photon 'particle' > > > > travels a single path. When the red and blue paths are combined the > > > > aether waves create interference and alter the direction the > > > > 'particle' travels (D1 and D2). If the paths are not combined there is > > > > no interference (D3 and D4). > > > > > No need for the future to determine the past. No 'quantum erasers'. No > > > > 'delayed choice'. No 'which-way'. No 'erasing which-way'. No > > > > absurdity. > > > > > A moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave. > > > > > > > An experiment has never been performed where the particle was detected > > > > > > exiting multiple slits. And do you know why that is? Because the > > > > > > particle never exits multiple slits. > > > > > > > You make up the 'fact' the particle exits multiple slits when you do > > > > > > not look for it because you do not understand what occurs physically > > > > > > in nature. > > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > > -- by experimental test of unique predictions. > > > > > > > > > And here you sit wasting time doing everything but that. > >
From: mpc755 on 22 Jan 2010 17:13 On Jan 22, 5:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 4:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 4:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 22, 11:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 22, 12:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 22, 10:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > The known set of experimental results is the particle ALWAYS exits a > > > > > > single slit because when there are detectors at the exits to the slits > > > > > > the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > No, there is MORE evidence to check, not just that. There is the > > > > > interference pattern that is present when there are no detectors at > > > > > the slit. There are delayed choice experiments. There are quantum > > > > > eraser experiments. There are experiments like the ones that Aspect et > > > > > al. did. You need to account for ALL those bits of evidence. AD does > > > > > not make quantitative predictions of the observations in those cases. > > > > > QM does. QM therefore wins. > > > > > All that is occurring in any 'delayed choice' or 'quantum eraser' or > > > > any experiment by Aspect and others is the aether wave travels > > > > available paths and the 'particle' travels a single path. > > > > Show that your model can make accurate predictions of what is > > > observed. Show through a derivation that, according to aether > > > displacement, that result MUST happen and no other, including > > > quantitative values. That's what AD has to show, because QM does it, > > > as does any physical theory. > > > QM is not a physical theory. QM is made up nonsense. > > What nonsense? > > > There is no such > > thing as the future determining the past or quantum erasers or delayed > > choice or which-way or erasing which-way. > > HOW DO YOU KNOW there is no such thing? Other than just saying you > don't believe it? How do you check whether there is such a thing or > not? > > > > > > > All that is occurring in any of the experiments is the wave travels > > available paths and the particle travels a single path. > > > You do understand how a wave behaves, don't you? You do understand how > > a particle behaves don't you? > > > You do understand 'Wave-particle duality', correct? > > > Well, the 'wave' in 'wave'-particle duality behaves as a wave does and > > propagates available paths and the 'particle' in wave-'particle' > > duality behaves as a particle does and travels a single path. > > > Or have you had to also redefine what a wave and what a particle are > > in QM also? > > > Wave-particle duality: The wave propagates available paths and the > > particle travels a single path. > > That's certainly not what wave-particle duality means. That's not what wave-particle duality means in QM because you do not understand nature. In nature waves propagate available paths and particles travel a single path. But this is just something else you had to misconstrue in order to support the absurdity of QM. > You've taken a > term used by physicists and given it a wholly different meaning. > That's why what you say sounds a little like physics but is not really > physics at all. It's like someone who can speak gibberish that SOUNDS > like German, even though most of the words are just made up. > > > > > A photon has an associated 'particle' which travels a single path and > > an associated aether wave which propagates available paths. > > > Or do you not understand what a wave and what a particle are in QM > > absurdity? > > Oh, I know what they are in QM. What you say they are is something > wholly different. > > > > > > > If you look at the image on the right here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... > > > > > All that is occurring is the aether wave associated with the photon is > > > > traveling both the red and blue paths while the photon 'particle' > > > > travels a single path. When the red and blue paths are combined the > > > > aether waves create interference and alter the direction the > > > > 'particle' travels (D1 and D2). If the paths are not combined there is > > > > no interference (D3 and D4). > > > > > No need for the future to determine the past. No 'quantum erasers'. No > > > > 'delayed choice'. No 'which-way'. No 'erasing which-way'. No > > > > absurdity. > > > > > A moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave. > > > > > > > An experiment has never been performed where the particle was detected > > > > > > exiting multiple slits. And do you know why that is? Because the > > > > > > particle never exits multiple slits. > > > > > > > You make up the 'fact' the particle exits multiple slits when you do > > > > > > not look for it because you do not understand what occurs physically > > > > > > in nature. > > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > > -- by experimental test of unique predictions. > > > > > > > > > And here you sit wasting time doing everything but that. > >
From: PD on 22 Jan 2010 18:01 On Jan 22, 4:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 5:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 22, 4:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 22, 4:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 22, 11:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 22, 12:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 10:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > The known set of experimental results is the particle ALWAYS exits a > > > > > > > single slit because when there are detectors at the exits to the slits > > > > > > > the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > No, there is MORE evidence to check, not just that. There is the > > > > > > interference pattern that is present when there are no detectors at > > > > > > the slit. There are delayed choice experiments. There are quantum > > > > > > eraser experiments. There are experiments like the ones that Aspect et > > > > > > al. did. You need to account for ALL those bits of evidence. AD does > > > > > > not make quantitative predictions of the observations in those cases. > > > > > > QM does. QM therefore wins. > > > > > > All that is occurring in any 'delayed choice' or 'quantum eraser' or > > > > > any experiment by Aspect and others is the aether wave travels > > > > > available paths and the 'particle' travels a single path. > > > > > Show that your model can make accurate predictions of what is > > > > observed. Show through a derivation that, according to aether > > > > displacement, that result MUST happen and no other, including > > > > quantitative values. That's what AD has to show, because QM does it, > > > > as does any physical theory. > > > > QM is not a physical theory. QM is made up nonsense. > > > What nonsense? > > > > There is no such > > > thing as the future determining the past or quantum erasers or delayed > > > choice or which-way or erasing which-way. > > > HOW DO YOU KNOW there is no such thing? Other than just saying you > > don't believe it? How do you check whether there is such a thing or > > not? > > > > All that is occurring in any of the experiments is the wave travels > > > available paths and the particle travels a single path. > > > > You do understand how a wave behaves, don't you? You do understand how > > > a particle behaves don't you? > > > > You do understand 'Wave-particle duality', correct? > > > > Well, the 'wave' in 'wave'-particle duality behaves as a wave does and > > > propagates available paths and the 'particle' in wave-'particle' > > > duality behaves as a particle does and travels a single path. > > > > Or have you had to also redefine what a wave and what a particle are > > > in QM also? > > > > Wave-particle duality: The wave propagates available paths and the > > > particle travels a single path. > > > That's certainly not what wave-particle duality means. > > That's not what wave-particle duality means in QM Then stop using the term, because it's already TAKEN. > because you do not > understand nature. In nature waves propagate available paths and > particles travel a single path. But this is just something else > you had to misconstrue The meaning of the term "wave-particle duality" as used by physics was established before your daddy was born. Give it up. When are you going to get to work designing and performing your experiments? Isn't it time to put up or shut up? > in order to support the absurdity of QM. > > > You've taken a > > term used by physicists and given it a wholly different meaning. > > That's why what you say sounds a little like physics but is not really > > physics at all. It's like someone who can speak gibberish that SOUNDS > > like German, even though most of the words are just made up. > > > > A photon has an associated 'particle' which travels a single path and > > > an associated aether wave which propagates available paths. > > > > Or do you not understand what a wave and what a particle are in QM > > > absurdity? > > > Oh, I know what they are in QM. What you say they are is something > > wholly different. > > > > > > If you look at the image on the right here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... > > > > > > All that is occurring is the aether wave associated with the photon is > > > > > traveling both the red and blue paths while the photon 'particle' > > > > > travels a single path. When the red and blue paths are combined the > > > > > aether waves create interference and alter the direction the > > > > > 'particle' travels (D1 and D2). If the paths are not combined there is > > > > > no interference (D3 and D4). > > > > > > No need for the future to determine the past. No 'quantum erasers'. No > > > > > 'delayed choice'. No 'which-way'. No 'erasing which-way'. No > > > > > absurdity. > > > > > > A moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave. > > > > > > > > An experiment has never been performed where the particle was detected > > > > > > > exiting multiple slits. And do you know why that is? Because the > > > > > > > particle never exits multiple slits. > > > > > > > > You make up the 'fact' the particle exits multiple slits when you do > > > > > > > not look for it because you do not understand what occurs physically > > > > > > > in nature. > > > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > > > -- by experimental test of unique predictions. > > > > > > > > > > And here you sit wasting time doing everything but that.. > >
From: mpc755 on 22 Jan 2010 18:17
On Jan 22, 6:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 4:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 22, 5:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 22, 4:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 22, 4:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 22, 11:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 12:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 10:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The known set of experimental results is the particle ALWAYS exits a > > > > > > > > single slit because when there are detectors at the exits to the slits > > > > > > > > the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > > No, there is MORE evidence to check, not just that. There is the > > > > > > > interference pattern that is present when there are no detectors at > > > > > > > the slit. There are delayed choice experiments. There are quantum > > > > > > > eraser experiments. There are experiments like the ones that Aspect et > > > > > > > al. did. You need to account for ALL those bits of evidence. AD does > > > > > > > not make quantitative predictions of the observations in those cases. > > > > > > > QM does. QM therefore wins. > > > > > > > All that is occurring in any 'delayed choice' or 'quantum eraser' or > > > > > > any experiment by Aspect and others is the aether wave travels > > > > > > available paths and the 'particle' travels a single path. > > > > > > Show that your model can make accurate predictions of what is > > > > > observed. Show through a derivation that, according to aether > > > > > displacement, that result MUST happen and no other, including > > > > > quantitative values. That's what AD has to show, because QM does it, > > > > > as does any physical theory. > > > > > QM is not a physical theory. QM is made up nonsense. > > > > What nonsense? > > > > > There is no such > > > > thing as the future determining the past or quantum erasers or delayed > > > > choice or which-way or erasing which-way. > > > > HOW DO YOU KNOW there is no such thing? Other than just saying you > > > don't believe it? How do you check whether there is such a thing or > > > not? > > > > > All that is occurring in any of the experiments is the wave travels > > > > available paths and the particle travels a single path. > > > > > You do understand how a wave behaves, don't you? You do understand how > > > > a particle behaves don't you? > > > > > You do understand 'Wave-particle duality', correct? > > > > > Well, the 'wave' in 'wave'-particle duality behaves as a wave does and > > > > propagates available paths and the 'particle' in wave-'particle' > > > > duality behaves as a particle does and travels a single path. > > > > > Or have you had to also redefine what a wave and what a particle are > > > > in QM also? > > > > > Wave-particle duality: The wave propagates available paths and the > > > > particle travels a single path. > > > > That's certainly not what wave-particle duality means. > > > That's not what wave-particle duality means in QM > > Then stop using the term, because it's already TAKEN. It's not taken. Just like the math is not taken. That is not how science is supposed to work but how would you know that with being so diluted with the absurdity of QM. Wave-particle duality: The wave travels available paths and the particle travels a single path. A photon consists of a 'particle' (i.e. the photon's ability to collapse and be detected as a quantum of aether) and the photon's aether wave. The photon 'particle' does what all particles do in nature, which is travel a single path and the photon aether wave does what all waves do in nature, which is propagate available paths. > > > because you do not > > understand nature. In nature waves propagate available paths and > > particles travel a single path. But this is just something else > > you had to misconstrue > > The meaning of the term "wave-particle duality" as used by physics was > established before your daddy was born. Give it up. > > When are you going to get to work designing and performing your > experiments? Isn't it time to put up or shut up? > > > in order to support the absurdity of QM. > > > > You've taken a > > > term used by physicists and given it a wholly different meaning. > > > That's why what you say sounds a little like physics but is not really > > > physics at all. It's like someone who can speak gibberish that SOUNDS > > > like German, even though most of the words are just made up. > > > > > A photon has an associated 'particle' which travels a single path and > > > > an associated aether wave which propagates available paths. > > > > > Or do you not understand what a wave and what a particle are in QM > > > > absurdity? > > > > Oh, I know what they are in QM. What you say they are is something > > > wholly different. > > > > > > > If you look at the image on the right here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... > > > > > > > All that is occurring is the aether wave associated with the photon is > > > > > > traveling both the red and blue paths while the photon 'particle' > > > > > > travels a single path. When the red and blue paths are combined the > > > > > > aether waves create interference and alter the direction the > > > > > > 'particle' travels (D1 and D2). If the paths are not combined there is > > > > > > no interference (D3 and D4). > > > > > > > No need for the future to determine the past. No 'quantum erasers'. No > > > > > > 'delayed choice'. No 'which-way'. No 'erasing which-way'. No > > > > > > absurdity. > > > > > > > A moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave. > > > > > > > > > An experiment has never been performed where the particle was detected > > > > > > > > exiting multiple slits. And do you know why that is? Because the > > > > > > > > particle never exits multiple slits. > > > > > > > > > You make up the 'fact' the particle exits multiple slits when you do > > > > > > > > not look for it because you do not understand what occurs physically > > > > > > > > in nature. > > > > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- by experimental test of unique predictions. > > > > > > > > > > > And here you sit wasting time doing everything but that. > > |