Philosophy Now Forum

Niels Bohr wrote:-Hi Blaggard:
I think you wrote about Huygens interferences...

A saw in a documentary, that physicists did the experiment with electrons. Because of the interferences, they thought first about a simple Coulomb repulsion.

Then, they repeated the experiment with only on electron after the other, and... they re-obtained the interferences !!

Finally, the introduced an observatory device, without incident particle (as photon), as the screen after the holes, was already photo-reactive (to see the result) as in the first steps here.
And then... the electron had a behavior as we were expecting from them, knowing: without interference, as particles we represented from them!..

But I don't know why the experiment is not better known...

yeah link it, I would like to see it if you can find it, something that overturns all science in one experiment should be linkable methinks.

9/10 it doesn't though, and people think it does just because they aren't reading the other evidence, forming a cognitive bias shield about anything which disagrees with their own personal biases and marching through the wardrobe to Narnia.

I don't mind speculation I certainly don't mind all science is wrong, what I do mind is people using sloppy science to justify bad science to people who want to believe. That is not science that is ononism, it's a waste of sciences time. Experiment prove it or no one gives a fucking flying fuck in hell you tit. Put abruptly and with bad language but ever so apposite nonetheless. No one and I mean no one cares, at least in the slightest about your mincing about on the sidelines like some numpty, unless and science makes this perfectly clear, a) you expose your self to peer review b) you do experiments and c) you remotely care about anything science stands for and more adroitly falls for and dies for, and gets replaced by, enough to acknowledge that some people spend years on this shit, what they don't want to hear is some uneducated numb nut, who knows it all, waxing lyrical without putting in half the effort they did, and to put it bluntly: why the fuck should they.
Un#educated idiots who know it all, 10 a penny you can find at least 2 or 4 on here, they are worthless, will never affect science and will cry about it until they are put out of their god fucking awful misery for being lazy, indolent sacks of shit, who couldn't even be bothered.

I mention no names, but we all know one at least of the remtards with all the answers and none of the effort. Watch them suffer and laugh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc

Mindless, vacuous, self opinionated idiots with all the answers, we shall stand on a pile of their skulls and laugh at them, unless they play the game they are not going to pass go, and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and science is keeping me down, is so wrong, wa wa ba ba wants bottle shit matters nothing. Cry me o' fucking river you lazy mo fo.

To sum up: these are the rules: Prove it, get some evidence or go cry, no one cares even remotely, you are worthless if you don't and all your talk is but sounding brass.

Hello Blaggard,

-You also could find what Bohr told in a way that the experimenter was bound with its experiment - I have only read briefly his purposes - and it was really about physics (not alchemy in this case). But as I was already aware with the concept (and because I missed a part of the written conferences), I did not continue...

-The experiment in the occurrence is in a documentary, which unfortunately does not refer the names of the physicists.

This documentary was referred to me by a friend - you can find it on Youtube: "Que sait-on de la realité", but it is in french. The experiment is rather drawn (in reality, we cannot see the electrons), so be tolerant if it does not appear as "real", I think we can be faithful in the fact that it was real.

If I find, I can tell you at which minute it is. (The documentary last long.)

It was probably a translation of an american documentary, you know, without real conclusion.

Blaggard,

I saw you edited your post.

I don't know if it is only an impression, but after your kind welcome, I find you as becoming a little agressive; I think you should take a neuroleptic as humor-stabilizator, or something like this.

I am one the moment trying to find the moment in the documentary for you - be only conscientious of that... As you already know, I am not physicist to this day, sorry, this can explain that I have not personally the names of the original experimenters, but I also think, having had a sight on it, that all is not explained in the schools.

Okay Blagard,

Sorry of having let you ask me the question - I could post the reference since the previous post but if I expose "all my science" since the departure there is no discussion anymore - you invited me in welcoming not to be afraid to be gauche; although it is thank to some interventions like your previous one that I am afraid to be gauche...

and I was enjoying to discuss with you

-Searching only (in french) electrons interference, I found directly a first reference, and the one I was thinking about as already the second result; it is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ-0PBRuthc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj5f1U6GEX8
-the second is drawn.

Enjoy it.

P.S.:
I have read all your above message. Please, keep your smileys away when you are angry. You know I am french-speaking originally, and you hide conventional understood in your text.

Your argument about the ones "having answers" and the others "making the efforts" seems to be pertinent; but is not - you should know that as there is one job for each one, this is precisely to avoid the other in re-making the wheel in all the domains.

You invoques your rules as a forumer ? -These above are the rules of the society, if you was not aware of that. You want to make your own prozelyte morals ? -I am better at this.

I don't keep smillies away, it annoys the smiley brigade on this forum who think they are the boss of emotion. Reason enough to use them ad infinitum if I ever saw one, they think emotion is not a contextual thing in argument, they are morons. I mean have you actually ever fucking had an argument or dicusssion in real life or are you a fucking mushroom. Did you express emotion, yeah you did, hence who the fuck cares you pandering to nothing minority mouth breather faggots, and that's not a slande on the gays, that's a slander on people who live their life following memes like some mushroom drone because emotion to them is hard, and argument only exists in a fucking dry vacuum of useles cuntery.

I have emotions, the rest of the wankers can lick my chuddies if they want.

Fuck me what a bunch of useless cunts some people are. I follow the meme. Christ your a ****.

Which adrotily shows I think what I think of people who can't use emoticons because they are dead inside, whilst at the same time showing what I think of sheeple who follow the meme herd. Which is nice.

When you really learn to think without being told how to, the social conventions become vague rules, when you can actually invent something, the social conventions become tools. Some people can't use tools, little more than remedial mammals with a hard on methinks.

And by the way this whole you thing is so hokey it's scary. Discuss things, I don't matter, if the mods want to send me a message I am sure they can like adults do so, face to face without you speaking for them...

B,

I have read you in diagonal, and I don't see what you are thinking about the story reproducing the experiment (second link)...

Apparently, you are angry due to the fact I have not posted the links form my first post, and moreover, you don't seem to be interested in the topic (as you could by taking a position for or against the links)...

I put you under parenthesis for a more or less longer time.