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 18 Jan 2010 01:11 On Jan 17, 5:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 17, 6:33 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > 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, the particle always exits a single slit and it is the particle's aether displacement wave which exits multiple slits.
From: PD on 18 Jan 2010 15:25 On Jan 18, 12:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 17, 5:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 17, 6:33 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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." Note that I said IF the model that created the interference pattern.... I did not say there WAS such a model. I'm telling you the criterion for a model being right -- making successful quantitative predictions. You don't have a model that makes *successful quantitative predictions*. When you do, then it's correctness can be assessed. Not until then. Geez, you're slow. > > "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. If the model, *regardless* what it is based on, makes accurate quantitative predictions, this DOES mean the model accurately reflects what is physically going on. Until the model makes accurate quantitative predictions, you cannot assess whether it accurately reflects what is physically going on or not. Do you get this yet? > > > > > > 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 conclusion QM makes is not illogical. Your conclusion is not a logical conclusion. It is an unwarranted extrapolation. > > If you always detect the particle exiting a single slit then this is > evidence the particle always exits a single slit. No, it is NOT. I've told you what it is evidence of. You are extrapolating this to be true in all cases, whether there is a detector there or not. That is not a logical conclusion. > > In AD, the particle always exits a single slit and it is the > particle's aether displacement wave which exits multiple slits.
From: mpc755 on 18 Jan 2010 19:48 On Jan 18, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 18, 12:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 17, 5:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 17, 6:33 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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." > > Note that I said IF the model that created the interference > pattern.... IF the model is based on the boat creating the interference pattern in and of itself makes the most correct quantitative predictions that does not mean the model reflects what occurs physically in nature. > I did not say there WAS such a model. > I'm telling you the criterion for a model being right -- making > successful quantitative predictions. > You don't have a model that makes *successful quantitative > predictions*. > > When you do, then it's correctness can be assessed. Not until then. > > Geez, you're slow. > > > > > > > "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. > > If the model, *regardless* what it is based on, makes accurate > quantitative predictions, this DOES mean the model accurately reflects > what is physically going on. Incorrect. I know this is impossible for you to understand, but simply because the model is able to make more correct quantitative predictions than other models does not mean the model reflects nature. For example, IF the model which is able to make the most accurate quantitative predictions is of the boat creating the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself that does not mean it reflects what is physically occurring in nature. > Until the model makes accurate > quantitative predictions, you cannot assess whether it accurately > reflects what is physically going on or not. Do you get this yet? > Simply because the model is able to make accurate quantitative predictions does not mean the model reflects what physically occurs in nature. Do you get this? > > > > > > 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. > Of course it is illogical. It is complete nonsense. If you detect a boat exiting a single slit a million times, then just because you do not detect the boat exiting either slit does not mean it exits both. A boat does not exit both slits because you do not detect it. The C-60 molecule is just as much a self-contained object as a boat is and to think the C-60 molecule exits both slits, after you detected it a million times in a row exiting a single slit, just shows how much nonsense you have to believe in in QM. > The conclusion QM makes is not illogical. Your conclusion is not a > logical conclusion. It is an unwarranted extrapolation. > > > > > If you always detect the particle exiting a single slit then this is > > evidence the particle always exits a single slit. > > No, it is NOT. I've told you what it is evidence of. You are > extrapolating this to be true in all cases, whether there is a > detector there or not. That is not a logical conclusion. > OK. So we have two concepts. One is, even though you detected the particle exiting a single slit one million times in a row, when you perform the experiment the one million and first time, you place detectors at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slits. In one concept, the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits depending upon their being detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. On the million and second time, the C-60 molecule exits both slits. In the other concept, the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit and it is the displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether which enters and exits multiple slits. Now, logic dictates the second concept is more correct because it is what we see in nature if we were to perform the experiment with a C-60 molecule in a superfluid. It is also similar to the behavior we see in nature if we were to perform the experiment with a boat. It is also more logical to not have to choose to believe the future determines the past. It is also more logical to believe the C-60 molecule always exits a single slit because every time we have detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule exits a single slit. With the addition of one word, QM nonsense disappears: A moving particle has an associated [aether] wave. > > > > In AD, the particle always exits a single slit and it is the > > particle's aether displacement wave which exits multiple slits. > >
From: mpc755 on 18 Jan 2010 19:53 On Jan 18, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 18, 12:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 17, 5:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 17, 6:33 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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." > > Note that I said IF the model that created the interference > pattern.... IF the model is based on the boat creating the interference pattern in and of itself makes the most correct quantitative predictions that does not mean the model reflects what occurs physically in nature. > I did not say there WAS such a model. > I'm telling you the criterion for a model being right -- making > successful quantitative predictions. > You don't have a model that makes *successful quantitative > predictions*. > > When you do, then it's correctness can be assessed. Not until then. > > Geez, you're slow. > > > > > > > "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. > > If the model, *regardless* what it is based on, makes accurate > quantitative predictions, this DOES mean the model accurately reflects > what is physically going on. Incorrect. I know this is impossible for you to understand, but simply because the model is able to make more correct quantitative predictions than other models does not mean the model reflects nature. For example, IF the model which is able to make the most accurate quantitative predictions is of the boat creating the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself that does not mean it reflects what is physically occurring in nature. > Until the model makes accurate > quantitative predictions, you cannot assess whether it accurately > reflects what is physically going on or not. Do you get this yet? > Simply because the model is able to make accurate quantitative predictions does not mean the model reflects what physically occurs in nature. Do you get this? > > > > > > 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 conclusion QM makes is not illogical. Of course it is illogical. It is complete nonsense. If you detect a boat exiting a single slit a million times, then just because you do not detect the boat exiting either slit does not mean it exits both. A boat does not exit both slits because you do not detect it. The C-60 molecule is just as much a self-contained object as a boat is and to think the C-60 molecule exits both slits, after you detected it a million times in a row exiting a single slit, just shows how much nonsense you have to believe in in QM. > Your conclusion is not a > logical conclusion. It is an unwarranted extrapolation. > > > > > If you always detect the particle exiting a single slit then this is > > evidence the particle always exits a single slit. > > No, it is NOT. I've told you what it is evidence of. You are > extrapolating this to be true in all cases, whether there is a > detector there or not. That is not a logical conclusion. > OK. So we have two concepts. One is, even though you detected the particle exiting a single slit one million times in a row, when you perform the experiment the one million and first time, you place detectors at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slits. In one concept, the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits depending upon their being detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. On the million and second time, the C-60 molecule exits both slits. In the other concept, the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit and it is the displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether which enters and exits multiple slits. Now, logic dictates the second concept is more correct because it is what we see in nature if we were to perform the experiment with a C-60 molecule in a superfluid. It is also similar to the behavior we see in nature if we were to perform the experiment with a boat. It is also more logical to not have to choose to believe the future determines the past. It is also more logical to believe the C-60 molecule always exits a single slit because every time we have detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule exits a single slit. With the addition of one word, QM nonsense disappears: A moving particle has an associated [aether] wave. > > > > In AD, the particle always exits a single slit and it is the > > particle's aether displacement wave which exits multiple slits. > >
From: PD on 18 Jan 2010 20:21
On Jan 18, 6:53 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 18, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 18, 12:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 17, 5:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 17, 6:33 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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." > > > Note that I said IF the model that created the interference > > pattern.... > > IF the model is based on the boat creating the interference pattern in > and of itself makes the most correct quantitative predictions that > does not mean the model reflects what occurs physically in nature. Oh yes it does. That's precisely how science determines which model most accurately reflects nature -- by whether it makes the most accurate quantitative predictions. That is EXACTLY how the best model is determined. > > > > > I did not say there WAS such a model. > > I'm telling you the criterion for a model being right -- making > > successful quantitative predictions. > > You don't have a model that makes *successful quantitative > > predictions*. > > > When you do, then it's correctness can be assessed. Not until then. > > > Geez, you're slow. > > > > "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. > > > If the model, *regardless* what it is based on, makes accurate > > quantitative predictions, this DOES mean the model accurately reflects > > what is physically going on. > > Incorrect. I know this is impossible for you to understand, but simply > because the model is able to make more correct quantitative > predictions than other models does not mean the model reflects nature. Yes, it does. In science, the model that makes the most accurate quantitative predictions in the broadest set of circumstances IS the model that best reflects nature. > > For example, IF the model which is able to make the most accurate > quantitative predictions is of the boat creating the interference > pattern on the shore in and of itself that does not mean it reflects > what is physically occurring in nature. > > > Until the model makes accurate > > quantitative predictions, you cannot assess whether it accurately > > reflects what is physically going on or not. Do you get this yet? > > Simply because the model is able to make accurate quantitative > predictions does not mean the model reflects what physically occurs in > nature. Do you get this? Yes it does. > > > > > > > > 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 conclusion QM makes is not illogical. > > Of course it is illogical. It is complete nonsense. If you detect a > boat exiting a single slit a million times, then just because you do > not detect the boat exiting either slit does not mean it exits both. It does if a model that says it doesn't makes the correct predictions. Note that QM does it in both cases. > > A boat does not exit both slits because you do not detect it. Yes, it does. > > The C-60 molecule is just as much a self-contained object as a boat is > and to think the C-60 molecule exits both slits, after you detected it > a million times in a row exiting a single slit, just shows how much > nonsense you have to believe in in QM. > > > Your conclusion is not a > > logical conclusion. It is an unwarranted extrapolation. > > > > If you always detect the particle exiting a single slit then this is > > > evidence the particle always exits a single slit. > > > No, it is NOT. I've told you what it is evidence of. You are > > extrapolating this to be true in all cases, whether there is a > > detector there or not. That is not a logical conclusion. > > OK. So we have two concepts. One is, even though you detected the > particle exiting a single slit one million times in a row, when you > perform the experiment the one million and first time, you place > detectors at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the > slits. In one concept, the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits > depending upon their being detectors at the exits to the slits in the > future. On the million and second time, the C-60 molecule exits both > slits. > > In the other concept, the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a > single slit and it is the displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates > in the aether which enters and exits multiple slits. > > Now, logic dictates the second concept is more correct because it is > what we see in nature if we were to perform the experiment with a C-60 > molecule in a superfluid. It is also similar to the behavior we see in > nature if we were to perform the experiment with a boat. It is also > more logical to not have to choose to believe the future determines > the past. It is also more logical to believe the C-60 molecule always > exits a single slit because every time we have detectors at the exits > to the slits the C-60 molecule exits a single slit. > > With the addition of one word, QM nonsense disappears: > > A moving particle has an associated [aether] wave. > > > > > > In AD, the particle always exits a single slit and it is the > > > particle's aether displacement wave which exits multiple slits. > > |