| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Landle" |
| Date: |
22 Jan 2005 01:26:12 AM |
| Object: |
Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
I'd like to share Mark Mccutcheon take on it. For those who don't
know. Mark is the bestseller author of the book "The Final
Theory" which became a bestseller and praised by many...see
www.thefinaltheory.com
While I don't agree generally with Mccutcheon theory of expanding
matter. I like the part where he attempted to debunk Quantum
Mechanics by pointing out the objective reality underneath it. He
discussed about Planck Quanta, Light particle/wave duality and
the double slit experiment. He also dealt with the Photoelectric
effect, Compton scattering, Polarization, Quantum Entanglement,
ec.. Since one of your requirement for a new theory is that
it must explain the 4 basic stuff which he did. I'd share
what he wrote about them. If someone can debunk what
he said convincingly in the following (Bjoern?). I'd no
longer question QM and would put posters of de Broglie in my room
and also focus on M-theory from then on and transfer to
sci.physics.strings and leave you guys in peace :)
Now debunk him point by point and expedite my departure. I'd
continue my comment at the end of this article where I'd mix it
with Seto and Thomson Aether model to produce the mechanism
whereby the single photon double slit experiment can be explained
in their Aether Models.
Mark Mccutcheon wrote:
The Misunderstanding of "Quantized Energy"
In fact, a number of observations that currently stand as
"quantum-mechanical mysteries" have already been shown to have
much clearer and more rational explanations in Expansion Theory.
Recall the discussion of atomic structure in the previous
chapter, where it was suggested that the mysterious statistical
appearances of orbiting electrons to form "probability clouds"
are simply the result of bouncing electrons sampled at random
points in mid-bounce. Also, recall earlier in this chapter that
the current des cription of light as "photons of energy" is
another mysterious quantum-mechanical concept that is clearly
explained by the electron cluster concept of Expansion Theory.
Such examples suggest that the bizarre nature of Quantum Theory
is due to the fact that it is actually an attempt to describe
subatomic expansion without any knowledge of its existence. With
enough effort and resourcefulness we will eventually find an
abstraction to model any observation we wish to explain, no
matter what len gths we must go to in order to achieve this end.
It is suggested that Quantum Theory is one such example where our
mathematical and conceptual resourcefulness has prevailed over
the actual physical truths, as shown by the concept of "energy
quantization".
NEW IDEA: "Energy Quantization" is the merely a reference to
individual electrons".
Another feature of Quantum Theory is its explanation of energy.
Light energy, in particular, is commonly used to explore and
display the apparently quantum-mechanical nature of energy, which
is largely embodied in the concept of "energy photons." These
photons are considered to be tiny particle-like packets of
energy, which can vary in the amount of energy they contain. This
photon theory of light was supported by experiments that
displayed effects that scientists could not explain via Classical
Mechanics, such as the photoelectric effect to be discussed
shortly.
These photons were further shown to be quantized, meaning at any
energy difference from one photon to another cannot vary by an
arbitrary amount, but must occur in discrete quantized jumps or
steps. The size of these steps is extremely tiny, described by a
value known as Planck's constant, after Maxwell Planck
(1858-1947). The discovery of this tiny quantum jump between
allowed energy levels was a revolutionary discovery since it
meant that nature is not smooth and continuous at its most
elementary level, b ut that even pure energy comes in tiny
"grains" of some sort that are smaller even than photons. This
discovery is an observed phenomenon that has been given a
mathematical description in Quantum Theory, but it has never been
explained in clear physical terms.
However, once again, this unexplained quantum abstraction and
mystery has a clear physical explanation in Expansion Theory.
Recall that according to Expansion Theory these "energy photons"
Composing light are actually clusters of electrons, which clearly
shows that the discrete "quantum-mechanical energy jumps" between
them follow naturally from the fact that electron clusters can
only vary by multiples of whole electrons. Small as it is, the
single-electron variation between electron clusters is the likely
explanation for the tiny "energy quantization" seen in
experiments and described by Planck's constant in
quantum-mechanical equations of "photon energy." This is yet
another example showing that Quantum Mechanics can be a useful
tool for investigating and describing previously unknown aspects
of our world in the search for understanding, but it does not
actually provide that physical understanding itself.
The Misunderstanding of the Nature of Light
Today's quantum-mechanical characterization of light as tiny
packets of quantized energy also lies behind the well-known
mystery or paradox referred to as the wave-particle duality of
light. For centuries there has been an ongoing debate as to
whether light is a wave or a particle.
Today, it now appears that we have experimental evidence for
light behaving like both a wave and a particle. Quantum Theory
states that a traveling beam of light exists in a bizarre state
where nature has not yet "decided" whether it will be a wave or a
particle until it is detected. It is thought that the method of
detection itself breaks nature's uncertainty and forces the
reality of either a wave or a particle to manifest itself.
This concept does not state that the detection of light simply
exposes whether it was originally transmitted as a wave or
particle, since the same beam of transmitted light can be
detected as either a wave or a particle simply based on the
method chosen for its later detection. Instead, Quantum Theory
states that it is only once the light is detected as either a
particle or a wave that its originally transmitted nature is
"decided" by the universe. That is, according to Quantum Theory,
there is a bizarre ef fect in nature that reaches back in space
and time instantaneously - even across billions of light years to
distant stars - to define whether a wave or a particle was
originally transmitted, based purely on the outcome of its later
detection.
This mysterious and completely unexplainable claim of
instantaneous backward time travel is the currently accepted
scientific interpretation of experimental results today - a claim
that is commonly held up as a key example of the bizarre and
purely probabilistic nature of not only Quantum Theory but,
presumably, of the universe itself. However, as will be shown
shortly, Expansion Theory does not require such fanciful
explanations of our experimental results; but first, it is
important to clarify what we mea n when we speak of light waves,
and in fact, waves in general.
Waves and the "Wave Nature of Light"
The world around us has many examples of wavelike behavior, and
basic wave theory often represents such phenomena as purely
conceptual, disembodied oscillations in space. Such wave theory
states that when two waves line up in phase so that their peaks
coincide, as well as their troughs, these peaks and troughs add
together to form a single larger wave in what is known as
constructive interference. Likewise, when two waves are out of
phase so that the peaks of one wave coincide with the troughs of
the other, the peaks and troughs cancel in destructive
interference (Fig. 5-7).
Although this is a common conceptualization of wave interaction,
a closer look shows that it is an idealized abstraction that does
not strictly apply to the real world from which it was extracted.
In actuality, such a model describes idealized, disembodied waves
frozen in space and time, then mathematically added together.
While this may be a convenient model for discussing wave
behavior, such idealized frozen waves are not representative of
true waves in nature. The real waves around us are actually all
dy namic manifestations of the wave-like behavior of physical
matter, not literal idealized waves of frozen "energy" that
neatly add together as shown. Both our diagrams and our
mathematical descriptions of waves tend to represent them in this
somewhat misleading manner. Even in situations where idealized
standing waves appear to exist in the real world, such as a
rapidly vibrating guitar string, they still result from Ongoing
dynamic wave-like vibrations of physical matter.
For example, sound waves are not waves of pure "sound energy,"
but rather, bands of alternating compressed and decompressed air
molecules that are conducted along through the atmosphere in a
sort Of "domino effect" - a wave-like behavior of matter. Water
waves are also the dynamic wavelike behavior of matter in the
form of water molecules that rise and fall in an ongoing
succession - again, a matter wave composed of water molecules. In
fact, every waveform that we know of in nature - without
exception - is actually the dynamic Wavelike behavior of a large
number of matter particles moving in unison. Although such
wavelike behavior of matter may lend itself to representations in
static diagrams of idealized waves that add mathematically, it is
a conceptual oversight to assume that such pure "energy waves"
literally exist in the real world and interact via such
mathematical principles. The idealized frozen waves in the
conceptualization of Figure 5-7 - presumably waves of pure energy
- do not act ually exist any where in nature.
It may be tempting to dispute this conclusion by referring to the
example of light, which today's science tells us is composed of
waves of pure energy - that is, at least some of the time.
However, the true nature of light has been in dispute for
centuries, and the concept of light as pure energy waves" is
merely an idealization that has been borrowed from wavelike
behavior of matter in the world around us. A close look at this
issue shows that the description of electromagnetic radiation as
pure 46 energy waves" is an unsubstantiated human invention that
does not exist anywhere else in nature, and which even leads to a
violation of the laws of physics.
VIOLATION: Classical Wave Theory Violates the Laws of Physics
This is an important realization since it shows that not only do
pure "energy waves" have no proven existence in nature but
neither does their idealized wave behavior shown in Figure 5-7.
We can artificially draw waves on paper and add them together
mathematically such that they neatly reinforce or cancel each
other, but this is merely a human conceptual artifact that does
not strictly occur in this manner in the real world. And in fact,
if it did occur, it would be a violation of the laws of physics.
To see this, consider the destructive interference shown in
Figure 5-8. Instead of two idealized parallel waves, we have two
parallel laser beams emitting identical pure frequencies of light
such that they are also out of phase in the same manner as shown
earlier in the righthand frame of Figure 5-7. If the laser beams
were brought together so that they overlapped, then, according to
the pure wave theory of destructive interference, they would
simply "cancel" each other out. That is, both lasers produce lig
ht energy that immediately vanishes into thin air - no heat, no
other forms of radiation, but simply complete annihilation. This
would be the expectation according to current wave theory
regardless of the amount of energy involved, even many thousands
of watts of power. This is not a transformation of energy from
one form to another according to our laws of physics, but an
absolute destruction of energy, and once again, a clear violation
of t he Law of Conservation Of Energy.
Of course, this complete disappearance of any arbitrary amount of
energy without a trace simply due to a phase difference does not
actually occur in reality, showing that the purely mathematical
abstraction of "energy waves" and their idealized interference
patterns is not a true description of the physical world. More
importantly, this shows that lightdoes not actually behave like a
wave of pure energy even in the simplest possible experiment -
that of two identical waves of a single pure frequency meeting ,
as shown earlier in Figure 5-7. If light did behave as an
idealized wave then its energy would have to vanish into thin air
in our laser beam example, which it clearly does not do. Yet, the
idealized concept of constructive and destructive interference of
light has long been held as proof of the more classical, wavelike
behavior of pure "light energy." This flawed belief has persisted
because selective evidence has been used to support the pure wave
concept of light in our science. Despite the fact that this
simple laser experiment seriously challenges the concept of pure
waves of light energy, such evidence is overlooked in favor of
other experiments that, on the surface, appear to fit the pure
energy wave hypothesis. Once such classic experiment is the
Double-Slit Experiment, which will be examined shortly.
This idealization of light as waves of pure energy is, in large
part, responsible for the apparent paradox of the "wave-particle
duality, of light in our science, yet the preceding example calls
this very notion into question. How can we have a wave-particle
paradox when we have yet to confirm that light ever behaves as a
true energy wave? Further, the physical explanation of light in
Expansion Theory shows that it is not sometimes a particle and
sometimes a wave of pure energy, but that it is simply compos ed
of clusters of dynamically expanding electrons - i.e. light is
entirely a manifestation of physical matter. All evidence so far
points to the fact that idealized waves, and waves of pure
"energy," do not actually exist in nature, but are exclusively a
human conceptual invention. Therefore, the wave-particle duality
issue seems to be more of a conceptual oversight than a true
paradox in nature. This possibility is examined further in the
follow ing discussions of some of the classic light experiments
suppo rting our current quantum-mechanical beliefs about light
and energy.
EXPERIMENT: Rethinking the Classic Double-Slit Experiment
The double-slit experiment, first performed by Thomas Young in
1801, has become a classic experiment in our science because it
is thought to show both the wave nature of light as well as the
paradox of its dual wave-particle nature. This experiment simply
involves a barrier with two vertical slits, through which light
is able to pass. The idea is that light passing through these
slits will emerge on the other side and radiate outward as two
separate cones of light that will interfere with each other in
patt erns of constructive and destructive interference. And
indeed, with the proper selection of slit width and separation
distance between the slits, the emerging light does interfere and
cause light and dark bands on a far screen (Fig. 5-9).
This experiment is thought to be analogous to the interference
pattern that can be observed between water waves radiating from
two nearby disturbances in. a pond. Likewise, since light is
thought to be a wave of pure energy - and, in theory, idealized
waves that meet out of phase cancel each other out - the light
and dark bands have traditionally been interpreted as
constructive/destructive interference bands, validating the wave
theory of light. However, a simple experiment with overlapping
lasers, as discussed earlier, shows that light cannot be made to
cancel itself out of existence in the manner idealized in
abstract wave theory. In fact, it is a violation of the laws of
physics to even expect energy to vanish in the physical world in
this manner. So, although light and dark interference bands do
occur within the two overlapping cones of light, the dark bands
canno t be regions where waves of disembodied "light energy"
cance l each other out of existence any more than waves of
disembodied "water energy" cancel each other out in a pond. The
analogous interference pattern with water waves results from the
interaction of wavelike oscillations of matter particles (water
molecules), and so, the logical conclusion is that the
interference pattern in light is a similar manifestation of
matter particle interaction. This Would be expected if light were
actually a sea of electron clusters radiating out into space, as
shown in Expan sion T heory.
NOTE: The double-slit experiment has been misinterpreted as
evidence for the "wave theory" of light, but is actually evidence
of an interaction between groups of particles.
A further reason the double-slit experiment is a classic is
because it is also thought to show a deeply mysterious
wave-particle paradox. The paradox supposedly arises when the
intensity of the light beam is reduced to the point where only
single photons of light are transmitted one-at-a-time from the
light source. This means there should no longer be two cones of
light interfering with each other, but rather, separate light
photons traveling one at a time through one slit or the other. If
these photons the n proceed on and strike a photographic plate,
the cumulative effect over time should develop into two bright
spots on the plate - one for each slit that a photon might pass
through. However, the actual result is an interference pattern
much like the original experiment with the full light beam. This
is thought to show that, even when light is sent toward the slits
as individual particles one-at-a-time, it can still produce a
wavelike interference pattern. It is completely unexplained how t
hese individual pa rticles seem to "know" how to land in a
wavelike interference pattern on the photographic plate, doing so
even though the scenario is no longer one of interference between
two waves. This is the famous wave-particle duality paradox of
the double-slit experiment, showing that even single particles of
light mysteriously act as if they were waves passing through both
slits simultaneously.
Taking a fresh look at this apparent paradox, we can now see that
it is not actually a wave-particle paradox at all. It was just
shown that even the original interference pattern in Figure 5-9
is not a proven "energy wave" phenomenon, but merely resembles
known interference patterns between waves of particles. So, the
actual mystery of the double-slit experiment is not that these
particles of light somehow individually produce the interference
pattern of "pure waves," but only that individual particles seem
to still produce the original group particle interference
pattern. With this clarification, the experiment simply leaves us
with the question of whether this is truly a situation of
separate particles fired one-at-a-time through the slits. As
shown in the earlier discussion of light passing through a glass
block, the current Quantum Mechanical theory of "energy photons"
behaving like projectiles shot individually through space is
unsupported by experiment. Despite the evidence against such an
idea, this is precisely the claim that is made in the double-slit
experiment; therefore, there is good reason to question even this
facet of the experiment. Evidence is mounting for the possibilit
y that th e entire classic double-slit experiment may simply be a
series of logical and experimental oversights regarding the
nature and behavior of light. So then, what are we to make of the
interference pattern when it is thought that individual photons
are passing one-at-a time through the slits?
Expansion Theory shows that light proceeds through space as a sea
of expanding electron clusters pushing each other away from the
light source. It is such an expanding beam of particles that
arrives at the double slits to cause the original interference
pattern on the other side much as a wall of water molecules would
behave after passing through two such openings. When the light
intensity is reduced to the point where Standard Theory claims it
produces single photons, Expansion Theory would maintain that c
ontinuous beams of electron clusters are still produced, but are
very short-lived and sporadic since the light source is just on
the verge of being turned off. We can picture the earlier
description of agitated pools of electrons on the surface of a
light-bulb filament, but rather than a continuous supply of
electrons pooling and expanding off as a sea of clusters, the
supply is only barely enough to produce sporadic bursts of
clusters. Each bu rst would only extend a short distance through
space before its supply of electron clusters suddenly cuts off at
the source, in favor of producing another such burst a short
while later.
Since a regular-intensity light beam would normally expand across
the entire distance from the source to the detector, our
detectors are designed to trigger based on this forceful stream
of electron clusters continually arriving under their combined
expansion pressure. If such a beam has its source cut off before
arriving, it becomes an orphaned partial stream of electron
clusters in mid-air that is free to dissipate much of its
expansion pressure before reaching the detector. This is rather
like a string c oiled against a wall, which shoots away from the
wall and strikes a nearby target when it allowed to uncoil. If
the wall is removed part-way through the uncoiling process, the
spring is unable to launch itself forward with its normal full
strengh and strikes the target with much less force. In fact,
depending on when the wall is removed, the spring may not even
make it all the way to the target. Similarly, the space between
the source and the detector in the double-slit experiment may be
filled with bursts of unseen partial light beams that are unable
to trigger the detector but nonetheless pass through the slits
and interfere with each other much as before. The occasional beam
that is supplied by the source long enough to be detected
(currently thought of as a single photon fired across the
distance) would still be affected by interference between these
unseen light beams; it would simply take longer to build up the
interference pattern at the detector".
------------------------------------------
Back to Landle....
Now I'd combine this with Thomson Aether Physics Model to produce
the mechanism whereby the double slit experiment can be explained
in Thomson APM. I can't do it yet with Seto because I haven't
understood completely his hypotheses owing to very few details
shared in the site. But with Thomson his site gives great details
of them that one can grasp it easily.
To begin. Thomson said that photons are expanding angular
momentum. So in the double slit experiment. The detection of a
"photon" is when the detector has been triggered based on this
forceful stream of expanding angular momentum continually
arriving under their combined pressure from the valence electrons
Aether units. Note that in APM, the angular momentum can come
from different Aether units in a given energy level hence the
photon is not a singular angular momentum but in plural. This is
why I asked in a separate thread how a single photon could be
produced when a light beam contained millions of photons. Even if
the new LED can produce it from interaction with one electron,
the angular momentum can still be released by multiple Aether
units in a given energy level. Now the space between the source
and the detector in the double-slit experiment may be filled with
bursts of unseen partial light beams or expanding angular
momentum that are unable to trigger the detector but nonetheless
pass through the slits and interfere with each other much as
before. I'm using a portion of Mccutcheon explanation and words
now. And the occasional beam that is supplied by the source long
enough to be detected (currently thought of as a single photon
fired across the distance) would still be affected by
interference between these unseen light beams; it would simply
take longer to build up the interference pattern at the detector.
Now that's my version of how the one photon double slit
experiment can be explained in Thomson Aether Model. That's from
me Landle. Mccutcheon has explained about polarization and
Quantum Entanglement too so it can be applied to Thomson model
too. Well. Of course I think Thomson has his own explanation which
he hasn't shared at the web site. I hope he can share it now if he
has in mind one with more detailed process or in the future (if
he is reading this). To Seto. I hope you can explain the single
photon double slit experiments using your Model Mechanics. S.
Enterprize can do likewise. I only know these 3 people here who
has complete aether models. If you have one too. Let me know...
Lastly before I go. Well frankly.. I'm kinda weary of all this
Aether thing already. If Bjoern can prove what Mccutchion
described in the article above is totally BS. Then I'm off to
sci.physics.strings and outta here and may your guys discuss in
peace (and we can give praise to the lords of QM... Schrodinger,
deBroglie, Plancks, Einstein if they are entirely correct that
photon is a singular particle with the behavior of wave even if
it defies logic).
Landle
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 09:05:10 AM |
|
|
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106378772.782188.22580@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to share Mark Mccutcheon take on it. For those who don't
know. Mark is the bestseller author of the book "The Final
Theory" which became a bestseller and praised by many...see
www.thefinaltheory.com
While I don't agree generally with Mccutcheon theory of expanding
matter.
Since you have proven yourself to possess neither knowledge nor
reasoning powers, you are not in a position to agree or disagree with
anything, not even a book cokmposed of sheep dung.
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 09:41:44 PM |
|
|
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106378772.782188.22580@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If someone can debunk what
he said convincingly in the following (Bjoern?). I'd no
longer question QM and would put posters of de Broglie in my room
and also focus on M-theory from then on and transfer to
sci.physics.strings and leave you guys in peace :)
Fankly, dear Landle, Old Man doesn't give a damn.
Old Man isn't inclined to do Landle any favors.
What Landle does has no impact on the world.
That Landle publicly acts upon his delusions to
competency is harmful only to Landle.
Landle is free to spew intellectual garbage. Old Man
is equally free to exercise his right to ignore it.
[Old Man]
Landle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "volantis" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanic |
17 Feb 2005 11:45:10 PM |
|
|
Landlewrote:
Back to Landle....
Now I'd combine this with Thomson Aether Physics Model to produce
the mechanism whereby the double slit experiment can be explained
in Thomson APM. I can't do it yet with Seto because I haven't
understood completely his hypotheses owing to very few details
shared in the site. But with Thomson his site gives great details
of them that one can grasp it easily.
Landle, contact me off list at news5@ volantis.org.
David Thomson
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 11:08:47 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
I'd like to share Mark Mccutcheon take on it. For those who don't
know. Mark is the bestseller author of the book "The Final
Theory" which became a bestseller and praised by many...see
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
Idiot crank.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 07:29:59 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
I'd like to share Mark Mccutcheon take on it.
Why? Do you fall for every crackpot you encounter?
For those who don't
know. Mark is the bestseller author of the book "The Final
Theory" which became a bestseller and praised by many...see
www.thefinaltheory.com
"bestseller" by what standards?
Are there any actually educated, knowledgeable people (e.g. people
who actually work in QM) among the "many" who praise it?
While I don't agree generally with Mccutcheon theory of expanding
matter. I like the part where he attempted to debunk Quantum
Mechanics by pointing out the objective reality underneath it.
Does he deal with Bell's theorem?
He discussed about Planck Quanta, Light particle/wave duality and
the double slit experiment.
You mean the horse dung you mentioned in the other thread?
He also dealt with the Photoelectric
effect, Compton scattering, Polarization, Quantum Entanglement,
ec..
I strongly suspect that his treatment of these effects is
also horse dung.
Since one of your requirement for a new theory is that
it must explain the 4 basic stuff which he did.
Did he give any *quantitative* explanations, or only the
handwaving horse dung you quoted in the other thread?
I'd share
what he wrote about them. If someone can debunk what
he said convincingly in the following (Bjoern?). I'd no
longer question QM
I don't believe you. You will just go looking for the next
crank and fall hook, line and sinker for his theories.
and would put posters of de Broglie in my room
I hope this is meant only as a joke...
and also focus on M-theory from then on and transfer to
sci.physics.strings and leave you guys in peace :)
I strongly double that you have the necessary knowledge
to understand M-theory.
Now debunk him point by point and expedite my departure. I'd
continue my comment at the end of this article where I'd mix it
with Seto and Thomson Aether model to produce the mechanism
whereby the single photon double slit experiment can be explained
in their Aether Models.
Mark Mccutcheon wrote:
The Misunderstanding of "Quantized Energy"
In fact, a number of observations that currently stand as
"quantum-mechanical mysteries"
"mysteries" only when one tries to understand them with
so-called "common sense".
have already been shown to have
much clearer and more rational explanations in Expansion Theory.
Recall the discussion of atomic structure in the previous
chapter, where it was suggested that the mysterious statistical
appearances of orbiting electrons to form "probability clouds"
are simply the result of bouncing electrons sampled at random
points in mid-bounce.
Did he explain any results of scattering experiments *quantitatively*
based on this hypothesis? He didn't, right?
Also, recall earlier in this chapter that
the current description of light as "photons of energy"
A strawman. The current description of light is much more
than simply "photons of energy". The last three word even
do not make much sense.
is another mysterious quantum-mechanical concept
Again, only mysterious if one insists on classical pictures
of particles, as little billiard-balls.
that is clearly
explained by the electron cluster concept of Expansion Theory.
Handwaving.
Such examples suggest that the bizarre nature of Quantum Theory
is due to the fact that it is actually an attempt to describe
subatomic expansion without any knowledge of its existence.
Such a sentence suggests that the author has never bothered
to study the *huge* literature on quantum mechanical experiments
and possible interpretations of QM, and what their problems are.
With
enough effort and resourcefulness we will eventually find an
abstraction to model any observation we wish to explain, no
matter what lengths we must go to in order to achieve this end.
It is suggested that Quantum Theory is one such example where our
mathematical and conceptual resourcefulness has prevailed over
the actual physical truths, as shown by the concept of "energy
quantization".
A lot of empty rhetoric.
NEW IDEA: "Energy Quantization" is the merely a reference to
individual electrons".
Another feature of Quantum Theory is its explanation of energy.
Light energy, in particular, is commonly used to explore and
display the apparently quantum-mechanical nature of energy,
What on earth is "quantum-mechanical nature of energy" supposed to mean?
which is largely embodied in the concept of "energy photons."
For the term "energy photons": see above.
Need I really go on? It is 100% clear that he does not
understand QM and has never bothered to actually read up
on it and possible interpretations and their problems
thoroughly. He makes nonsensical statements, attacks
straw men etc.
If you really want, Landle, I will look at the remaining
stuff you quoted, too - but I see no point in this...
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 02:17:47 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
[snipped away all crank rubbish]
hey Landle AKA Caltechdude AKA crank theory fan. i thought after
yesterday's humiliation you'd disappear from here already. apparently
not, it seems you are shameless and have a hide is as thick as a
rhino's. here you can create your own group at the following link, and
invite all your crank friends there:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/create
you can call your group whatever you want, though
alt.crank.physics,new-theories would be good. so, go on, disappear
already...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 06:51:29 AM |
|
|
What's the matter with you. I don't mind about me or
what. I just want to know the truth. For more than
a decade I experienced many strange things that has
no known correlates in physics. Yes. I live in
the Philippines but came from China. I've encountered
the most extreme paranormal events that you westerners
can only dream about. I've met thousands of people
in both China and the Philippines with extreme
paranormal experiences that can be demonstrated.
Yes. Let's settle it by challenging James Randi
himself. I can convince him... if I have the chance
to visit the US. I came to this group to understand
what is the possible physics of it all that enable
the existences of paranormal events. My sole purpose
is to understand the truth. I don't mind what people
think of me.. for I'm not here to make a name. I
don't have web sites or advertisement to spread.
I don't have books to sell. I'm just your normal
guy who wants only the truth. For only the truth
matters to me. I can demonstrate you, bryan that
paranormal events are real. I live my entire life
around them. So I really need to understand the
physics of it at any cost so everything tallies with
reality. Now if you ignore the paranormal
and possible physics of it and you are basically
ignoring them all. You are just escaping reality.
Sometimes I use different nicks for different topics
in many groups just to divide between different
ideas. I have questions in cosmology, quantum
mechanics, General relativity, etc. and I use different
nicks for each of them (Like Peter, Pan, Candy). I
used over 20 nicks in discussion groups at one time.
I never intend to deceive anyone. All use nicks here
anyway. I just don't want people to focus on me that's
why I use nicks. The important thing is the topics,
not the personality.. only the ideas and subjects
matter. If I use my aol name. You'll never know. Let's
see if you can recognize me in the future in case this
ends here and you don't want to even discuss about
paranormal events which I'm categorical exist and can
prove to you in time. Yes. I can prove it to all the
people in this group... I accept $20,000 challenge to
prove that paranormal events are real and they are so
commonplace in the Philippines and China. BTW... I'm
not a crackpot fan. I analyze those "fringe" stuff
with potential or probability to have trace of truth
to get a clue about reality that is never shown in
the Standard Model. So how can you tell me to focus
on the Standard Model when it is obviously lacking
and can't explain paranormal events. This is the
main purpose why I study other avenues. I'm not
a crackpot, ok? I'm studying these all to help explain
the extreme paranormal events and experiences I've
encounter with myself and thousands of others worldwide.
This message goes to Jim Black as well.
Landle
bryant_j_j@yahoo.com wrote:
Landle wrote:
[snipped away all crank rubbish]
hey Landle AKA Caltechdude AKA crank theory fan. i thought after
yesterday's humiliation you'd disappear from here already. apparently
not, it seems you are shameless and have a hide is as thick as a
rhino's. here you can create your own group at the following link,
and
invite all your crank friends there:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/create
you can call your group whatever you want, though
alt.crank.physics,new-theories would be good. so, go on, disappear
already...
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 02:08:47 PM |
|
|
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106398289.113832.241450@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| What's the matter with you. I don't mind about me or
| what. I just want to know the truth. For more than
| a decade I experienced many strange things that has
| no known correlates in physics. Yes. I live in
| the Philippines but came from China. I've encountered
| the most extreme paranormal events that you westerners
| can only dream about. I've met thousands of people
| in both China and the Philippines with extreme
| paranormal experiences that can be demonstrated.
| Yes. Let's settle it by challenging James Randi
| himself. I can convince him... if I have the chance
| to visit the US. I came to this group to understand
| what is the possible physics of it all that enable
| the existences of paranormal events. My sole purpose
| is to understand the truth. I don't mind what people
| think of me.. for I'm not here to make a name. I
| don't have web sites or advertisement to spread.
| I don't have books to sell. I'm just your normal
| guy who wants only the truth. For only the truth
| matters to me. I can demonstrate you, bryan that
| paranormal events are real. I live my entire life
| around them. So I really need to understand the
| physics of it at any cost so everything tallies with
| reality. Now if you ignore the paranormal
| and possible physics of it and you are basically
| ignoring them all. You are just escaping reality.
| Sometimes I use different nicks for different topics
| in many groups just to divide between different
| ideas. I have questions in cosmology, quantum
| mechanics, General relativity, etc. and I use different
| nicks for each of them (Like Peter, Pan, Candy). I
| used over 20 nicks in discussion groups at one time.
| I never intend to deceive anyone. All use nicks here
| anyway. I just don't want people to focus on me that's
| why I use nicks. The important thing is the topics,
| not the personality.. only the ideas and subjects
| matter. If I use my aol name. You'll never know. Let's
| see if you can recognize me in the future in case this
| ends here and you don't want to even discuss about
| paranormal events which I'm categorical exist and can
| prove to you in time. Yes. I can prove it to all the
| people in this group... I accept $20,000 challenge to
| prove that paranormal events are real and they are so
| commonplace in the Philippines and China. BTW... I'm
| not a crackpot fan. I analyze those "fringe" stuff
| with potential or probability to have trace of truth
| to get a clue about reality that is never shown in
| the Standard Model. So how can you tell me to focus
| on the Standard Model when it is obviously lacking
| and can't explain paranormal events. This is the
| main purpose why I study other avenues. I'm not
| a crackpot, ok? I'm studying these all to help explain
| the extreme paranormal events and experiences I've
| encounter with myself and thousands of others worldwide.
| This message goes to Jim Black as well.
Hey! "Bio-cosmic energy" is not quantifiable and never will be. Physics
only deals with the part of nature that is quantifiable. So you are looking
in the wrong place.
"The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge."
Contemplate that statement fully and you will have your answer(s).
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 06:16:47 PM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
"The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge."
Contemplate that statement fully and you will have your answer(s).
"How many drunken angels can square dance on the head of a pin."
"How many thirsty camels may pass through a needle to reach Allah if they
bear wise men?"
8 )
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 10:07:48 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:P1CId.42903$_56.4652@fe2.texas.rr.com...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
|
| > "The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge."
| >
| > Contemplate that statement fully and you will have your answer(s).
|
| "How many drunken angels can square dance on the head of a pin."
|
| "How many thirsty camels may pass through a needle to reach Allah if they
| bear wise men?"
You missed. ;-) Hint: Metaphorically speaking, there is nothing thinner
than a razor's edge. Try again.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
23 Jan 2005 04:41:29 PM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
You missed. ;-) Hint: Metaphorically speaking, there is nothing
thinner than a razor's edge. Try again.
FrediFizzx
I.. sob... CAN'TTTTT... you set the rules! ! ! heh
uh, is the razor african or egyptian?
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
23 Jan 2005 08:32:27 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:tKVId.63292$Z%.33244@fe1.texas.rr.com...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > You missed. ;-) Hint: Metaphorically speaking, there is nothing
| > thinner than a razor's edge. Try again.
| >
| > FrediFizzx
|
| I.. sob... CAN'TTTTT... you set the rules! ! ! heh
|
| uh, is the razor african or egyptian?
Ahh! I can't believe you are going to give up so easy; it is really a
fairly simple trick statement. Another hint: The "answer(s)" you find
depends on whether you have a positive attitude or negative attitude.
If the path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge and nothing is thinner
than a razor's edge, then...
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 06:09:09 PM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
I just want to know the truth.
There is no truth in and/or of the universe. There is only what we can
observe and verify.
Get over it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 07:40:40 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
[snip]
I just want to know the truth.
I suggested several groups to you where you could proof
your claims about ESP. Did you alread contact them?
For more than
a decade I experienced many strange things that has
no known correlates in physics. Yes. I live in
the Philippines but came from China. I've encountered
the most extreme paranormal events that you westerners
can only dream about. I've met thousands of people
in both China and the Philippines with extreme
paranormal experiences that can be demonstrated.
Yes, there are a lot of con men in the Philippines.
Yes. Let's settle it by challenging James Randi
himself.
Good idea.
I can convince him... if I have the chance
to visit the US.
Not necessary. He travels around a lot, and there are
several groups in other countries who can at least do
preliminary tests. Again, I already suggested several groups...
[snip]
I can demonstrate you, bryan that
paranormal events are real.
How can you demonstrate that?
I live my entire life
around them. So I really need to understand the
physics of it at any cost so everything tallies with
reality. Now if you ignore the paranormal
and possible physics of it and you are basically
ignoring them all. You are just escaping reality.
Err, why shouldn't I ignore stuff for which there is
no credible evidence?
I could as well say "now if you ignore Quetzalcoatl
and the possible physics behind him, and you are basically
ignoring that all, you are just escaping reality".
Sometimes I use different nicks for different topics
in many groups just to divide between different
ideas. I have questions in cosmology, quantum
mechanics, General relativity, etc. and I use different
nicks for each of them (Like Peter, Pan, Candy). I
used over 20 nicks in discussion groups at one time.
I never intend to deceive anyone. All use nicks here
anyway.
Most people here in sci.physics use their *real* names.
I just don't want people to focus on me that's
why I use nicks. The important thing is the topics,
not the personality.. only the ideas and subjects
matter. If I use my aol name. You'll never know. Let's
see if you can recognize me in the future in case this
ends here and you don't want to even discuss about
paranormal events which I'm categorical exist and can
prove to you in time. Yes. I can prove it to all the
people in this group... I accept $20,000 challenge to
prove that paranormal events are real and they are so
commonplace in the Philippines and China.
Again: contact the groups I suggested...
BTW... I'm not a crackpot fan.
You sure look like one.
I analyze those "fringe" stuff
with potential or probability to have trace of truth
to get a clue about reality that is never shown in
the Standard Model.
Well, we, the actual physicists, think differently about
what has "potential". Hint: that may be because we know
the evidence which there is to explain, and because we know
that hand waving is not a physical explanation. Simply
assuming we consider the stuff you bring up to be "horse dung"
only because we are close-minded is a bad idea.
So how can you tell me to focus
on the Standard Model when it is obviously lacking
and can't explain paranormal events.
Why do you think so? There are lots of things in the
natural world which at first sight are not explainable
by standard physics, but if one looks hard enough, it turns
out that it can be explained by it after all.
Super-conductivity is a nice example.
This is the main purpose why I study other avenues.
Why do you study other avenues only on the Web? Why don't
you go to university libraries, crack open some scientific
journals, and look up what actual scientists suggest as
possible alternatives to the standard model?
I'm not a crackpot, ok?
But you are unable to distinguish between horse dung
and promising alternative ideas.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 06:13:30 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Most people here in sci.physics use their *real* names.
Yep, and unlike mr. variable nick, most people here use ONE nick name.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 06:14:50 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
So how can you tell me to focus
on the Standard Model when it is obviously lacking
and can't explain paranormal events.
Why do you think so? There are lots of things in the
natural world which at first sight are not explainable
by standard physics, but if one looks hard enough, it turns
out that it can be explained by it after all.
Super-conductivity is a nice example.
Heh, and I don't believe it because it doesn't uh... tell me how to cook a
good spaghetti dinner... AIGHGHGHG!!! It must be FALSE!
grin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 07:00:18 AM |
|
|
if you had been honest from the beginning i would not have wanted to
hound you. why did you have to lie about being Caltechdude and make all
these stupid stories about him being a chinese student going on
holidays to the Phillipines, etc?
explain to me these paranormal experiences and how can you prove to me
they are true?
if you wan to learn physics why don't you just enrol in a physics
course in a university instead of reading books written by people who
have no physics background nor any research experience? if you only
want to study what these crackpots write, you will become a crackpot
yourself...
.
|
|
|
| User: "What_is_Qi" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
22 Jan 2005 08:27:21 AM |
|
|
http://www.pranicmds.org/usa.htm
http://www.pranicmds.org/list_clinic.htm
http://www.pranichealing.org/directory/usa.htm
http://www.lifepositive.com/pranic-healing.html
http://www.islandnet.com/~global/pranic.html
(or type pranic healing at www.go.com to get hundreds of sites.)
Landle here. I'll explain everything. I live in the Philippines. My
home is just a few ride away from the so called Pranic Healing
Institute
which has branches in almost all countries. I've spent over a decade
with them and therefore have seen how it grew from one branch to
literally hundreds. Over the years. I've met thousands of foreigners
some oncologists, biologists, medical doctors and normal people who
came here to learn them.
So what is this all about. It's about this mysterious thing called Qi,
chi, prana, etc. that we can directly manipulate in the patients
bodies without touching them. There appears to be a morphogenetic
template in each of our physical body. And we treat and manipulate
this directly. So extensive in my experiences with them that I know
they are real and I need to understand the physics of it. This is
the only reason why I have to examine those seemingly "cranks"
stuff that has a potential to explain them. Normal physics Standard
Model can't explain them.
Right now. I still don't know if qi and the bioetheric or
morphogenetic template is a result of the Aether, hidden variables
in Quantum Mechanics, Dark matter like energy or superluminal energetic
correlates.
Before I explain further. A direct challenge to anyone serious to
investigate. Visit any pranic healing branch in your place and
investigate them. You don't have to pay anything. Just investigate
them and I'll pay them your fee in case you need to enroll in their
classes (but it's free too.. it's not about the money). It is only
when you actually interact with qi and learn many details that
you'd know what I'm talking about. I can explain but there is
no substitute for direct experiences.
For years I've been trying to figure out the physics of qi by studying
many things.
Is Qi related to the a dark matter like substance the permeate us.
See:
http://www.sumeria.net/cosmo/darkmatter.html
Is Qi related to the Aether? This is the only reason why I'm interested
in
Thomson stuff because his model has mechanism to explain qi.
Is Qi related to something behind the wave probability amplitude of
quantum mechanics.. or higher energetic correlates of it like Bohm
implicate order? By energetic correlates is meant the energetic
dynamics of what something behind the wave function. Tiller mentioned
the following in detail and I'm wondering if it has basis.
"These conjugate 4-spaces are thought to bear a special "mirror" type
relationship to each other, one being of the distance-time variety and
the other being of its inverse (a frequency domain). The former is the
home of the electric matter of positive mass travelling at velocities
slower than the speed of light, c, while the latter is the home of
magnetic matter of negative mass travelling at velocities faster than
the speed of light, c. Images of the magnetic charges in the "mirror"
form magnetic dipoles in the distance-time-domain so that the
interaction
of the electric charges with these magnetic dipole images constitute
our convensional electromagnetism. Images of the electric charges in
the
"mirror" form electric dipoles in the frequency domain so that the
interaction of the magnetic charges with the electric dipole images
constitute another field of the magnetoelectric variety in that domain
that is not observable by our convensional senses. To a close
approximation,
the configuration of magnetic substance in the frequency domain
bears a "Fourier Transform" type of relationship with the configuration
of electric substance in the distance-time domain. It is the
interaction
between these "matters", as viewed from the distance-time side of
the "mirror", that constitutes what we presently called Quantum
Mechanics. Further, it is precisely the direct space/inverse space
pair of coordinate frames that lead to the wave/particle duality
manifestations of nature on a microscopic level.". (end Tiller quote)
Allright. What has this thing got to do with Qi. Well. You may say
nothing travels faster than light because it would violate a lot of
things like mass would become infinite when things travel near
light speed. But what if the superluminal substance already start
at light speed from the beginning of the universe. Then it won't
violate anything. Now I wonder if this has to do with Qi. Tiller
stuff is what I meant about the energetic correlates of the reality
behind QM.
Before I study further details about it. I want to make sure first
that photon dual particle/wave is real and not a misunderstood thing
what like Mark Mccutcheon shows. That's why I wanted to know if his
stuff is not true. If not and photon wave/particle duality is real.
Then I can go on examining Tiller stuff (filtering the good ones and
ignoring Tiller other stuff).
Right now. I don't know if qi and the morpho template that we qi
healers deal with is a phenomenon of some kind of Dark energy
substance (see the above site shared), or an Aether reality (the
reason I got interested in Thomson stuff) or a QM thing or what is
behind QM (see the Tiller stuff just shared above)... or others. This
is the exact reason why I'm here in this physics group. I am forced to
learn physics and beyond the Standard Model because of my
experiences (check up the 4 web sites which detailed what
happened to me and how I came to know it and what it is).
Some may think I'm nuts or cranky but just look at the above sites.
If pulmonary physicians, urologists deal with qi or chi or prana (these
are synonyms). Do you think they can be easily fooled? But I have
more experiences with prana having investigated and dealt with it
for years prior them so I know what I'm talking about.
Look. I'm not here to advertise but just want to understand the physics
of it. I also challenge anyone who can prove pranic healing is just
cranky. If you can prove it. I'll give you $20,000 and I'll fight for
those centers closure. But this is not possible because I've
categorical
experiences about qi and know how real it is. But I challenge your or
anyone just the same. Go to any of the pranic healing branches in
your country.... try to learn.. then try to debunk them.... if you can
(and you get my $20,000 just to show how genuine it is).
Actually. I'd be much happier if they are not real because it makes
life simple. But they are real and without finding the physics of it.
I can't live with the contradiction of encountering something unknown
and not knowing what is the physics explanation for it. Note i've
studied all convensional stuff and making sure it is not a
misunderstood
ordinary phenomenon and it sure is not. To explain would take me
pages and I will do it just to prove that paranormal events are real.
Landle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
25 Jan 2005 05:32:09 AM |
|
|
What_is_Qi wrote:
http://www.pranicmds.org/usa.htm
http://www.pranicmds.org/list_clinic.htm
http://www.pranichealing.org/directory/usa.htm
http://www.lifepositive.com/pranic-healing.html
http://www.islandnet.com/~global/pranic.html
(or type pranic healing at www.go.com to get hundreds of sites.)
Landle here. I'll explain everything. I live in the Philippines. My
home is just a few ride away from the so called Pranic Healing
Institute
which has branches in almost all countries. I've spent over a decade
with them and therefore have seen how it grew from one branch to
literally hundreds.
The Christian religion has grown from one small community
to a world religion. Does that prove that it is right, or
merely that there are a lot of ignorant and gullible people?
(sorry if this example offends any Christian readers here)
Over the years. I've met thousands of foreigners
some oncologists, biologists, medical doctors and normal people who
came here to learn them.
Analogous examples can be given again.
That many people think that something is true does in no
way prove that it *is* indeed true.
So what is this all about. It's about this mysterious thing called Qi,
chi, prana, etc. that we can directly manipulate in the patients
bodies without touching them.
Any properly controlled double-blind tests on this?
There appears to be a morphogenetic
template in each of our physical body. And we treat and manipulate
this directly. So extensive in my experiences with them that I know
they are real
Ever heard the term "self-delusion"?
and I need to understand the physics of it.
Then study physics. There are lots of good textbooks out
there.
You could also read the threads in which I discussed with
cinquirer. Lots of tests were suggested there. For all of them,
he found an excuse to not perform it.
This is
the only reason why I have to examine those seemingly "cranks"
stuff that has a potential to explain them.
Non sequitur.
Normal physics Standard Model can't explain them.
How do you know?
Right now. I still don't know if qi and the bioetheric or
morphogenetic template is a result of the Aether, hidden variables
in Quantum Mechanics, Dark matter like energy or superluminal energetic
correlates.
Hint: learing what all these terms mean might help.
Before I explain further. A direct challenge to anyone serious to
investigate. Visit any pranic healing branch in your place
and investigate them.
Are there any in the vicinity of Heidelberg, Germany?
You don't have to pay anything. Just investigate
them
How? I don't think they would agree to double-blind tests
devised by me.
and I'll pay them your fee in case you need to enroll in their
classes (but it's free too.. it's not about the money).
Scientology says the same.
It is only
when you actually interact with qi and learn many details that
you'd know what I'm talking about. I can explain but there is
no substitute for direct experiences.
Hint: it's the same with physics.
For years I've been trying to figure out the physics of qi by studying
many things.
Is Qi related to the a dark matter like substance the permeate us.
See:
http://www.sumeria.net/cosmo/darkmatter.html
Why on earth should the Dark Matter particles be able to
interact (essentially) *only* with the human brain?
Is Qi related to the Aether? This is the only reason why I'm interested
in
Thomson stuff because his model has mechanism to explain qi.
His model has no mechanisms at all.
Is Qi related to something behind the wave probability amplitude of
quantum mechanics.. or higher energetic correlates of it like Bohm
implicate order?
Bohm's late ideas are quite nutty.
By energetic correlates is meant the energetic
dynamics of what something behind the wave function.
"energetic dynamics" is still quite vague.
Tiller mentioned
the following in detail and I'm wondering if it has basis.
Who is Tiller?
[snip cranky quote]
Allright. What has this thing got to do with Qi. Well. You may say
nothing travels faster than light because it would violate a lot of
things
No, I do not say that. Try reading this:
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html>
like mass would become infinite when things travel near
light speed. But what if the superluminal substance already start
at light speed from the beginning of the universe.
Does not change the argument about infinite mass.
Then it won't violate anything.
Yes, it would, if it has rest mass.
Now I wonder if this has to do with Qi. Tiller
stuff is what I meant about the energetic correlates of the reality
behind QM.
Tiller's stuff does not clear that up in any way.
Before I study further details about it. I want to make sure first
that photon dual particle/wave is real
Again: learn physics.
and not a misunderstood thing
what like Mark Mccutcheon shows.
He shows nothing like that.
That's why I wanted to know if his
stuff is not true.
It's horse dung.
If not and photon wave/particle duality is real.
Then I can go on examining Tiller stuff (filtering the good ones and
ignoring Tiller other stuff).
And why do you think you are able to judge what is good
and what isn't?
Right now. I don't know if qi and the morpho template that we qi
healers deal with is a phenomenon of some kind of Dark energy
substance (see the above site shared), or an Aether reality (the
reason I got interested in Thomson stuff) or a QM thing or what is
behind QM (see the Tiller stuff just shared above)... or others. This
is the exact reason why I'm here in this physics group. I am forced to
learn physics
You can't learn physics in a newsgroup. Use textbooks.
and beyond the Standard Model because of my
experiences (check up the 4 web sites which detailed what
happened to me and how I came to know it and what it is).
Some may think I'm nuts or cranky but just look at the above sites.
Any properly controlled double-blind experiments?
If pulmonary physicians, urologists deal with qi or chi or prana (these
are synonyms). Do you think they can be easily fooled?
Yes. Even scientists often can be easily fooled by con men. Read
up on Dr. Gary Schwartz, or on Josephson's ideas about
homeopathy (he is a Nobel laureate!).
But I have
more experiences with prana having investigated and dealt with it
for years prior them so I know what I'm talking about.
And millions of Christians will say "I know that Christianity
is true, because I have a personal relationship with Jesus."
Look. I'm not here to advertise but just want to understand the physics
of it.
Wrong place. Try books.
I also challenge anyone who can prove pranic healing is just
cranky. If you can prove it. I'll give you $20,000 and I'll fight for
those centers closure.
I already gave you the addresses of some skeptics groups...
Also please note that what you are doing here is called
"shifting the burden of proof".
But this is not possible because I've categorical
experiences about qi and know how real it is.
Merely repeating something again and again does not make
it true.
[snip more repetitions]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "What_is_Qi" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
25 Jan 2005 08:41:54 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Before I explain further. A direct challenge to anyone serious to
investigate. Visit any pranic healing branch in your place
and investigate them.
Are there any in the vicinity of Heidelberg, Germany?
Yes. There are 27 pranic (qi) healing centers in Germany alone.
The addresses are located in:
http://www.pranichealing.org/directory/germany.htm
See the branches located near your town.
How about this. Challenge them for a double blind experiment
devised by you. Or better yet. Try to attend their classes.
I'll pay them your fee. The fee is needed because if they put
them up for free. They can't even pay the office. So having fee
doesn't mean it's all for the business and fooling people.
If you can debunk them. I'll give you $10,000 reward too. Heheh...
But then you can't because it's real.
Rather than debating it all over again for months (I'm Cinquirer).
Why don't you go to the pranic healing branch and let's settle it
there.
It seems there are 4 possibilities of what qi is (if it is not
convensionally related which it is not as I've explained to you
years ago). I've been studying physics simply to have an idea how
qi can fit. Only you physicists can exactly tell what it is and
derive the exact mechanisms of qi so don't say how bad my physics
is. If you study qi, then you could have avoided us qi healers
struggling with the physics of qi.
Now the 4 possibilies.
1. The Aether Concept (if the Aether is real)
David Thomson book has this independent paper written by a doctor
who studies qi. The doctor called Dale Sumbureru, DrPH MD,
hypothesized our need for sleep could be primarily for the
purpose of regaining the Aether Derived Energy for the day.
Thomson talked about the Aether units... the doctor is suggesting
that we need the energy of the Aether in our body as in "The
human organism derives energy from the "ambient" Aether (quanta
of dynamic space-time or quanta of rotating magnetic field)".
At this point. Let me say I don't know if Thomson is 25%, 50%,
75% correct. Also maybe there is Aether and it may not be the
way he described it (who knows). Last time I described to
you how claivoyants can see some aether units being absorbed
by the chakras (round thing made of etheric matter) in the
body and the energy from the aether units are used by our
organism. Later the aether units are ejected outside forming
part of the aura. I didn't use the exact term "aether units"
but it's something like that.
2. Second possibility if there is no Aether
In the beginning. Informational field may co-exist with the
dynamics of forces that created the Big Bang. There may be
more matter than anti-matter because of this informational
field that is derived from higher sources (maybe divine).
Now this informational field may be superluminal. It doesn't
break the rule of physics because it already started as
superliminal and composed of non-baryonic substance. Now
this informational field may be the conscious energy that
we qi healers deal on a daily basis. Qi may be part of it.
I just thought of this a week ago.
3. Third possibility
Qi may be related to the Wave Domain that describes the
behavior of the electron and other subatomic particles or
the wave function. Maybe the wave pilots exist in higher
Bohm implicate order that is related to our mind. The
mechanism of Qi in this hypotheses is a complete mystery.
Quantum Mechanics doesn't deal with the objective reality
of the wave domain so describing qi is even more difficult
4. Fourth possibility supposing there is no Aether and no
superluminal and no Bohmian energy... the M-Theory connection.
I just thought of this yesterday. If our universe is a membrane
floating in higher dimensions as some scientists hypothesized
and there is another membrane 1 millimiter away from us.
Gravity may not only be the thing that leaked over. Qi or
informational field may cross in between membranes too.
This means our soul or spirit or what is generally called
morphogenetic templates may actually be inhabiting the
parallel membrane and we are connected because informational
field may cross over and so is qi.
Of course you may laugh at the above M-theory connection, but
know what. If you and Frank Heymann, Uncle Al, etc. are all
correct and the Standard Model is without flaw and there is
no misrepresented or misinformed facts, then this last
hypothesis is a possibility (as long as M-Theory is likely).
If you are just willing to drop by any of the 27 pranic healing
branches in Germany one of these days and learn from them, double
blind test them, etc. You can easily derive the physics of qi and
save us qi healers from headaches of attempting to figure
out what roughly is the physics of qi.
You may reply and try to state how it is all delusion. Well.
As I've said let's settle it at the pranic healing branch near
your home (drop by there if you have time and let me know).
I'll continue replying your message below in separate message.
It's almost 11pm in my country and I have to sleep now.
cinquirer
The Christian religion has grown from one small community
to a world religion. Does that prove that it is right, or
merely that there are a lot of ignorant and gullible people?
(sorry if this example offends any Christian readers here)
Over the years. I've met thousands of foreigners
some oncologists, biologists, medical doctors and normal people who
came here to learn them.
Analogous examples can be given again.
That many people think that something is true does in no
way prove that it *is* indeed true.
So what is this all about. It's about this mysterious thing called
Qi,
chi, prana, etc. that we can directly manipulate in the patients
bodies without touching them.
Any properly controlled double-blind tests on this?
There appears to be a morphogenetic
template in each of our physical body. And we treat and manipulate
this directly. So extensive in my experiences with them that I know
they are real
Ever heard the term "self-delusion"?
and I need to understand the physics of it.
Then study physics. There are lots of good textbooks out
there.
You could also read the threads in which I discussed with
cinquirer. Lots of tests were suggested there. For all of them,
he found an excuse to not perform it.
This is
the only reason why I have to examine those seemingly "cranks"
stuff that has a potential to explain them.
Non sequitur.
Normal physics Standard Model can't explain them.
How do you know?
Right now. I still don't know if qi and the bioetheric or
morphogenetic template is a result of the Aether, hidden variables
in Quantum Mechanics, Dark matter like energy or superluminal
energetic
correlates.
Hint: learing what all these terms mean might help.
Before I explain further. A direct challenge to anyone serious to
investigate. Visit any pranic healing branch in your place
and investigate them.
Are there any in the vicinity of Heidelberg, Germany?
You don't have to pay anything. Just investigate
them
How? I don't think they would agree to double-blind tests
devised by me.
and I'll pay them your fee in case you need to enroll in their
classes (but it's free too.. it's not about the money).
Scientology says the same.
It is only
when you actually interact with qi and learn many details that
you'd know what I'm talking about. I can explain but there is
no substitute for direct experiences.
Hint: it's the same with physics.
For years I've been trying to figure out the physics of qi by
studying
many things.
Is Qi related to the a dark matter like substance the permeate us.
See:
http://www.sumeria.net/cosmo/darkmatter.html
Why on earth should the Dark Matter particles be able to
interact (essentially) *only* with the human brain?
Is Qi related to the Aether? This is the only reason why I'm
interested
in
Thomson stuff because his model has mechanism to explain qi.
His model has no mechanisms at all.
Is Qi related to something behind the wave probability amplitude of
quantum mechanics.. or higher energetic correlates of it like Bohm
implicate order?
Bohm's late ideas are quite nutty.
By energetic correlates is meant the energetic
dynamics of what something behind the wave function.
"energetic dynamics" is still quite vague.
Tiller mentioned
the following in detail and I'm wondering if it has basis.
Who is Tiller?
[snip cranky quote]
Allright. What has this thing got to do with Qi. Well. You may say
nothing travels faster than light because it would violate a lot of
things
No, I do not say that. Try reading this:
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html>
like mass would become infinite when things travel near
light speed. But what if the superluminal substance already start
at light speed from the beginning of the universe.
Does not change the argument about infinite mass.
Then it won't violate anything.
Yes, it would, if it has rest mass.
Now I wonder if this has to do with Qi. Tiller
stuff is what I meant about the energetic correlates of the reality
behind QM.
Tiller's stuff does not clear that up in any way.
Before I study further details about it. I want to make sure first
that photon dual particle/wave is real
Again: learn physics.
and not a misunderstood thing
what like Mark Mccutcheon shows.
He shows nothing like that.
That's why I wanted to know if his
stuff is not true.
It's horse dung.
If not and photon wave/particle duality is real.
Then I can go on examining Tiller stuff (filtering the good ones
and
ignoring Tiller other stuff).
And why do you think you are able to judge what is good
and what isn't?
Right now. I don't know if qi and the morpho template that we qi
healers deal with is a phenomenon of some kind of Dark energy
substance (see the above site shared), or an Aether reality (the
reason I got interested in Thomson stuff) or a QM thing or what is
behind QM (see the Tiller stuff just shared above)... or others.
This
is the exact reason why I'm here in this physics group. I am forced
to
learn physics
You can't learn physics in a newsgroup. Use textbooks.
and beyond the Standard Model because of my
experiences (check up the 4 web sites which detailed what
happened to me and how I came to know it and what it is).
Some may think I'm nuts or cranky but just look at the above
sites.
Any properly controlled double-blind experiments?
If pulmonary physicians, urologists deal with qi or chi or prana
(these
are synonyms). Do you think they can be easily fooled?
Yes. Even scientists often can be easily fooled by con men. Read
up on Dr. Gary Schwartz, or on Josephson's ideas about
homeopathy (he is a Nobel laureate!).
But I have
more experiences with prana having investigated and dealt with it
for years prior them so I know what I'm talking about.
And millions of Christians will say "I know that Christianity
is true, because I have a personal relationship with Jesus."
Look. I'm not here to advertise but just want to understand the
physics
of it.
Wrong place. Try books.
I also challenge anyone who can prove pranic healing is just
cranky. If you can prove it. I'll give you $20,000 and I'll fight
for
those centers closure.
I already gave you the addresses of some skeptics groups...
Also please note that what you are doing here is called
"shifting the burden of proof".
But this is not possible because I've categorical
experiences about qi and know how real it is.
Merely repeating something again and again does not make
it true.
[snip more repetitions]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon |
25 Jan 2005 12:01:31 PM |
|
|
What_is_Qi wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Before I explain further. A direct challenge to anyone serious to
investigate. Visit any pranic healing branch in your place
and investigate them.
Are there any in the vicinity of Heidelberg, Germany?
Yes. There are 27 pranic (qi) healing centers in Germany alone.
The addresses are located in:
http://www.pranichealing.org/directory/germany.htm
See the branches located near your town.
Thanks. Mauer, Bammental and Bensheim are all fairly
near.
How about this. Challenge them for a double blind experiment
devised by you.
And you really think they would bother to do that?
Or better yet. Try to attend their classes.
What use would that have?
Additionally, it's not clear if the three I listed above
even *have* classes, or only do healings.
I'll pay them your fee.
And you think I merely take your word for that?
The fee is needed because if they put
them up for free. They can't even pay the office.
Err, can't they pay the office by the money they get
for their healings?
Or why don't they work on a regular job and do this
stuff only in their spare time?
So having fee
doesn't mean it's all for the business and fooling people.
There is no doubt that many of these people are self-deluded
and don't try to fool other people only.
If you can debunk them. I'll give you $10,000 reward too.
"shifting the burden of proof"...
Heheh... But then you can't because it's real.
See? That's the difference between science and
religion (or pseudo-science): you are 100% sure what the
outcome would be, although the experiment was not
performed yet.
Rather than debating it all over again for months (I'm Cinquirer).
Well, why did you come up with yet another nickname? Looks
quite dishonest to me.
And what happened to all the tests I suggested to you?
Why don't you go to the pranic healing branch and let's settle it
there.
Because I don't think that there would be any chances of
doing properly controlled tests there.
It seems there are 4 possibilities of what qi is (if it is not
convensionally related which it is not as I've explained to you
years ago).
I don't remember you giving such an explanation, sorry.
I've been studying physics simply to have an idea how
qi can fit.
So far, you apparently have not "studied physics" - you
merely came up with lots of crank web sites.
Only you physicists can exactly tell what it is and
derive the exact mechanisms of qi so don't say how bad my physics
is.
If you want us to work on this, the burden of proof is
on *you* to first show evidence that qi really exists.
Not on *us* to disprove your assertions.
If you study qi, then you could have avoided us qi healers
struggling with the physics of qi.
Hey, if qi is so obviously present everywhere on the
Philippines, why aren't there any Philippine physicists
working on this?
Now the 4 possibilies.
1. The Aether Concept (if the Aether is real)
David Thomson book has this independent paper written by a doctor
who studies qi. The doctor called Dale Sumbureru, DrPH MD,
hypothesized our need for sleep could be primarily for the
purpose of regaining the Aether Derived Energy for the day.
Thomson talked about the Aether units... the doctor is suggesting
that we need the energy of the Aether in our body as in "The
human organism derives energy from the "ambient" Aether
Was this the stuff about the biophotons?
(quanta
of dynamic space-time or quanta of rotating magnetic field)".
Evidently, this doctor has no clue of what he is talking about.
At this point. Let me say I don't know if Thomson is 25%, 50%,
75% correct.
1%. At best.
Also maybe there is Aether and it may not be the
way he described it (who knows). Last time I described to
you how claivoyants can see some aether units being absorbed
by the chakras (round thing made of etheric matter) in the
body and the energy from the aether units are used by our
organism. Later the aether units are ejected outside forming
part of the aura. I didn't use the exact term "aether units"
but it's something like that.
I also remember that both I and others suggested several
experiments to you on this, and you weaseled out of
every single one.
2. Second possibility if there is no Aether
In the beginning. Informational field may co-exist with the
dynamics of forces that created the Big Bang.
What on earth is an "informational field"?
There may be
more matter than anti-matter because of this informational
field that is derived from higher sources (maybe divine).
Hand waving.
There is no reason at all why "information" should have
anything to do with the matter-antimatter asymmetry.
Now this informational field may be superluminal.
Thanks for showing that you have no clue what "field"
means in physics.
It doesn't
break the rule of physics because it already started as
superliminal and composed of non-baryonic substance.
So what? Both does not help in any way.
Thanks for showing again that you have no clue of physics.
Now
this informational field may be the conscious energy that
we qi healers deal on a daily basis. Qi may be part of it.
I just thought of this a week ago.
So you also don't know what "energy" means in physics.
3. Third possibility
Qi may be related to the Wave Domain that describes the
behavior of the electron and other subatomic particles or
the wave function.
Utterly vague. What's the "wave domain"?
Maybe the wave pilots exist in higher
Bohm implicate order that is related to our mind.
Even more vague.
The mechanism of Qi in this hypotheses is a complete mystery.
Quantum Mechanics doesn't deal with the objective reality
of the wave domain so describing qi is | | | | | | | |
