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 17 Jan 2010 07:14 On Jan 16, 10:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 16, 8:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 15, 4:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 15, 12:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 7, 8:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > It seems so obvious to me I find it > > > > > almost unfathomable that it is > > > > > this difficult to get the concept across. > > > > > Keep on thinking for yourself instead of learning what other people > > > > teach and you will continue to discover concepts that no one else can > > > > understand. > > > > This is sometimes known as psychosis. > > > In your model, you insist the boat creates the interference pattern on > > the shore in and of itself. > > See there? Psychosis. You don't have the foggiest idea what I insisted > upon, so you make it up. > I don't have the foggiest idea what you insisted upon because you refuse to answer the question. Do you believe water exists? If so, do you believe the boat is able to create an interference pattern on the shore because of the water? > > In your understanding of nature, you > > insist the boat creates the interference pattern on the shore because > > of the water. You refuse to change your model because you insist your > > model accurately reflects nature. > > The model that most accurately reflects nature wins. Yes. This is what > science is about. > The model which mathematically makes the most accurate predictions wins. Nothing to do with nature. Just a mathematical ability to make accurate predictions. Yes, I know to you this means the model accurately reflects nature, but that is only because you are in denial and refuse to answer my question about your knowledge to the existence of water. In the boat and the slits and the interference on the shore, do you understand it is the water which allows the boat to create an interference pattern on the shore? If so, why do not you change your model? > > > > This is the definition of psychosis. > > No, making the model that most accurately reflects nature the one that > is believed is called science, not psychosis. Making up stuff about > what I said is psychosis. > Being in denial about the existence of water so you can maintain the delusion your model accurately reflects nature when you model insists the boat creates the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself is psychosis. > > > > Why is the particle always detected exiting a single slit? > > Because that's what QM tells you particles will do. > > > > > Because the particle always exits a single slit. > > No, only when there's a detector there. When there isn't, it doesn't. > This is the psychosis you are forced to live with in QM. You have to ignore the experimental evidence and the logical conclusion the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit because it is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. Now, a more correct model is presented, where it is simply a case of the particle and its associated aether displacement wave behaving as one. This model correctly supports the experimental evidence. I know it is impossible for you to read through a complete post and answer a simple question, but I will once again try even though your psychosis and state of denial will cause you to ignore it. In the analogy of the boat and the slits and the interference pattern on the shore where you model insists the boat creates the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself, do you know water exists? And if so, do you know the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore because of the water? In nature, the particle and its aether displacement wave act as one. > > > > In nature, the particle and its aether displacement wave act as one. > > > > > Good for you and the rest of humanity despite their currant > > > > blindfolded mindset. > > > > > glird > >
From: mpc755 on 17 Jan 2010 07:25 On Jan 16, 10:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 16, 8:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 15, 4:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 15, 12:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 7, 8:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > It seems so obvious to me I find it > > > > > almost unfathomable that it is > > > > > this difficult to get the concept across. > > > > > Keep on thinking for yourself instead of learning what other people > > > > teach and you will continue to discover concepts that no one else can > > > > understand. > > > > This is sometimes known as psychosis. > > > In your model, you insist the boat creates the interference pattern on > > the shore in and of itself. > > See there? Psychosis. You don't have the foggiest idea what I insisted > upon, so you make it up. > I don't have the foggiest idea what you insisted upon because you refuse to answer the question. Do you believe water exists? If so, do you believe the boat is able to create an interference pattern on the shore because of the water? > > In your understanding of nature, you > > insist the boat creates the interference pattern on the shore because > > of the water. You refuse to change your model because you insist your > > model accurately reflects nature. > > The model that most accurately reflects nature wins. Yes. This is what > science is about. > I know to you this means the model accurately reflects nature, but that is only because you are in denial and refuse to answer my question about your knowledge to the existence of water. In the boat and the slits and the interference on the shore, do you understand it is the water which allows the boat to create an interference pattern on the shore? If so, why do not you change your model? > > > > This is the definition of psychosis. > > No, making the model that most accurately reflects nature the one that > is believed is called science, not psychosis. Making up stuff about > what I said is psychosis. > Being in denial about the existence of water so you can maintain the delusion your model accurately reflects nature when you model insists the boat creates the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself is psychosis. > > > > Why is the particle always detected exiting a single slit? > > Because that's what QM tells you particles will do. > Why would a particle not exit a single slit when it is not detected? Now I know you are going to respond with the fact that I have to read many books in order to understand why it is the particle exits multiple slits when not detected, but my response of 'Why' is rhetorical because I understand what occurs in nature. The particle always exits a single slit and it is the particles associated aether displacement wave which always exits multiple slits. It makes no sense. There is no physical reason, in nature, for the particle to not exit a single slit simply because you do not detect it. Then you have to choose to believe in more nonsense of the future determining the past because the particle will be detected exiting a single slit if the detectors are placed at the exits to the slits after the particle has entered the slit(s). You have just piled more bullshit on top of bullshit. If back in the day, the true nature of nature had been realized where the particle has an associated aether displacement wave, none of this bullshit would have ever had to have been made up and accepted by people like yourself. > > > Because the particle always exits a single slit. > > No, only when there's a detector there. When there isn't, it doesn't. > This is the psychosis you are forced to live with in QM. You have to exist in a state of denial over the experimental evidence of the particle ALWAYS being detected exiting a single slit and the logical conclusion the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit. Now, a more correct model is presented, where it is simply a case of the particle and its associated aether displacement wave behaving as one. This model correctly supports the experimental evidence. I know it is impossible for you to read through a complete post and answer a simple question, but I will once again try even though your psychosis and state of denial will cause you to ignore it. In the analogy of the boat and the slits and the interference pattern on the shore where you model insists the boat creates the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself, do you know water exists? And if so, do you know the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore because of the water? In nature, the particle and its aether displacement wave act as one. > > > > In nature, the particle and its aether displacement wave act as one. > > > > > Good for you and the rest of humanity despite their currant > > > > blindfolded mindset. > > > > > glird > >
From: mpc755 on 17 Jan 2010 07:33 On Jan 16, 10:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 16, 8:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 15, 4:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 15, 12:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 7, 8:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > It seems so obvious to me I find it > > > > > almost unfathomable that it is > > > > > this difficult to get the concept across. > > > > > Keep on thinking for yourself instead of learning what other people > > > > teach and you will continue to discover concepts that no one else can > > > > understand. > > > > This is sometimes known as psychosis. > > > In your model, you insist the boat creates the interference pattern on > > the shore in and of itself. > > See there? Psychosis. You don't have the foggiest idea what I insisted > upon, so you make it up. > I don't have the foggiest idea what you insisted upon because you refuse to answer the question. Do you believe water exists? If so, do you believe the boat is able to create an interference pattern on the shore because of the water? > > In your understanding of nature, you > > insist the boat creates the interference pattern on the shore because > > of the water. You refuse to change your model because you insist your > > model accurately reflects nature. > > The model that most accurately reflects nature wins. Yes. This is what > science is about. > I know to you this means the model accurately reflects nature, but that is only because you are in denial and refuse to answer my question about your knowledge to the existence of water. In the boat and the slits and the interference on the shore, do you understand it is the water which allows the boat to create an interference pattern on the shore? If so, why do you not change your model? > > > > This is the definition of psychosis. > > No, making the model that most accurately reflects nature the one that > is believed is called science, not psychosis. Making up stuff about > what I said is psychosis. > Being in denial about the existence of water so you can maintain the delusion your model accurately reflects nature when you model insists the boat creates the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself is psychosis. > > > > Why is the particle always detected exiting a single slit? > > Because that's what QM tells you particles will do. > Why would a particle not exit a single slit when it is not detected? Now I know you are going to respond with the fact that I have to read many books in order to understand why it is the particle exits multiple slits when not detected, but my response of 'Why' is rhetorical because I understand what occurs in nature. The particle always exits a single slit and it is the particle's aether displacement wave which always exits multiple slits. There is no physical reason, in nature, for the particle to not exit a single slit simply because you do not detect it. Since you have chosen to believe in the nonsense of the particle exiting multiple slits when not detected, then you have to choose to believe in more nonsense of the future determining the past because the particle will be detected exiting a single slit if the detectors are placed at the exits to the slits after the particle has entered the slit(s). You have just piled more bullshit on top of bullshit. If back in the day, the true nature of nature had been realized where the particle has an associated aether displacement wave, none of this bullshit would have ever had to have been made up and accepted by people like yourself. > > > > Because the particle always exits a single slit. > > No, only when there's a detector there. When there isn't, it doesn't. > This is the psychosis you are forced to live with in QM. You have to exist in a state of denial over the experimental evidence of the particle ALWAYS being detected exiting a single slit and the logical conclusion the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit. A more correct model is presented, where it is simply a case of the particle and its associated aether displacement wave behaving as one. This model correctly supports the experimental evidence. I know it is impossible for you to read through a complete post and answer a simple question, but I will once again try even though your psychosis and state of denial will cause you to ignore it. In the analogy of the boat and the slits and the interference pattern on the shore where you model insists the boat creates the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself, do you know water exists? And if so, do you know the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore because of the water? And if so, why do you fail to correct your model based upon your understanding of nature? Do you realize the fact you fail to correct your model based upon your understanding of what is physically occurring in nature means you have a failed model? In nature, the particle and its aether displacement wave act as one. > > > > In nature, the particle and its aether displacement wave act as one. > > > > > Good for you and the rest of humanity despite their currant > > > > blindfolded mindset. > > > > > glird > >
From: Don Stockbauer on 17 Jan 2010 08:19 On Jan 7, 6:38 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jan 7, 7:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 7, 12:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > How does the C-60 molecule physically go from existing in all of the > > > slits as a wave, to exiting a single slit? > > > In AD, the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while > > the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits > > multiple slits. > > > > > Prove it. (Come up with a reasonable experiment where QM predicts one > > > > outcome and AD predicts a different outcome, that someone could perform > > > > and tell which one is correct) > > > > > This is like my Michelson-Morley comment. MM came up with a null result > > > > for an "ether wind" but can't differentiate between no aether and > > > > entrained aether. The next logical step is an experiment that can tell > > > > the difference. PD has commented that such experiments have been done, > > > > and point to no aether.- Hide quoted text - > > xxein: I have hunted for snakes. I have hunted for rabbits. My > sight was attuned for what I was looking for. I couldn't "see' one > while looking for the other. > > This seems to be a common phenomena in recognizing the physic amid the > physics. It's not just a rabbit or a snake. It's everything. > > If you focus on only the aspects you choose, you lose comprehension of > the whole. "If you don't look out for snakes while you hunt for rabbits, you're liable to get snakebit and not need to hunt for rabbits anymore because you'll be dead." - Euell Gibbons.
From: PD on 17 Jan 2010 17:31
On Jan 17, 6:33 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 16, 10:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 16, 8:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 15, 4:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 15, 12:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 7, 8:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > It seems so obvious to me I find it > > > > > > almost unfathomable that it is > > > > > > this difficult to get the concept across. > > > > > > Keep on thinking for yourself instead of learning what other people > > > > > teach and you will continue to discover concepts that no one else can > > > > > understand. > > > > > This is sometimes known as psychosis. > > > > In your model, you insist the boat creates the interference pattern on > > > the shore in and of itself. > > > See there? Psychosis. You don't have the foggiest idea what I insisted > > upon, so you make it up. > > I don't have the foggiest idea what you insisted upon because you > refuse to answer the question. > > Do you believe water exists? Yes, of course. > > If so, do you believe the boat is able to create an interference > pattern on the shore because of the water? Not in this case. There is no physical model of boats creating interference patterns in and of themselves that accurately predicts where the boats will land on shore. There is a model of water that does create an accurate prediction of the waves at the shore. However, there IS a physical model of electrons and molecules creating interference patterns in and of themselves that accurately predicts where the electrons will land on a detecting screen. So you see, the acceptance of the quantum mechanical model doesn't have anything to do with choosing to believe that if there is a medium in one case there is surely a medium in the other case. The acceptance of the theory is based on the accuracy of the predictions of the model. You think it has to do with choosing to believe whether there is an aether, and you believe somehow that refusing to believe in aether is the same as refusing to believe in water. That's because you're a lunatic. When you have a model of aether that can make accurate *quantitative* predictions (you DO know what "quantitative" means, don't you?), then and only then will you have an argument for considering aether seriously. The existence of water doesn't do it. After all, the existence of solid matter doesn't prove that there's any solid matter between your ears. > > > > In your understanding of nature, you > > > insist the boat creates the interference pattern on the shore because > > > of the water. You refuse to change your model because you insist your > > > model accurately reflects nature. > > > The model that most accurately reflects nature wins. Yes. This is what > > science is about. > > I know to you this means the model accurately reflects nature, but > that is only because you are in denial and refuse to answer my > question about your knowledge to the existence of water. > > In the boat and the slits and the interference on the shore, do you > understand it is the water which allows the boat to create an > interference pattern on the shore? > > If so, why do you not change your model? > > > > > > This is the definition of psychosis. > > > No, making the model that most accurately reflects nature the one that > > is believed is called science, not psychosis. Making up stuff about > > what I said is psychosis. > > Being in denial about the existence of water so you can maintain the > delusion your model accurately reflects nature when you model insists > the boat creates the interference pattern on the shore in and of > itself is psychosis. > > > > > > Why is the particle always detected exiting a single slit? > > > Because that's what QM tells you particles will do. > > Why would a particle not exit a single slit when it is not detected? Because the particle extends through all space where it is not detected. The interference that happens prior to detection is the product of the particle passing through all available paths. > Now I know you are going to respond with the fact that I have to read > many books in order to understand why it is the particle exits > multiple slits when not detected, but my response of 'Why' is > rhetorical because I understand what occurs in nature. You don't understand anything without experimental evidence. People they say they understand God, too, but that's just religious faith. > > The particle always exits a single slit and it is the particle's > aether displacement wave which always exits multiple slits. > > There is no physical reason, in nature, for the particle to not exit a > single slit simply because you do not detect it. Of course there is a reason in nature. I'm sure you're not aware of it, but that does not mean it isn't there. You are not familiar with the physical reasons lots of things happen in nature. You don't know the reason why a block and tackle reduces the amount of force you have to exert to pick up a load. But there is a perfectly valid reason. You just don't know what it is. You also don't know why the pressure in the bottom of a liquid tank is independent of the shape of the tank. But there is a perfectly valid reason. You just don't know what it is. > > Since you have chosen to believe in the nonsense of the particle > exiting multiple slits when not detected, then you have to choose to > believe in more nonsense of the future determining the past because > the particle will be detected exiting a single slit if the detectors > are placed at the exits to the slits after the particle has entered > the slit(s). > > You have just piled more bullshit on top of bullshit. > > If back in the day, the true nature of nature had been realized where > the particle has an associated aether displacement wave, none of this > bullshit would have ever had to have been made up and accepted by > people like yourself. > > > > > > Because the particle always exits a single slit. > > > No, only when there's a detector there. When there isn't, it doesn't. > > This is the psychosis you are forced to live with in QM. It's not psychosis. It's a model that works. If it works -- and remember what "works" means in science -- then it cannot be psychosis, because it matches observation. Nothing that matches observation can be psychosis. It doesn't matter whether you find it unbelievable or not. > You have to > exist in a state of denial over the experimental evidence of the > particle ALWAYS being detected exiting a single slit and the logical > conclusion the particle ALWAYS exits a single slit. That's not a logical conclusion. It is an unwarranted extrapolation. You have no right to make that assumption. > > A more correct model is presented, where it is simply a case of the > particle and its associated aether displacement wave behaving as one. > > This model correctly supports the experimental evidence. > > I know it is impossible for you to read through a complete post and > answer a simple question, but I will once again try even though your > psychosis and state of denial will cause you to ignore it. > > In the analogy of the boat and the slits and the interference pattern > on the shore where you model insists the boat creates the interference > pattern on the shore in and of itself, do you know water exists? > > And if so, do you know the boat creates an interference pattern on the > shore because of the water? > > And if so, why do you fail to correct your model based upon your > understanding of nature? > > Do you realize the fact you fail to correct your model based upon your > understanding of what is physically occurring in nature means you have > a failed model? > > In nature, the particle and its aether displacement wave act as one. > > > > > > In nature, the particle and its aether displacement wave act as one. > > > > > > Good for you and the rest of humanity despite their currant > > > > > blindfolded mindset. > > > > > > glird > > |