84 replies to this topic

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 15 January 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

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.

There is nothing to argue about. You do this everytime. An one moment we are talking about superposition and the nature of the wavefunction, then you find out something new and you pretend like we are talking about something else mixed in with some insults about reading comprehension and or intelligence levels. It's the standard rhley defense mechanism. Then you convolute the conversation with philibustering with everything under the sun. Saveing face... Really?

Bottom line my friend, wavefunctions are not waves they are a probability distribution, if they were waves through spactime during tunneling the barriers in the experiments would be disturbed. You cant tiptoe or philibuster your way out of it. Particles in superposition ( not lasers), exist purely as a mathematical construct that stretches across the entire universe. You can muddy the waters all you like, but these are prooven facts.

Have a nice day

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 15 January 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

There is nothing to argue about. You do this everytime. An one moment we are talking about superposition and the nature of the wavefunction, then you find out something new and you pretend like we are talking about something else mixed in with some insults about reading comprehension and or intelligence levels. It's the standard rhley defense mechanism. Then you convolute the conversation with philibustering with everything under the sun. Saveing face... Really?

We were talking about about wave-particle duality, that didn't change, what changed is you ended up looking rather ignorant. I mean you rejected scientific articles on wave-particle duality, rejected the double-slit experiment because it used a laser, even rejected the use of crystals. Ironically enough the quantum eraser that you love to tout used crystals to form entanglement.

I wish I could have sympathy for you but I don't, when the facts were presented you still continued to spin lies and misrepresent my claims (which you still continue to do now).

Edited by Rlyeh, 15 January 2013 - 04:55 PM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 15 January 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

We were talking about about wave-particle duality, that didn't change, what changed is you ended up looking rather ignorant. I mean you rejected scientific articles on wave-particle duality, rejected the double-slit experiment because it used a laser, even rejected the use of crystals. Ironically enough the quantum eraser that you love to tout used crystals to form entanglement.

I wish I could have sympathy for you but I don't, when the facts were presented you still continued to spin lies and misrepresent my claims (which you still continue to do now).

I did not reject any of them... They were all sound. they just did not have anything to do with it. it's all standard stuff. I wish I could get you to see that it is you who are rejecting the standard knowledge. You have been trying to paint your own colors on it and when you are wrong you bite. That's all that's happening here.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 15 January 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

I did not reject any of them... They were all sound. they just did not have anything to do with it.

Nope, my resources were about wave-particle duality, you tried to pretend they were something else even when they had wave-particle duality bolded across them. If you knew anything of the discovery of wave-particle duality, you'd know the wave like behavior of light is explained through wave-particle duality, my links make this clear. But when you can't even read the title, something like this can be easily missed.
And claiming lasers and crystals had nothing to do with QM just because my sources made references to them, that was comical.
Effectively threw out the double-slit experiment, quantum eraser, delayed choice, etc.
Ofcourse you're now sitting here denying it, but what's new? The only thing you've done in this discussion.

Quote

it's all standard stuff. I wish I could get you to see that it is you who are rejecting the standard knowledge. You have been trying to paint your own colors on it and when you are wrong you bite. That's all that's happening here.

I wish you could support your claims but you can't, that is why I'm the one posting scientific resources. Your argument has no merit.

Edited by Rlyeh, 16 January 2013 - 02:46 AM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 16 January 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

And claiming lasers and crystals had nothing to do with QM just because my sources made references to them, that was comical.

I thought we moved this to pm where you can call me a moron in private?

Lasers and crystals have about as much to do with QM as plastic stand holders, mirrors, or an electrical outlet. Like usual my friend you can't get past the schematics. How an experiment is performed has nothing to do with the nature it exposes, its the other way around genius. We have and always were talking about superposition. You can build your  strawmen  however you like, but they are still made out of straw.

See you Rhely, I hope your day goes well.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 17 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

Lasers and crystals have about as much to do with QM as plastic stand holders, mirrors, or an electrical outlet. Like usual my friend you can't get past the schematics. How an experiment is performed has nothing to do with the nature it exposes, its the other way around genius. We have and always were talking about superposition.

Like usual you're trying to BS your way out.
It was YOU who rejected the experiment, so don't try and make it my fault.

You aren't familiar with experiments are you (or logical thinking for that matter)?
See for example if you want to study entanglement, you need to set up and perform the experiment to expose the phenomena, same for wave-particle duality.

But if you can't accept the experiment showing wave-particle duality, then your misinformed opinion of the results is worthless.

Quote

You can build your  strawmen  however you like, but they are still made out of straw.

And we both know you prefer knocking down straw men.
Maybe you'll get it one day.

[Beckys_Mom]

Rlyeh and Seeker ...If I were arguing non stop with a guy and I liked it, it would mean I had the hots for him ..  You both do not have the hots for each other, but one thing is for sure, you both love each other ramblings..Love you guys  lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 18 January 2013 - 02:04 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Beckys_Mom, on 18 January 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

Rlyeh and Seeker ...If I were arguing non stop with a guy and I liked it, it would mean I had the hots for him ..  You both do not have the hots for each other, but one thing is for sure, you both love each other ramblings..Love you guys  lol

Just no. However I do feel I'm becoming a little bit dumber each time I read his posts.

[ali smack]

I don't think it's possible to prove or disprove whether God exists.
"if" He exists, then it's likely he's different to what christians/jews/muslims etc believe him to be.
"If" He exists, then what exactly is he?

[J. K.]

ali smack, on 23 January 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

I don't think it's possible to prove or disprove whether God exists.
"if" He exists, then it's likely he's different to what christians/jews/muslims etc believe him to be.
"If" He exists, then what exactly is he?

I don't know if this will come out phrased correctly.

If God exists, then He is exactly what people think He is, because He has described Himself to people.

If God is something other than what people believe Him to be, then He isn't "God".