explain why wave-particle duality is nonsense?

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, I strongly suspect his ideas are also nonsense. But we can't even tell what kind of nonsense because he can't communicate.

But when your ideas are less than coherent how do you know if they were communicated ineffectually because the result is incoherent?

 

[Mikemcc]

How is it incoherant when i represented that the mass is important, which was on the opening post and you just cant comprehend it.

it is. But to 'quantify' it then the people who do the work can go get their nobel.

i see colors which in itself represents the mass is relevant.

I am not sure you can see colors nor read as your posts continue to rehash the same thing.

YES JACK, the mass is important and the pattern as well exchanges within the double slit experiment will be difference based on the mass/em exchange.

get over it

Get over what? You haven't produced any evidence, or predicted any results for such an experiment.

 

[Bishadi]

But when your ideas are less than coherent how do you know if they were communicated ineffectually because the result is incoherent?

what is not coherant are the facts which are not understood by the complacent

 

[Bishadi]

Get over what? You haven't produced any evidence, or predicted any results for such an experiment.

and the only response can be; reread the thread

 

[Mikemcc]

and the only response can be; reread the thread

Why, it doesn't get anymore understandable.

You contend that the mass of the material forming the slitted screen and the mass of the target affect the result of the double-slit experiment. But you don't say in what way, or how much. You insist that you have a mathemetical proof, but are unwilling to present it or determine any predictions from it, yet you seem to think we should accept it through faith.

You argue that we need to do the experiment, yet haven't done so yourself. You ignore those that tell you that they actually carry out the experiment on a regular basis.

You are aware that diffraction is used in a a wide range of experimental processes aren't you?

http://www.diamond.ac.uk/Home/Beamlines/Techniques/Diffraction.html

If there was a flaw in the physical science underpinning diffraction it would have been found by now.

 

[Bishadi]

Why, it doesn't get anymore understandable.

You contend that the mass of the material forming the slitted screen and the mass of the target affect the result of the double-slit experiment. But you don't say in what way, or how much. You insist that you have a mathemetical proof, but are unwilling to present it or determine any predictions from it, yet you seem to think we should accept it through faith.

do you need faith to see colors?

does the mass, actually change the emissions (yes or no)

You argue that we need to do the experiment, yet haven't done so yourself. You ignore those that tell you that they actually carry out the experiment on a regular basis.

i ignor few but should ignor you.

i used logic that is just kicking you in the head and you cant get over how simple it is

 

[Mikemcc]

do you need faith to see colors?

No, do you? You seem to like taking statements out of context. my reference to faith was your belief in how we should accept your ramblings.

does the mass, actually change the emissions (yes or no)

No - read up on Stefan Boltzmann Law:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
Emissivity is not a function of mass.

 

[Humanzee]

I keep getting confused. When you say mass, Bishadi, do you mean an element an object is made of or are you referencing its 'weight'?

 

[dafydd]

do you need faith to see colors?

does the mass, actually change the emissions (yes or no)

i ignor few but should ignor you.

i used logic that is just kicking you in the head and you cant get over how simple it is

Logic,don't make me laugh.

 

[dafydd]

I keep getting confused. When you say mass, Bishadi, do you mean an element an object is made of or are you referencing its 'weight'?

The poor bugger probably does not know the difference between weight and mass.

 

[Humanzee]

Seems likely. Frankly being a science noob I struggled to find an appropriate alternative word for the physical property of mass.

 

[Mikemcc]

The poor bugger probably does not know the difference between weight and mass.

From the challenge thread it seems he is equating molecular structure with mass. That photons will interact differently with compounds with different structures is a given. It's why he keeps on harping on about microwave ovens. The 2.45GHz output frequency is chosen because it (relatively) efficiently couples with water molecules.

 

[John Jones]

seems like in the op i kind of wrote that clearly


...

I am the one speaking plainly, it is you that is not reading the thread with an intent to comprehend.

...

.

hahahahahahaha!

LOL

 

[dafydd]

what gibberish, if the opening posts claims the mass is relevant and you nor he comprehended that than neither belong on the thread.


if your posts are not going to be thread specific and always complimenting my good looks, then perhaps someone in moderation needs to have words with you

So we can take it that you have no answers?

 

[Bishadi]

From the challenge thread it seems he is equating molecular structure with mass.

and fool use weight and heat but comprehend little as to what is causing it.


ie.... Heat is not a property of nature and gravity have never been purely defined.

That photons will interact differently with compounds with different structures is a given. It's why he keeps on harping on about microwave ovens. The 2.45GHz output frequency is chosen because it (relatively) efficiently couples with water molecules.

as the example shares that mass (moleculare structures) have specific wavelengths that affect each structure differently.

And then when a structure (h2o in this example) is imposed that affect often imposes or directly exchanges energy within its environment (to the other food) and heats up the area (per se) but is actually converting the energy to other wavelength (just like the raman theory suggests)

 

[Bishadi]

The poor bugger probably does not know the difference between weight and mass.

sure..... the mass of you, represents words with little weight

 

[Bishadi]

No - read up on Stefan Boltzmann Law:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
Emissivity is not a function of mass.

Then take back Einsteins nobel for the photoelectric effect.

or perhaps work on your english/reading

 

[dafydd]

sure..... the mass of you, represents words with little weight

Still dodging questions.

 

[dafydd]

Then take back Einsteins nobel for the photoelectric effect.

or perhaps work on your english/reading

Lol,your English is appalling and your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.Now,do you have any real science for us? Facts,proof,experiments that you have carried out?

 

[Bishadi]

Still dodging questions.

you dont have questions.

every post on this page is you trying to insult me.

that is all you do!


When you have the capacity of an intelligent inquiry, i will answer (any and all)

but when you ask me for my mathematical rendition, just accept the answer as NO!

This thread is on the double slit experiment with is an observational measure of the particle-wave duality of em and mass (in many experiments) but you do not address the thread contents, you simply follow me around from thread to thread, trying to insult me.

that is all you do!

when i try to address others, with evidence, if you read the information, i would bet even you could formulate a coherant inquiry but that is not what you are on these threads for.

you have no itent of maintaining the thread concepts, titles, or anything scientific;

most every post you render, represents a thing trolling for your own enjoyment.


What you do, is attack people for your reason to be here.

it is sad to witness (the evidence, the proof and the fact all by an experiment (sharing reality and what it does to people))