Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: spudnik on 6 Jan 2010 22:59 the only evidence of a "photon" is, when the wave goes, Splat! for instance, the "rods & cones" of the retina a) do not contain three pigments (per Young's "[apparent] trichromacy of vision" -- full phrase due to Land), and b) are both conformed of "log-spiral antennae." so, how do you get a "photon" to be absorbed by that? if some body shoots a fulleren at your eyeball, duck! > Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot your answer was, "Because it's a > wave". > > In AD, the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while > the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits > multiple slits. also see: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf > <http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/4-pertab.htm>. --l'OEuvre! http://wlym.com
From: Michael Moroney on 7 Jan 2010 00:00 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Jan 6, 8:49 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >On Jan 6, 3:38 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >> >wrote: >> >> MM's results indicate either no ether at all or ether entrainment. >> >Aether Displacement and Entrainment it is. >> >> You forgot to supply the pointer to the experiment(s) that differentiate >> between aether entrainment and no aether, which indicate that there is, in >> fact, aether entrainment. PD has been asking you for evidence of aether >> entrainment (to the orbit of Uranus), too. >> >> Comments by a person aren't an experiment. Even if that person is Einstein. >> (and in particular ones made before QM really got going and supplied more >> evidence that a luminiferous ether is unnecessary) >Evidence like the behaviors of a C-60 molecule in a double slit >experiment? All evidence I've seen is exactly what QM predicts. And besides, I was talking about an experiment that differentiates between entrained aether and no aether, not what happens in a double slit experiment. So far you haven't presented any such experiment. >Evidence where the C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the >aether? No such evidence has been seen. >You still haven't answered how it is, in QM, a C-60 molecule is >detected exiting a single slit when detectors are placed at the exits >to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). >Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot your answer was, "Because it's a >wave". Whether you like it or not, QM predicts "things" (photons, electrons, etc) have both particle and wave properties under certain conditions. >In AD, the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while >the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits >multiple slits. Prove it. (Come up with a reasonable experiment where QM predicts one outcome and AD predicts a different outcome, that someone could perform and tell which one is correct) This is like my Michelson-Morley comment. MM came up with a null result for an "ether wind" but can't differentiate between no aether and entrained aether. The next logical step is an experiment that can tell the difference. PD has commented that such experiments have been done, and point to no aether.
From: mpc755 on 7 Jan 2010 00:03 On Jan 7, 12:00 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Jan 6, 8:49 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> >On Jan 6, 3:38 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >> >wrote: > >> >> MM's results indicate either no ether at all or ether entrainment. > >> >Aether Displacement and Entrainment it is. > > >> You forgot to supply the pointer to the experiment(s) that differentiate > >> between aether entrainment and no aether, which indicate that there is, in > >> fact, aether entrainment. PD has been asking you for evidence of aether > >> entrainment (to the orbit of Uranus), too. > > >> Comments by a person aren't an experiment. Even if that person is Einstein. > >> (and in particular ones made before QM really got going and supplied more > >> evidence that a luminiferous ether is unnecessary) > >Evidence like the behaviors of a C-60 molecule in a double slit > >experiment? > > All evidence I've seen is exactly what QM predicts. And besides, I was > talking about an experiment that differentiates between entrained aether > and no aether, not what happens in a double slit experiment. So far you > haven't presented any such experiment. > > >Evidence where the C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the > >aether? > > No such evidence has been seen. > > >You still haven't answered how it is, in QM, a C-60 molecule is > >detected exiting a single slit when detectors are placed at the exits > >to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). > >Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot your answer was, "Because it's a > >wave". > > Whether you like it or not, QM predicts "things" (photons, electrons, etc) > have both particle and wave properties under certain conditions. > That is not what I asked you. I am asking you how a C-60 molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, can be detected exiting a single slit if detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the instant before the C-60 molecule is to exit the slit(s). How does the C-60 molecule physically go from existing in all of the slits as a wave, to exiting a single slit? > >In AD, the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while > >the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits > >multiple slits. > > Prove it. (Come up with a reasonable experiment where QM predicts one > outcome and AD predicts a different outcome, that someone could perform > and tell which one is correct) > > This is like my Michelson-Morley comment. MM came up with a null result > for an "ether wind" but can't differentiate between no aether and > entrained aether. The next logical step is an experiment that can tell > the difference. PD has commented that such experiments have been done, > and point to no aether.
From: spudnik on 7 Jan 2010 16:09 unfortunatley, I just missed the first lecture of the quarter, on the electronic properties of graphene & fullerenes; that might explain it. > How does the C-60 molecule physically go from existing in all of the > slits as a wave, to exiting a single slit? > > This is like my Michelson-Morley comment. MM came up with a null result > > for an "ether wind" but can't differentiate between no aether and thus: the "rods & cones" of the retina a) do not contain three pigments (per Young's "[apparent] trichromacy of vision" -- full phrase due to Land), and b) both comprise "log-spiral antennae." so, how do you get a "photon" to be absorbed by that?... if some body aims a fullerene between your eyes, duck! --l'OEuvre! http://wlym.com http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
From: spudnik on 7 Jan 2010 16:16
let me put it less blandly: How does the particle, called "photon," impale itself on the conical antennae of the retina? MM, do you or do you not believe that M&M had a null result, from the references that have been given? thus: unfortunatley, I just missed the first lecture of the quarter, on the electronic properties of graphene & fullerenes; that might explain it. > > This is like my Michelson-Morley comment. MM came up with a null result > > for an "ether wind" but can't differentiate between no aether and thus: the "rods & cones" of the retina a) do not contain three pigments (per Young's "[apparent] trichromacy of vision" -- full phrase due to Land), and b) both comprise "log-spiral antennae." so, how do you get a "photon" to be absorbed by that?... if some body aims a fullerene between your eyes, duck! --l'OEuvre! http://wlym.com http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf |