explain why wave-particle duality is nonsense?

[nescafe]

scientifically, i perform while by insults you perform what you comprehend

Dude, you have fewer scientific skills than L Ron Hubbard.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Bishadi, you haven't managed to explain anything. I've been learning all sorts of things from the other posters while all you seem to do is throw around polysyllabic words and big chunks of other people's writings.

If you really do understand this stuff then you should be able to explain it in a way that an outsider like myself can understand. That is the true measure of knowledge, the ability to explain what you know to others and have them understand.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Dude, you have fewer scientific skills than L Ron Hubbard.

But thetans and bodies are a good example of Casimir Entanglement and the clearest relation between mass and life ... or not

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, you haven't managed to explain anything. I've been learning all sorts of things from the other posters while all you seem to do is throw around polysyllabic words and big chunks of other people's writings.

i apologize for not being capable to put into words what is actually pretty basic to common sense.

If you really do understand this stuff then you should be able to explain it in a way that an outsider like myself can understand.

again, i am at fault and why i am still learning

That is the true measure of knowledge, the ability to explain what you know to others and have them understand.

not really

as newton used gravitation but had no clue what it is/was.

einstein could not describe the entanglement between mass in time

most every real scientist you ever heard of had many phenomenon that they could not explain (the honest have many)

while the opposiing do not actually comprehend how science has evolved and still is as they hold onto benchmarks while the real ones are always learning and combining, while being capable of directly observing their own failures.


what you are appreciating from the peanut gallery is their unity to the existing belief system while very very few know how to maintain the integrity of scientific observation, combined with already being exposed to what is missing within the frame of todays sciences.

ie.... the missing link; gravity (the entanglement cause by energy between mass)

this thread is about the double slit experiments and few comprehend the 'fields' of em and how they associate upon mass. The clips share EVIDENCE but just not in the words most comprehend because the appoach is quite conflicting with the existing belief system (paradigm)
. The evidence is what is important, not the old interpretations as being factual.

These threads are harming people like you because the few who are posting insults are using their intelligence to fight and defend their own beliefs (what they comprehend as true). But to be truly aware, find there are many NEW physicists, scientist, biologist etc.... that are stepping out and performing experiments and using interpretations that are born within THIS generation which exceed the old.


it is normal as the evolution of knowledge always leaves a few tangents to extinction!


enjoy the ride and gather what you can. if you haven't noticed some of my posts have links to the people (the scientists themselves) along with email addresses. So you can formulate inquiries to assist you, directly, versus just reading from any hacks.


i haven't asked you for anything except that you give yourself a chance.

 

[dafydd]

i watch people like you troll the threads (most everything i post) and incapable of addressing much of anything of science.

you are entertaining yourself by indulging in your own beliefs.



you actually believe you have a right to insult people (plane selfishness) while i am learning to reason the 'why' anyone would be so delusional to their own ideology with no care of others or what can occur because of it

you maintain no personal responsibility and in this arena, it is an accepted attribute of posters

scientifically, i perform while by insults you perform what you comprehend

Show us some of the maths behind your work.Prove to us that you are right instead of posting gibberish and insults.You are not the first of your kind here.

 

[Bishadi]

Dude, you have fewer scientific skills than L Ron Hubbard.

i think you have the word 'scientific' mixed up. Lron didn't have the integrity to be scientific, so combining Lron with science is like looking for dark matter in black holes.


or even using nescafe as a handle for a wake up (who in their right mind drinks an instant coffee but convicts (behind bars))

 

[Bishadi]

Show us some of the maths behind your work.

you dont comprehend words, nor how to articulate in a forum

the answer is NO

Prove to us that you are right instead of posting gibberish and insults.You are not the first of your kind here.

just look at the work occuring all over the world.
that's your proof


and the reason it is gibberish to you is you are not learning anything beyond what you already hold as true

 

[nescafe]

i think you have the word 'scientific' mixed up. Lron didn't have the integrity to be scientific, so combining Lron with science is like looking for dark matter in black holes.

Oh, I meant what I said. You, like Hubbard, mistake making up technobabble for research and make no effort to actually verify your claims.

Hubbard was more comprehensible than you are, tho.

or even using nescafe as a handle for a wake up (who in their right mind drinks an instant coffee but convicts (behind bars))

Flattery will get you nowhere.

 

[nescafe]

you dont comprehend words, nor how to articulate in a forum

the answer is NO

Then your posts are fit only for our amusement and as contrast to actual scientific thinking.

 

[Bishadi]

Then your posts are fit only for our amusement and as contrast to actual scientific thinking.

what if i said much of what is occuring all over the world has something to do with my math?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

this thread is about the double slit experiments and few comprehend the 'fields' of em and how they associate upon mass.

Yeah - about that - you implied that the mass of the detector affected the results of a double slit experiment. Can you tell us any more about that?

As I asked before, do you mean that if you conducted a classic double slit experiment, using a sheet of photo paper on a plate as your detector, and you changed the mass of the plate, would you expect that to change the result?

If so, can you explain what results you would expect to see and why?

Also, have you actually done this experiment yourself?

Thanks.

 

[Bishadi]

Yeah - about that - you implied that the mass of the detector affected the results of a double slit experiment. Can you tell us any more about that?

the mass is the elemental structure.

ie..... Au/gold versus carbon (graphene)

As I asked before, do you mean that if you conducted a classic double slit experiment, using a sheet of photo paper on a plate as your detector, and you changed the mass of the plate, would you expect that to change the result?

absolutely.

when i mean change the mass, i mean the elements (molecule makeup of the detector).

If so, can you explain what results you would expect to see and why?

reread the thread

Also, have you actually done this experiment yourself?

Thanks.

nope

i deducted from reasoning. (decades ago)

ie.... colors are different patterns (wavelength) from the interactions with mass; common sense. So if you sent one wavelength thru the DS then the detector mass, if varied will have different patterns as each element and collective is affected by different wavelengths. (the photoelectric effect shared that but for the 'electron' ejection)


wiki ---When a surface is exposed to electromagnetic radiation above a certain threshold frequency (typically visible light for alkali metals, near ultraviolet for other metals, and extreme ultraviolet for non-metals), the radiation is absorbed and electrons are emitted. This phenomenon was first observed by Heinrich Hertz in 1887. Johann Elster (1854-1920) and Hans Geistel (1855-1923), students in Heidelberg, developed the first practical photoelectric cells that could be used to measure the intensity of light[6]. In 1902, Philipp Eduard Anton von Lenard observed that the energy of individual emitted electrons increased with the frequency (which is related to the color) of the light. This appeared to be at odds with James Clerk Maxwell's wave theory of light, which was thought to predict that the electron energy would be proportional to the intensity of the radiation.

In 1905, Albert Einstein solved this apparent paradox by describing light as composed of discrete quanta, now called photons, rather than continuous waves. Based upon Max Planck's theory of black-body radiation, Einstein theorized that the energy in each quantum of light was equal to the frequency multiplied by a constant, later called Planck's constant. A photon above a threshold frequency has the required energy to eject a single electron, creating the observed effect. This discovery led to the quantum revolution in physics and earned Einstein the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921





it is basic if you just allow yourself to see

 

[nescafe]

what if i said much of what is occuring all over the world has something to do with my math?

On the internet, anyone can make grandiose claims. You appear to be reading neat looking science papers, cherry-picking interesting terms, and then stringing them together without bothering to see if it even makes sense to do so. If you want to be taken seriously, give us something besides bare assertion and insult.

 

[Bishadi]

On the internet, anyone can make grandiose claims. You appear to be reading neat looking science papers, cherry-picking interesting terms, and then stringing them together without bothering to see if it even makes sense to do so. If you want to be taken seriously, give us something besides bare assertion and insult.

how about; i have known these properties for over 3 decades and it was math that assisted in comprehending what many within the community are just now figuring out


and even now as i point out terms i would think any should already know i find much is still misunderstood.

and that is why i dont maintain borders. There is no proprietary to the overall and i am making sure of it.


you can discount all you like but in a real sense, you should be happy that i am quite different than most.

 

[Dinwar]

how about; i have known these properties for over 3 decades and it was math that assisted in comprehending what many within the community are just now figuring out

Until you publish something, it doesn't matter. And until you show your math, it's never going to be published.

What are you trying to hide?

 

[GodMark2]

how about; i have known these properties for over 3 decades and it was math that assisted in comprehending what many within the community are just now figuring out

Maths or it didn't happen.

 

[fuelair]

Did you just threaten us?

No, he's hiding under a rock.

 

[Mikemcc]

how about; i have known these properties for over 3 decades and it was math that assisted in comprehending what many within the community are just now figuring out


and even now as i point out terms i would think any should already know i find much is still misunderstood.

and that is why i dont maintain borders. There is no proprietary to the overall and i am making sure of it.


you can discount all you like but in a real sense, you should be happy that i am quite different than most.

Then produce the math and let us see what you are failing to describe in words.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hey, anyone want to use this thread to explain optics theory to me? Let's start with the basic premise, is light both a particle and a wave or is it a wave of particles or what? For some reason I've always envisioned it as a particle moving in a wave pattern but I know that's probably wrong.

The idea that things are particles or waves is really faulty macroscopic thinking. There is no particle wave duality because it is a false dichotomy. These are different on a macroscopic level but on a quantum level there is just stuff, and stuff has some characteristics we would call particle like and some that we would call wave like. But it is a false dichotomy from macroscopic thinking that is the real problem.

Light acts as a wave in diffraction experiments and it acts as a particle in photo electric effect experiments.

 

[Bishadi]

The experiment is not showing that particles called 'photons' exist but that each wave (single unit of the state of energy (the per se photon)) is affecting the mass exposed and that the points that show themselves as a particle are the threshold points for that specimen from that exposure in that environment. That 'point' (per se particle) of the mass on the specimen plate is already resonating with energy upon it and the combining elements are resonating like the surface of a pond and the point we see is the threshold like the white cap on a pond. That single threshold of energy to 'react' (release its inner energy; an exothermic reaction for that point over the total exposed).




can i ask which part of that claim is misunderstood? (it is from the opening post)


be fair?