🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 2, 11:12 am, Mitchell Jones wrote:

> ***{For those who wonder how discrete particles can, in their conjoint
> behavior, manifest as waves, here is an unusual example:
>
> "As barchan dunes migrate, smaller dunes outpace larger dunes, bumping
> into the rear of the larger dune and eventually appear to punch through
> the large dune to appear on the other side. The process seems to be
> similar to waves of light, sound or water that pass directly through
> each other; the detailed mechanism is, however, very different, being
> nonlinear. These are known as solitons."
>
> "The dunes emulate soliton behavior but unlike solitons, the sand
> particles do not pass through each other. When the smaller dune
> rear-ends the larger dune, the winds begin to deposit sand on the rear
> dune while blowing sand off the front dune without replenishing it.
> Eventually, the rear dune has assumed dimensions similar to the former
> front dune which has now become a smaller, faster moving dune that pulls
> away with the wind. (Schwämmle & Herrmann, 2003)" [Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barchan.]

Hmmm...  The wind must be pushing the sands.  Photons are not pushed
by anything.  How can particles not being pushed behave like waves?

> ***{The only way to make sense out of Einstein is to separate his math
> from his attempts to explain, in terms of natural language, why the math
> is true--and, like it or not, his math is mostly true. (By "true" in
> this case, I mean that when it is used in calculations within its
> domain--i.e., between experimentally measured data points--it gives good
> results.)

Nonsense.  Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar never
came up with any mathematics this is original.  <shrug>

> His attempts to explain his math in natural language, however, are
> childlike to the point of, in many cases, being utterly nonsensical.

That is because Einstein was a nitwit.  <shrug>

> Some of his passages, with justification, have even been described as
> "gibberish." Do not, however, make the mistake of thinking that the math
> must be wrong simply because the natural language interpretations are
> absurd.

That is because Einstein Dingleberries do not understand the
mathematics that is credited to Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar.  <shrug>

> In the above connection it is worthwhile to remember that Newton
> couldn't explain his math either.

This statement is utterly absurd.

> Unlike Einstein, he simply did not try
> to explain it.

You can never explain math but only interpret.  <shrug>

> Instead, he took pot shots at others, when they tried to
> do so. When others tried to explain gravity as "action at a distance,"
> for example, he replied as follows:
>
> "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
> without the mediation of anything else, is to me so great an absurdity
> that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent
> faculty for thinking, can ever fall into it."

There remains no satisfactory resolution to why electrodynamics also
exhibits action-at-a-distance phenomenon.  <shrug>

> Einstein, by way of contrast, tried to explain his math in terms of
> natural language, with the result that, for a hundred years, others have
> had the privilege of taking pot shots at him.

Nonsense.  Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.  <shrug>

> The moral of the story is simple: if you come up with an equation that
> matches up well with a set of experimentally measured data points, and
> gives accurate predictions in the unmeasured regions of that domain, do
> not make the mistake of trying to explain your equation, unless you
> actually have an explanation that is rationally comprehensible. If you
> do not have a defensible explanation, simply admit it, and move on.

This is not how science works.  If the equation predicts nonsense such
as the twin’s paradox, it must be abandoned right off the bat.
Instead, the Einstein Dingleberries try to hypnotize themselves into
believing in the resolution without any mathematical facts.  It is
like some nitwit believes in perpetual motion machines.  <shrug>