On Tue, 27 May 2025 9:37:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Got it upside down and inside out again, Laurence? :-DYou do not even attempt to be persuasive.
"AI Overview The idea of wave-particle duality, often presented as a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics, is not a widely accepted or accurate representation of quantum phenomena. While particles can
exhibit wave-like behavior, and waves can exhibit particle-like behavior (like photons), the core concept of wave-particle duality is often misinterpreted and oversimplified. The wave-function, which describes
the probability of finding a particle at a given location, is not a
physical wave itself, and particles are not simply "waves" that
occasionally act as particles."
Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not stable, hence move through space.
On 05/28/2025 12:02 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 9:04:53 +0000, Mikko wrote:
The only difficulty with wave theory is explaining the medium in the
vacuum of space. It cannot be an MMX concept of an aether, which has
been disproven.
Modern frame-dragging experiments are in it, and furthermore, many
empirical things in electricity are called "moving frame" or what, yet indicate an aether theory in their hidden variables.
Am Mittwoch000028, 28.05.2025 um 20:56 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
I don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that
what light is is a matter of perspective.
Actually we need a continuum, which could be both: particle and vacuum (depending on the perspective).
On 2025-05-30 19:11:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
It is asserted that individual photons are inserted in the double slit
experiment and that they create interference patterns like waves hence
a duality. The fact that the light behaves here like a wave proves they
never reduced it to a single photon. It was always a wave.
Classical particles do not produce an interference pattern. Classical
waves do not produce counts of discrete detectons. Both can be observed
in the double slit experiment so there is somthing that is not a
classical wave and not a classical particle. It does not matter how you
call it.
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
In science, deductive reasoning is used to test hypotheses, where a
general rule or theory is applied to a specific situation to see if
the prediction holds true.
I note with interest that Richard Hertz and Maciej Woźniak agree that
it is plain wrong that experimental evidence determines the validity of
a theory of physics.
As said: only idiots as incompetent as you are can believe such a
nonsensical lie.
It is a quite unusual concept, because it is a 'continuum concept' which works without particles.
It is a fact the SR and GR are thoroughly tested and never falsified.
On 6/4/2025 3:11 PM, Python wrote:
Le 04/06/2025 à 14:58, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 6/4/2025 2:50 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Einstein wasn't written for the likes of you,
he was writing for scientists like Planck, Lorentz,
Einstein was mumbling inconsistently like an idiot he was.
Sad that since then only one person as clever as Maciej Wozniak was
born to notice and post on Usenet about this scam.
Well, yes, that's sad, but sad things happen, poor stinker.
On 6/4/2025 9:51 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
GR is a consistent, falsifiable theory.
No, neither. Your assertion is false.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
All 'dissidents' are called 'nuts' or crackpots'.
This is common behavior here and elsewhere.
Of course not. We certainly recognise true 'dissidents' as such, like
Andrei Sakharov for example. You cannot arrogate the title 'dissident'
to yourself.
Sakharov was part of the atomic program of the Soviet Union and had
some issues with the nomenclatura.
So you got that part of history wrong too.
Sakharov's family was part of the nomenclaura, good Soviet citizens.
Andrei wouldn't have gotten KGB clearance to work on nuclear weapon's otherwise.
Now you need to prove, that no real professor of physics would write
what I had written and why.
But real physicists use real physics and usual academic rules for
scientific papers.
As I have an academic degree, I know these rules, while Physics I have learned as a hobby.
Am Donnerstag000005, 05.06.2025 um 13:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
I have a good guess, you could try for one too?
My guess:
current physics just one big fraud, conducted by fraudsters, who cheat
the public in colossal scale.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 498 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 32:32:35 |
Calls: | 9,798 |
Calls today: | 17 |
Files: | 13,751 |
Messages: | 6,189,001 |