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: PD on 19 Jan 2010 15:13 On Jan 19, 1:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Not in science. The two are the same. If it predicts correctly, then it describes correctly. I know you hate this, but it is true. If you don't like it, then you just don't have an interest in science. > > 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. No, it cannot. You need to demonstrate that the same predictions arise from the different conceptual framework. Remember, the predictions of QM *come from* the physical description provided by QM. The AD predictions will have to come on their own. > > > > > 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. You have to do the calculations of both QM and AD to show where the predictions will be different. You've done neither. > The > other experiment is described above where the particle and the > displacement wave the particle creates in the superfluid will act as > one. There is no *measurable* prediction there. What is the *measurable* outcome that distinguishes this? You really have no idea how science is done, do you? None at all. PD
From: mpc755 on 19 Jan 2010 15:59 On Jan 19, 3:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 1:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Not in science. The two are the same. If it predicts correctly, then > it describes correctly. > I know you hate this, but it is true. > If you don't like it, then you just don't have an interest in science. > It just predicts correctly. It doesn't mean the model accurately reflect nature. Just look at the nonsense of QM. > > > > 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. > > No, it cannot. You need to demonstrate that the same predictions arise > from the different conceptual framework. Remember, the predictions of > QM *come from* the physical description provided by QM. The AD > predictions will have to come on their own. > It's the same conceptual framework. It is wave-particle duality. It is a moving particle having an associated wave. The difference being the wave is an associated aether displacement wave. The physical description provided by QM and AD are the same. The mistake QM makes is thinking the particle itself is the wave. AD corrects this by understanding a moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. The particle and the wave act as one. > > > > > > > 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. > > You have to do the calculations of both QM and AD to show where the > predictions will be different. You've done neither. > > > The > > other experiment is described above where the particle and the > > displacement wave the particle creates in the superfluid will act as > > one. > > There is no *measurable* prediction there. What is the *measurable* > outcome that distinguishes this? > So, you are saying if you perform an experiment with a particle and a superfluid and the resulting interference pattern is in accord with the mathematical calculations of QM, you are going to insist the particle exits both slits? > You really have no idea how science is done, do you? None at all. > > PD
From: mpc755 on 19 Jan 2010 16:04 On Jan 19, 3:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 1:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Not in science. The two are the same. If it predicts correctly, then > it describes correctly. > I know you hate this, but it is true. > If you don't like it, then you just don't have an interest in science. > It just predicts correctly. It doesn't mean the model accurately reflect nature. Just look at the nonsense of QM. > > > > 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. > > No, it cannot. You need to demonstrate that the same predictions arise > from the different conceptual framework. Remember, the predictions of > QM *come from* the physical description provided by QM. The AD > predictions will have to come on their own. > It's the same conceptual framework. It is wave-particle duality. It is a moving particle having an associated wave. The difference being the wave is an associated aether displacement wave. The physical description provided by QM and AD are the same. The mistake QM makes is thinking the particle itself is the wave. AD corrects this by understanding a moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. The particle and the wave act as one. > > > > > > > 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. > > You have to do the calculations of both QM and AD to show where the > predictions will be different. You've done neither. > > > The > > other experiment is described above where the particle and the > > displacement wave the particle creates in the superfluid will act as > > one. > > There is no *measurable* prediction there. What is the *measurable* > outcome that distinguishes this? > You are saying if you perform an experiment with a particle and a superfluid and the resulting interference pattern is in accord with the mathematical calculations of QM, you are going to insist the particle exits both slits? You are going to insist the superfluid does not exist? > You really have no idea how science is done, do you? None at all. > > PD
From: mpc755 on 19 Jan 2010 17:11 On Jan 19, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 3:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Which leads us back to IF the model which makes the most accurate > > quantitative predictions is of a boat creating an interference pattern > > on the shore in and of itself, you insist this is what physically > > occurs in nature. > > Yes, IF this were the case, yes. Even if I thought the water was > responsible. If I did not have a model of the water that showed that > IT was just as good as predicting it, then I would say that water has > nothing to do with the boat's interference pattern. This doesn't deny > the water's existence. It just says there is no working model that > says the water has anything to do with the interference pattern, > especially since I WOULD have a working model of the boat that tells > me where the interference pattern comes from. > Then your model does not reflect nature.
From: PD on 19 Jan 2010 17:32
On Jan 19, 4:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 3:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Which leads us back to IF the model which makes the most accurate > > > quantitative predictions is of a boat creating an interference pattern > > > on the shore in and of itself, you insist this is what physically > > > occurs in nature. > > > Yes, IF this were the case, yes. Even if I thought the water was > > responsible. If I did not have a model of the water that showed that > > IT was just as good as predicting it, then I would say that water has > > nothing to do with the boat's interference pattern. This doesn't deny > > the water's existence. It just says there is no working model that > > says the water has anything to do with the interference pattern, > > especially since I WOULD have a working model of the boat that tells > > me where the interference pattern comes from. > > Then your model does not reflect nature. And this you claim to know without scientific test. |