explain why wave-particle duality is nonsense?

[Bishadi]

As it turns out, yes.

has nothing to do with lensing, not bending space, nor time dialations according to speed.

It shares that in a different environment affects the rates.

The aluminum clocks can detect small relativity-based effects because of their extreme precision and high "Q factor"—a quantity that reflects how reliably the ion absorbs and retains optical energy in changing from one energy level to another—says NIST postdoctoral researcher James Chin-Wen Chou, first author of the paper.

"We have observed the highest Q factor in atomic physics," Chou says. "You can think about it as how long a tuning fork would vibrate before it loses the energy stored in the resonating structure. We have the ion oscillating in sync with the laser frequency for about 400 thousand billion cycles."

The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster. Second, when an observer is moving, a stationary clock's tick appears to last longer, so the clock appears to run slow

wow.... the way you view evidence is practically sad to witness.



what you are rendering is as simple as comprehending that c-14 is created easier in space, than on the earth and versus a decay rate, there is an absorption of energy in the correct environment

Just because the scientist have mathematically rendered theur finding to fit your needs, does not mean space is bending, lensing or even going faster to make the clock times be different.


you are getting desparate

 

[Ziggurat]

has nothing to do with lensing, not bending space, nor time dialations according to speed.

Wrong, wrong, and right but irrelevant (since gravitational lensing isn't a speed effect).

Gravitational lensing is a result of curved space-time. The same curvature that produces lensing also produces gravitational time dilation. Measure gravitational time dilation (which produces a red shift), and you've measure lensing.

But thanks for showing your ignorance once again.

 

[Bishadi]

Wrong, wrong,

again, i like it when you represent what your post is, before writing anything else

and right but irrelevant (since gravitational lensing isn't a speed effect).

Gravitational lensing is a result of curved space-time.

and neither of spece bending

The same curvature that produces lensing also produces gravitational time dilation. Measure gravitational time dilation (which produces a red shift), and you've measure lensing.

But thanks for showing your ignorance once again.

sorry, as i was asking you for evidence, not your ranting on what you believe.

this thread is how the ignorance of the wave-particle duality and not you are on space bending but have no clue as to there is no evidence of the effect, anywhere in all recorded history.

and you just can't graspe that fact!

 

[Ziggurat]

and neither of spece bending

In general relativity, you cannot describe space independent of time. The only curvature that exists is the curvature of space-time. "Bending space" is colloquial and imprecise. Curved space-time is precise and correct.

Don't blame me because you're too ignorant to understand general relativity.

sorry, as i was asking you for evidence, not your ranting on what you believe.

I gave you evidence. Again, your ignorance about the significance of that evidence is not my problem.

this thread is how the ignorance of the wave-particle duality and not you are on space bending but have no clue as to there is no evidence of the effect, anywhere in all recorded history.

and you just can't graspe that fact!

It's hard to grasp a fact that is not a fact at all, but is purely an invention of your own fevered imagination.

 

[Bishadi]

In general relativity, you cannot describe space independent of time. The only curvature that exists is the curvature of space-time. "Bending space" is colloquial and imprecise. Curved space-time is precise and correct.

and you are sharing quite purely you are personally bend for it

Don't blame me because you're too ignorant to understand general relativity.

you making an assumption

I gave you evidence. Again, your ignorance about the significance of that evidence is not my problem.

that is 2 claims you cannot sustain

It's hard to grasp a fact that is not a fact at all, but is purely an invention of your own fevered imagination.

My mind is bend on reality, while you hold onto belief and bend all to hell on maintaining it.


ie... the old have a tough time with evolving!

 

[Ziggurat]

you making an assumption

There's no assumption involved. The evidence is quite conclusive: you don't understand general relativity. In fact, there's no evidence that you understand any physics.

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

As it turns out, yes.

Amazing! I was aware that clocks were precise enough to detect relativistic effects, but the idea that you could measure your height to high precision by checking how fast your clock ticks is quite incredible to me. For GPS, normally one thinks of relativity as a kind of error that needs to be accounted for, but this turns the idea around and uses the correction factor as the data source.

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Then if you covered the sun with the moon (eclipse) and the light from the star behind the sun looks like it bends, could it be from the light passing thru the corona?


yu know the answer is a YES. (as a possible, a maybe, a perhaps....... and to say NO, would be a bonafide lie.................)

OK, show us your calculations. Show us what your theory of coronal refraction predicts for Eddington's experiment. How well does your prediction match observation compared to the prediction for General Relativity?

(I already know you won't, of course. We all realise you have no idea where even to begin. You are all Google and bluster.)

 

[aleCcowaN]

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!!!!

1, 2, 4, 8, 547, i, =,

see what i mean, you forgot the 3 in your simple chain to count with.


Perhaps use your fingers and toes.

What a devastating comeback!!! That's the deepest retort I've ever read in my life!!! Ugh! Ugh! Did you take your rifle and shot into the air to celebrate?

Bishadi: Stop talking nonsense and show the math! Up to this point you have been totally unable to show any nonsensicalness in the wave-corpuscle duality, but we are plenty of your stale jabber.

 

[dafydd]

again, i like it when you represent what your post is, before writing anything else



and neither of spece bending



sorry, as i was asking you for evidence, not your ranting on what you believe.

this thread is how the ignorance of the wave-particle duality and not you are on space bending but have no clue as to there is no evidence of the effect, anywhere in all recorded history.

and you just can't graspe that fact!

You have yet to grasp a fact.This thread is very funny,thank you.

 

[dafydd]

see what i mean, you forgot the 3 in your simple chain to count with.


Perhaps use your fingers and toes.

Na yadi a da.My daddy's bigger than your daddy.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Come on, Bishadi, show us what your theory of coronal refraction predicts for Eddington's observations compared to the prediction for General Relativity.

This might be a good time to remind everyone that already in this thread your adamant prediction for the double slit experiment (different screen material will produce different fringe patterns) was tested and found to be false. Time to raise your game. Show us your calculations.

 

[dafydd]

Come on, Bishadi, show us what your theory of coronal refraction predicts for Eddington's observations compared to the prediction for General Relativity.

This might be a good time to remind everyone that already in this thread your adamant prediction for the double slit experiment (different screen material will produce different fringe patterns) was tested and found to be false. Time to raise your game. Show us your calculations.

He doesn't believe he was wrong,he called the experimenter a liar.Nothing we can say will shake him out of his woo.If he dared to perform the experiment himself,it would shatter his illusion,so he won't do that either.

 

[Humanzee]

Bishadi, have you done this experiment yourself? Answer yes or no to that...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's funny how, when his threads reach the "put up or shut up" stage, Percy always plumps for the same option.

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, have you done this experiment yourself? Answer yes or no to that...

Sure, i put a double-slit up with a prism as the detector and realized the mass of the recieving plate is affecting the results


it was a mental bridge to comprehend, the single electron or photon method will definitively provide the evidence, 'that the recieving mass (molecular structure) will affect the outcome"

the evidence is "the different patterns and reactions based on the elements and the pattern will vary for each different spectral capacity for different molecular mass as the make up of the recieving plate (carbon versus gold for example)"

Now who ever has a lab, be the first.

ie.... there is the experiment, now go do it.


For the simple who like the KISS approach, just comprehend what 'colors' are, in which our eyes capture what is returned from the em (light) to an object. (it's stupid easy)




what is means, is the em is not a particle but that the mass being hit is emitting once its threshold is reached............... dahhhhh


To take into account the recieving plate as being relevant within the double slit experiment, then the analogy would not be used to substantiate the wave-particle duality. That experiment falls apart just to remember the photo electric effect; the mass is doing the ejecting.

To have fun, put a mirror as the receiving plate.

Who ever has the equipment write up what happens.

The rest..... who like to rant....

enjoy yourself

 

[Jack by the hedge]

have you actually done this experiment yourself?

nope

i deducted from reasoning.

Bishadi, have you done this experiment yourself?

Sure

These two things are not the same.

PS You may have forgotten, but you still haven't shown us what your theory of coronal refraction predicts for Eddington's observations compared to the prediction of General Relativity.

 

[Mikemcc]

1. A prism is not a 'detector', it's a modifying part of the experiment.

2. Where was the prism mounted with respect to the slits, what material was the prism constructed from and what geometry? Why introduce a prism into the experiment? It's not an element that you have previously mentioned.

3. What was the slit width and seperation?

4. What was the frequency of your monochromatic source (that you mentioned in a previous post)?

5. Where was the recieving plate mounted with respect to the slits and the prism?

6. What did you use to quantify the output from the prism on the target plate and how was it positioned? Was it moved to see how some property of the output light varied with position?

7. What parameters were measured, intensity at a particular frequency, the frequency of the incident light (you rambled into Raman shifting after all), distribution of light intensity (i.e. the diffraction pattern).

8. You seem to mention that you changed the material target plate. How did you make sure that the absorbance and reflectance of the material did not affect the results?

9. Why did you previously say that you had not conducted the experiment?

You've got a long way to go yet. You've still not fully explained in detail what effects you were expecting and how your experiment confirmed them.

 

[RussDill]

Don't get all excited. I'm pretty sure all he is saying is that he has seen (or seen in a picture) white light pass through a prism produce a spectrum.

As we all know, once you see that, there is no need to even consider a double slit experiment or building LHC...not.

So my theory is that he is just being misleading and has never carried out any sort of double slit experiment.

 

[Bishadi]

1. A prism is not a 'detector', it's a modifying part of the experiment.

any i can see is detecting.

The comprehension shared the detector is relevant to the outcome.

You prefer no maintaining EVIDENCE as relevant.

6. What did you use to quantify the output from the prism on the target plate and how was it positioned? Was it moved to see how some property of the output light varied with position?

8. You seem to mention that you changed the material target plate. How did you make sure that the absorbance and reflectance of the material did not affect the results?

that was the comment as to why the rest of your post is joke.

The RESULTS are affected by the material..................... the whole argument (from a nut) and you knew the answer too (the mass is relevant)

duhhhhhhhhh

You've still not fully explained in detail what effects you were expecting and how your experiment confirmed them.

you already know the answer.

why are you debating?

the problem is you have not comprehended what it means; the emission is not of particle-wave duality (because the recieving plate is doing the emission and the energy imposed (em) is afffecting it based on the thresholds between the em and structures. By changing the material mass of that plate, is YOUR PROOF as the emissions will change based on the structure (molecular mass)

You just added and didnt even know it.