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 22 Jan 2010 18:21 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. It is just completely misinterpreted by QM. Just like the math is not taken. What occurs physically in nature is just completely misunderstood by QM. That is not how science is supposed to work but how would you know that with being so diluted with the absurdity of QM. Why am I supposed to not use terms and the math correctly simply because QM is very, very, very, incorrect? Wave-particle duality: The wave propagates 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. > >
From: PD on 23 Jan 2010 15:14 On Jan 22, 5:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. It is just completely misinterpreted by QM. Just like > the math is not taken. What occurs physically in nature is just > completely misunderstood by QM. That is not how science is supposed to > work but how would you know that with being so diluted with the > absurdity of QM. Why am I supposed to not use terms and the math > correctly simply because QM is very, very, very, incorrect? OK, MPC, let's summarize, and then I'll stop feeding you attention for a while. - You believe you have the right to use physics terms to mean whatever you want them to mean. - You believe you have the right to use the math from another theory and say it applies to your theory just the same. - You believe you have the right to claim you know how nature works just by using your common sense and without the benefit of experimental test. - You believe you have the right to claim you understand and everybody else doesn't understand, and that people should just accept that. Nice little fantasy world you have there. Enjoy it and don't overdose on the meds, and maybe the nurse will give you extra dessert. > > Wave-particle duality: The wave propagates 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. > >
From: mpc755 on 23 Jan 2010 19:01 On Jan 23, 3:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 5:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. It is just completely misinterpreted by QM. Just like > > the math is not taken. What occurs physically in nature is just > > completely misunderstood by QM. That is not how science is supposed to > > work but how would you know that with being so diluted with the > > absurdity of QM. Why am I supposed to not use terms and the math > > correctly simply because QM is very, very, very, incorrect? > > OK, MPC, let's summarize, and then I'll stop feeding you attention for > a while. > - You believe you have the right to use physics terms to mean whatever > you want them to mean. > - You believe you have the right to use the math from another theory > and say it applies to your theory just the same. > - You believe you have the right to claim you know how nature works > just by using your common sense and without the benefit of > experimental test. > - You believe you have the right to claim you understand and everybody > else doesn't understand, and that people should just accept that. > > Nice little fantasy world you have there. Enjoy it and don't overdose > on the meds, and maybe the nurse will give you extra dessert. > Let summarize where we are: - You continue to discuss this rationally and bring forth more and more experiments such as 'quantum eraser' and 'delayed choice' and whatever else you think you can throw at me to avoid having to stop existing in your state of denial. When I answer and explain what is occurring in nature in 'quantum eraser' and 'delayed choice' experiments you do not even read the complete response and reply with 'show the derivations'. - You continue to discuss a double slit experiment and choose to believe the future determines the past, 'quantum eraser', 'delayed choice', 'which way', 'erasing which way', and on and on the nonsense goes is how nature works. When I respond and explain to you exactly what is occurring in nature, you respond with 'show the derivations'. - Denial. Denial. And more denial. - Instead of understanding the absurdity of what you choose to believe, you choose to hide behind derivations and exist in a state of denial. - QM dogma. I'll leave you with the following in case you ever do decide to understand nature: As far as I know, de Broglie was the first to defined wave-particle duality as any moving particle or object had an associated wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie). This is exactly what is occurring in nature in a double slit experiment. The 'particle' travels a single path and the associated wave propagates available paths. When the associated wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the 'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated wave and there is no interference. If you want to understand what is occurring in double double slit, 'quantum erase', 'delayed choice', or any other experiment consisting of a probability of a particle traveling a particular path all you have to understand is the 'particle' has an associated wave. The 'particle' travels a single path and the associated wave propagates available paths. If you want to take de Broglie's definition to the next step in order to understand what occurs physically in nature then a 'particle' has an associated aether wave. If you want to understand what is occurring physically in nature in double slit, 'quantum erase', 'delayed choice', or any other experiment consisting of a probability of a particle traveling a particular path all you have to understand is the 'particle' has an associated aether wave. The 'particle' travels a single path and the associated aether wave propagates available paths. > > > > Wave-particle duality: The wave propagates 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. > >
From: mpc755 on 23 Jan 2010 19:13 On Jan 23, 3:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 5:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > It's not taken. It is just completely misinterpreted by QM. Just like > > the math is not taken. What occurs physically in nature is just > > completely misunderstood by QM. That is not how science is supposed to > > work but how would you know that with being so diluted with the > > absurdity of QM. Why am I supposed to not use terms and the math > > correctly simply because QM is very, very, very, incorrect? > > OK, MPC, let's summarize, and then I'll stop feeding you attention for > a while. > - You believe you have the right to use physics terms to mean whatever > you want them to mean. > - You believe you have the right to use the math from another theory > and say it applies to your theory just the same. > - You believe you have the right to claim you know how nature works > just by using your common sense and without the benefit of > experimental test. > - You believe you have the right to claim you understand and everybody > else doesn't understand, and that people should just accept that. > > Nice little fantasy world you have there. Enjoy it and don't overdose > on the meds, and maybe the nurse will give you extra dessert. > Let summarize where we are: - You continue to discuss this rationally and bring forth more and more experiments such as 'quantum eraser' and 'delayed choice' and whatever else you think you can throw at me to avoid having to stop existing in your state of denial. When I answer and explain what is occurring in nature in 'quantum eraser' and 'delayed choice' experiments you do not even read the complete response and reply with 'show the derivations'. - You continue to discuss a double slit experiment and choose to believe the future determines the past, 'quantum eraser', 'delayed choice', 'which way', 'erasing which way', and on and on the nonsense goes is how nature works. When I respond and explain to you exactly what is occurring in nature, you respond with 'show the derivations'. - Denial. Denial. And more denial. - Instead of understanding the absurdity of what you choose to believe, you choose to hide behind derivations and exist in a state of denial. - QM dogma. I'll leave you with the following in case you ever do decide to understand nature: As far as I know, de Broglie was the first to define wave-particle duality as any moving particle or object had an associated wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie). This is exactly what is occurring in nature in a double slit experiment. The 'particle' travels a single path and the associated wave propagates available paths. When the associated wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the 'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated wave and there is no interference. If you want to understand what is occurring in double double slit, 'quantum erase', 'delayed choice', or any other experiment consisting of a probability of a particle traveling a particular path all you have to understand is the 'particle' has an associated wave. The 'particle' travels a single path and the associated wave propagates available paths. If you want to take de Broglie's definition to the next step in order to understand what occurs physically in nature then a 'particle' has an associated aether wave. If you want to understand what is occurring physically in nature in double slit, 'quantum erase', 'delayed choice', or any other experiment consisting of a probability of a particle traveling a particular path all you have to understand is the 'particle' has an associated aether wave. The 'particle' travels a single path and the associated aether wave propagates available paths. In AD, a 'particle' has an associated aether wave.
From: mpc755 on 23 Jan 2010 19:21
On Jan 23, 3:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 5:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > It's not taken. It is just completely misinterpreted by QM. Just like > > the math is not taken. What occurs physically in nature is just > > completely misunderstood by QM. That is not how science is supposed to > > work but how would you know that with being so diluted with the > > absurdity of QM. Why am I supposed to not use terms and the math > > correctly simply because QM is very, very, very, incorrect? > > OK, MPC, let's summarize, and then I'll stop feeding you attention for > a while. > - You believe you have the right to use physics terms to mean whatever > you want them to mean. > - You believe you have the right to use the math from another theory > and say it applies to your theory just the same. > - You believe you have the right to claim you know how nature works > just by using your common sense and without the benefit of > experimental test. > - You believe you have the right to claim you understand and everybody > else doesn't understand, and that people should just accept that. > > Nice little fantasy world you have there. Enjoy it and don't overdose > on the meds, and maybe the nurse will give you extra dessert. > Let summarize where we are: - You continue to bring forth more and more experiments such as 'quantum eraser' and 'delayed choice' and whatever else you think you can throw at me to avoid having to stop existing in your state of denial. Since you know my explanation is more correct than QM when I answer and explain what is occurring in nature in double slit, 'quantum eraser' and 'delayed choice' experiments you do not even read the complete response and reply with 'show the derivations'. - You continue to discuss a double slit experiment and choose to believe the future determines the past, 'quantum eraser', 'delayed choice', 'which way', 'erasing which way', and on and on the nonsense goes is how nature works. When I respond and explain to you exactly what is occurring in nature, you respond with 'show the derivations'. - Denial. Denial. And more denial. - Instead of understanding the absurdity of what you choose to believe, you choose to hide behind derivations and exist in a state of denial. - QM dogma. I'll leave you with the following in case you ever do decide to understand nature: As far as I know, de Broglie was the first to define wave-particle duality as any moving particle or object had an associated wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie). This is exactly what is occurring in nature in a double slit experiment. The 'particle' travels a single path and the associated wave propagates available paths. When the associated wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the 'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated wave and there is no interference. If you want to understand what is occurring in double double slit, 'quantum erase', 'delayed choice', or any other experiment consisting of a probability of a particle traveling a particular path all you have to understand is the 'particle' has an associated wave. The 'particle' travels a single path and the associated wave propagates available paths. If you want to take de Broglie's definition to the next step in order to understand what occurs physically in nature then a 'particle' has an associated aether wave. If you want to understand what is occurring physically in nature in double slit, 'quantum erase', 'delayed choice', or any other experiment consisting of a probability of a particle traveling a particular path all you have to understand is the 'particle' has an associated aether wave. The 'particle' travels a single path and the associated aether wave propagates available paths. In AD, a 'particle' has an associated aether wave. |