Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Trying to think realistically


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#61    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,713 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 13 January 2013 - 01:47 AM

View PostSean93, on 12 January 2013 - 10:43 PM, said:

^ Why are you two debating particle physics or whatever it is you're doing?

If god really wanted to be this elusive and complex then it's just taking the p*** outta' the theists and atheists for the lulz.

*Circa 100'000 years ago*

GOD: I could just tell them directly when they evolve, would sort a lot of that **** out that I've foreseen and make matters easy...nah, that'd be no fun; I need entertainment of some form! I'm a prankster god. I am killing me, Oh my ME! We'll see who believes in me now!"

Bill Hicks had the right idea when he said god could be a prankster god...he really was a prophet!
I'm always impressed how young you are Sean. It's a long standing thing between me and him... It pops up now and then. Ignore us.. Everyone else does... I have grown to love rhlyes banter in some mosachist capacity.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#62    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 13 January 2013 - 02:04 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 13 January 2013 - 01:47 AM, said:

It pops up now and then. Ignore us.. Everyone else does... I have grown to love rhlyes banter in some mosachist capacity.

I don't always ignore you and Rhlye..It's like watching Statler and Waldorf from the Muppet show..I am a fan of the Muppets, so I cannot ignore you guys lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 13 January 2013 - 02:04 AM.

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#63    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,809 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:13 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 12 January 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

I think you are still arguing semantics and stuck in classical physics  Rlyeh, beams striking crystals have nothing to do with what we are talking about.
^ Proves without a doubt you haven't read the experiments. The quantum eraser experiment also shoots the photon through a crystal. lol.

Quote

Do you understand that when we speak of particle/wave duality and superposition we are not talking about macro systems. We are not talking about waves of energy using space as a medium. This is standard physics not QM.
Electrons are now macro? Sorry, but did you read anything I posted? :w00t:

Quote

Superposition is only observed when we filter the the beam until it is only emitting one photon at a time. Lazers are not in superposition and are not subject to these QM efects. It's only when we try to isolate the individual particles does uncertainty become a factor. Virtual particles carry the information of light waves, it operates within standard wave dynamics. Objects in superposition are everywhere and nowhere at the same time with varying probabilities of being somewhere upon isolating them. If it were an actual wave pinpoint piece of matter it would not be able to instantly apear  somewhere else in the universe because it would violate the speed of light law.
*face palm*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
They EMIT PHOTONS!!!

Infact the double-slit experiment was done with a laser.
http://www.cavendish...oung/tyoung.htm

Beams are lasers. They are shot through crystals in some experiments to form entanglement.
You're now trying to tell me lasers and crystals have nothing to do with the experiments, you are hilarious.
Where do you think the researchers get the photons? Do they just bull**** it into existence like you're doing with your argument?

Quote

Gravitational waves ( if the exist) are the same.... A macro phenomenon.
Not when quantized. Besides you ignored the part I high lighted explaining particles behavior as waves. But ofcourse you did, it refutes your understanding of waves.

Quote

You see my friend, you are still thinking classically. Classical physics no longer applies on the scales of QM. Merging the macro with the micro is one of the great problems in physics today.
You sir are not thinking at all, infact you haven't even read the info I provided.
If you don't know what elementary particles are, there is no point discussing them with you.

Edited by Rlyeh, 13 January 2013 - 07:36 AM.


#64    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:02 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 13 January 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

Why make such an assumption? God can be anything because god is just a name we give to a huge variety of entities. Your definition of god is just one of many.
God is either what we define him to be, because we construct him as we desire him, OR he is what he is. If god is real and independent then he is what he is, and cannot be (except by coincidence) what we define him or desire him to be to be.


I actually didn't make an assumption, my point being if God was real. Yours is based on your opinion that he isn't and that he is man made.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#65    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,713 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 13 January 2013 - 04:38 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 13 January 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

^ Proves without a doubt you haven't read the experiments. The quantum eraser experiment also shoots the photon through a crystal. lol.

Electrons are now macro? Sorry, but did you read anything I posted? :w00t:

*face palm*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
They EMIT PHOTONS!!!

Infact the double-slit experiment was done with a laser.
http://www.cavendish...oung/tyoung.htm

Beams are lasers. They are shot through crystals in some experiments to form entanglement.
You're now trying to tell me lasers and crystals have nothing to do with the experiments, you are hilarious.
Where do you think the researchers get the photons? Do they just bull**** it into existence like you're doing with your argument?

Not when quantized. Besides you ignored the part I high lighted explaining particles behavior as waves. But ofcourse you did, it refutes your understanding of waves.

You sir are not thinking at all, infact you haven't even read the info I provided.
If you don't know what elementary particles are, there is no point discussing them with you.
It seemed like you were talking about the wave nature of macro beams. You know lazer beams. QM effects happen after filtering beams down to one particle at a time. Ill look back and see i missed something in your material, but i did not see anything that put it in the realm of QM as opposed to standard physics regarding light.

Back in a sec.

Yup.. You are talking about Lazers and the wave nature of light. It's well known that electromagnetic radiation has amplitude, frequency, refraction, interference... In essence waves of energy. Again, for the last time Rhley these are not quantum effects. It's STANDARD physics regarding radiation. Please note we have been discussing PARTICLE/WAVE duality.... Please not the word "PARTICLE". "SUPERPOSITION", "WAVEFUNCTION", "PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION", "QUANTUM" effects... Tunneling etc.

Yes... Macro phenomenon must be built from the micro. Unfortunately we are unable to discuss the two in the same context because they are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.  If you have managed to figure out how to marry the quantum world and it's behavior with well known standard physics, then by all means, I will bow out and let you proceed to your Nobel prize.

Or Mabey after you detect gravitational waves and manage to filter Higgsbosons down to quanta. Many are not even convinced that the discovery at CERN is even responsible for gravity. There may not even be a Higgs. Just some new particle.

Edited by Seeker79, 13 January 2013 - 05:03 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#66    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,890 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:40 PM

View PostCoffey, on 13 January 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

I actually didn't make an assumption, my point being if God was real. Yours is based on your opinion that he isn't and that he is man made.
You said this
If God was real, then he would be everything and everyone and you're mind would not be able to comprehend what he actually is.
I asked why you would assume that if god was real he would be incomprehensible Anythng real is inherently comprehensible given enough data/knowledge about it

No, I dont  think god is man made, my knowledge indicates god is physical, real, and a natural  sapient evolved entity, emerging from the universe just as we have.
Belief allows us to create any concept of god we like. Physicala encounter forces us to observe, and use logic extarpolation deduction etc. This is still susceptible to misunderstandings and erroneous conclusions, but it allows a process of understanding the nature of a thing more accurately than just creative imagination.

In the case of a real god, whatever we think of him his reality does not depend on this. He is simply what he is and that reality existed, perhaps before humans even evolved self awareness, and continues despite how we perceive him

Unless, of course, he is a creature of quantum nature, in which case the observer effect might even physically alter his state of being.

One thing i know. Gods physical nature is not of fixed form, like our own is at present.

He can alter state from energy form to material form in an instant,  I suspect simply by willing it so.

Whether that action of will is carried out like an act of will in our own physiology moves our arm, or whether it uses a technical form, as an act of our will can move a remote mechanical arm, I dont know; and dont have the evidences yet to decide.

I just observe the transformation and its physical effects . For example when an angel appears/materialises in light form, it does not displace any air, but when it appears in physical form, it displaces the volume of air it occupies, causing a slight breeze to be felt. In light form a slight heat radiance will be felt close to the entity. In physical form all normal physical realities apply. eg it will cast a shadow, block your line of vision etc. In both cases its form is visible to any local observer.

Edited by Mr Walker, 13 January 2013 - 11:47 PM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#67    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,809 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:41 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 13 January 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

It seemed like you were talking about the wave nature of macro beams. You know lazer beams. QM effects happen after filtering beams down to one particle at a time. Ill look back and see i missed something in your material, but i did not see anything that put it in the realm of QM as opposed to standard physics regarding light.

Back in a sec.

Yup.. You are talking about Lazers and the wave nature of light. It's well known that electromagnetic radiation has amplitude, frequency, refraction, interference... In essence waves of energy. Again, for the last time Rhley these are not quantum effects. It's STANDARD physics regarding radiation. Please note we have been discussing PARTICLE/WAVE duality....
You're still not paying attention. The double-slit experiment was one of the first experiments to show wave-particle duality of light, it was done with a laser.
http://en.wikipedia....slit_experiment

"The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena."

Why don't you just admit you were wrong, it would save you from running around in circles.

Quote

Please not the word "PARTICLE". "SUPERPOSITION", "WAVEFUNCTION", "PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION", "QUANTUM" effects... Tunneling etc.
Tell me when you figure out how to read.

Quote

Yes... Macro phenomenon must be built from the micro. Unfortunately we are unable to discuss the two in the same context because they are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.  If you have managed to figure out how to marry the quantum world and it's behavior with well known standard physics, then by all means, I will bow out and let you proceed to your Nobel prize.

Or Mabey after you detect gravitational waves and manage to filter Higgsbosons down to quanta. Many are not even convinced that the discovery at CERN is even responsible for gravity. There may not even be a Higgs. Just some new particle.
Electrons are no macro.
Posted Image


#68    John Weiss

John Weiss

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 36 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

  • I didn't believe in the afterlife, but have learned to mend my ways.

Posted 14 January 2013 - 01:00 AM

Everyone if perfectly free to believe absolutely anything they desire because when they enter the afterlife it will all come true. My own personal experience has shown me that there isn't a God in the traditional sense -- no white-bearded gentleman in a white robe who sees all. However the universe Is driven by an all-encompassing intelligence that has created everything.


#69    Fatwindz

Fatwindz

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2013

Posted 14 January 2013 - 01:09 AM

atom- cell, inanimate object- planet- solar system- galaxy- universe- this is the way we think the universe ,the universe being the end of the line, which is infinite in scale but think of it as a number line if u can go one way infinitely than u must be able to go the other just as much so.  atom-protons, electrons, neutrons- energy, god matter-?
Ok what if after energy what I believe  makes energy is other universes clashing and infusing. Which there are 3 kinds of universes positive neutral and negative
our universe I have no clue to what it is but when two opposite clash they bounce of one another creating energy and when to alike collide they bond making a lager universe like a bubble finding another which is why are universe seems to be growing in size .in turn we are all a part of larger organism are universe is just one many making up an atom
but this is just a theory....


#70    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 5,602 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 14 January 2013 - 01:39 AM

View Postnopeda, on 18 December 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

God might not exist. That covers that. God might exist. That opens infinite possibilities. For years I've been trying to think realistically about how God could exist, and here is a list of basic ideas in an attempt to do so:

1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.

2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.

3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.

4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.

5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.

6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.

7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.

8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.

9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.

10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.

11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.

12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.

13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.

14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)

15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.

16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.

17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.


    i pick # 17  ..   but rearranged a little     17. If there are things which people consider to be physical, they are
most likely actually  spiritual  in ways we just can't appreciate yet.  :)

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#71    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 12,685 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milky Way Galaxy 3rd planet

  • They're wearing steel that's bright and true
    They carry news that must get through
    They choose the path where no-one goes

Posted 14 January 2013 - 01:54 AM

Quote

No, I don't  think god is man made, my knowledge indicates god is physical, real, and a natural  sapient evolved entity, emerging from the universe just as we have.
Are we talking about god as in the god of the bible?  If god emerged from the universe just as we have then how did he create light, the stars, us, etc.  Or, do you believe that there is an entity God...and stories have been told about him in scriptures, etc.?
I'm not trolling you by the way...just very interested in some things you have said.:)

Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#72    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,890 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 14 January 2013 - 06:47 AM

View Postjoc, on 14 January 2013 - 01:54 AM, said:

Are we talking about god as in the god of the bible?  If god emerged from the universe just as we have then how did he create light, the stars, us, etc.  Or, do you believe that there is an entity God...and stories have been told about him in scriptures, etc.?
I'm not trolling you by the way...just very interested in some things you have said. :)

IMO the god of the bible is  one of humanity's construction or interpretations of god as many people from those times encountered him My encounters with god are strikingly  similar to theirs, but coming from this age i interpret them differently. I am aware of the nature of energy and matter and the ability to move between those states.
I have a pretty good idea of the age and size of our universe and its evolved nature up to and including the formation of our earth and evolutionary history on our planet. Apart from this academic knowledge. I have  travelled much of the local part of our universe via the network of consciousness within "god' and even passed through the discontinuity at the centre of our galaxy into a universe beyond our own. Thus i have to reconcile what i know and wha t i have experienced.

  Luckily this is easy because all i experienced was later confirmed by scientific discoveries, although the actual communication and transport systems have not yet been stumbled upon in our limited exploration of space so far.
Earlier peoples interpreted god to be omnisicent, omnipotent, and the creator of all. But in the real universe bounded by current knowledge and understandings, all those thngs are impossible, and contradictory to quite well understood science.

God is very real, very powerful, and quite interactive with human kind. I know this from personal experience. Thus "god" to me must fit those realities. I dont have the luxury of believing in or constructing an entity which cannot exist in the real known universe. I have to interpet god as i find him using the realities and skill which exist.

I know a god which can foresee and warn me of potential futures, and help me to alter those futures to create more positive outcomes. Who protects me and saves me from harm,  who teaches me mentors, me talks with me, gives me audio visual lessons in life, and exists with me, inside my mind/body, and all around me in the universe.

Whose presence enables me to extend my consciousnes out to other people and to other places and across time.

Who empowers me physically and psychologically in small and in important ways.  Who can help me regulate pain, physiological responses to environmental conditions, physical health, emotional wellness. who can hep me never become depressed lonely, angry, sad,  envious  etc., but always energised filled with life joy love compassion etc and alwyas connected to god the environment and humanity. . Who performs physical miracles of transformation in me and around me, healing me and pushing aside physical dangers to me. Who does little things like making sure i always find a car park and money materialises when i need it to help other people.

This is the nature of my life, and i live it just as everyone lives their own. God has been interacting with humanity ever since humanity evolved the abilty to recognise the concept and influence of god.

God is just a name we use to categorise this entity. I prefer the term "cosmic consciousness", but most people dont have a clue what that is, and it doesnt fully express the physical side of god.

But the cosmic consciousness is the medium by which we become aware of god, and through which we connect to and communicate with god.

The energy force of god is known to christians as the holy spirit. It is a real and powerful physical force which, directed by the consciousness of god, is capable of  creating physical 'miracles"

God made manifest in humanity is characterised in jesus christ.

Edited by Mr Walker, 14 January 2013 - 06:55 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#73    J. K.

J. K.

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:39 PM

View PostJohn Weiss, on 14 January 2013 - 01:00 AM, said:

Everyone if perfectly free to believe absolutely anything they desire because when they enter the afterlife it will all come true. My own personal experience has shown me that there isn't a God in the traditional sense -- no white-bearded gentleman in a white robe who sees all. However the universe Is driven by an all-encompassing intelligence that has created everything.

What is the difference between a 'god' and an 'all-encompassing intelligence'?

One's reality is another's nightmare.

#74    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,713 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 14 January 2013 - 04:58 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 13 January 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

You're still not paying attention. The double-slit experiment was one of the first experiments to show wave-particle duality of light, it was done with a laser.
http://en.wikipedia....slit_experiment

"The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena."

Why don't you just admit you were wrong, it would save you from running around in circles.

Tell me when you figure out how to read.

Electrons are no macro.
Posted Image
The double slit is not a quantum experiment until they added the filters... Do you get it. There is no indication of uncertainty until you start to try to pin down particles.....I don't even get what you are arguing about anymore seriously. There is plenty of interference with electromagnetic radiation from light to radio waves. It was well known prior to the double slit the wave nature of light. Yet again, it's only when we shoot one particle at a time do things get strange. I don't know how to more clear than that brother do I need to post mr. Quantum yet again. I don't even know how to relate it back to the topic of this thread so let's just stop.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#75    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,809 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:13 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 14 January 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

The double slit is not a quantum experiment until they added the filters... Do you get it. There is no indication of uncertainty until you start to try to pin down particles.....I don't even get what you are arguing about anymore seriously. There is plenty of interference with electromagnetic radiation from light to radio waves. It was well known prior to the double slit the wave nature of light. Yet again, it's only when we shoot one particle at a time do things get strange. I don't know how to more clear than that brother do I need to post mr. Quantum yet again. I don't even know how to relate it back to the topic of this thread so let's just stop.
I can't tell if you're trying to save face, or you're just daft.

The material I gave you was on wave-particle duality, this was as plain as day, hell the scientific sources had Wave-Particle duality bolded across the title and yet you still came to the conclusion it had nothing to do with wave-particle duality. WTF?!

BTW Wave-particle duality applies to all particles and even macro objects. However macro objects tend to have small wavelengths, smaller than plank length but anyway they were not the discussion (until you came a long with your straw man).

http://www.wired.com...uality-physics/
http://www-math.mit....S-2010-Bush.pdf
https://hekla.ipgp.f...rt_PRL_2006.pdf

Until you learn to read, I'm not going to discuss this with someone who has the comprehension skills of a brick wall.

Edited by Rlyeh, 15 January 2013 - 06:32 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users