🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 25, 7:41 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 9:27 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 11:55 pm, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 10 2009, 1:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ......
> > >>> These types of mediumless fields remind me of the grin of the Cheshire
> > >>> Cat.
> > >>> For the rest of us: no cat, no grin.
>
> > >> Well, the "rest of us" is a rather small but cranky minority,
> > >> apparently, who have difficulty when nature resists pigeonholing.
> > >> Space that isn't devoid of properties, wave phenomena outside of
> > >> media, objects that are neither particles nor waves, fields that
> > >> aren't made of stuff, properties of objects that don't have a unique
> > >> and frame-independent value, causality that doesn't require strict and
> > >> time-ordered determinism -- all of these are threats to favorite
> > >> comfort toys and cuddle bears that are difficult to let go of, even
> > >> when it becomes plain that nature is not as simple as we thought in
> > >> our cuddle-bear days.
>
> > >> PD
>
> > > You have that rare ability, shared by many of today's theoretical
> > > physicists, to talk about logically self-contradictory concepts and
> > > imagine that these contradictions actually form the basis of reality.
> > > It is no surprise that modern theoretical physics is lost in
> > > "Wonderland"?
> > > Space = nothing AND has properties;
> > > waves = variations in a medium AND in empty space;
> > > fields = variation in a component of reality AND not made of anything;
> > > object properties = invariant defining characteristics
> > > AND values varying by viewpoint;
> > > causality = invariant determinism across time AND anything goes.
>
> > > No, Mr Draper, it is you who are still stuck in the nursery - the
> > > childlike world where any contradiction is allowed and where logical
> > > consistency is not required.
> > > Time to grow up and recognize that when your ideas are so muddled and
> > > contradictory, you have not created a theory of the world (physics)
> > > but a self-indulgent, fools paradise, funded by gullible
> > > governments.
>
> > Well said 'maxwell', I agree with you.
> > Yes, today's theoretical physicists do talk about logically self-
> > contradictory concepts. Perhaps in the grand maze of the unknown,
> > theoretical physicists have somewhere missed the right track and are
> > now approaching a dead end. They have been steadily indoctrinated into
> > believing that due to the  complexity of physical reality, they can
> > not demand logical consistency in physical concepts and can not even
> > demand mental visualization of basic phenomena in quantum mechanical
> > world. In this regard let me quote from "The Farce of Physics" by
> > Bryan G. Wallace.
>
> > "In 1963, P. A. M. Dirac, in his paper, `The evolution of the
> > physicist's picture of nature', [65] writes: `one can make a safe
> > guess that uncertainty relations in their present form will not
> > survive in the physics of the future'. André Mercier reports [121] a
> > conversation with Werner Heisenberg, in which Heisenberg argued `that
> > even major modifications of present physical theories would not
> > transform them into the desired new theory, as quite different and
> > novel ideas are required. Secondly, the impact of quantum theory and
> > relativity theory on the minds of those scholars who helped found them
> > during the first half of our century is conceivably such that they are
> > imprisoned by these theories and thus cannot help but reason
> > conformably, that is, in terms of traditional concepts; whereas the
> > need is for a whole revolution of thought, which can only be carried
> > through by nonconformists.'..."
>
> > GSShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yet the facts are that in a two-slit experiment in a vacuum in which
> only one electron (or photon) goes through at a time, if you leave
> both slits open, you get a two-slit interference pattern on the end
> screen.  If you cover up one slit, you get a one-slit pattern.  (And
> if you cover both slits, you get nothing.)
>
> These phenomena occcur whether you believe in them or not.
>
> Benwww.greenba.com

Yes, Ben, these are the facts (at least, after MANY electrons have
gone through the screen). The game is to produce a rational
explanation. One cannot argue about the facts - only the theories.