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 17:43 On Jan 17, 5:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Of course I do. Only in the nonsense of QM must you ignore experimental evidence and jump to illogical conclusions. The particle always being detected exiting a single slit is evidence the particle always exits a single slit. In AD, as in nature, this is because the particle always exits a single slit and it is the particle's aether displacement wave which exits multiple slits. > > > > 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: mpc755 on 17 Jan 2010 17:56 On Jan 17, 5:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > This is what you said previously: "If the model that the boat created the interference pattern in and of itself got the answer right where no other model was able to make the same successful quantitative prediction, then yes, I am right. This is how science judges whether theories are right -- by whether they work, and that means whether they make better quantitative predictions of observations than other models." What you are saying above is if the model the boat created the interference pattern in and of itself got the answer right where no other model was able to make the same successful quantitative prediction, the that model accurately reflects what is physically occurring in nature. That is incorrect, just like QM is incorrect. You may be able to say, scientifically, that the model which makes the most correct quantitative predictions, just just that, makes the most correct quantitative predictions, but that in no way means the model accurately reflects nature. > 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. > Of course I do. Only in the nonsense of QM must you ignore experimental evidence and jump to illogical conclusions. The particle always being detected exiting a single slit is evidence the particle always exits a single slit. In AD, as in nature, this is because the particle always exits a single slit and it is the particle's aether displacement wave which exits multiple slits. > > > > 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: mpc755 on 17 Jan 2010 18:11 On Jan 17, 5:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > This is what you said previously: "If the model that the boat created the interference pattern in and of itself got the answer right where no other model was able to make the same successful quantitative prediction, then yes, I am right. This is how science judges whether theories are right -- by whether they work, and that means whether they make better quantitative predictions of observations than other models." If the model which makes the most correct quantitative predictions was based on the boat creating the interference pattern in and of itself, that does not mean the model accurately reflect what is physically occurring in nature. > 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. > Of course I do. Only in the nonsense of QM must you ignore experimental evidence and jump to illogical conclusions. The particle always being detected exiting a single slit is evidence the particle always exits a single slit. In AD, as in nature, this is because the particle always exits a single slit and it is the particle's aether displacement wave which exits multiple slits. > > > > 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: mpc755 on 17 Jan 2010 18:41 On Jan 17, 5:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > This is what you said previously: "If the model that the boat created the interference pattern in and of itself got the answer right where no other model was able to make the same successful quantitative prediction, then yes, I am right. This is how science judges whether theories are right -- by whether they work, and that means whether they make better quantitative predictions of observations than other models." If the model which makes the most correct quantitative predictions was based on the boat creating the interference pattern in and of itself, that does not mean the model accurately reflects what is physically occurring in nature. > 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. > Only in the nonsense of QM must you ignore experimental evidence and jump to illogical conclusions. The particle always detected exiting a single slit is evidence the particle always exits a single slit. In AD, as in nature, this is because the particle always exits a single slit and it is the particle's aether displacement wave which exits multiple slits. > > > > 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: mpc755 on 18 Jan 2010 00:24
On Jan 17, 5:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > This is what you said previously: "If the model that the boat created the interference pattern in and of itself got the answer right where no other model was able to make the same successful quantitative prediction, then yes, I am right. This is how science judges whether theories are right -- by whether they work, and that means whether they make better quantitative predictions of observations than other models." "In science, the proof of understanding what is going on is based SOLELY on the ability to predict quantitatively what will happen under so-and-so circumstances. That is, in science, if you can say "If you set up so-and-so circumstances, then you are guaranteed to see such-and-such result in this specific amount," and it does in fact come out just as you said, then this is solid evidence that you understand what is going on. That is how science works. And since I can do that, then by scientific standards, I know what is going on in nature." If the model which makes the most correct quantitative predictions was based on the boat creating the interference pattern in and of itself, that does not mean the model accurately reflects what is physically occurring in nature. > 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. > Only in the nonsense of QM must you ignore experimental evidence and jump to illogical conclusions. If you always detect the particle exiting a single slit then this is evidence the particle always exits a single slit. In AD, as in nature, this is because the particle always exits a single slit and it is the particle's aether displacement wave which exits multiple slits. > > > > 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 > > |