Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 11 Jan 2010 14:24 On Jan 11, 1:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 11, 8:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 11, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 8, 6:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Yes, that's right. Any material medium that is elastic is made of > > > particles. Any material medium that exerts pressure is made of > > > particles. Your medium is therefore made of particles, because you say > > > it is elastic and exerts pressure. You also say it is displaced and > > > entrained. Therefore it is moved, because that's what those words > > > mean. Therefore the particles in your aether move, which means they > > > can be tracked in time. > > > Incorrect. You are saying the aether must consist of particles because > > it can be displaced. > > No, I'm not. I'm saying it must consist of particles if it is elastic > and exerts pressure. Anybody knows that. > Incorrect. What is the difference between an infinite number of aether particles, quanta of aether, being physically displaced by matter and the aether as a singleton being physically displaced by matter? Nothing. > > I have said no such thing. Furthermore, even if > > the aether does consist of particles, which I am not saying it does, > > does not mean they can be tracked through time. > > Yes, it does. If the aether is displaced, then ANY element of that > aether can be tracked through that displacement, which occurs over an > interval of time. That element of the aether contains the particles of > the aether. > There is a particle of aether, a quantum of aether, right now one inch in front of your nose, not that I am saying such a thing actually exists in nature. Tell me how you track that individual particle of aether separately from all of the other particles of aether it exists with and tell me exactly how you determine where that individual particle of aether exists one minute from now. > > > > > "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: PD on 11 Jan 2010 14:34 On Jan 11, 1:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 11, 1:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 11, 8:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 11, 9:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 8, 6:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Yes, that's right. Any material medium that is elastic is made of > > > > particles. Any material medium that exerts pressure is made of > > > > particles. Your medium is therefore made of particles, because you say > > > > it is elastic and exerts pressure. You also say it is displaced and > > > > entrained. Therefore it is moved, because that's what those words > > > > mean. Therefore the particles in your aether move, which means they > > > > can be tracked in time. > > > > Incorrect. You are saying the aether must consist of particles because > > > it can be displaced. > > > No, I'm not. I'm saying it must consist of particles if it is elastic > > and exerts pressure. Anybody knows that. > > Incorrect. What is the difference between an infinite number of aether > particles, quanta of aether, being physically displaced by matter and > the aether as a singleton being physically displaced by matter? > > Nothing. Elasticity and pressure is not supported in a singleton aether. Elasticity and pressure COME FROM having subparticles in the aether. Since you have declared that the aether must have pressure or there is not aether, then this aether MUST have particles. > > > > I have said no such thing. Furthermore, even if > > > the aether does consist of particles, which I am not saying it does, > > > does not mean they can be tracked through time. > > > Yes, it does. If the aether is displaced, then ANY element of that > > aether can be tracked through that displacement, which occurs over an > > interval of time. That element of the aether contains the particles of > > the aether. > > There is a particle of aether, a quantum of aether, right now one inch > in front of your nose, not that I am saying such a thing actually > exists in nature. Tell me how you track that individual particle of > aether separately from all of the other particles of aether it exists > with and tell me exactly how you determine where that individual > particle of aether exists one minute from now. Easy. Your model makes a quantitative prediction about where that aether gets displaced to when matter pushes through it. > > > > > > > > "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: spudnik on 11 Jan 2010 18:15 what is this reliance upon Einstien's 1920 statements? what is your meaning of "subparticles in the medium;" atoms in the vacuum? > > Incorrect. Only you insist the aether must consist of particles in > > order to apply pressure towards the matter doing the displacing. > > Not so. Elasticity and pressure COME FROM having subparticles in the > medium. Any freshman physics student knows this. I'm shocked -- thus: is it a mistake, to take Einstien's 1920 comprehension of aether, to be the end-all & be-all? I really have a problem with the analogy of "the earthen riverbank & the water," since they are taken as analogous to their opposites; eh? --l'OEuvre! http://w;ym.com
From: mpc755 on 11 Jan 2010 19:53 On Jan 11, 5:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 11, 1:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Incorrect. Only you insist the aether must consist of particles in > > order to apply pressure towards the matter doing the displacing. > > Not so. Elasticity and pressure COME FROM having subparticles in the > medium. Any freshman physics student knows this. I'm shocked -- > SHOCKED, I tell you! -- that you are ignorant of this simple fact. > There is no difference between an infinite number of aether particles, quanta of aether, and aether as a singleton. They both require the ability for their shape to vary over time based on their connections with matter. I realize this is yet something else you cannot comprehend. > > > > > > > I have said no such thing. Furthermore, even if > > > > > > the aether does consist of particles, which I am not saying it does, > > > > > > does not mean they can be tracked through time. > > > > > > Yes, it does. If the aether is displaced, then ANY element of that > > > > > aether can be tracked through that displacement, which occurs over an > > > > > interval of time. That element of the aether contains the particles of > > > > > the aether. > > > > > There is a particle of aether, a quantum of aether, right now one inch > > > > in front of your nose, not that I am saying such a thing actually > > > > exists in nature. Tell me how you track that individual particle of > > > > aether separately from all of the other particles of aether it exists > > > > with and tell me exactly how you determine where that individual > > > > particle of aether exists one minute from now. > > > > Easy. Your model makes a quantitative prediction about where that > > > aether gets displaced to when matter pushes through it. > > > Incorrect. Again, we are talking about Einstein. Einstein is not > > referring to a 'prediction' of where the particle of aether will be > > one minute from now. > > Einstein was talking about whether there is a function, even in > principle, that describes the position of a particle of aether in > time. I know you didn't get that when you read it. Read it again. > Einstein never says the aether does not consist of particles. > Or don't. After all, it's taken you some months to read and only half- > understand one paragraph. > You insist the aether must consist of particles, even though you are alone in that insistence. Einstein never says the aether does, or does not, consist of particles. Einstein says is if the aether does consist of particles, the individual particles cannot be separately tracked through time. In your state of denial, you twist this into meaning the particles of aether, quanta of aether, which no one but you insists exists, do not exist if they cannot be detected. This from the same person who chooses to believe a C-60 molecule enters a single slit or multiple slits depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits in the future (while the C-60 molecule is in the slits). So, let's see where we are in terms of your 'understanding' of nature: If the aether exists of particles which cannot be separately tracked through time, then that means the particles cannot exist at all, but a particle in a double slit experiment will enter a single slit or multiple slits depending upon what is going to occur in the future.
From: spudnik on 11 Jan 2010 23:46
the worshipful reliance upon all things stated by Albert Einstein, at least until the 'twenties, is that promoted by the British Military-educational Complex, a.k.a. the Harry Potter PSes (Oxbridge). however, insofar as you've gone beyond that, it's a kind-of-interesting! > There is no difference between an infinite number of aether particles, > quanta of aether, and aether as a singleton. They both require the > ability for their shape to vary over time based on their connections > with matter. > > I realize this is yet something else you cannot comprehend. > Einstein never says the aether does not consist of particles. > You insist the aether must consist of particles, even though you are > alone in that insistence. Einstein never says the aether does, or does > not, consist of particles. Einstein says, if the aether does consist > of particles, the individual particles cannot be separately tracked > through time. > > In your state of denial, you twist this into meaning the particles of > aether, quanta of aether, which no one but you insists exists, do not > exist if they cannot be detected. > > This from the same person who chooses to believe a C-60 molecule > enters a single slit or multiple slits depending upon detectors being > placed at the exits to the slits in the future (while the C-60 > molecule is in the slits). > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - thus: y'know, it behooves one to say it "in so many words," to evoke some pattern of comprehension on one's own part, instead of just "linking to Wookeypoopeya," or Encycl.Brit., or the compedium of the found tribe of the Wolframites. (but, i don't mean that one should "go on & on & on & on," like the New Archimedean Valuation of Every Thing !-) > I've given you the ages of all of the stars in each of the systems that thus: he was referring to the matter of climate-gate, so called, and most of the assumptions are terribly conversant with only the last hundred years, but with significant fudge-factors of ignoring *every* God-am thing that is invconvenient. there is actually quite a lot of rather sporadic CO2 data, some by some sort of proxt or other, like ice-cores, going to the 19th century I think it is a valid question, What might occur, if CO2 remained at its current level, or if it dereased, considering cap&trade (circa '91); today's Wall Street Urinal makes a point of saying that either capNtrade or carbon taxation would have the desired eefect! --l'Oeuvre! http://wlym.com http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Article_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf |