Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 9 Jan 2010 10:16 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Jan 8, 11:38=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >> 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. =A0(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. =A0If you know its position so exactly, you _cannot_ know its >> momentum (and thus its velocity/direction) to a high position. =A0It's >> impossible. =A0Disprove 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. You can't. You cannot simultaneously know the position of the particle (at the detectors at the slits) to a high precision AND the momentum of the particle to a high precision (enough to know where it would go). Period. HUP forbids this. This gedanken is bogus under QM for that reason. >> >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, It cannot be, unless Einstein was wrong. "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time" "Compressed ether" in the form of a proton, or the Earth, are obviously observable through time. > but I'm pretty sure Einstein was not >discussing matter as being the particles within the aether which could >be tracked through time. Now you're making excuses why your violations of Einstein's statements aren't really violations of Einstein's statements. Either Einstein was wrong, or matter cannot be compressed ether. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. >> >"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. It is correct. "Entrained ether" is obviously something to which the idea of motion can be applied, being at rest relative to the entraining object. So, again, either Einstein was wrong or there is no such thing as ether entrainment. Which is it? >> >"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? I have no problem, you do. You are simultaneously agreeing with Einstein saying motion cannot apply to an ether but still trying to justify entrained ethers to which the concept of motion obviously applies. Once again, which is it? Either there is no such thing as entrained ether, or Einstein was wrong. >> >> And once again, this was all before most of QM, and Einstein was still >> >> wrestling with how ether fit in with his theories. =3DA0 >> >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. QM forbids this as a violation of HUP and Maxwell's Demon concepts. >> Separate "particles" rule out entrainment. Any such entrained ether would >> be separate particles of ether, >How do you know a singleton cannot be entrained? Einstein said the concept of motion cannot be applied to "particles" of ether. Was he wrong?
From: mpc755 on 9 Jan 2010 12:55 On Jan 9, 10:16 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Jan 8, 11:38=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> >> 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. =A0(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. =A0If you know its position so exactly, you _cannot_ know its > >> momentum (and thus its velocity/direction) to a high position. =A0It's > >> impossible. =A0Disprove 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. > > You can't. You cannot simultaneously know the position of the particle > (at the detectors at the slits) to a high precision AND the momentum of > the particle to a high precision (enough to know where it would go). > Period. HUP forbids this. This gedanken is bogus under QM for that > reason. > > >> >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, > > It cannot be, unless Einstein was wrong. "The special theory of relativity > forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through > time" > > "Compressed ether" in the form of a proton, or the Earth, are obviously > observable through time. > Einstein did not realize matter is compressed aether. When Einstein discusses aether the is referring to aether in its base state. Einstein's state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places. > > but I'm pretty sure Einstein was not > >discussing matter as being the particles within the aether which could > >be tracked through time. > > Now you're making excuses why your violations of Einstein's statements > aren't really violations of Einstein's statements. Either Einstein > was wrong, or matter cannot be compressed ether. Which is it? You can't > have it both ways. > Einstein did not realize matter is compressed aether. That doesn't make him wrong or incorrect, it just means he was unaware. > >> >"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. > > It is correct. "Entrained ether" is obviously something to which the idea > of motion can be applied, being at rest relative to the entraining object.. > So, again, either Einstein was wrong or there is no such thing as ether > entrainment. Which is it? > As far as I know, Einstein never said the aether does not consist of particles, not to say I ever said it does. What part of "[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", are you unable to understand? What part of "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", are you unable to understand? > >> >"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? > > I have no problem, you do. You are simultaneously agreeing with Einstein > saying motion cannot apply to an ether but still trying to justify > entrained ethers to which the concept of motion obviously applies. Incorrect. Please read Einstein's definition of motion. "[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." > Once again, which is it? Either there is no such thing as entrained > ether, or Einstein was wrong. > Once again, you are unable to understand Einstein's definition of motion. > >> >> And once again, this was all before most of QM, and Einstein was still > >> >> wrestling with how ether fit in with his theories. =3DA0 > >> >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. > > QM forbids this as a violation of HUP and Maxwell's Demon concepts. > QM forbids what? The ability to detected a C-60 molecule exiting a single slit? > >> Separate "particles" rule out entrainment. Any such entrained ether would > >> be separate particles of ether, > >How do you know a singleton cannot be entrained? > > Einstein said the concept of motion cannot be applied to "particles" of > ether. Was he wrong? Incorrect. Einstein said, and I will quote him here even though your selective reasoning does not allow you to comprehend the complete sentences: "[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."
From: mpc755 on 9 Jan 2010 18:51 On Jan 9, 10:16 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Jan 8, 11:38=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> >> 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. =A0(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. =A0If you know its position so exactly, you _cannot_ know its > >> momentum (and thus its velocity/direction) to a high position. =A0It's > >> impossible. =A0Disprove 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. > > You can't. You cannot simultaneously know the position of the particle > (at the detectors at the slits) to a high precision AND the momentum of > the particle to a high precision (enough to know where it would go). > Period. HUP forbids this. This gedanken is bogus under QM for that > reason. > > >> >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, > > It cannot be, unless Einstein was wrong. "The special theory of relativity > forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through > time" > > "Compressed ether" in the form of a proton, or the Earth, are obviously > observable through time. > > > but I'm pretty sure Einstein was not > >discussing matter as being the particles within the aether which could > >be tracked through time. > > Now you're making excuses why your violations of Einstein's statements > aren't really violations of Einstein's statements. Either Einstein > was wrong, or matter cannot be compressed ether. Which is it? You can't > have it both ways. > > >> >"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. > > It is correct. "Entrained ether" is obviously something to which the idea > of motion can be applied, being at rest relative to the entraining object.. > So, again, either Einstein was wrong or there is no such thing as ether > entrainment. Which is it? > > >> >"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? > > I have no problem, you do. You are simultaneously agreeing with Einstein > saying motion cannot apply to an ether but still trying to justify > entrained ethers to which the concept of motion obviously applies. > Once again, which is it? Either there is no such thing as entrained > ether, or Einstein was wrong. > > >> >> And once again, this was all before most of QM, and Einstein was still > >> >> wrestling with how ether fit in with his theories. =3DA0 > >> >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. > > QM forbids this as a violation of HUP and Maxwell's Demon concepts. > > >> Separate "particles" rule out entrainment. Any such entrained ether would > >> be separate particles of ether, > >How do you know a singleton cannot be entrained? > > Einstein said the concept of motion cannot be applied to "particles" of > ether. Was he wrong? Incorrect. I will quote Einstein here even though your selective reasoning does not allow you to comprehend the complete sentences: "[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."
From: Michael Moroney on 9 Jan 2010 21:36 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >> Now you're making excuses why your violations of Einstein's statements >> aren't really violations of Einstein's statements. Either Einstein >> was wrong, or matter cannot be compressed ether. Which is it? You can't >> have it both ways. .... >> >> Separate "particles" rule out entrainment. Any such entrained ether would >> >> be separate particles of ether, >> >How do you know a singleton cannot be entrained? >> >> Einstein said the concept of motion cannot be applied to "particles" of >> ether. Was he wrong? >Incorrect. I will quote Einstein here even though your selective >reasoning does not allow you to comprehend the complete sentences: >"[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." And entrained ether, if it existed, could be tracked through time, with the ether of Venus being SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME from the ether of Earth, which would be SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME from the ether of Mars etc. Therefore, according to Einstein entrained ether cannot exist. >"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." And entrained ether would be OBSERVABLE THROUGH TIME. Of course the emphasis you added was not Einstein's own. Don't forget that he ended his address with the sentences: "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied through it." Now certainly bits of entrained ether would qualify as parts, so entrained ether cannot exist according to Einstein. So, what will it be: 1) there simply cannot be any such thing as entrained ether; 2) Einstein was wrong; or 3) you'll try to twist and weave trying to salvage your pet ether theory even though physicists have discarded it as unnecessary decades ago.
From: mpc755 on 9 Jan 2010 21:51
On Jan 9, 9:36 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Now you're making excuses why your violations of Einstein's statements > >> aren't really violations of Einstein's statements. Either Einstein > >> was wrong, or matter cannot be compressed ether. Which is it? You can't > >> have it both ways. > > ... > > >> >> Separate "particles" rule out entrainment. Any such entrained ether would > >> >> be separate particles of ether, > >> >How do you know a singleton cannot be entrained? > > >> Einstein said the concept of motion cannot be applied to "particles" of > >> ether. Was he wrong? > >Incorrect. I will quote Einstein here even though your selective > >reasoning does not allow you to comprehend the complete sentences: > >"[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." > > And entrained ether, if it existed, could be tracked through time, How? > with the ether of Venus being SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME from > the ether of Earth, which would be SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME from > the ether of Mars etc. Therefore, according to Einstein entrained ether > cannot exist. > Each and every nuclei in the Earth is following the path of least resistance. The aether is following the path of least resistance when it interacts with matter. The state of the aether changes based upon its connections with the matter. This means the state of the aether directly in front of the matter changes as the matter occupies the three dimensional space of the aether. I call this the aether's state of displacement. The aether pushes back. If the aether does not push back than there is no aether. Since the aether exists throughout the matter which is the Earth, in the theory of Aether Displacement, then the interaction between the aether and the matter must cause them to become entrained. In AD, if matter is not capable of becoming entrained with the aether than there is no aether. > >"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." > > And entrained ether would be OBSERVABLE THROUGH TIME. > > Of course the emphasis you added was not Einstein's own. Don't forget > that he ended his address with the sentences: "But this ether may not be > thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, > as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of > motion may not be applied through it." > > Now certainly bits of entrained ether would qualify as parts, so entrained > ether cannot exist according to Einstein. So, what will it be: 1) there > simply cannot be any such thing as entrained ether; 2) Einstein was wrong; > or 3) you'll try to twist and weave trying to salvage your pet ether theory > even though physicists have discarded it as unnecessary decades ago. |