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 22:26 On Jan 18, 8:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > To you, an idea's truth is based purely on whether you believe it is > so or not. 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." You insist the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore in and of itself because that is the incorrect 'understanding' of what is occurring in nature behind the mathematical equations. > This is called religion. The fact you insist the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore in and of itself is analogous to your insistence the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of itself. QM Dogma. The moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
From: mpc755 on 19 Jan 2010 07:38 On Jan 18, 8:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 18, 7:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > To you, an idea's truth is based purely on whether you believe it is > so or not. 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 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, you would insist that model accurately reflects nature, regardless of the fact that is incorrect. > This is called religion. 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 is analogous to your insistence the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of itself, regardless of the fact that is incorrect. QM Dogma. The C-60 molecule does not create the interference pattern in and of itself. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
From: mpc755 on 19 Jan 2010 07:41 On Jan 18, 8:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > To you, an idea's truth is based purely on whether you believe it is > so or not. 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 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, you would insist that model accurately reflects nature, regardless of the fact that is incorrect. > This is called religion. 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 is analogous to your insistence the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of itself, regardless of the fact that is incorrect. A particle does not create the interference pattern in and of itself. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
From: mpc755 on 19 Jan 2010 07:49 On Jan 18, 8:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > To you, an idea's truth is based purely on whether you believe it is > so or not. 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 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, you would insist the model accurately reflects nature, regardless of the fact that is incorrect. > This is called religion. 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 is analogous to your insistence the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of itself, regardless of the fact that is incorrect. A particle does not create the interference pattern in and of itself. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
From: PD on 19 Jan 2010 10:33
On Jan 19, 6:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 18, 8:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > To you, an idea's truth is based purely on whether you believe it is > > so or not. > > 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." Then READ this. IF there was a model of a boat that said that it created the interference pattern in an of itself, AND IF this model got the answer right where no other model was able to make the same successful predictions, THEN yes, this would be the model that accurately represents reality. This statement does NOT say that there is a such a model for boats. I could also say that IF there were a building that was 5000 ft tall, THEN it would be the tallest building on the planet. This does not say that there IS such a building. Here are the facts: 1. There IS NO model that says that the interference pattern on the shore is caused by the boat in an of itself, and that makes accurate quantitative predictions. 2. There IS a model that says that the interference pattern for C-60 molecules is caused by the molecules in an of itself, and this model makes the best quantitative predictions of any model put forward. Therefore in science's eyes, the model that describes the behavior of C-60 molecules DOES represent reality, because of what that existing model DOES -- makes accurate quantitative predictions. > > "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 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, you would insist the model > accurately reflects nature, regardless of the fact that is incorrect. If there were such a model, yes, I would insist that the model accurately reflects nature. You would have to wait for the model to be proposed and to see whether its predictions match reality BEFORE deciding whether it is correct or not. This is the problem, you see. You decide whether a model is correct or not BEFORE it makes predictions and before those predictions are tested against measurements. Physicists don't make that decision when you do. > > > This is called religion. > > 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 is analogous to your > insistence the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern in and of > itself, regardless of the fact that is incorrect. > > A particle does not create the interference pattern in and of itself. Yes, it does. And you cannot make the decision about whether it does or not, until you check the prediction of that model against experimental results. You simply don't have any rational or objective basis for making that decision, other than choosing what you want to believe. But that's what religious people do -- they decide what they want to believe BEFORE looking the matchup between predictions and experiment. > > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. |