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 19 Jan 2010 11:08 On Jan 19, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Of course not. It is not a give a model, even the one able to make the most correct quantitative, represents reality. It is unbelievable you are unable to understand this. A model is not reality. A model is not nature. A model is a model. > This statement does NOT say that there is a such a model for boats. > I understand that. I am using the boat and water as an analogy for the particle and the aether. > 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. > But again, IF the model which made the most correct predictions was of a boat creating the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself that does not mean the model reflects nature. In this analogy, it is because of the water the boat is able to create the interference pattern on the shore and the model of the boat creating the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself incorrectly reflects what is occurring physically in nature. Do you understand that even IF the model which made the most correct predictions was of a boat creating the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself is NOT what occurs in nature? Do you understand the interference pattern is made on the shore because of the boats connections with the water? > > > > > > "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. > >
From: mpc755 on 19 Jan 2010 11:29 On Jan 19, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > It is not a given a model, even the one able to make the most correct quantitative predictions, represents reality. It is unbelievable you are unable to understand this. A model is not reality. A model is not nature. A model is a model. > This statement does NOT say that there is a such a model for boats. > I am using the boat and water as an analogy for the particle and the aether. > 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. > You could also say a plane flies over the building in and of itself and if your model of a plane flying over the building made the most correct quantitative predictions for the plane, you would insist the model reflect nature, when in fact, that is not the case because the plane is only able to fly over the building because of the air. It is simply amazing you insist IF the model is of a boat creating the interference pattern in and of itself made the most correct quantitative predictions then that is what is occurring in nature. It is simply amazing your state of denial. Your inability to differentiate between a model and nature is astounding. > 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. > But again, IF the model which made the most correct predictions was of a boat creating the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself that does not mean the model reflects nature. In this analogy, it is because of the water the boat is able to create the interference pattern on the shore and the model of the boat creating the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself incorrectly reflects what is occurring physically in nature. Do you understand that even IF the model which made the most correct predictions was of a boat creating the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself is NOT what occurs in nature? Do you understand the interference pattern is made on the shore because of the boats connections with the water? > > > > > > "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. > >
From: mpc755 on 19 Jan 2010 13:50 On Jan 19, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > It is not a given a model, even the one able to make the most correct quantitative predictions, represents reality. It is unbelievable you are unable to understand this. A model is not reality. A model is not nature. A model is a model. What you are saying is simply amazing. Even if you know the boat creates an interference pattern on the shore because of the water, if the model which makes more accurate quantitative predictions of where the boat will wind up on shore says the boat creates the interference pattern in and of itself, then the boat creates the interference pattern on the shore in and of itself, in nature. That is just remarkable. Your inability to differentiate between a model and nature is astounding. > This statement does NOT say that there is a such a model for boats. > The boat and water is an analogy for the particle and the aether. > 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. > >
From: PD on 19 Jan 2010 14:06 On Jan 19, 12:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > It is not a given a model, even the one able to make the most correct > quantitative predictions, represents reality. > > It is unbelievable you are unable to understand this. > > A model is not reality. > > A model is not nature. > > A model is a model. Science builds models. That's what it does and that's what it produces. The quality of the product is determined by one thing and one thing only: how well that model accurately predicts what will be observed in nature under certain circumstances. > > What you are saying is simply amazing. Even if you know the boat > creates an interference pattern on the shore because of the water, if > the model which makes more accurate quantitative predictions of where > the boat will wind up on shore says the boat creates the interference > pattern in and of itself, then the boat creates the interference > pattern on the shore in and of itself, in nature. The problem is that you claim you KNOW something you DON'T KNOW. You only THINK you know. There has to be a way to check what you think you know. ANY CLAIM that you KNOW how reality works is met with laughter in science. They will ask you HOW do you know? HOW do you know it works this way and not some other way? Unless you have an answer to that remark (and "It's obvious" is NOT a good answer), then any claim that you KNOW how nature works is empty. Two people will come up with two explanations of nature, and they will be different and both people will claim they KNOW that nature operates that way. Science will say to both of them, "There must be a test to determine which one of you is right. Pointing fingers and shouting down each other and saying it's obvious, is not the way to resolve this." And so science then asks both explanations to come up with some predictions about what will happen under this circumstance or that circumstance. There will be places where the two explanations will differ quantitatively in their predictions. And that's where the test gets focused. There's absolutely no point in doing tests where the two explanations AGREE on what will happen, because there is no way to tell which of the two explanations is right by looking at those. You have to look at the places where they are DIFFERENT. Then it's simple. You focus on the circumstances where they make different predictions, and you see what happens in nature. Only one of them will be able to get the right answer, because they make different predictions. This lets nature decide which one is right. Then there will be one person who THOUGHT he was right, but it turned out he was wrong. If on the other hand, you get someone who claims he KNOWS how nature works, but he can't even put up his explanation to a test by doing the above, then he doesn't have any testable claim at all. Then he can't even claim he has ANY understanding how nature works, because the disagreement can't be resolved by experimental test. Untestable ideas don't even make it to the starting line. > > That is just remarkable. Your inability to differentiate between a > model and nature is astounding. > > > This statement does NOT say that there is a such a model for boats. > > The boat and water is an analogy for the particle and the aether. And the analogy BREAKS. They are not the same thing. What works for one does not work for the other. They have DIFFERENT quantitative predictions. > > > 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. > >
From: mpc755 on 19 Jan 2010 14:37
On Jan 19, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 12:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 19, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > It is not a given a model, even the one able to make the most correct > > quantitative predictions, represents reality. > > > It is unbelievable you are unable to understand this. > > > A model is not reality. > > > A model is not nature. > > > A model is a model. > > Science builds models. That's what it does and that's what it > produces. The quality of the product is determined by one thing and > one thing only: how well that model accurately predicts what will be > observed in nature under certain circumstances. > A models ability to predict what will be observed in nature is different than a models ability to accurately describe what occurs physically in nature. Take for example QM. All of the nonsense in QM has to do with the misunderstanding of what is physically occurring in nature. All of the predictions QM is capable of could just as easily be performed with the understanding the particle creates a displacement wave in the aether. With this understanding of nature, there is no need for the future to determine the past or for the particle to enter and exit both slits. > > > > What you are saying is simply amazing. Even if you know the boat > > creates an interference pattern on the shore because of the water, if > > the model which makes more accurate quantitative predictions of where > > the boat will wind up on shore says the boat creates the interference > > pattern in and of itself, then the boat creates the interference > > pattern on the shore in and of itself, in nature. > > The problem is that you claim you KNOW something you DON'T KNOW. You > only THINK you know. There has to be a way to check what you think you > know. ANY CLAIM that you KNOW how reality works is met with laughter > in science. They will ask you HOW do you know? HOW do you know it > works this way and not some other way? Unless you have an answer to > that remark (and "It's obvious" is NOT a good answer), then any claim > that you KNOW how nature works is empty. > If you preform a double slit experiment with a particle and a superfluid the particle will create an interference pattern on the screen. When the particle is detected exiting a single slit it will not be able to create an interference pattern on the screen because the coherence of the displacement wave the particle creates in the superfluid will be destroyed. Placing detectors at the exits to the slits while the particle is in the slits will not cause the future to determine the past since the particle always enters and exits a single slit. > Two people will come up with two explanations of nature, and they will > be different and both people will claim they KNOW that nature operates > that way. Science will say to both of them, "There must be a test to > determine which one of you is right. Pointing fingers and shouting > down each other and saying it's obvious, is not the way to resolve > this." And so science then asks both explanations to come up with some > predictions about what will happen under this circumstance or that > circumstance. There will be places where the two explanations will > differ quantitatively in their predictions. And that's where the test > gets focused. There's absolutely no point in doing tests where the two > explanations AGREE on what will happen, because there is no way to > tell which of the two explanations is right by looking at those. You > have to look at the places where they are DIFFERENT. Then it's simple. > You focus on the circumstances where they make different predictions, > and you see what happens in nature. Only one of them will be able to > get the right answer, because they make different predictions. This > lets nature decide which one is right. Then there will be one person > who THOUGHT he was right, but it turned out he was wrong. > > If on the other hand, you get someone who claims he KNOWS how nature > works, but he can't even put up his explanation to a test by doing the > above, then he doesn't have any testable claim at all. Then he can't > even claim he has ANY understanding how nature works, because the > disagreement can't be resolved by experimental test. Untestable ideas > don't even make it to the starting line. > I have pointed out a couple of experiments which will show AD to be more correct than QM. One of the experiments is to have the photon aether wave of a detected photon interfere with another photon. The other experiment is described above where the particle and the displacement wave the particle creates in the superfluid will act as one. > > > > That is just remarkable. Your inability to differentiate between a > > model and nature is astounding. > > > > This statement does NOT say that there is a such a model for boats. > > > The boat and water is an analogy for the particle and the aether. > > And the analogy BREAKS. They are not the same thing. What works for > one does not work for the other. They have DIFFERENT quantitative > predictions. > It's an analogy. Not only are you incapable of differentiating between a model and nature, you also are unable to understand the IF part in IF a boat creates an interference pattern on the shore. > > > > > 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. > > |