Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
Den 27.05.2025 05:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:You do not even attempt to be persuasive.
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
Got it upside down and inside out again, Laurence? :-D
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
wave.
A pool stick whether long or short is still a pool stick.
On 05/27/2025 01:18 PM, The Starmaker wrote:Not to mention that particles act like waves in oceans but we don't
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
wave.
A pool stick whether long or short is still a pool stick.
Not to mention it's a wave resonance.
On 05/27/2025 01:18 PM, The Starmaker wrote:Succinct of you.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
wave.
A pool stick whether long or short is still a pool stick.
Not to mention it's a wave resonance.
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 3:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Thanks Bertie. I wish we could say the same for the relativists.
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
Absolutely.
No schizophrenia in light.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
wave.
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 22:08:14 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 3:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Thanks Bertie. I wish we could say the same for the relativists.
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
Absolutely.
No schizophrenia in light.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
The only remaining hint of a particle nature is the difficulty of a wave traversing the vacuum of space. How do we solve that?
Am Dienstag000027, 27.05.2025 um 22:18 schrieb The Starmaker:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
wave.
No
Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not stable, hence move through space.
But stability is a question of the perspective.
E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
parallel to the wave.
IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
laser beam, which stems from your home station.
Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.
Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the
wave as a particle.
Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that
case the wave does not move through space anymore.
THI don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that
On 2025-05-27 03:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:When electrons pass through the double slit experiment, they behave
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The term "duality" refers to the observation that in most cases
the behaviour of light can be understand with a theory where
light is a wave or with a theory where light is a stream of
particles.
However, there are situations where both kind of theories give
an incorrect prediction about the behaviour of light. Therefore
both paticle and wave theories are inexact.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 22:30:41 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:What could this aether be when the MMX type has been disproven, in my
On Tue, 27 May 2025 22:08:14 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 3:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Thanks Bertie. I wish we could say the same for the relativists.
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
Absolutely.
No schizophrenia in light.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
The only remaining hint of a particle nature is the difficulty of a wave
traversing the vacuum of space. How do we solve that?
Aether infinitely fine exists throughout the eternal and infinite
universe. It is the medium of transmission of all electromagnetic waves.
--
The MMX actually showed light speed variance as Arindam explained inAetherists point out that the MMX showed 25% of the 30 km/sec.
2005.
Aether is an infinitely fine elastic solid permeating the infinite
universe.
Electrons and protons glide through it without loss of momentum as it is infinitely fine.
--
On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:10:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 20:59:48 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:No idea what that means.
The MMX actually showed light speed variance as Arindam explained inAetherists point out that the MMX showed 25% of the 30 km/sec.
2005.
Aether is an infinitely fine elastic solid permeating the infinite
universe.
Electrons and protons glide through it without loss of momentum as it is >>> infinitely fine.
--
In vacuum interferometers there is absolutely no sign of light speed
variance.
You mean they did MMX outside the solar system? Arindam has explained
the bungle involved back in 2005 for MMX on moving Earth. As the Earth
moves in aether the light speed must be variant.
Outer space has a finer vacuum than in an artificial vacuum.
The MMX aether was an elastic medium.
Just what could the medium for light in space be?
Light is a wave so there must be a medium. But exactly what?
--
On Wed, 28 May 2025 20:59:48 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:No idea what that means.
The MMX actually showed light speed variance as Arindam explained inAetherists point out that the MMX showed 25% of the 30 km/sec.
2005.
Aether is an infinitely fine elastic solid permeating the infinite
universe.
Electrons and protons glide through it without loss of momentum as it is
infinitely fine.
--
In vacuum interferometers there is absolutely no sign of light speed variance.
Outer space has a finer vacuum than in an artificial vacuum.
The MMX aether was an elastic medium.
Just what could the medium for light in space be?
Light is a wave so there must be a medium. But exactly what?
On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:10:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The MMX showed 25% of ghe expected aether wind from the Earth's orbital
On Wed, 28 May 2025 20:59:48 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:No idea what that means.
The MMX actually showed light speed variance as Arindam explained inAetherists point out that the MMX showed 25% of the 30 km/sec.
2005.
Aether is an infinitely fine elastic solid permeating the infinite
universe.
Electrons and protons glide through it without loss of momentum as it is >>> infinitely fine.
--
In vacuum interferometers there is absolutely no sign of light speed
variance.
You mean they did MMX outside the solar system? Arindam has explained
the bungle involved back in 2005 for MMX on moving Earth. As the Earth
moves in aether the light speed must be variant.
Outer space has a finer vacuum than in an artificial vacuum.
The MMX aether was an elastic medium.
Just what could the medium for light in space be?
Light is a wave so there must be a medium. But exactly what?
--
On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:28:26 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:10:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The MMX showed 25% of ghe expected aether wind from the Earth's orbital speed.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 20:59:48 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:No idea what that means.
The MMX actually showed light speed variance as Arindam explained inAetherists point out that the MMX showed 25% of the 30 km/sec.
2005.
Aether is an infinitely fine elastic solid permeating the infinite
universe.
Electrons and protons glide through it without loss of momentum as it is >>>> infinitely fine.
--
In vacuum interferometers there is absolutely no sign of light speed
variance.
You mean they did MMX outside the solar system? Arindam has explained
the bungle involved back in 2005 for MMX on moving Earth. As the Earth
moves in aether the light speed must be variant.
Outer space has a finer vacuum than in an artificial vacuum.
The MMX aether was an elastic medium.
Just what could the medium for light in space be?
Light is a wave so there must be a medium. But exactly what?
--
They have done vacuum interferometers on Earth and do not register even
the 25%.
Where does Arindam explain that bungle? How can there be no aether wind?
MMX aether was stationary.
With all the advances in physics over 100 years we must have found
something that would function as an aether.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 23:49:56 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:I don't find it at arxiv.org under Arindam Chatterjee 2005.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:28:26 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:10:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The MMX showed 25% of ghe expected aether wind from the Earth's orbital
On Wed, 28 May 2025 20:59:48 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:No idea what that means.
The MMX actually showed light speed variance as Arindam explained in >>>>> 2005.Aetherists point out that the MMX showed 25% of the 30 km/sec.
Aether is an infinitely fine elastic solid permeating the infinite
universe.
Electrons and protons glide through it without loss of momentum as it is >>>>> infinitely fine.
--
In vacuum interferometers there is absolutely no sign of light speed
variance.
You mean they did MMX outside the solar system? Arindam has explained
the bungle involved back in 2005 for MMX on moving Earth. As the Earth
moves in aether the light speed must be variant.
Outer space has a finer vacuum than in an artificial vacuum.
The MMX aether was an elastic medium.
Just what could the medium for light in space be?
Light is a wave so there must be a medium. But exactly what?
--
speed.
They have done vacuum interferometers on Earth and do not register even
the 25%.
Where does Arindam explain that bungle? How can there be no aether wind?
See Arindam's 2005 paper. Should be in one of the links.
MMX aether was stationary.
MMX was a bungle. We all pass through aether but we cannot find our
speed in it. Light speed is variant like all kinetic.
With all the advances in physics over 100 years we must have found
something that would function as an aether.
Aether has got many properties like permittivity and permeability,
infinitely fine and infinitely elastic.
Physics has regressed abominable. Arindam has put it back on its tracks
by updating Newton's laws
--
On Wed, 28 May 2025 9:04:53 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-27 03:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The term "duality" refers to the observation that in most cases
the behaviour of light can be understand with a theory where
light is a wave or with a theory where light is a stream of
particles.
However, there are situations where both kind of theories give
an incorrect prediction about the behaviour of light. Therefore
both paticle and wave theories are inexact.
When electrons pass through the double slit experiment, they behave
similarly to waves in aggregate, as waves of H2O do, yet experiments
show they remain particles.
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
wave.
The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
wave.
Yous guys are too close to the ocean to sea the particle.
If you ask a fish
does the ocean waves
affect your in any way?
The fish wil be puzzled.
He'll say, "What ocean waves?, those are particles!"
You say to the fish "Don't you feel wet?"
He'll say "What's wet?"
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle wave.
Yous guys are too close to the ocean to sea the particle.
If you ask a fish
does the ocean waves
affect your in any way?
The fish wil be puzzled.
He'll say, "What ocean waves?, those are particles!"
You say to the fish "Don't you feel wet?"
He'll say "What's wet?"
When I go to the beach and jump into the ocean...
I can feel all those particles.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 9:37:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.05.2025 05:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
Got it upside down and inside out again, Laurence? :-D
You do not even attempt to be persuasive.
"Why do Physicists talk about Wave Particle Duality?
The..
truth is most professional physicists don’t talk about wave particle duality, and it is a dying concept.
In modern textbooks of quantum mechanics and quantum
field theory, talk of wave-particle duality is absent.
Wave particle duality is not real. It's been invalidated by experiments
so light must be a wave.
Check out using Arindam Banerjee Michelson Morley as keywords in Google Groups.I found this comment by him:
Basically the bungle is that as the Earth moves the actual distance
travelled by the light in the equipment is el+vt. This was overlooked
till Arindam. As nulls are obtained the light speed must be C+vt.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
On 2025-05-28 19:02:10 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:The experiments do not show they become waves. They only show that
On Wed, 28 May 2025 9:04:53 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-27 03:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The term "duality" refers to the observation that in most cases
the behaviour of light can be understand with a theory where
light is a wave or with a theory where light is a stream of
particles.
However, there are situations where both kind of theories give
an incorrect prediction about the behaviour of light. Therefore
both paticle and wave theories are inexact.
When electrons pass through the double slit experiment, they behave
similarly to waves in aggregate, as waves of H2O do, yet experiments
show they remain particles.
The experiments do not show that they remain particles. They only
show that in some situations they behave differently from classical
waves.
But an interference in e.g. in double slit experiment shows that
they behave differently from classical particles.
So both the wave theory and the particle theory are refuted.
You see, just as light leaves the emitter it must go on in a straightYes, the speed of the light beams in the MMX moved at c + 30 km/sec
line at some speed. If at time T it leaves point A to reach point B,
where el=AB, then as the Earth moves the point B with respect to A has
moved by distance v * (t=time to travel AB) so B is now at B+vt when A
is at A+vt. So the distance light travels after emission is el+vt. And
not el as every book shows. Which is the bungle.
For the null to happen light must travel faster than C. It has to travel
at C+v. So if the Earth moves light speed is variant.
Woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
On 05/27/2025 02:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Waves aren't discrete.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 20:23:36 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/27/2025 01:18 PM, The Starmaker wrote:Not to mention that particles act like waves in oceans but we don't
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
wave.
A pool stick whether long or short is still a pool stick.
Not to mention it's a wave resonance.
think a wave of water is a particle. No one here can give a good reason
to claim light is a particle.
Sure one can, there's a particle model of any sort of discrete thing.
In a particle theory, ....
Of course, it's wave known there's "particle/wave duality", at least
for sure admitting a real wave description, then above that there's
a "wave/resonance duality", further indicating things like structural
and molecular chemistry that waves by themselves don't fully explain.
It's a continuum mechanics: that's about the end of it.
Instantons, solitons, wave-packets, sum-of-histories, all sorts
usual higher-level notions about particle theory to explain where
its "limits", as, analytical completions and analyticity, in the
mathematics, are, "limitations", say.
On 05/28/2025 12:02 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:The MMX concept of an aether did not drag. Light is a wave in the MMX
On Wed, 28 May 2025 9:04:53 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-27 03:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:When electrons pass through the double slit experiment, they behave
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The term "duality" refers to the observation that in most cases
the behaviour of light can be understand with a theory where
light is a wave or with a theory where light is a stream of
particles.
However, there are situations where both kind of theories give
an incorrect prediction about the behaviour of light. Therefore
both paticle and wave theories are inexact.
similarly to waves in aggregate, as waves of H2O do, yet experiments
show they remain particles.
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.
No it hasn't. For example Einstein on a note quite later says
"yeah, there isn't not an aether". Called "A Note on Aether Theory"
or something like that.
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.
Den 27.05.2025 17:49, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 9:37:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.05.2025 05:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
The first few statements spoken in the video are:
"Did we misunderstand the double slit experiment,
the most famous experiment in quantum physics?
We usually interpret it as proof that light is both
a particle and a wave, the essence of quantum physics.
Yet in a new paper, a group of physicist disagree.
It can all be explained by particles, they say."
Repeat: "It can all be explained by particles."
This is what you seem to believe was said in the video:
Light is a wave and not a particle.
That's was why I wrote:
Got it upside down and inside out again, Laurence? :-D
You do not even attempt to be persuasive.
I am not trying to convince you about anything.
Your question to the AI:
"Why do Physicists talk about Wave Particle Duality?
The AI answer:
The..
truth is most professional physicists don’t talk about wave particle
duality, and it is a dying concept.
In modern textbooks of quantum mechanics and quantum
field theory, talk of wave-particle duality is absent.
According to the modern relativistic quantum field theory QED,
light is a particle.
This is how Laurence Clark Crossen has interpreted the videoI disagree with the article. It's not what was said but what can be intelligently understood from the evidence. Don't confuse the evidence
and the AI answer:
Wave particle duality is not real. It's been invalidated by experiments
so light must be a wave.
Still got it backwards and upside down and inside out, Laurence? :-D
Den 27.05.2025 17:49, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 9:37:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.05.2025 05:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
The first few statements spoken in the video are:
"Did we misunderstand the double slit experiment,
the most famous experiment in quantum physics?
We usually interpret it as proof that light is both
a particle and a wave, the essence of quantum physics.
Yet in a new paper, a group of physicist disagree.
It can all be explained by particles, they say."
Repeat: "It can all be explained by particles."
This is what you seem to believe was said in the video:
Light is a wave and not a particle.
That's was why I wrote:
Got it upside down and inside out again, Laurence? :-D
You do not even attempt to be persuasive.
I am not trying to convince you about anything.
Your question to the AI:
"Why do Physicists talk about Wave Particle Duality?
The AI answer:
The..
truth is most professional physicists don’t talk about wave particle
duality, and it is a dying concept.
In modern textbooks of quantum mechanics and quantum
field theory, talk of wave-particle duality is absent.
According to the modern relativistic quantum field theory QED,
light is a particle.
This is how Laurence Clark Crossen has interpreted the videoThe evidence shows that the claim to reduce the light going through the
and the AI answer:
Wave particle duality is not real. It's been invalidated by experiments
so light must be a wave.
Still got it backwards and upside down and inside out, Laurence? :-D
Den 27.05.2025 17:49, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 9:37:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.05.2025 05:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
The first few statements spoken in the video are:
"Did we misunderstand the double slit experiment,
the most famous experiment in quantum physics?
We usually interpret it as proof that light is both
a particle and a wave, the essence of quantum physics.
Yet in a new paper, a group of physicist disagree.
It can all be explained by particles, they say."
Repeat: "It can all be explained by particles."
This is what you seem to believe was said in the video:
Light is a wave and not a particle.
That's was why I wrote:
Got it upside down and inside out again, Laurence? :-D
You do not even attempt to be persuasive.
I am not trying to convince you about anything.
Your question to the AI:
"Why do Physicists talk about Wave Particle Duality?
The AI answer:
The..
truth is most professional physicists don’t talk about wave particle
duality, and it is a dying concept.
In modern textbooks of quantum mechanics and quantum
field theory, talk of wave-particle duality is absent.
According to the modern relativistic quantum field theory QED,
light is a particle.
This is how Laurence Clark Crossen has interpreted the videoThey failed to reduce it to a particle. Still presuming what you want to conclude Paul?
and the AI answer:
Wave particle duality is not real. It's been invalidated by experiments
so light must be a wave.
Still got it backwards and upside down and inside out, Laurence? :-D
Den 27.05.2025 17:49, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 9:37:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.05.2025 05:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
The first few statements spoken in the video are:
"Did we misunderstand the double slit experiment,
the most famous experiment in quantum physics?
We usually interpret it as proof that light is both
a particle and a wave, the essence of quantum physics.
Yet in a new paper, a group of physicist disagree.
It can all be explained by particles, they say."
Repeat: "It can all be explained by particles."
This is what you seem to believe was said in the video:
Light is a wave and not a particle.
That's was why I wrote:
Got it upside down and inside out again, Laurence? :-D
You do not even attempt to be persuasive.
I am not trying to convince you about anything.
Your question to the AI:
"Why do Physicists talk about Wave Particle Duality?
The AI answer:
The..
truth is most professional physicists don’t talk about wave particle
duality, and it is a dying concept.
In modern textbooks of quantum mechanics and quantum
field theory, talk of wave-particle duality is absent.
According to the modern relativistic quantum field theory QED,
light is a particle.
This is how Laurence Clark Crossen has interpreted the videoIn the video and all such experiments they claim to reduce the light to
and the AI answer:
Wave particle duality is not real. It's been invalidated by experiments
so light must be a wave.
Still got it backwards and upside down and inside out, Laurence? :-D
On Thu, 29 May 2025 21:20:42 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Whether one is speaking of waves or particles to deny relative velocity
On Thu, 29 May 2025 13:10:19 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
You see, just as light leaves the emitter it must go on in a straightYes, the speed of the light beams in the MMX moved at c + 30 km/sec
line at some speed. If at time T it leaves point A to reach point B,
where el=AB, then as the Earth moves the point B with respect to A has
moved by distance v * (t=time to travel AB) so B is now at B+vt when A
is at A+vt. So the distance light travels after emission is el+vt. And
not el as every book shows. Which is the bungle.
For the null to happen light must travel faster than C. It has to travel >>> at C+v. So if the Earth moves light speed is variant.
Woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
proving that relative light speed is variant.
Great. So as light speed is variant e=mcc is wrong and aether exists for inertia does not hold for certain electric circuits.
Now heaps of work for physicists of the scientific sort. Revise texts.
WOOF woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
On Thu, 29 May 2025 13:10:19 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
You see, just as light leaves the emitter it must go on in a straightYes, the speed of the light beams in the MMX moved at c + 30 km/sec
line at some speed. If at time T it leaves point A to reach point B,
where el=AB, then as the Earth moves the point B with respect to A has
moved by distance v * (t=time to travel AB) so B is now at B+vt when A
is at A+vt. So the distance light travels after emission is el+vt. And
not el as every book shows. Which is the bungle.
For the null to happen light must travel faster than C. It has to travel
at C+v. So if the Earth moves light speed is variant.
Woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
proving that relative light speed is variant.
On 05/29/2025 02:25 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Let's see. How about mountain ranges? There's a gulf between particles
On Thu, 29 May 2025 15:27:26 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/27/2025 02:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Waves aren't discrete.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 20:23:36 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/27/2025 01:18 PM, The Starmaker wrote:Not to mention that particles act like waves in oceans but we don't
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle >>>>>> wave.
A pool stick whether long or short is still a pool stick.
Not to mention it's a wave resonance.
think a wave of water is a particle. No one here can give a good reason >>>> to claim light is a particle.
Sure one can, there's a particle model of any sort of discrete thing.
In a particle theory, ....
Of course, it's wave known there's "particle/wave duality", at least
for sure admitting a real wave description, then above that there's
a "wave/resonance duality", further indicating things like structural
and molecular chemistry that waves by themselves don't fully explain.
It's a continuum mechanics: that's about the end of it.
Instantons, solitons, wave-packets, sum-of-histories, all sorts
usual higher-level notions about particle theory to explain where
its "limits", as, analytical completions and analyticity, in the
mathematics, are, "limitations", say.
Light is not a photon.
There is no wave-particle duality unless you think waves on a pond
involve this.
There are particles and waves without a continuum between them.
There's not anything without a continuum within it.
Unless you'd care to suggest there isn't, then,
that would always be, "something else".
Now, these are rather riddles, point being that's what you're making.
Anyways particle theory is so simple and classical that
there are point particles and force example line vectors,
then on the outside is what's called "potential theory"
and where in a potentialistic theory, it's the fields of
potential, the potential fields, that are the real fields,
while the classical is, instead of an origin itself,
always an image as a projection in a perspective.
There are theories of particles, and theories of waves,
and about equivalent energy and the entire entelechy
of the connectedness of it all, connexions sometimes,
usually it results waves and Huygens' principle, or
rather the principle of Huygens that waves beget waves
among Huygens' various principles, which aren't necessarily
held while waves beget waves is held, waves are
"models of change in an open system".
I don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
wave.
No
Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not
stable, hence move through space.
But stability is a question of the perspective.
E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
parallel to the wave.
IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
laser beam, which stems from your home station.
Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.
Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the
wave as a particle.
Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that
case the wave does not move through space anymore.
TH
what light is is a matter of perspective.
On Thu, 29 May 2025 10:36:16 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-28 19:02:10 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 9:04:53 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-27 03:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The term "duality" refers to the observation that in most cases
the behaviour of light can be understand with a theory where
light is a wave or with a theory where light is a stream of
particles.
However, there are situations where both kind of theories give
an incorrect prediction about the behaviour of light. Therefore
both paticle and wave theories are inexact.
When electrons pass through the double slit experiment, they behave
similarly to waves in aggregate, as waves of H2O do, yet experiments
show they remain particles.
The experiments do not show that they remain particles. They only
show that in some situations they behave differently from classical
waves.
But an interference in e.g. in double slit experiment shows that
they behave differently from classical particles.
So both the wave theory and the particle theory are refuted.
The experiments do not show they become waves.
Den 27.05.2025 05:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
I disagree with the article. It's not what was said but what can be intelligently understood from the evidence. Don't confuse the evidence
with the paper.
QED is clearly mistaken. Why would I take their word on it?
There is no evidence that light is a particle, and you have not
presented any. Neither has Quantum physics.
Light is either a wave or a particle.
You haven't convinced me of anything.
On 2025-05-29 21:18:15 +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
On Thu, 29 May 2025 10:36:16 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-28 19:02:10 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 9:04:53 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-27 03:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The term "duality" refers to the observation that in most cases
the behaviour of light can be understand with a theory where
light is a wave or with a theory where light is a stream of
particles.
However, there are situations where both kind of theories give
an incorrect prediction about the behaviour of light. Therefore
both paticle and wave theories are inexact.
When electrons pass through the double slit experiment, they behave
similarly to waves in aggregate, as waves of H2O do, yet experiments
show they remain particles.
The experiments do not show that they remain particles. They only
show that in some situations they behave differently from classical
waves.
But an interference in e.g. in double slit experiment shows that
they behave differently from classical particles.
So both the wave theory and the particle theory are refuted.
The experiments do not show they become waves.
THere is no "become". They are either always or never.
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
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
wave.
No
Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not
stable, hence move through space.
But stability is a question of the perspective.
E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
parallel to the wave.
IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
laser beam, which stems from your home station.
Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.
Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the
wave as a particle.
Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that
case the wave does not move through space anymore.
TH
what light is is a matter of perspective.
It makes actually some sense, if we would give up the so calledThere are no higher spatial dimensions, and spacetime is a reification
'particle concept' altogether.
Actually we need a continuum, which could be both: particle and vacuum (depending on the perspective).
But since 'materialism' is hard wired into our brains, we cannot even
think about this possibility.
But I would guess, that the idea of real, lasting, material particles is plain wrong.
I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured spacetime', which works quite well.
The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological necessities.
Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive
only a certain subset.
The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot
see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by simply observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.
Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
TH
Den 29.05.2025 23:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:You only graduated because you were needed on the football team.
Den 27.05.2025 05:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
I disagree with the article. It's not what was said but what can be
intelligently understood from the evidence. Don't confuse the evidence
with the paper.
It is not an article, it is a video which refers to an article.
The first few statements of the video sums up
the content of the article pretty well:
"Did we misunderstand the double slit experiment,
the most famous experiment in quantum physics?
We usually interpret it as proof that light is both
a particle and a wave, the essence of quantum physics.
Yet in a new paper, a group of physicist disagree.
It can all be explained by particles, they say."
So according to the "new paper":
The double slit experiment proves that light is a particle.
I note with interest that Laurence Clark Crossen intelligently
understands that the statement:
"The double slit experiment proves that light is a particle."
really means:
"The double slit experiment prove that light is a wave."
Well done ! :-D
QED is clearly mistaken. Why would I take their word on it?
Because QED is confirmed by a lot of experiments
and never falsified.
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?
There is no evidence that light is a particle, and you have not
presented any. Neither has Quantum physics.
Are you really so ignorant that you don't know
the experimental evidence that confirms the validity of QED,
and are you really so naive that you think the evidence
doesn't exist because you are ignorant of it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED https://edu.itp.phys.ethz.ch/hs10/ppp1/PPP1_6.pdf
Light is either a wave or a particle.
You haven't convinced me of anything.
I haven't tried to convince you of anything.
I know that you understand nothing whatever I say.
My reason for responding to you is that your demonstrations
of your peculiar way of reasoning amuses me.
Like when you intelligently understand that a statement
means the opposite of what it sais.
Hilarious!
On Fri, 30 May 2025 17:31:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 29.05.2025 23:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
There is no evidence that light is a particle, and you have not
presented any. Neither has Quantum physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED
https://edu.itp.phys.ethz.ch/hs10/ppp1/PPP1_6.pdf
If evidence proves light is a particle, you fail to present it. There is none.
On Thu, 29 May 2025 19:31:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.05.2025 17:49, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 9:37:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.05.2025 05:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
She disagreed with the article, saying the dark photons have no energy, unlike particles.
Den 30.05.2025 00:08, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Thu, 29 May 2025 19:31:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.05.2025 17:49, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 9:37:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.05.2025 05:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
That they have no energy, unlike particles, shows they are not
She disagreed with the article, saying the dark photons have no energy,
unlike particles.
This is what "she" in the video said about the new theory:
"Honestly when I read the headline, I thought this is bullshit.
But having read the paper I think it's a matter of framing.
This is a genuinely interesting new way to think about an old
experiment. But I don't think that talking about dark states
of light is going to make quantum physics any less confusing."
This means that she accept the "new theory" as a possibly
valid alternative theory to QED.
That may be so, but if it is valid, it would have to predict
the same as QED for any experiment.
I think the world will stick to QED.
In either case, in quantum field theories, light is a particle.
------------------
But remember that a theory of physics is a mathematical model
of Nature, it is not the Nature.
In QED light is a particle.
In Maxwell's theory, light is a wave.
There is no duality in either of the theories.
QED has a broader field of applicability than Maxwell,
it predicts some phenomena Maxwell doesn't.
(e.g. photon-electron interactions)
But the telecommunication we now are using to communicate
is made possible because of Maxwell.
So it is OK to consider light to be a wave according to Maxwell
in some cases. So if you are designing a radio link, Maxwell
is the theory to use,
But there is no way a wave can excite an electron to a higher
energy level, only particles can do that.
QED can predict that a LED will emit light.
Maxwell can't.
Den 30.05.2025 00:08, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Thu, 29 May 2025 19:31:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.05.2025 17:49, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 9:37:57 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.05.2025 05:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
Well, no. Because frequency is a property of waves and it is differences
She disagreed with the article, saying the dark photons have no energy,
unlike particles.
This is what "she" in the video said about the new theory:
"Honestly when I read the headline, I thought this is bullshit.
But having read the paper I think it's a matter of framing.
This is a genuinely interesting new way to think about an old
experiment. But I don't think that talking about dark states
of light is going to make quantum physics any less confusing."
This means that she accept the "new theory" as a possibly
valid alternative theory to QED.
That may be so, but if it is valid, it would have to predict
the same as QED for any experiment.
I think the world will stick to QED.
In either case, in quantum field theories, light is a particle.
------------------
But remember that a theory of physics is a mathematical model
of Nature, it is not the Nature.
In QED light is a particle.
In Maxwell's theory, light is a wave.
There is no duality in either of the theories.
QED has a broader field of applicability than Maxwell,
it predicts some phenomena Maxwell doesn't.
(e.g. photon-electron interactions)
But the telecommunication we now are using to communicate
is made possible because of Maxwell.
So it is OK to consider light to be a wave according to Maxwell
in some cases. So if you are designing a radio link, Maxwell
is the theory to use,
But there is no way a wave can excite an electron to a higher
energy level, only particles can do that.
QED can predict that a LED will emit light.
Maxwell can't.
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:06:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000028, 28.05.2025 um 20:56 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:There are no higher spatial dimensions, and spacetime is a reification fallacy or merely a diagram.
I don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle >>>>> wave.
No
Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not >>>> stable, hence move through space.
But stability is a question of the perspective.
E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
parallel to the wave.
IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
laser beam, which stems from your home station.
Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.
Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the
wave as a particle.
Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that
case the wave does not move through space anymore.
TH
what light is is a matter of perspective.
It makes actually some sense, if we would give up the so called
'particle concept' altogether.
Actually we need a continuum, which could be both: particle and vacuum
(depending on the perspective).
But since 'materialism' is hard wired into our brains, we cannot even
think about this possibility.
But I would guess, that the idea of real, lasting, material particles is
plain wrong.
I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured
spacetime', which works quite well.
The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological
necessities.
Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive
only a certain subset.
The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot
see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by simply
observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.
Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
TH
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:05:51 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-29 21:18:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Thu, 29 May 2025 10:36:16 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-28 19:02:10 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 9:04:53 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-27 03:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The term "duality" refers to the observation that in most cases
the behaviour of light can be understand with a theory where
light is a wave or with a theory where light is a stream of
particles.
However, there are situations where both kind of theories give
an incorrect prediction about the behaviour of light. Therefore
both paticle and wave theories are inexact.
When electrons pass through the double slit experiment, they behave
similarly to waves in aggregate, as waves of H2O do, yet experiments >>>>> show they remain particles.
The experiments do not show that they remain particles. They only
show that in some situations they behave differently from classical
waves.
But an interference in e.g. in double slit experiment shows that
they behave differently from classical particles.
So both the wave theory and the particle theory are refuted.
The experiments do not show they become waves.
THere is no "become". They are either always or never.
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.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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.
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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.
Am Freitag000030, 30.05.2025 um 21:08 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:06:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000028, 28.05.2025 um 20:56 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:There are no higher spatial dimensions, and spacetime is a reification
I don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that >>>> what light is is a matter of perspective.
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle >>>>>> wave.
No
Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not >>>>> stable, hence move through space.
But stability is a question of the perspective.
E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
parallel to the wave.
IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
laser beam, which stems from your home station.
Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly. >>>>>
Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the >>>>> wave as a particle.
Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that >>>>> case the wave does not move through space anymore.
TH
It makes actually some sense, if we would give up the so called
'particle concept' altogether.
Actually we need a continuum, which could be both: particle and vacuum
(depending on the perspective).
But since 'materialism' is hard wired into our brains, we cannot even
think about this possibility.
But I would guess, that the idea of real, lasting, material particles is >>> plain wrong.
I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured
spacetime', which works quite well.
The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological
necessities.
Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive
only a certain subset.
The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot
see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by simply >>> observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.
Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
TH
fallacy or merely a diagram.
Apaprently you want to decide what is and what is not.
But what gives you authority to decide about the existence of something?
I used the 'real-spacetime-hypothesis' to connect GR and QM.
The concept is actually quite simple and goes like this:
If you want to connect two distinct but established theories, you need
to find a 'path' between them, since if both are valid, there should be
a connection.
Now you could take either side as starting position and cut your way
through the jungle, until you arrive at the other side.
I had chosen to use 'GR-side' as start and had to assume, that spacetime
of GR is real.
Now my aim was to build the entities of QM out of spacetime.
Once that is done, that connection would be established.
Therefore, my aim was to build particles out of spacetime and possibly fields.
That was in fact possible, though not that easy.
But I have written a 'book' about this idea, which you can find here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
THGR and QM are horrible theories that ought to be thrown out altogether. Spacetime of GR is a diagram because time is not a spatial dimension.
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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.
On 2025-05-30 19:11:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:The only pattern the electrons form is a wave. Particles do that in
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:05:51 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-29 21:18:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Thu, 29 May 2025 10:36:16 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-28 19:02:10 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 9:04:53 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-27 03:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The term "duality" refers to the observation that in most cases
the behaviour of light can be understand with a theory where
light is a wave or with a theory where light is a stream of
particles.
However, there are situations where both kind of theories give
an incorrect prediction about the behaviour of light. Therefore
both paticle and wave theories are inexact.
When electrons pass through the double slit experiment, they behave >>>>>> similarly to waves in aggregate, as waves of H2O do, yet experiments >>>>>> show they remain particles.
The experiments do not show that they remain particles. They only
show that in some situations they behave differently from classical
waves.
But an interference in e.g. in double slit experiment shows that
they behave differently from classical particles.
So both the wave theory and the particle theory are refuted.
The experiments do not show they become waves.
THere is no "become". They are either always or never.
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 Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
Paul is only 85% of an incompetent idiot. He's a relativist now. He
used,
by 1990, a rather competent EE. Then, the relativity doctrine and cult
ruined him, because his current mind is married with Deductive Method,
like what the Cretin used.
** Deductive science, or deductive reasoning, is a logical process that
moves from general principles to specific conclusions or predictions.
** Inductive science or reasoning: goes from specific observations to
general conclusions.
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.
Newton, Maxwell, and all the greatest scientists that have ever lived: INDUCTION.
All the cretins since Einstein: DEDUCTION or, as some Germans said:
Jewish science.
Planck, the father of quantum physics, all that he wanted in life was to
be a theoretical physicist (hence, a inductive based guy). But,
IRONICALLY, his greatest achievement in life was based on DEDUCTION.
Without the prior work of Wien and the works of the experimental
physicists from the German PTB, that created solid data and from it,
basic theories (Wien), Planck would never could have written his
foundational paper in December 1900.
Induction driven parasitic cretins, starting around 1902, created a
fantasy useless world, that we are suffering now (120 years in a row).
The most influential people in the last 120 years, which CREATED the
modern world, have been DEDUCTIVE PEOPLE. like: Boole, de Forest, Tesla, Shockley, Townes,
Schawlow, Kapany, Kilby, Gates, wozniak, Jobs, etc.
Paul belongs to the specie of retarded people, who blindly believe in INDUCTION.
What he wrote is just PLAIN WRONG, because he's an imbecile narcissist.You appear to have accidentally inverted the two words at the end.
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
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The question regarding photons is still disputed.
"Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
Light is a wave and not a particle.
There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
wave.
No
Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not
stable, hence move through space.
But stability is a question of the perspective.
E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
parallel to the wave.
IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
laser beam, which stems from your home station.
Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.
Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the
wave as a particle.
Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that
case the wave does not move through space anymore.
TH
what light is is a matter of perspective.
It makes actually some sense, if we would give up the so called"But it has
'particle concept' altogether.
Actually we need a continuum, which could be both: particle and vacuum (depending on the perspective).
But since 'materialism' is hard wired into our brains, we cannot even
think about this possibility.
But I would guess, that the idea of real, lasting, material particles is plain wrong.
I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured spacetime', which works quite well.
The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological necessities.
Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive
only a certain subset.
The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot
see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by simply observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.
Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
TH
I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structuredThere are no higher spatial dimensions, and spacetime is a reification
spacetime', which works quite well.
The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological
necessities.
Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive >>>> only a certain subset.
The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot >>>> see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by
simply
observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions. >>>>
Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
TH
fallacy or merely a diagram.
Apaprently you want to decide what is and what is not.
But what gives you authority to decide about the existence of something?
I used the 'real-spacetime-hypothesis' to connect GR and QM.
The concept is actually quite simple and goes like this:
If you want to connect two distinct but established theories, you need
to find a 'path' between them, since if both are valid, there should be
a connection.
Now you could take either side as starting position and cut your way
through the jungle, until you arrive at the other side.
I had chosen to use 'GR-side' as start and had to assume, that spacetime
of GR is real.
Now my aim was to build the entities of QM out of spacetime.
Once that is done, that connection would be established.
Therefore, my aim was to build particles out of spacetime and possibly
fields.
That was in fact possible, though not that easy.
But I have written a 'book' about this idea, which you can find here:
GR and QM are horrible theories that ought to be thrown out altogether. Spacetime of GR is a diagram because time is not a spatial dimension.
TH
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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.
Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory depends on
its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict anymore than
astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the Newtonian is not
valid. It does not predict.
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
So unless all the physicists that have performed the axpøeriments
are frauds an member of a MAFFIA, you will have to axxept
that SR and GR are valid theories.
Den 31.05.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:if the
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
In science, deductive reasoning is used to test hypotheses, where a
general rule or theory is applied to a specific situation to see
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.
Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory depends on
its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict anymore than
astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the Newtonian is not
valid. It does not predict.
I note with interest that Richard Hertz, Maciej Woźniak and
Laurence Clark Crossen are ignorant of the scientific method.
Here's the scientific method:
1. Ask a Question: Begin with a specific question about
a phenomenon you're interested in.
Den 01.06.2025 12:02, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
So unless all the physicists that have performed the axperiments
are frauds an member of a MAFFIA, you will have to axxept
that SR and GR are valid theories.
Typos!
So unless all the physicists that have performed the experiments
are frauds an member of a MAFFIA, you will have to accept
that SR and GR are valid theories.
('MAFFIA' is not a typo. It is something which Richard Hertz
claims all physicists are a member of.)
Den 01.06.2025 12:34, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
On 6/1/2025 12:02 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
;scientific method.
I note with interest that Maciej Woźniak > is ignorant of the
;
Paul, only such an ignorant idiot as you are
can believe that mystical bullshit.
Thanks for the confirmation of my words.
If you had any background for that - you
could discuss . Since you have no - you
can only assert and get offended when your
asserted nonsenses are denied.
On 6/1/2025 12:02 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
I note with interest that Maciej Woźniak
is ignorant of the scientific method.
Paul, only such an ignorant idiot as you are
can believe that mystical bullshit.
Den 31.05.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:It does matter if you don't actually arrive at any real theory.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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.
Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory depends on
its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict anymore than
astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the Newtonian is not
valid. It does not predict.
I note with interest that Richard Hertz, Maciej Woźniak and
Laurence Clark Crossen are ignorant of the scientific method.
Here's the scientific method:
1. Ask a Question: Begin with a specific question about
a phenomenon you're interested in.
2. Do Research: Gather information and background knowledge
related to your question.
3. Formulate a Hypothesis: Create a testable explanation or
prediction about the question.
4. Experiment and Collect Data: Design and conduct experiments
or observations to test your hypothesis and gather data.
5. Analyze Data: Analyze the collected data to see if it supports
or contradicts your hypothesis.
6. Draw Conclusions: Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions
about your hypothesis and its validity.
7. Communicate Results: Share your findings with the scientific
community through publications or presentations.
------------------------------------------
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory).
Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
So unless all the physicists that have performed the axpøeriments
are frauds an member of a MAFFIA, you will have to axxept
that SR and GR are valid theories.
On Thu, 29 May 2025 23:14:23 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2025 21:20:42 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Whether one is speaking of waves or particles to deny relative velocity
On Thu, 29 May 2025 13:10:19 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
You see, just as light leaves the emitter it must go on in a straightYes, the speed of the light beams in the MMX moved at c + 30 km/sec
line at some speed. If at time T it leaves point A to reach point B,
where el=AB, then as the Earth moves the point B with respect to A has >>>> moved by distance v * (t=time to travel AB) so B is now at B+vt when A >>>> is at A+vt. So the distance light travels after emission is el+vt. And >>>> not el as every book shows. Which is the bungle.
For the null to happen light must travel faster than C. It has to travel >>>> at C+v. So if the Earth moves light speed is variant.
Woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
proving that relative light speed is variant.
Great. So as light speed is variant e=mcc is wrong and aether exists for
inertia does not hold for certain electric circuits.
Now heaps of work for physicists of the scientific sort. Revise texts.
WOOF woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
is so illogical as to be irrational.
Den 31.05.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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.
Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory depends on
its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict anymore than
astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the Newtonian is not
valid. It does not predict.
I note with interest that Richard Hertz, Maciej Woźniak and
Laurence Clark Crossen are ignorant of the scientific method.
Here's the scientific method:
1. Ask a Question: Begin with a specific question about
a phenomenon you're interested in.
2. Do Research: Gather information and background knowledge
related to your question.
3. Formulate a Hypothesis: Create a testable explanation or
prediction about the question.
4. Experiment and Collect Data: Design and conduct experiments
or observations to test your hypothesis and gather data.
5. Analyze Data: Analyze the collected data to see if it supports
or contradicts your hypothesis.
6. Draw Conclusions: Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions
about your hypothesis and its validity.
7. Communicate Results: Share your findings with the scientific
community through publications or presentations.
------------------------------------------
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory).
Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
[ … ]
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found,
that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+),
that I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the
audience.
Possibly this was an attempt to derail physics in general and was
created to lure thousands of uncritical readers into 'lala-land'.
...
TH
Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 12:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 31.05.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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 Wo?niak
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.
Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory depends on >> its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict anymore than
astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the Newtonian is not
valid. It does not predict.
I note with interest that Richard Hertz, Maciej Wo?niak and
Laurence Clark Crossen are ignorant of the scientific method.
Here's the scientific method:
1. Ask a Question: Begin with a specific question about
a phenomenon you're interested in.
2. Do Research: Gather information and background knowledge
related to your question.
3. Formulate a Hypothesis: Create a testable explanation or
prediction about the question.
4. Experiment and Collect Data: Design and conduct experiments
or observations to test your hypothesis and gather data.
5. Analyze Data: Analyze the collected data to see if it supports
or contradicts your hypothesis.
6. Draw Conclusions: Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions
about your hypothesis and its validity.
7. Communicate Results: Share your findings with the scientific
community through publications or presentations.
------------------------------------------
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory).
Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics
of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found,
that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), that
I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience.
On Thu, 29 May 2025 8:14:16 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
Check out using Arindam Banerjee Michelson Morley as keywords in GoogleI found this comment by him:
Groups.
Basically the bungle is that as the Earth moves the actual distance
travelled by the light in the equipment is el+vt. This was overlooked
till Arindam. As nulls are obtained the light speed must be C+vt.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
"Arindam Banerjee
5 years ago
If one accepts that the Earth moves in space then one must accept that
the speed of light varies with the speed of the source as per the null results of MMI.
I gave the detailed explanation for the above in 2005."
This requires light to behave as a particle in accordance with Newton's
first law of motion.
On 2025-06-02 15:58:46 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and
found, that it is FULL of errors.
Have you managed to convince any real physicists of your fantasy?
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 12:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 31.05.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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 Wo?niak
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.
Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory depends on >>>> its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict anymore than
astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the Newtonian is not
valid. It does not predict.
I note with interest that Richard Hertz, Maciej Wo?niak and
Laurence Clark Crossen are ignorant of the scientific method.
Here's the scientific method:
1. Ask a Question: Begin with a specific question about
a phenomenon you're interested in.
2. Do Research: Gather information and background knowledge
related to your question.
3. Formulate a Hypothesis: Create a testable explanation or
prediction about the question.
4. Experiment and Collect Data: Design and conduct experiments
or observations to test your hypothesis and gather data.
5. Analyze Data: Analyze the collected data to see if it supports
or contradicts your hypothesis.
6. Draw Conclusions: Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions
about your hypothesis and its validity.
7. Communicate Results: Share your findings with the scientific
community through publications or presentations.
------------------------------------------
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory).
Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics
of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found,
that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), that
I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience.
The audience didn't think so.
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
Am Montag000002, 02.06.2025 um 19:36 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2025-06-02 15:58:46 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found,
that it is FULL of errors.
Have you managed to convince any real physicists of your fantasy?
This is afaik impossible.
Professional physicists are sworn in
to some (secret) 'code',
which forbids certain topics.
These forbidden topics contain most likely :
Growing Earth
free energy devices
abiogenic oil
transmutation
anti-gravity
water
gyroscopes
critique of Einstein and/or SRT
...
So, what would you expect from these guys?
After all: it's common human behavior, to avoid topics, which are forbidden.
...
TH
On Sat, 31 May 2025 10:29:37 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-30 19:11:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:05:51 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-29 21:18:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Thu, 29 May 2025 10:36:16 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-28 19:02:10 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 9:04:53 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-27 03:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
experimentally disproven.
The term "duality" refers to the observation that in most cases >>>>>>>> the behaviour of light can be understand with a theory where
light is a wave or with a theory where light is a stream of
particles.
However, there are situations where both kind of theories give >>>>>>>> an incorrect prediction about the behaviour of light. Therefore >>>>>>>> both paticle and wave theories are inexact.
When electrons pass through the double slit experiment, they behave >>>>>>> similarly to waves in aggregate, as waves of H2O do, yet experiments >>>>>>> show they remain particles.
The experiments do not show that they remain particles. They only
show that in some situations they behave differently from classical >>>>>> waves.
But an interference in e.g. in double slit experiment shows that
they behave differently from classical particles.
So both the wave theory and the particle theory are refuted.
The experiments do not show they become waves.
THere is no "become". They are either always or never.
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.
The only pattern the electrons form is a wave. Particles do that in
lakes. Waves in lakes form interference patterns.
Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 12:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics
of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
Am Montag000002, 02.06.2025 um 20:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 12:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 31.05.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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 Wo?niak
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.
Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory depends on >>>> its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict anymore than
astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the Newtonian is not >>>> valid. It does not predict.
I note with interest that Richard Hertz, Maciej Wo?niak and
Laurence Clark Crossen are ignorant of the scientific method.
Here's the scientific method:
1. Ask a Question: Begin with a specific question about
a phenomenon you're interested in.
2. Do Research: Gather information and background knowledge
related to your question.
3. Formulate a Hypothesis: Create a testable explanation or
prediction about the question.
4. Experiment and Collect Data: Design and conduct experiments
or observations to test your hypothesis and gather data.
5. Analyze Data: Analyze the collected data to see if it supports
or contradicts your hypothesis.
6. Draw Conclusions: Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions
about your hypothesis and its validity.
7. Communicate Results: Share your findings with the scientific
community through publications or presentations.
------------------------------------------
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory). >>> Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics >> of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found,
that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), that >> I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience.
The audience didn't think so.
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments
about statements, which were in many cases wrong.
There were other issues, too, but more related to expression, grammar, violation of formal requirements and so forth.
Whether 'those who mattered' like my comments or not, that is not my
concern.
Most likely they don't, but that wouldn't make Einstein's text better.
The fact that Einstein was accepted by everybody who mattered at the
time as one of their kind makes whatever you want to say irrelevant.
It is a fact the SR and GR are thoroughly tested and never falsified.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000002, 02.06.2025 um 20:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
[ … ]
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found, >>>> that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), that >>>> I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience.
The audience didn't think so.
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments
about statements, which were in many cases wrong.
Ah, some insight into yourself.
Just to help you: your comments are all wrong.
There were other issues, too, but more related to expression, grammar,
violation of formal requirements and so forth.
Irrelevant, for science.
Whether 'those who mattered' like my comments or not, that is not my
concern.
The fact that Einstein was accepted by everybody who mattered at the
time as one of their kind makes whatever you want to say irrelevant.
Most likely they don't, but that wouldn't make Einstein's text better.
Science doesn't proceed by textual criticism. It is about content.
Is that really so hard to understand for you?
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000002, 02.06.2025 um 20:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 12:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 31.05.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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 Wo?niak
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.
Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory depends on >>>>>> its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict anymore than >>>>>> astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the Newtonian is not >>>>>> valid. It does not predict.
I note with interest that Richard Hertz, Maciej Wo?niak and
Laurence Clark Crossen are ignorant of the scientific method.
Here's the scientific method:
1. Ask a Question: Begin with a specific question about
a phenomenon you're interested in.
2. Do Research: Gather information and background knowledge
related to your question.
3. Formulate a Hypothesis: Create a testable explanation or
prediction about the question.
4. Experiment and Collect Data: Design and conduct experiments
or observations to test your hypothesis and gather data.
5. Analyze Data: Analyze the collected data to see if it supports
or contradicts your hypothesis.
6. Draw Conclusions: Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions
about your hypothesis and its validity.
7. Communicate Results: Share your findings with the scientific
community through publications or presentations.
------------------------------------------
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory). >>>>> Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics >>>> of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found, >>>> that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), that >>>> I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience.
The audience didn't think so.
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments
about statements, which were in many cases wrong.
Ah, some insight into yourself.
Just to help you: your comments are all wrong.
There were other issues, too, but more related to expression, grammar,
violation of formal requirements and so forth.
Irrelevant, for science.
Whether 'those who mattered' like my comments or not, that is not my
concern.
The fact that Einstein was accepted by everybody who mattered at the
time as one of their kind makes whatever you want to say irrelevant.
Most likely they don't, but that wouldn't make Einstein's text better.
Science doesn't proceed by textual criticism. It is about content.
Is that really so hard to understand for you?
Jan
On 2025-06-03 12:30:05 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000002, 02.06.2025 um 20:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
[ … ]
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found, >>>> that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), that >>>> I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience.
The audience didn't think so.
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments
about statements, which were in many cases wrong.
Ah, some insight into yourself.
Alas, probably not. Thomas Heger has never understood the way commas
are used in English and how it differs from how they are used in
German. So although he is saying (probably correctly) that most of his
428 comments are wrong, he probably thinks he was saying that many of Einstein's statements were wrong, which is just his fantasy.
Den 02.06.2025 17:58, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 12:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
Of course 'The Special Theory of Relativity' "is theoretical physics only."
What else than theoretical do you think a theory of physics should be?
It is a fact the SR and GR are thoroughly tested and never falsified.
To disagree to facts is irrational behaviour.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000002, 02.06.2025 um 20:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 12:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 31.05.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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 Wo?niak
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.
Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory depends on >>>>>> its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict anymore than >>>>>> astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the Newtonian is not >>>>>> valid. It does not predict.
I note with interest that Richard Hertz, Maciej Wo?niak and
Laurence Clark Crossen are ignorant of the scientific method.
Here's the scientific method:
1. Ask a Question: Begin with a specific question about
a phenomenon you're interested in.
2. Do Research: Gather information and background knowledge
related to your question.
3. Formulate a Hypothesis: Create a testable explanation or
prediction about the question.
4. Experiment and Collect Data: Design and conduct experiments
or observations to test your hypothesis and gather data.
5. Analyze Data: Analyze the collected data to see if it supports
or contradicts your hypothesis.
6. Draw Conclusions: Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions
about your hypothesis and its validity.
7. Communicate Results: Share your findings with the scientific
community through publications or presentations.
------------------------------------------
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory). >>>>> Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics >>>> of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found, >>>> that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), that >>>> I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience.
The audience didn't think so.
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments
about statements, which were in many cases wrong.
Ah, some insight into yourself.
Just to help you: your comments are all wrong.
There were other issues, too, but more related to expression, grammar,
violation of formal requirements and so forth.
Irrelevant, for science.
I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments >>>> about statements, which were in many cases wrong.
Ah, some insight into yourself.
Alas, probably not. Thomas Heger has never understood the way commas
are used in English and how it differs from how they are used in
German. So although he is saying (probably correctly) that most of his
428 comments are wrong, he probably thinks he was saying that many of
Einstein's statements were wrong, which is just his fantasy.
I fear that our educational efforts are wasted on him.
And I am beginning to think that TH may be incompetent
in the subtleties of the German language as well.
Einstein's use of the language is often subtle and highly idiomatic,
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and
found,
that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+),
that
I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience.
The audience didn't think so.
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments
about statements, which were in many cases wrong.
Ah, some insight into yourself.
Alas, probably not. Thomas Heger has never understood the way commas are
used in English and how it differs from how they are used in German. So although he is saying (probably correctly) that most of his 428 comments
are wrong, he probably thinks he was saying that many of Einstein's statements were wrong, which is just his fantasy.
Although I have tended to think that he's not quite at the level of LaurenceClarkCrossen or Maciej Wozniak as a crackpot, I am beginning to
think that he is.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 12:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 31.05.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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 Wo?niak
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.
Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory depends on >>>> its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict anymore than
astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the Newtonian is not
valid. It does not predict.
I note with interest that Richard Hertz, Maciej Wo?niak and
Laurence Clark Crossen are ignorant of the scientific method.
Here's the scientific method:
1. Ask a Question: Begin with a specific question about
a phenomenon you're interested in.
2. Do Research: Gather information and background knowledge
related to your question.
3. Formulate a Hypothesis: Create a testable explanation or
prediction about the question.
4. Experiment and Collect Data: Design and conduct experiments
or observations to test your hypothesis and gather data.
5. Analyze Data: Analyze the collected data to see if it supports
or contradicts your hypothesis.
6. Draw Conclusions: Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions
about your hypothesis and its validity.
7. Communicate Results: Share your findings with the scientific
community through publications or presentations.
------------------------------------------
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory).
Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics
of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found,
that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), that
I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience.
The audience didn't think so.
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
Jan
Am Dienstag000003, 03.06.2025 um 14:17 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 02.06.2025 17:58, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 12:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
It is a fact the SR and GR are thoroughly tested and never falsified.
To disagree to facts is irrational behaviour.
I do not question the theory of relativity itself.
Actually I didn't deal with that at all.
Am Dienstag000003, 03.06.2025 um 14:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000002, 02.06.2025 um 20:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 12:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 31.05.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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 Wo?niak
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.
Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory
depends on its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict >>>>>> anymore than astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the >>>>>> Newtonian is not valid. It does not predict.
I note with interest that Richard Hertz, Maciej Wo?niak and
Laurence Clark Crossen are ignorant of the scientific method.
Here's the scientific method:
1. Ask a Question: Begin with a specific question about
a phenomenon you're interested in.
2. Do Research: Gather information and background knowledge
related to your question.
3. Formulate a Hypothesis: Create a testable explanation or
prediction about the question.
4. Experiment and Collect Data: Design and conduct experiments
or observations to test your hypothesis and gather data.
5. Analyze Data: Analyze the collected data to see if it supports
or contradicts your hypothesis.
6. Draw Conclusions: Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions
about your hypothesis and its validity.
7. Communicate Results: Share your findings with the scientific
community through publications or presentations.
------------------------------------------
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory). >>>>> Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics >>>> of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found, >>>> that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), that >>>> I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience.
The audience didn't think so.
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments
about statements, which were in many cases wrong.
Ah, some insight into yourself.
Just to help you: your comments are all wrong.
This was a very common comment to my 'annotated version of SRT'.
But I wave carefully analyzed the text of Einstein and found numerous
errors.
Now you could disprove my statements simply by showing that they are wrong.
Unfortunately you need to falsify all 428 comments, because even a
single error would be too much.
But I have discussed my annotations over a long period of time and
adjusted their content, once someone should me, where I made an error.
But this didn't reduce the number of annotations, only their content.
I actually made some errors myself, but have already written an entirely
new version, which, hopefully, will not contain any errors by me.
There were other issues, too, but more related to expression, grammar,
violation of formal requirements and so forth.
Irrelevant, for science.
Sure.
But I used a certain 'backdrop':
I treated the paper in question, as if it would be the homework of a
student and I would be the professor, who had to write corrections into it.
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.
Einstein wasn't written for the likes of you,
he was writing for scientists like Planck, Lorentz,
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.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:02:16 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
------------------------------------------
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory).
Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
It does matter if you don't actually arrive at any real theory.
Paul is ignorant that an invalid derivation is not testable and does not predict.
GR does not predict a doubling.
Astrology is not a valid theory, and neither is GR.
Because they don't predict anything.
GR and SR do not make valid predictions, so they cannot be tested.
Paul has not explained how GR validly predicts a doubling of the
Newtonian.
Is it by Huygens' principle, which concerns refraction and not
gravitation?
Is it by curved space that is a reification fallacy?
So, because physicists mistakenly accept the prediction is valid, they
are mistaken about their tests.
The question is, does Huygens principle of refraction have anything to
do with gravitation?
No it does not.
Den 01.06.2025 23:22, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:02:16 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
------------------------------------------
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory).
Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
It does matter if you don't actually arrive at any real theory.
Paul is ignorant that an invalid derivation is not testable and does not
predict.
It doesn't matter how the theory is derived.
You could have guessed it.
But the theory has to be mathematically consistent
(not self contradictory) and falsifiable.
GR does not predict a doubling.
A meaningless statement.
GR is a consistent, falsifiable theory.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Dienstag000003, 03.06.2025 um 19:44 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and >>>>>>> found,The audience didn't think so.
that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal >>>>>>> standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), >>>>>>> that
I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience. >>>>>>
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments >>>>> about statements, which were in many cases wrong.
Ah, some insight into yourself.
Alas, probably not. Thomas Heger has never understood the way commas are >>> used in English and how it differs from how they are used in German. So
although he is saying (probably correctly) that most of his 428 comments >>> are wrong, he probably thinks he was saying that many of Einstein's
statements were wrong, which is just his fantasy.
I don't think, that most of my comments were wrong, but that some of
them could be wrong.
Sure: commas in English are used differently from their use in German
and I have to admit some errors in this realm.
But you certainly don't want to argue with my comma setting errors.
Why not? You have got nothing better on Einstein, so...
This would be simply unfair, because I'm writing in a second language.
You are capable of misunderstanding Einstein in his own language, so...
And I would see you writing in German (with correct spelling and
grammar, of course).
Although I have tended to think that he's not quite at the level of
LaurenceClarkCrossen or Maciej Wozniak as a crackpot, I am beginning to
think that he is.
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.
You must be seen as such by others,
who think you have something worthwhile to say.
To achieve that you need to say things that aren't nutty or crackpot.
Am Mittwoch000004, 04.06.2025 um 14:50 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Dienstag000003, 03.06.2025 um 19:44 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and >>>>>>> found,The audience didn't think so.
that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal >>>>>>> standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), >>>>>>> that
I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience. >>>>>>
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments >>>>> about statements, which were in many cases wrong.
Ah, some insight into yourself.
Alas, probably not. Thomas Heger has never understood the way commas are >>> used in English and how it differs from how they are used in German. So >>> although he is saying (probably correctly) that most of his 428 comments >>> are wrong, he probably thinks he was saying that many of Einstein's
statements were wrong, which is just his fantasy.
I don't think, that most of my comments were wrong, but that some of
them could be wrong.
Sure: commas in English are used differently from their use in German
and I have to admit some errors in this realm.
But you certainly don't want to argue with my comma setting errors.
Why not? You have got nothing better on Einstein, so...
This would be simply unfair, because I'm writing in a second language.
You are capable of misunderstanding Einstein in his own language, so...
And I would see you writing in German (with correct spelling and
grammar, of course).
Although I have tended to think that he's not quite at the level of
LaurenceClarkCrossen or Maciej Wozniak as a crackpot, I am beginning to >>> think that he is.
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.
But how about Podklednov?
Or how about Martin Tajmar?
0cFU4/edit?usp=sharingYou must be seen as such by others,
who think you have something worthwhile to say.
To achieve that you need to say things that aren't nutty or crackpot.
I'm just a little hobbyist, but have written something (long ago
already), which was meant to solve an allegedly unsolvable problem.
This was meant as a conncetion between GR and QM:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa
I have spent a VERY long time on this topic. But as non-physicist I had
only limited means and certainly made many errors.
But the idea itself is actually worth to discuss.
But that had never happened. Instead I received less than ten comments
in 16 years.
So: why is that?
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Dienstag000003, 03.06.2025 um 14:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000002, 02.06.2025 um 20:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 12:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:The audience didn't think so.
Den 31.05.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
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 Wo?niak >>>>>>>>>> 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.
Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory
depends on its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict >>>>>>>> anymore than astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the >>>>>>>> Newtonian is not valid. It does not predict.
I note with interest that Richard Hertz, Maciej Wo?niak and
Laurence Clark Crossen are ignorant of the scientific method.
Here's the scientific method:
1. Ask a Question: Begin with a specific question about
a phenomenon you're interested in.
2. Do Research: Gather information and background knowledge
related to your question.
3. Formulate a Hypothesis: Create a testable explanation or
prediction about the question.
4. Experiment and Collect Data: Design and conduct experiments
or observations to test your hypothesis and gather data.
5. Analyze Data: Analyze the collected data to see if it supports >>>>>>> or contradicts your hypothesis.
6. Draw Conclusions: Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions >>>>>>> about your hypothesis and its validity.
7. Communicate Results: Share your findings with the scientific
community through publications or presentations.
------------------------------------------
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory). >>>>>>> Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics >>>>>> of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found, >>>>>> that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), that >>>>>> I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience. >>>>>
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments >>>> about statements, which were in many cases wrong.
Ah, some insight into yourself.
Just to help you: your comments are all wrong.
This was a very common comment to my 'annotated version of SRT'.
But I wave carefully analyzed the text of Einstein and found numerous
errors.
Now you could disprove my statements simply by showing that they are wrong. >>
Unfortunately you need to falsify all 428 comments, because even a
single error would be too much.
But I have discussed my annotations over a long period of time and
adjusted their content, once someone should me, where I made an error.
But this didn't reduce the number of annotations, only their content.
I actually made some errors myself, but have already written an entirely
new version, which, hopefully, will not contain any errors by me.
There were other issues, too, but more related to expression, grammar, >>>> violation of formal requirements and so forth.
Irrelevant, for science.
Sure.
But I used a certain 'backdrop':
I treated the paper in question, as if it would be the homework of a
student and I would be the professor, who had to write corrections into it.
Yes, that's precisely your mistake.
It wasn't a student's home work, it was a research paper,
presenting fundamentally new insights.
(that could solve all open problems in electrodynamics)
It was succesful in letting his collegues see what he had seen.
Einstein wasn't written for the likes of you,
he was writing for scientists like Planck, Lorentz,
and the like.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Mittwoch000004, 04.06.2025 um 14:50 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Dienstag000003, 03.06.2025 um 19:44 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and >>>>>>>>> found,The audience didn't think so.
that it is FULL of errors.
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal >>>>>>>>> standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), >>>>>>>>> that
I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience. >>>>>>>>
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments >>>>>>> about statements, which were in many cases wrong.
Ah, some insight into yourself.
Alas, probably not. Thomas Heger has never understood the way commas are >>>>> used in English and how it differs from how they are used in German. So >>>>> although he is saying (probably correctly) that most of his 428 comments >>>>> are wrong, he probably thinks he was saying that many of Einstein's
statements were wrong, which is just his fantasy.
I don't think, that most of my comments were wrong, but that some of
them could be wrong.
Sure: commas in English are used differently from their use in German
and I have to admit some errors in this realm.
But you certainly don't want to argue with my comma setting errors.
Why not? You have got nothing better on Einstein, so...
This would be simply unfair, because I'm writing in a second language.
You are capable of misunderstanding Einstein in his own language, so...
And I would see you writing in German (with correct spelling and
grammar, of course).
Although I have tended to think that he's not quite at the level of
LaurenceClarkCrossen or Maciej Wozniak as a crackpot, I am beginning to >>>>> think that he is.
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.
Sakharov didn't fall out with the nomenclatura
(how would such a thing be possible anyway?)
he got into conflicts with the Soviet leadership.
(until Gorby stepped in)
But how about Podklednov?
Which one? There are at least two of them,
both crackpots.
Or how about Martin Tajmar?
No idea.
0cFU4/edit?usp=sharingYou must be seen as such by others,
who think you have something worthwhile to say.
To achieve that you need to say things that aren't nutty or crackpot.
I'm just a little hobbyist, but have written something (long ago
already), which was meant to solve an allegedly unsolvable problem.
This was meant as a conncetion between GR and QM:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa
I have spent a VERY long time on this topic. But as non-physicist I had
only limited means and certainly made many errors.
But the idea itself is actually worth to discuss.
But that had never happened. Instead I received less than ten comments
in 16 years.
So: why is that?
I have a good guess, you could try for one too?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:11:03 |
| Calls: | 9,711 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,740 |
| Messages: | 6,181,573 |