Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 8 Jan 2010 19:46 On Jan 8, 7:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> >The C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The instant before it exits the > >> >slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits. > > >> This almost certainly violates the HUP, if you do it on a scale small > >> enough so that C-60 molecules diffract from a grating. > > >The photon is on a deterministic path, but it is uncertain to us. > > According to the HUP, we can never know the position to within > hbar/2*delta_P, where delta_P is the uncertainty in the momentum. > That's what I said. > >> >Your refusal to answer my question is evidence I am more correct. > > >> So I take it from this that your refusal to discuss the alleged evidence > >> of ether entrainment is evidence I am more correct, that there is none.. > > >> Therefore, aether simply does not exist, or if it does, it has no effects > >> whatsoever on matter or energy. > >If the aether does not push back then there is no aether. > >'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > >"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > >unthinkable" > > Read the rest of that paragraph (heck, the whole paper). Esp. the last > sentence: "The idea of motion may not be applied to it (ether). Einstein's idea of motion requires particles which can be tracked through time. "Generalising we must say this:- There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They [the physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time." "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity." "If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." Aether Displacement: The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, as determined by its connections with the matter.
From: Michael Moroney on 8 Jan 2010 23:38 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Jan 8, 10:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: >> >> According to the HUP, we can never know the position to within >> >> hbar/2*delta_P, where delta_P is the uncertainty in the momentum. >> >> >That's what I said. >> >> So, if you manage to track down the molecule to such a tiny space, you'll >> have essentially no idea where it's going (its momentum), meaning any of >> a set of paths that, in quantity, would lead to a diffraction pattern are >> all possible for the particle. (Most likely a reverse path back toward >> the grating is also possible as well, so you can't even conclude it went >> through a particular slit). >If you track down the molecule, you detect the molecule and you now >exactly where it is going. Obviously you don't have a clue what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states. If you know its position so exactly, you _cannot_ know its momentum (and thus its velocity/direction) to a high position. It's impossible. Disprove this and the Nobel Prize in Physics would be pretty much automatic. >> >> Tracking down individual particles to a small area is quite possible in >> QM. But doing so for all particles would ruin the diffraction pattern by >> ruining the grating itself, as the detected particles cannot contribute to >> the pattern. >> >The detected particles do contribute, How? Their momentum has been destroyed by the detection per HUP. >> >> Read the rest of that paragraph (heck, the whole paper). Esp. the last >> >> sentence: "The idea of motion may not be applied to it (ether). >> >> [snip cherry-picked comments from Einstein's early address on ether and SR) >> >> I notice you didn't address the comment in question. Here, I'll quote >> the paragraph. =A0Pay attention to the last sentence. >> >Einstein's idea of motion applied to the aether is the aether does not >consist of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked >through time. "Partcle" One: Ether entrained by the Sun. "Particle" Two: Ether entrained by Mercury. "Particle" Two: Ether entrained by Venus. etc. Don't think "particle means very small. >"Generalising we must say this:- There may be supposed to be extended >physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They >[the physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] >may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow >themselves to be separately tracked through time." So ether entrainment is ruled out. >"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to >consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of >ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of >relativity." Thus no ether motion, therefore no entrainment/"stationary with respect to the embankment" etc. >Motion as defined by Einstein is the aether does not consist of >particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through >time. "Particle" One Sun's entrained ether. "Particle" Two Mercury's entrained ether. etc. No separate motion, no entrainment. >> And once again, this was all before most of QM, and Einstein was still >> wrestling with how ether fit in with his theories. =A0 >If Einstein had figure out AD, we wouldn't have had to deal with all >of the incorrectness in QM. What incorrectness? >"[The physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] >may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow >themselves to be separately tracked through time." - Albert Einstein >Einstein did not rule out entrainment, just the aether consisting of >particle which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. Separate "particles" rule out entrainment. Any such entrained ether would be separate particles of ether, thus entrainment is impossible.
From: mpc755 on 9 Jan 2010 00:05 On Jan 8, 11:38 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Jan 8, 10:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > >> >> According to the HUP, we can never know the position to within > >> >> hbar/2*delta_P, where delta_P is the uncertainty in the momentum. > > >> >That's what I said. > > >> So, if you manage to track down the molecule to such a tiny space, you'll > >> have essentially no idea where it's going (its momentum), meaning any of > >> a set of paths that, in quantity, would lead to a diffraction pattern are > >> all possible for the particle. (Most likely a reverse path back toward > >> the grating is also possible as well, so you can't even conclude it went > >> through a particular slit). > >If you track down the molecule, you detect the molecule and you now > >exactly where it is going. > > Obviously you don't have a clue what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle > states. If you know its position so exactly, you _cannot_ know its > momentum (and thus its velocity/direction) to a high position. It's > impossible. Disprove this and the Nobel Prize in Physics would be > pretty much automatic. > What I was referring to is if you place detectors at the exits to the slits in a double slit experiment and you detect the particle exiting one of the slits you know in what general area on the screen the particle will be detected. > > > >> Tracking down individual particles to a small area is quite possible in > >> QM. But doing so for all particles would ruin the diffraction pattern by > >> ruining the grating itself, as the detected particles cannot contribute to > >> the pattern. > > >The detected particles do contribute, > > How? Their momentum has been destroyed by the detection per HUP. > > >> >> Read the rest of that paragraph (heck, the whole paper). Esp. the last > >> >> sentence: "The idea of motion may not be applied to it (ether). > > >> [snip cherry-picked comments from Einstein's early address on ether and SR) > > >> I notice you didn't address the comment in question. Here, I'll quote > >> the paragraph. =A0Pay attention to the last sentence. > > >Einstein's idea of motion applied to the aether is the aether does not > >consist of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked > >through time. > > "Partcle" One: Ether entrained by the Sun. > "Particle" Two: Ether entrained by Mercury. > "Particle" Two: Ether entrained by Venus. > > etc. > > Don't think "particle means very small. > Matter is compressed aether, but I'm pretty sure Einstein was not discussing matter as being the particles within the aether which could be tracked through time. "If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." Especially because the state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > >"Generalising we must say this:- There may be supposed to be extended > >physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They > >[the physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] > >may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow > >themselves to be separately tracked through time." > > So ether entrainment is ruled out. > Incorrect. > >"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > >consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of > >ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of > >relativity." > > Thus no ether motion, therefore no entrainment/"stationary with respect to > the embankment" etc. > What part of Einstein's definition of motion are you having difficulty understanding? Is it the part where Einstein defines motions as the ability to track particles separately through time? > >Motion as defined by Einstein is the aether does not consist of > >particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through > >time. > > "Particle" One Sun's entrained ether. > "Particle" Two Mercury's entrained ether. > etc. > > No separate motion, no entrainment. > Define motion. > >> And once again, this was all before most of QM, and Einstein was still > >> wrestling with how ether fit in with his theories. =A0 > >If Einstein had figure out AD, we wouldn't have had to deal with all > >of the incorrectness in QM. > > What incorrectness? > The C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The instant before it exits the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits. The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single slit. Explain this in QM. In AD, the C-60 molecule always exits a single slit. > >"[The physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] > >may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow > >themselves to be separately tracked through time." - Albert Einstein > >Einstein did not rule out entrainment, just the aether consisting of > >particle which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. > > Separate "particles" rule out entrainment. Any such entrained ether would > be separate particles of ether, How do you know a singleton cannot be entrained? > thus entrainment is impossible.
From: mpc755 on 9 Jan 2010 00:19 On Jan 8, 11:38 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Jan 8, 10:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > >> >> According to the HUP, we can never know the position to within > >> >> hbar/2*delta_P, where delta_P is the uncertainty in the momentum. > > >> >That's what I said. > > >> So, if you manage to track down the molecule to such a tiny space, you'll > >> have essentially no idea where it's going (its momentum), meaning any of > >> a set of paths that, in quantity, would lead to a diffraction pattern are > >> all possible for the particle. (Most likely a reverse path back toward > >> the grating is also possible as well, so you can't even conclude it went > >> through a particular slit). > >If you track down the molecule, you detect the molecule and you now > >exactly where it is going. > > Obviously you don't have a clue what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle > states. If you know its position so exactly, you _cannot_ know its > momentum (and thus its velocity/direction) to a high position. It's > impossible. Disprove this and the Nobel Prize in Physics would be > pretty much automatic. > What I was referring to is if you place detectors at the exits to the slits in a double slit experiment and you detect the particle exiting one of the slits you know in what general area on the screen the particle will be detected. > > > >> Tracking down individual particles to a small area is quite possible in > >> QM. But doing so for all particles would ruin the diffraction pattern by > >> ruining the grating itself, as the detected particles cannot contribute to > >> the pattern. > > >The detected particles do contribute, > > How? Their momentum has been destroyed by the detection per HUP. > > >> >> Read the rest of that paragraph (heck, the whole paper). Esp. the last > >> >> sentence: "The idea of motion may not be applied to it (ether). > > >> [snip cherry-picked comments from Einstein's early address on ether and SR) > > >> I notice you didn't address the comment in question. Here, I'll quote > >> the paragraph. =A0Pay attention to the last sentence. > > >Einstein's idea of motion applied to the aether is the aether does not > >consist of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked > >through time. > > "Partcle" One: Ether entrained by the Sun. > "Particle" Two: Ether entrained by Mercury. > "Particle" Two: Ether entrained by Venus. > > etc. > > Don't think "particle means very small. > Matter is compressed aether, but I'm pretty sure Einstein was not discussing matter as being the particles within the aether which could be tracked through time. "If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." Especially because the state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > >"Generalising we must say this:- There may be supposed to be extended > >physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They > >[the physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] > >may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow > >themselves to be separately tracked through time." > > So ether entrainment is ruled out. > Incorrect. > >"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > >consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of > >ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of > >relativity." > > Thus no ether motion, therefore no entrainment/"stationary with respect to > the embankment" etc. > What part of Einstein's definition of motion are you having difficulty understanding? Is it the part where Einstein defines motions as the ability to track particles separately through time? > >Motion as defined by Einstein is the aether does not consist of > >particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through > >time. > > "Particle" One Sun's entrained ether. > "Particle" Two Mercury's entrained ether. > etc. > > No separate motion, no entrainment. > Define motion. > >> And once again, this was all before most of QM, and Einstein was still > >> wrestling with how ether fit in with his theories. =A0 > >If Einstein had figure out AD, we wouldn't have had to deal with all > >of the incorrectness in QM. > > What incorrectness? > The C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The instant before it exits the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits. The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single slit. Explain this in QM. In AD, the C-60 molecule always exits a single slit. > >"[The physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] > >may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow > >themselves to be separately tracked through time." - Albert Einstein > >Einstein did not rule out entrainment, just the aether consisting of > >particle which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. > > Separate "particles" rule out entrainment. Any such entrained ether would > be separate particles of ether, thus entrainment is impossible. Separate particles are not ruled out, nor are they ruled in. As defined by Einstein, the aether "may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time."
From: mpc755 on 9 Jan 2010 00:24
On Jan 8, 11:38 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Jan 8, 10:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > >> >> According to the HUP, we can never know the position to within > >> >> hbar/2*delta_P, where delta_P is the uncertainty in the momentum. > > >> >That's what I said. > > >> So, if you manage to track down the molecule to such a tiny space, you'll > >> have essentially no idea where it's going (its momentum), meaning any of > >> a set of paths that, in quantity, would lead to a diffraction pattern are > >> all possible for the particle. (Most likely a reverse path back toward > >> the grating is also possible as well, so you can't even conclude it went > >> through a particular slit). > >If you track down the molecule, you detect the molecule and you now > >exactly where it is going. > > Obviously you don't have a clue what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle > states. If you know its position so exactly, you _cannot_ know its > momentum (and thus its velocity/direction) to a high position. It's > impossible. Disprove this and the Nobel Prize in Physics would be > pretty much automatic. > What I was referring to is if you place detectors at the exits to the slits in a double slit experiment and you detect the particle exiting one of the slits you know in what general area on the screen the particle will be detected. > > > >> Tracking down individual particles to a small area is quite possible in > >> QM. But doing so for all particles would ruin the diffraction pattern by > >> ruining the grating itself, as the detected particles cannot contribute to > >> the pattern. > > >The detected particles do contribute, > > How? Their momentum has been destroyed by the detection per HUP. > > >> >> Read the rest of that paragraph (heck, the whole paper). Esp. the last > >> >> sentence: "The idea of motion may not be applied to it (ether). > > >> [snip cherry-picked comments from Einstein's early address on ether and SR) > > >> I notice you didn't address the comment in question. Here, I'll quote > >> the paragraph. =A0Pay attention to the last sentence. > > >Einstein's idea of motion applied to the aether is the aether does not > >consist of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked > >through time. > > "Partcle" One: Ether entrained by the Sun. > "Particle" Two: Ether entrained by Mercury. > "Particle" Two: Ether entrained by Venus. > > etc. > > Don't think "particle means very small. > Matter is compressed aether, but I'm pretty sure Einstein was not discussing matter as being the particles within the aether which could be tracked through time. "If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." Especially because the state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > >"Generalising we must say this:- There may be supposed to be extended > >physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They > >[the physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] > >may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow > >themselves to be separately tracked through time." > > So ether entrainment is ruled out. > Incorrect. > >"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > >consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of > >ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of > >relativity." > > Thus no ether motion, therefore no entrainment/"stationary with respect to > the embankment" etc. > > >Motion as defined by Einstein is the aether does not consist of > >particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through > >time. > > "Particle" One Sun's entrained ether. > "Particle" Two Mercury's entrained ether. > etc. > > No separate motion, no entrainment. > Define motion. > >> And once again, this was all before most of QM, and Einstein was still > >> wrestling with how ether fit in with his theories. =A0 > >If Einstein had figure out AD, we wouldn't have had to deal with all > >of the incorrectness in QM. > > What incorrectness? > The C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The instant before it exits the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits. The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single slit. Explain this in QM. In AD, the C-60 molecule always exits a single slit. > >"[The physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] > >may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow > >themselves to be separately tracked through time." - Albert Einstein > >Einstein did not rule out entrainment, just the aether consisting of > >particle which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. > > Separate "particles" rule out entrainment. Any such entrained ether would > be separate particles of ether, thus entrainment is impossible. Separate particles are not ruled out, nor ruled in. Einstein said, aether "may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time." |