explain why wave-particle duality is nonsense?

[Jack by the hedge]

and so have no business discounting what you cannot sustain.



ie.... to false witness is like suicide

Neither of us has done the experiment, so we are both dependent on the results of someone who has. We have the results. You are the one who refuses to believe the truth, not me.

If I had, or made, the apparatus, I could perfectly well do the experiment myself, but what would be the point? You would simply call me a liar again, would you not?

Your only option is to perform the experiment yourself. I very much look forward to your discovering your delusion is wrong.

 

[aleCcowaN]

and 'across the net' from combining entanglement to gravity, to even the comprehension of 'energy upon mass'................... many across the world are actually putting it together.

And you are out of that group. You are here, as you were on other forums until they stopped you. You simply lack the formation, lack the education and lack the rational ability to do any of that. You don't use formulas, you don't provide any math, all because it'd become evident within a second that you don't have the faintest idea about all what is needed to know to deal with the branch of physics you aspire to change (anyway it takes a couple of minutes to spot it by just reading you). In fact, I believe that placing formulas in your threads and ask you to explain will be like throwing garlic to Dracula. That's why you feign contesting what is seen in an actual experiment, and babble about colours and playing with scales. You can't deal with concepts and math. Your mind is so tiny that you are lucky it didn't get diffracted each time you go through some doors -and the merit is on the size of the doors-.

the self centered, could care less

Then seek professional advice. Don't ask others to analyze you here.

is not even my statement/claim.

i copied from another who made the comment

I understand already that you are not interested in reading so to believe you even comprehend what you read, is not worth anyones time.

Yes, threads open by themselves. Bigfoot did it, or maybe spontaneous generation -something in what you'd believe if evolved a bit more-. I don't doubt you'd shot at us and blame the bullet manufacturer.

 

[RussDill]

it is a common sense approach so that any could comprehend the matter (of detector) is relevant.

ie.... you dont see the light going to an object, you see what comes from the object.


The double slit is a simple experiment used well before QM (the physics) even existed and few comprehended the mass had and effect on the outcome.

ie... a wave on a body of oil is different than a wave on water.

But that is not the highlight of the ACTUAL point of this thread; it is that the so called particle is not emitted from the diode (emitter of monochrom light) but that the matter (detector) is what is emitting the per se 'particle'.

And colors share this EXACT reality! And the evidence ranges from the Photoelectric effect to even the raman effect.

And how does any of this prevent someone who is colorblind from seeing the results of a double slit experiment?

 

[dafydd]

And how does any of this prevent someone who is colorblind from seeing the results of a double slit experiment?

A flaw in the theory.Will you be mentioning that in your Nobel prize winning paper,Bishadi?

 

[Bishadi]

Neither of us has done the experiment, so we are both dependent on the results of someone who has. We have the results. You are the one who refuses to believe the truth, not me.

i already know the outcome because i am capable of comprehending how it works.

People of science 'predict'..... idiots rant!

If I had, or made, the apparatus, I could perfectly well do the experiment myself, but what would be the point? You would simply call me a liar again, would you not?

you only represent what you are by what you do

Your only option is to perform the experiment yourself. I very much look forward to your discovering your delusion is wrong.

what if you are the experiment to me?

(does it want the truth?)

 

[Bishadi]

And how does any of this prevent someone who is colorblind from seeing the results of a double slit experiment?

the colors share the mass, is affecting the outcome

I am not contesting that energy conveys in em fields (occilations) or the interferance

It is that stupid particle (point thing) that people continue to use the experiment for.

To comprehend that the matter (mass of detector) is relevant to the outcome, then there is no need to actually perform the experiment just to prove the evidence; the colors that are emitted (changed wavelnegth/thresholds) shows any of common sense, already


To run the experiment in which the single unit (per se) photon or the electron as that is the primary usage, then the mass is directly relevant to the emissions pattern of the matter (detector) itself.


again, it is stupid easy

but it is the fools that are too stubborn to read within any depth of combining disciplines to build bridges of common sense to causal understanding.

 

[RussDill]

the colors share the mass, is affecting the outcome

I am not contesting that energy conveys in em fields (occilations) or the interferance

It is that stupid particle (point thing) that people continue to use the experiment for.

To comprehend that the matter (mass of detector) is relevant to the outcome, then there is no need to actually perform the experiment just to prove the evidence; the colors that are emitted (changed wavelnegth/thresholds) shows any of common sense, already


To run the experiment in which the single unit (per se) photon or the electron as that is the primary usage, then the mass is directly relevant to the emissions pattern of the matter (detector) itself.


again, it is stupid easy

but it is the fools that are too stubborn to read within any depth of combining disciplines to build bridges of common sense to causal understanding.

I must have some reading comprehension problem. Can you explain for me in smaller words how this prevents someone who is colorblind from seeing the results of a double slit experiment?

 

[nescafe]

i already know the outcome because i am capable of comprehending how it works.

That is not how science works. No-one "knows" the outcome of an experiment until it has been performed.

People of science 'predict'..... idiots rant!

Very True.

Which category do you think you are in?

 

[Bishadi]

I must have some reading comprehension problem. Can you explain for me in smaller words how this prevents someone who is colorblind from seeing the results of a double slit experiment?

if you see colors, then you dont need to do the experiment to comprehend that it is not the emitter shooting particles of photon or electron but that the recieving plate is rendering the emission upon the energy that is being exposed to it.

the 'gun' is affect the whole body of the mass exposed versus shooting point particle and that pattern that builds up from the emission will be affected by changing the matter of the detector (ie... from the particle count to the emission spectra; will be difference based on the receptor mass (the detector molecular content)

colors are simply everyday items we can decipher to prove the very point



If you can't see colors, then you must rely on a receiver that can translate the various data.

 

[Bishadi]

That is not how science works. No-one "knows" the outcome of an experiment until it has been performed.

then no black holes, no dark matter, no bent space, no big bang, nor even the belief that hot goes to cold because the 2LoT tells it to

Very True.

Which category do you think you are in?

the one that holds honesty over beliefs

If you believe you know the outcome before it is done but cannot comprehend nor tell me why, other than 'well day did it'

then you are just ranting

while i am predicting


at least i put up an experiment to do the look see and then offered other branches of study (raman and PE effect) so any can bridge, not to mention colors are daily experiences

what have you done but rant?

 

[RussDill]

if you see colors, then you dont need to do the experiment to comprehend that it is not the emitter shooting particles of photon or electron but that the recieving plate is rendering the emission upon the energy that is being exposed to it.

the 'gun' is affect the whole body of the mass exposed versus shooting point particle and that pattern that builds up from the emission will be affected by changing the matter of the detector (ie... from the particle count to the emission spectra; will be difference based on the receptor mass (the detector molecular content)

colors are simply everyday items we can decipher to prove the very point

If you can't see colors, then you must rely on a receiver that can translate the various data.

That isn't an explanation of how being colorblind would prevent someone from seeing the outcome of the doubleslit experiment. Can you provide that explanation instead of explaining how you think seeing color would cause someone to not need to do a doubleslit experiment?

 

[Bishadi]

That isn't an explanation of how being colorblind would prevent someone from seeing the outcome of the doubleslit experiment.

you are reading of black and white and still not comprehending the mass affects the outcome of the experiment.

geeeeze

Can you provide that explanation instead of explaining how you think seeing color would cause someone to not need to do a doubleslit experiment?

because colors as the eyes detect the wavelength are not emitted by the 'sun' per se, but the mass.

likewise, in the double slit, the detector is what emits the per se particle based on the threshold points for each detectors mass


it is also why to put anything inbetween the detector and double slit to identify that a particle went thru, then creates and interferance.


For you to comprehend what color is (from the mass being imposed) then the double slit experiment need not be performed to comprehend the particle wave duality is accepted based on not observing the detector as relevant to the 'points' of the particle experiment.


how many more times must it be spelled out?

colors simply shares that to be capable of causally describing the outcome of the experiment, then the mass is relevant to energy exchanges and not that em is both a particle and wave

to follow this thread and perform the experiment, anyone of you will not only see the evidence but before you even perform it, to comprehend colors, then anyone can comprehend the outcome before even putting it together

 

[nescafe]

then no black holes

then what is your explanation for the Cygnus X-1 x-ray source

no dark matter

or the Bullet Cluster

no bent space

or gravitational lensing

no big bang

or the Cosmic Microwave background

nor even the belief that hot goes to cold because the 2LoT tells it to

or work?

I mean, you are already disregarding most of the implications of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, ans while we know they are incompatible with each other as currently formulated, they are also staggeringly accurate when used to make predictions about phenomena that lie within their purview.

the one that holds honesty over beliefs

If you believe you know the outcome before it is done but cannot comprehend nor tell me why, other than 'well day did it'

I am not the one that has been proposing:

1: that some of the most well - tested implications of the most accurate scientific theories we have are flat-out wrong
2: that the only reason no-one else noticed is that we are all too ignorant and/or stupid and/or in love with the status quo.
3: that my experiments (which I have only done in my mind, and only describe using impenetrable jargon known only to me) clearly demonstrate the above two points.

 

[RussDill]

you are reading of black and white and still not comprehending the mass affects the outcome of the experiment.

geeeeze

because colors as the eyes detect the wavelength are not emitted by the 'sun' per se, but the mass.

likewise, in the double slit, the detector is what emits the per se particle based on the threshold points for each detectors mass

it is also why to put anything inbetween the detector and double slit to identify that a particle went thru, then creates and interferance.

For you to comprehend what color is (from the mass being imposed) then the double slit experiment need not be performed to comprehend the particle wave duality is accepted based on not observing the detector as relevant to the 'points' of the particle experiment.

how many more times must it be spelled out?

colors simply shares that to be capable of causally describing the outcome of the experiment, then the mass is relevant to energy exchanges and not that em is both a particle and wave

to follow this thread and perform the experiment, anyone of you will not only see the evidence but before you even perform it, to comprehend colors, then anyone can comprehend the outcome before even putting it together

The double slit experiment is typically performed using monochromatic (one wavelength) light. Can you explain how the observations of a colorblind person would differ from a trichromat?

 

[Bishadi]

then what is your explanation for the Cygnus X-1 x-ray source

or the Bullet Cluster

or gravitational lensing

or the Cosmic Microwave background
or work?

i hate when people go off on tangents like this.

put your feet back on the earth and the lab experiment at hand that even YOU could perform.

I mean, you are already disregarding most of the implications of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics,

how many have watched the shows on einstein and he is rendered to all be doing the same thing? (unhappy with R and QM)

then for the professionals: how many have read einsteins notes and already know he was completely unhappy with it? (god dont play dice)

now........ you dont have to be as honest as einstein, to know the math is wrong as even the stud muffing himself (i like honesty over most anything), knew it was wrong and you can read it from him, to correct your beliefs. But... you can actually review much of the contributor(s) material online, if you really wanted to and with basic common sense, just be aware, 'hey, there is a bunch that the old stuff truly cannot describe'

and be honest about it.

ans while we know they are incompatible with each other as currently formulated,

now that is science.

"we know they are incompatible"

i almost got a tear, but then i realized it was you posting

they are also staggeringly accurate when used to make predictions about phenomena that lie within their purview.

just like ptolemaic math did for almost 1500 years for 'roaming bodies' (planets)

I am not the one that has been proposing:

1: that some of the most well - tested implications of the most accurate scientific theories we have are flat-out wrong

ooops!

did i say that?

I guess you must have comprehended the implications of what a causal description may do to many of the old theories.

2: that the only reason no-one else noticed is that we are all too ignorant and/or stupid and/or in love with the status quo.

did i say that?


oooops!

i thought most people comprehended that new evidence and conveyable knowledge often uproots old beliefs and long held acceptances!

3: that my experiments (which I have only done in my mind, and only describe using impenetrable jargon known only to me) clearly demonstrate the above two points.

And how many have used their imagination to think through a problem?

i mean if you imagined 2 cars racing at each other on the same road and about to impact, would you be able to predict an outcome?

Could you imagine the variables to observe?

Could it be gruesome if you really followed the idea all the way thru to the blood and guts of it all?

 

[Bishadi]

The double slit experiment is typically performed using monochromatic (one wavelength) light. Can you explain how the observations of a colorblind person would differ from a trichromat?

russ.......... are you wanting a piece of me?

 

[Weak Kitten]

russ.......... are you wanting a piece of me?

What in the nine rings of the infernal planes makes you think RussDill is picking a fight with you? He simply asked a very intelligent and pertinent question. Are you going to answer it or not?

 

[nescafe]

i hate when people go off on tangents like this.

then why did you bring them up?

put your feet back on the earth and the lab experiment at hand that even YOU could perform.

You still don't understand. You have a radical new idea. You get to lay out and perform the experiment, then other people get to replicate it. Among other things, it might save you the embarrassment of being spectacularly wrong.

<blather snipped>

ooops!

did i say that?

Yes, yes you did. General Relativity is all about describing how spacetime bends, and you flat-out denied that does with your "no bent space" utterance.

I guess you must have comprehended the implications of what a causal description may do to many of the old theories.

No, I merely comprehend that most of your positions are backed by blather and bs.

did i say that?


oooops!

Your every post implies that the other participants in the thread are stupid, ignorant, or deluded.

i thought most people comprehended that new evidence and conveyable knowledge often uproots old beliefs and long held acceptances!

They do. Your failure to provide evidence or conveyable knowledge is spectacular, however.

And how many have used their imagination to think through a problem?

Using imagination is fine, and the well-trained imagination of an expert is a powerful thing, but if the results you get from an experiment are not the results you image, your imagination was wrong -- no ifs, ands, or buts.

 

[RussDill]

russ.......... are you wanting a piece of me?

If that is a threat to answer the question about how being colorblind (monochromatism or dichromatism?) would prevent one from seeing the results of the double slit experiment, then yes, bring it on! I'm ready!

 

[aleCcowaN]

Feed BShd with formulas and diagrams, and you'll see. BShd likes word stews.

russ.......... are you wanting a piece of me?

It's you who is wanting.