Blaggard wrote:
I missed this, no you won't look at it, in fact I can be completely sure that you didn't.
You know how acadeamia and science is from what? Reading pop science? Or actually knowing any scientists? Seems to me the former is more likely. You should know that pop science is like tabloid journalism, about as accurate a means to test where a subject is at, as wonkey table is a good means to keep your best china stable.
I didn't use open mind in that manner, I explained that being open means knowing you are wrong to start with, but knowing that the game is a foot, and if fair action be brought, you may achieve something approaching something right. This is how all the scientists I know behave if they are not going to find it hard to get on in science. I can say it again if you like but the fact that being well aware you are not well aware is the starting place for science. It is not the starting place for people who just know how it all works by default, without actually knowing how it works at all. Seems you fit that category.
This is a fairly simple concept, if you want me to explain it again, please feel free to tell me your superiority and knowledge on a subject and an institution and who and from whom and all the people you base this on in science.
You can repeat it whenever you want, just as uwot and Ginko keep reminding me to not mix metaphysics with science, even though that is what I am doing to bring about a more holistic concept of the universe.
Blaggard wrote:
You need to elaborate this in and of itself means little. It's like saying it is wrong without saying why as was already said by Gingko.
According to how you observe the particle it behaves like a wave or a particle, it's no use saying it's just not like that when it is like that.
It's quite ironic that you ask me for more explanation, as you reinforce the concept of a 'wave-particle' duality without the evidence yourself. You can definitely see, from watching videos and doing it yourself (as in using water to do it), that there is no 'particle' mechanism to the matter and light. What you really see, especially when using water, are in fact spherical standing waves that resonate in the water, which represents 'more energy', depending on how it's applied to things besides water (ie. maybe sound). The "double slit experiment" shows interconnecting flow of energy and repeated resonance; thus the particle theory is thrown out and so does the 'duality'.
Blaggard wrote:
Again this is vague it doesn't really say anything about actual experiment or the actual 2 slit experiments, it's an opinion without any real meat on its bones.
The uncertainty principle is objective in that it is basically saying you can't be subjective: if you measure something a margin of error will be created by observing a system leaving subjectivity arguable at best. All we can objectively know (such as it is) is what we measure, being subjective is pointless.
The Uncertainty Principle states that one cannot know precisely both the position and momentum of the particle; therefore rejecting objectivity is favor or more subjectivity, hence the synonymous term "Uncertainty" Principle.
Looking at my other point above, you would see that the Uncertainty Principle is clearly a misunderstanding of the actual results of the Double-Slit Experiment; that it is clearly 'waves' and no such particles, which is mainly because of wanting to still uphold the particle theory.
Blaggard wrote:
String theory has nothing to do with the particle theory, in fact it suggests the simple case of particle and wave is wrong and that there are subsets of sub atomics that are neither. It in fact states that there are these larger particles but they are governed by strings which are tiny immeasurable particles that govern these larger particles, which appear to have wave like and particle behaviours but in fact do not conform to the underlying structure of physics that strings suggest. This seems to me like you don't really get string theory.
I think it's fanciful nonsense, but I think I have more of a reason to think so. No means to ultimately judge but at least some means to reason on it.
It would certainly still make since to throw out the particle theory, which means you can solve this 'crisis' without using String Theory, because it doesn't seem to throw out the particle theory, or the 'wave-particle' duality, and it seems to create more smaller particles out of the already small basic atomic particles, such as bosons and other such abstractions.
