Uncle

Synthesist: bringing things together
Seeker: the essence of the problem
Realist: man is the measure of all things

Maybe what you've written isn't worth a reply

[Uncle @cosmops2]

Fraudulent papers are published because publishing and peer review standards are low.
https://t.co/vxySgPTW22
For example, this paper, https://t.co/sRZfRFXVxf, published in the New Journal of Physics, Volume 15, March 2013, reports on a slit experiment in which the slits were selectable and particles could be emitted singly. It reports a double-slit single-particle test, but not a single-slit single-particle test.

There's good reason to run that test; uniquely in slit experiments, no interference is possible in the single-slit single-particle test. It is therefore a definitive test of wave-particle duality, and who would not want to be the first to announce its experimental confirmation?

I just don't understand it as presented: means, motive and opportunity all existed for the performance of the single-slit single-particle test and there's no reason to refrain from performing it. But either that's what they did or they performed it and refrained from reporting it. Why? Why didn't the reviewers ask why? Why didn't the publisher ask why?

The only answer I can see lies in the result of performing it: the pattern that builds up shows diffraction, which disproves wave-particle duality; from the experimenters' point of view, there must be something wrong.

The experimenters look; they can't find any problems with the setup and they can't find any reports of the single-slit single-particle test. The experimenters think; they can't find anything wrong but they could have missed something; that result's never been reported before; it must be an anomaly.

It's unthinkable to report it as a valid result, and if they report it as an anomaly, their competence will be called into question. So they take the easy way out: they omit all mention of the single-slit single-particle test. In so doing, they suppress a discovery and render those who follow vulnerable to making the same mistake. That's not science: it's dogma, and it's fraud.

And the reviewers and publisher let them get away with it.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

Since 1801, physics has taken Young's experiment as a definitive contradiction of Newton's particle model of light, but it's not. Every variation of it that has been performed and reported so far is consistent with Newton's model via an explanation that wasn't available in Young's day; namely, that the particles of light, being massive, are affected by the gravitational effect of the electrons orbiting the atoms of the walls of the slits, and that since orbital motion is periodic, so too is that gravitational effect, and so too is the outcome. The photons' motions are affected periodically; the result is a regular pattern, and the results from accredited physicists' running of Young's experiment so far are consistent with both Huygens's and Newton's models and are therefore inconclusive.

Since 1839, physics has taken Bequerel's discovery of the photovoltaic effect as a definitive contradiction of Huygens's wave model of light, which it is, and which left them a seemingly unanswerable question because the particle explanation of Young's experiment wasn't yet available: if light is neither particle nor wave, what is it?

Since 1905, physics has taken Einstein's wave packet as the definitive answer. Many tests have been applied to it and to his Theory of Special Relativity (which depends upon it in the second postulate in On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies), and the reported results are always consistent with it and the theory. All tests are passed within the error bars, all predictions are true within the error bars...

But Young's experiment has never been completed. There are two variations of it that have never been performed (or never reported) by accredited physicists, and as it happens, both of them confirm Newton's particle model and contradict Huygens's wave model. I described both in posts on this platform repeatedly over the course of 2023. They have of course been ignored: as is usual with academics, only those who are accredited in a discipline are accepted as capable of contributing to it, or even worthy of being informed that they got it wrong, when that's the case.

So I'll just leave them here consolidated into one post.

The first became available when the double-slit variation replaced Young's original card variation: it's so simple that I can and did perform it myself. Mount the slit plane so that the slits are vertical and it can be rotated back and forth while the light traverses the slits. Wave theory predicts that the light will emerge from the slits normal to the plane they're etched on and thus that the pattern on the screen beyond the slits will move up and down as the slits are tilted back and forth. But it doesn't move, which is the prediction of Newton's particle model, and a definitive contradiction of Huygens's wave model and wave-particle duality.

I don't have the resources to perform the second, but universities do, and in fact I'm certain that it has been performed, probably many times over, but the experimenters can't accept it and don't report it. Because it's never reported, every experimenter sees only their own result, and can convince themselves that it's anomalous, not consistent. Run the single-slit experiment with solitary photons traversing the slit. According to the wave model, interference cannot occur: it therefore predicts zero diffraction, but my software simulation based on Newton's particle model of light predicts that diffraction will occur, again definitively contradicting Huygens's wave model and wave-particle duality.

I've seen comment to the effect that according to Quantum Mechanics, a solitary wave can interfere with itself. I caution you to remember that valid mathematical formulae do not always describe reality, and that there is no observed result anywhere, at any time, in any circumstance, that justifies explaining single-particle single-slit diffraction with such an assumption.

This won't go away, you know: Newton's particle model of light is confirmed and Huygens's wave model is contradicted by experiment and by simulation (and if you perform the second experiment, by two distinct experiments), which breaks Special Relativity and explains why the theories that depend on it have taken such a beating since JWST became operational. It leaves in its wake the problem of creating a new fundamental theory of physics, which I, not having all the information accredited physicist have, cannot do, but I do have some of the infornation necessary...

Postulate matter as composed of particles, from which gravitational force fields emanate at c.

Postulate gravitational force as acting through through those fields, which merge additively when they intersect, and which impel particles of matter into motion.

Define a field energy factor:
{-(c),c}: 0.
(1) φ(v,a,θ) = <
R* \ {-(c),c}: sgn(c - v) sqrt(1 / abs(1 - (v + sinθ a)² / c²)),
where v is the linear velocity of the accelerated masses relative to each other, θ is the angle of approach or recession and a is a list of angular velocity parameters. These can be real numbers or real number pairs, say (k,f), where k is a body’s radius of gyration, f is its phase frequency and a = kf is its angular velocity,

Apply φ() to Newton's gravitational force equation and his energy and momentum equations:

(2) F = G φ(v,a,θ) M m / d².
(3) E = ½ φ(v,a) m (v + a)².
(4) P = φ(v,a) m(v + a).

Those answer the questions answered by both SR and GR, including that raised by the precession of Mercury's perihelion.

And it's compatible with QM. String Theory too.
--------
* R, the Real Number set.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

You choose to denigrate and even suppress Australia Day celebrations and support Ramadan, which is for Muslims only: enemies of our way of life; barbarian followers of the absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin. You are traitors to Australia and you are traitors to Western civilisation; you will not be forgiven by us, and you will not be thanked by them. You and you idiotology are mad.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

@Lilith_Atheist Stalin attended a Russian Orthodox seminary, maintained a core Russian Orthodox community throughiut his regime, and according to his daughter, was a believer.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

The result of that is significantly more evaporation, which results in significantly more precipitation, especially on Antarctica, on which the ice is growing.

Despite water's expansion with increasing temperature, sea level has risen just 4" since the 19th century. The amount of ice on Antarctica has been growing for years and will continue to grow as long as evaporation continues at higher levels than in the past.

Ice can accumulate: the expansion of water can not. Sea level rise will begin to peter out once the global average temperature stabilises. Sea levels might even fall back.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

Nope. The Expanding Universe Theory is contradicted by blue shift, as with Andromeda.
@skdh #Astrophysics #Physics
The "local group" notion does not explain the contradiction away. "Local" groups cannot form in a Big Bang, and if they could, they'd have coalesced long before 13.8 billion years had passed. "Local" groups cannot form after a Big Bang, because gravity is to weak to form them.

And it doesn't matter how clever your theory is, it can't explain what ain't.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

@DulwichQuantum @skdh Given that quantum computing doesn't work, never worked, will not work, cannot be made to work under any circumstances...

Nope.
@skdh #Physics #Quantum

[Warrior Princess @TheQuietAustra7]

Bolt:
Sam Kerr incident exposes Left hypocrisy
The Sam Kerr “white bastard” allegations have proven that many on the Left are racists, despite all their Aboriginal flags and bended knees.

Truth 💣

[Uncle @cosmops2]

@marquelawyers For an actual definition of racism that isn't politically perverted legal codswallop, consult the English language.
https://t.co/NXo3h0c7Qx

[Uncle @cosmops2]

Pointing out that they're fake women does.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

This👇is your love, forgivenes and lasting peace.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

@JohnWake3 @malcfairbairn When the qubit comes in with more errors than sin, that's a quantum.

Quantum come, quantum go, errors pile up and flow like a damburst,
You just might as well make a jam sandwich with eggs and liverwurst.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

The problem with physics is that in 1905, it went "not even wrong".

[Uncle @cosmops2]

@nafshordi @malcfairbairn No-one's justifying it, you idiot: just pointing the finger in the right direction: at Hamas.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

@brikeilarcnn @malcfairbairn Just imagine... if it weren't for Hamas's murderous lunacy, there'd have been no terror attack on Israel. no self-defence action by Israel, and pf course, no use by Hamas of the Palestinan people as human shields.

None of those deaths would have occurred.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

That's because you know squat. You're an ignoramus: probably a racist. The only thing you got right is the irrelevance of a knee on the ground and that he was able (intermittently) to talk. What's not irrelevant is that the the copper kept the pressure on until Floyd was dead. Not just passed out, but DEAD.

Read this, you ignorant fuck.
https://t.co/ZPhVZzTU8T
"The medical examiner found that Floyd's heart stopped while he was being restrained and that his death was a homicide,[64][65] caused by "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression",[2] though fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use may have increased the likelihood of death.[66][67]A second autopsy, commissioned by Floyd's family,[68][69]also found his death to be a homicide, specifically citing asphyxia due to neck and back compression;[70][68][71]it ruled out that any underlying medical problems had contributed to Floyd's death,[72]and said that Floyd being able to speak while under Chauvin's knee does not mean he could breathe.[72]."

[Uncle @cosmops2]

@malcfairbairn @skdh Nope. I don't accept the notion of dark matter.. I think it's a silly idea.

The Expanding Universe Theory is contradicted by blue shift. The "local group" notion does not rescue it.

Without the EUT, there's no scientific basis for postulating dark matter.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

@malcfairbairn @skdh I don't think so. If it were a possibility, you'd think it would gave happened already, perhaps millions of times in the 13.8 billion years since the Big Bang. You'd think the astronomers would have seen it repeatedly.

I think this is just another grant-raising postulate.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

@TestPiloteer @DulwichQuantum @skdh @PeterZeihan @michiokaku Remember when the mad scientist was an entertaining myth?

[Uncle @cosmops2]

You still don't get it. Expense isn't the problem. Collecting the antimatter is. We can't do it.

If we could, expense still wouldn't be the problem. Containment would. We're not much good at generating high-gauss magnetic fields. The generators required would be hundreds of tons. Turn them off and the antimatter would annihilate a tiny fraction of the mass if its containment vessel.

Let's say it generated energy equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT. All of that is expended in heating the containment vessel and splattering the surrounds with it. There'd be quite a bit of shrapnel damage, and some heat damage, but that's it.

And how are you going to transport a device weighing hundreds of tons to the target? A similar mass of one-ton conventional devices would do much more damage much more easily.

[Uncle @cosmops2]

@ianmiles Seems wokeness is on the nose in most countries. Thing is, for elections, how do we get non-woke candidates onto the ballot?