mpc755 wrote:
In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated ether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. The ether displacement wave creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit, it is this interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence of the associated ether displacement wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

Big claim...

Do you have a model to back this up?

It's like watching a movie about The Titanic. It's a foregone conclusion how this is going to end.

The_Metatron wrote:It's like watching a movie about The Titanic. It's a foregone conclusion how this is going to end.

.....in a sequel?

campermon wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:It's like watching a movie about The Titanic. It's a foregone conclusion how this is going to end.

.....in a sequel?

...or something about Pearl Harbor. If they'd only pay attention, it would turn out differently. But alas, it never does. You guys are the iceberg. The Japanese fleet.

campermon wrote:

mpc755 wrote:
In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated ether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. The ether displacement wave creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit, it is this interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence of the associated ether displacement wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

Big claim...

Do you have a model to back this up?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave."'

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

In de Broglie wave mechanics and pilot-wave theory a moving physical particle has an associated physical wave.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classique ... 24p001.pdf

"When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles."

"In my view, the wave is a physical one..."

"This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located."

"I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle."

"If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory."

A universal reference medium is the ether of Lorentz which de Broglie is saying the hidden sub-quantum medium is not. This is the same as Einstein removing from the ether of Lorentz its immobility. Meaning the ether of relativity is mobile. This is different than Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether where the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.

The mobility of the ether of relativity is its state of displacement.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the ether at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the ether.

A particle physically displaces the ether. A moving particle has an associated ether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated ether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. As the ether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated ether wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the ether of relativity.

mpc755 wrote:
Matter does not move with dark matter. There is no such thing as dark matter. Matter moves through the ether. What is presently postulated as dark matter is ether.

Nobody said that matter moves with dark matter. Dark matter's only influence is gravitational. Dark matter does not interact with any other force except with gravity. So, matter does not move with dark matter, but it rotates and moves according to the gravitational forces at play whose contributors are both normal matter and dark matter. And so it is with dark matter.

mpc755 wrote:
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubbl ... ature.html

"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water."

The 'pond' consists of ether. The moving 'particles' are the galaxy clusters. The 'ripple' is a gravitational wave. The 'ripple' is an ether displacement wave.

The article does not mention the ether anywhere, nor is there any evidence for the ether. You are either trying to force-fit the evidence to your own preferred form of pseudoscience or you do not understand what you are reading.

Where is your evidence that "the pond" is made of ether? Where is the evidence that the ripple is an "ether displacement wave"?

mpc755 wrote:
The above is physical evidence of a moving 'particle' having an associated ether displacement wave.

Evidence please. Otherwise you are again speaking out of your arse.

mpc755 wrote:
In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated ether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. The ether displacement wave creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit, it is this interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence of the associated ether displacement wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

No, you are misunderstanding quantum mechanics.

The double slit experiment shows the fact that every particle, every object is both matter and wave. Wave-particle duality which has been demonstrated again and again from particles to objects. It has to do with the act of measurement and what happens to the wavefunction when there is an observer.

Now, let's see there was GenesforLife who had pointed me out to this article, that shows that quantum superposition of DeBroglie matter waves happens for big molecules: http://www.inoa.it/home/azavatta/References/401680.pdf.

Mpc755 how do you explain the Michelson-Morley experiment that showed that there is no ether medium? How do you explain the fact that when there is an observer in the double slit experiment, the particles pass through one of the two slits, and not through both of them simultaneously?

Why don't you mpc755 come out and tell us about your preferred form of woo hypothesis. I think that you are here to promote your own "misunderstood" "theory", like others. However, if I judge from the above posts, your own "theory" is probably more of the same rectally extracted assertions.

Darkchilde wrote:

mpc755 wrote:
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'

The only ring of dark matter I know is on the bog paper the day after a good curry.

Darkchilde wrote:

mpc755 wrote:
Matter does not move with dark matter. There is no such thing as dark matter. Matter moves through the ether. What is presently postulated as dark matter is ether.

Nobody said that matter moves with dark matter. Dark matter's only influence is gravitational. Dark matter does not interact with any other force except with gravity. So, matter does not move with dark matter, but it rotates and moves according to the gravitational forces at play whose contributors are both normal matter and dark matter. And so it is with dark matter.

If a galaxy cluster is moving through three dimensional space and the dark matter is not moving with the galaxy cluster then the galaxy cluster is moving through the dark matter. If the galaxy cluster is not moving with dark matter then the dark matter already exists in the three dimensional space the galaxy cluster is moving toward. If the dark matter already exists in the three dimensional space the galaxy cluster is moving to, then what would otherwise be considered to be empty space is occupied by dark matter. If the dark matter exists in what would otherwise be considered to be empty space then dark matter is ether.

Is the galaxy cluster moving with dark matter or is the galaxy cluster moving through the dark matter?

mpc755 wrote:
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubbl ... ature.html

"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water."

The 'pond' consists of ether. The moving 'particles' are the galaxy clusters. The 'ripple' is a gravitational wave. The 'ripple' is an ether displacement wave.

The article does not mention the ether anywhere, nor is there any evidence for the ether. You are either trying to force-fit the evidence to your own preferred form of pseudoscience or you do not understand what you are reading.

Where is your evidence that "the pond" is made of ether? Where is the evidence that the ripple is an "ether displacement wave"?

I understand the article does not mention ether. What I am explaining is what is postulated as dark matter is ether.

mpc755 wrote:
The above is physical evidence of a moving 'particle' having an associated ether displacement wave.

Evidence please. Otherwise you are again speaking out of your arse.

The evidence is the ripple itself. There is no such thing as dark matter. What is presently postulated as dark matter is ether. If the galaxy clusters in the above article are not moving with dark matter then the galaxy clusters are moving through the dark matter which already exists and occupies the three dimensional space prior to the two galaxy clusters arrival and collision. If the dark matter already occupied what would otherwise be considered to be empty space then dark matter is ether.

mpc755 wrote:
In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated ether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. The ether displacement wave creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit, it is this interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence of the associated ether displacement wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

No, you are misunderstanding quantum mechanics.

The double slit experiment shows the fact that every particle, every object is both matter and wave. Wave-particle duality which has been demonstrated again and again from particles to objects. It has to do with the act of measurement and what happens to the wavefunction when there is an observer.

Now, let's see there was GenesforLife who had pointed me out to this article, that shows that quantum superposition of DeBroglie matter waves happens for big molecules: http://www.inoa.it/home/azavatta/References/401680.pdf.

Mpc755 how do you explain the Michelson-Morley experiment that showed that there is no ether medium?

The MMX experiment was looking for an ether at rest which the Earth moved through. The MMX experiment was looking for an ether similar to the ether of Lorentz. The ether of relativity is mobile. The state of the ether of relativity is determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth and the state of the ether in neighboring places. The ether of relativity is in the same state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about its axis and orbit of the Sun.

How do you explain the fact that when there is an observer in the double slit experiment, the particles pass through one of the two slits, and not through both of them simultaneously?

Every double slit experiment ever performed where detectors are placed at the entrances to the slits has always detected the particle entering a single slit. Every double slit experiment ever performed where detectors are placed at the exits to the slits has always detected the particle exiting a single slit.

Why is the particle always detected entering and exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment?

Because the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. Duh!

Why don't you mpc755 come out and tell us about your preferred form of woo hypothesis. I think that you are here to promote your own "misunderstood" "theory", like others. However, if I judge from the above posts, your own "theory" is probably more of the same rectally extracted assertions.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the ether at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the ether.

A particle physically displaces the ether. A moving particle has an associated ether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated ether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. As the ether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated ether wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the ether of relativity.

Darkchilde wrote:Mpc755 how do you explain the Michelson-Morley experiment that showed that there is no ether medium? How do you explain the fact that when there is an observer in the double slit experiment, the particles pass through one of the two slits, and not through both of them simultaneously?

Царь Славян wrote: My interpretation of the double slit experiment is simple. The EM radiation is passing through the both slits and thus is causing disturbance in the aether.

I can't be the only one...

mpc755 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave."'

WTF? I have the paper here beside me, and it says nothing about the ether or ether displacement waves. NOTHING AT ALL. It has to do with finding the trajectory/ies of the particle in the double slit experiment using weak measurement. Weak measurement means that there is an limited amount of information about a certain property that can be gained without disturbing the future evolution of the system. The limited amount of information is due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and the fact that otherwise the wavefunction of the particle will collapse.

Have you anything that actually has anything of value about the ether, like for example MENTIONING THE ETHER?

The SciAm article is a dumped down version of the Science article, which can be found here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170.abstract.

mpc755 wrote:
In de Broglie wave mechanics and pilot-wave theory a moving physical particle has an associated physical wave.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classique ... 24p001.pdf

The page does not exist.

mpc755 wrote:
"When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles."

"In my view, the wave is a physical one..."

"This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located."

"I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle."

"If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory."

A universal reference medium is the ether of Lorentz which de Broglie is saying the hidden sub-quantum medium is not. This is the same as Einstein removing from the ether of Lorentz its immobility. Meaning the ether of relativity is mobile. This is different than Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether where the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.

The mobility of the ether of relativity is its state of displacement.

Even if DeBroglie believed in the ether, that is an argument from authority, and means nothing. Plus I cannot check at the moment the site because it does not exist. \

As I said have you anything of value like ACTUAL EVIDENCE FOR THE ETHER to contribute or are you just going to bring in unrelated articles, make logical errors and unsubstantiated assertions?

mpc755 wrote:
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... ether.html

I dealt with that in one of my previous posts. Let me refresh your memory about what Einstein said at the conclusion:

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

To me it does not seem that he accepts the ether at all.

mpc755 wrote:
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

Quote-mine. He actually says the following:

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation.

[/quote]

But Einstein is not talking about the ether in the classical sense, and that is apparent from his conclusion.

mpc755 wrote:
The state of the ether at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the ether.

A particle physically displaces the ether. A moving particle has an associated ether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated ether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. As the ether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated ether wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the ether of relativity.

Bullshit.

I dealt with it in my previous post.

Darkchilde wrote:

mpc755 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave."'

WTF? I have the paper here beside me, and it says nothing about the ether or ether displacement waves.

I understand the paper does not mention the ether. What the article is referring to is the correctness of pilot-wave theory where there is a moving physical particle which has an associated physical wave where the particle enters and exits a single slit and it is the associated physical wave which enters and exits both slits.

I am explaining what waves. It is the ether of relativity which waves in a double slit experiment.

NOTHING AT ALL. It has to do with finding the trajectory/ies of the particle in the double slit experiment using weak measurement. Weak measurement means that there is an limited amount of information about a certain property that can be gained without disturbing the future evolution of the system. The limited amount of information is due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and the fact that otherwise the wavefunction of the particle will collapse.

Have you anything that actually has anything of value about the ether, like for example MENTIONING THE ETHER?

The SciAm article is a dumped down version of the Science article, which can be found here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170.abstract.

mpc755 wrote:
In de Broglie wave mechanics and pilot-wave theory a moving physical particle has an associated physical wave.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classique ... 24p001.pdf

The page does not exist.

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

mpc755 wrote:
"When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles."

"In my view, the wave is a physical one..."

"This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located."

"I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle."

"If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory."

A universal reference medium is the ether of Lorentz which de Broglie is saying the hidden sub-quantum medium is not. This is the same as Einstein removing from the ether of Lorentz its immobility. Meaning the ether of relativity is mobile. This is different than Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether where the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.

The mobility of the ether of relativity is its state of displacement.

Even if DeBroglie believed in the ether, that is an argument from authority, and means nothing. Plus I cannot check at the moment the site because it does not exist. \

As I said have you anything of value like ACTUAL EVIDENCE FOR THE ETHER to contribute or are you just going to bring in unrelated articles, make logical errors and unsubstantiated assertions?

mpc755 wrote:
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... ether.html

I dealt with that in one of my previous posts. Let me refresh your memory about what Einstein said at the conclusion:

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

To me it does not seem that he accepts the ether at all.

What part of "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" are you unable to understand?

mpc755 wrote:
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

Quote-mine. He actually says the following:

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation.

But Einstein is not talking about the ether in the classical sense, and that is apparent from his conclusion.

Einstein is not talking about the ether as an absolutely stationary space. Einstein is talking about an ether whose state is determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places which is the state of displacement of the ether.

mpc755 wrote:
The state of the ether at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the ether.

A particle physically displaces the ether. A moving particle has an associated ether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated ether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. As the ether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated ether wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the ether of relativity.

Bullshit.

I dealt with it in my previous post.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

mpc755 wrote:

If a galaxy cluster is moving through three dimensional space and the dark matter is not moving with the galaxy cluster then the galaxy cluster is moving through the dark matter. If the galaxy cluster is not moving with dark matter then the dark matter already exists in the three dimensional space the galaxy cluster is headed for. If the dark matter already exists in the three dimensional space the galaxy cluster is moving to, then what would otherwise be considered to be empty space is occupied by dark matter. If the dark matter exists in what would otherwise be considered to be empty space then dark matter is ether.

Is the galaxy cluster moving with dark matter or is the galaxy cluster moving through the dark matter?

WRONG.

Most dark matter is found in the halo of galaxies. True there is a smaller amount of dark matter elsewhere, but the greatest distribution of dark matter is in the halo.

Dark matter is part of a galaxy. It moves with the galaxy through space, and interacts gravitationally with the matter that exists within the galaxy.

mpc755 wrote:

The article does not mention the ether anywhere, nor is there any evidence for the ether. You are either trying to force-fit the evidence to your own preferred form of pseudoscience or you do not understand what you are reading.

Where is your evidence that "the pond" is made of ether? Where is the evidence that the ripple is an "ether displacement wave"?

I understand the article does not mention ether. What I am explaining is what is postulated as dark matter is ether.

WTF?

For dark matter to be the ether medium, its distribution in the universe must be uniform. Which is not, as the evidence shows. The evidence shows that most of dark matter is found in the halo of galaxies. In the intergalactic space the distribution of matter is such that we can assume that space to be empty of matter.

mpc755 wrote:
The evidence is the ripple itself. There is no such thing as dark matter. What is presently postulated as dark matter is ether. If the galaxy clusters in the above article are not moving with dark matter then the galaxy clusters are moving through the dark matter which already exists and occupies the three dimensional space prior to the two galaxy clusters arrival and collision. If the dark matter already occupied what would otherwise be considered to be empty space then dark matter is ether.

And I dealt with the above in my previous paragraph.

mpc755 wrote:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

The above has again nothing to do with the ether, but with another interpretation of QM. Do you know how many interpretations of QM there are out there? So, this experiment shows evidence that may support one of them. But what does that have to do with your ether? Because I see nothing of value.

And David Deutsch one of the proponents of the MWI of QM :

David Deutsch of the University of Oxford, UK, is not convinced that the experiment has told us anything new about how the universe works. He says that although "it's quite cool to see strange predictions verified", the results could have been obtained simply by "calculating them using a computer and the equations of quantum mechanics".

mpc755 wrote:
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the ether at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the ether.

A particle physically displaces the ether. A moving particle has an associated ether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated ether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. As the ether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated ether wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the ether of relativity.

Again I dealt with the above. But you are refusing to listen. You are refusing to answer the question I put to you and repeating the same paragraph again and again. You have absolutely no fucking evidence, and you are acting like someone repeating the same mantra, producing the same articles again and again, has not read them or understood them...

And as I told you, Einstein did not believe in the ether. He just said that space itself has physical properties and can be thought as the "ether". And even if Einstein believed in the ether, well, it does not matter. What matters is evidence and you have not presented any. Argument from authority will not cut it. Nor rectally extracted assertions.

And I will repeat my question again, because they remain unanswered:

Mpc755 how do you explain the Michelson-Morley experiment that showed that there is no ether medium? How do you explain the fact that when there is an observer in the double slit experiment, the particles pass through one of the two slits, and not through both of them simultaneously?

Darkchilde wrote:

mpc755 wrote:

If a galaxy cluster is moving through three dimensional space and the dark matter is not moving with the galaxy cluster then the galaxy cluster is moving through the dark matter. If the galaxy cluster is not moving with dark matter then the dark matter already exists in the three dimensional space the galaxy cluster is headed for. If the dark matter already exists in the three dimensional space the galaxy cluster is moving to, then what would otherwise be considered to be empty space is occupied by dark matter. If the dark matter exists in what would otherwise be considered to be empty space then dark matter is ether.

Is the galaxy cluster moving with dark matter or is the galaxy cluster moving through the dark matter?

WRONG.

Most dark matter is found in the halo of galaxies. True there is a smaller amount of dark matter elsewhere, but the greatest distribution of dark matter is in the halo.

Dark matter is part of a galaxy. It moves with the galaxy through space, and interacts gravitationally with the matter that exists within the galaxy.

So, this following statement of yours is WRONG. (bold emphasis by me)

Darkchilde wrote:
Nobody said that matter moves with dark matter. Dark matter's only influence is gravitational. Dark matter does not interact with any other force except with gravity. So, matter does not move with dark matter, but it rotates and moves according to the gravitational forces at play whose contributors are both normal matter and dark matter. And so it is with dark matter.

mpc755 wrote:

The article does not mention the ether anywhere, nor is there any evidence for the ether. You are either trying to force-fit the evidence to your own preferred form of pseudoscience or you do not understand what you are reading.

Where is your evidence that "the pond" is made of ether? Where is the evidence that the ripple is an "ether displacement wave"?

I understand the article does not mention ether. What I am explaining is what is postulated as dark matter is ether.

WTF?

For dark matter to be the ether medium, its distribution in the universe must be uniform. Which is not, as the evidence shows. The evidence shows that most of dark matter is found in the halo of galaxies. In the intergalactic space the distribution of matter is such that we can assume that space to be empty of matter.

mpc755 wrote:
The evidence is the ripple itself. There is no such thing as dark matter. What is presently postulated as dark matter is ether. If the galaxy clusters in the above article are not moving with dark matter then the galaxy clusters are moving through the dark matter which already exists and occupies the three dimensional space prior to the two galaxy clusters arrival and collision. If the dark matter already occupied what would otherwise be considered to be empty space then dark matter is ether.

And I dealt with the above in my previous paragraph.

mpc755 wrote:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

The above has again nothing to do with the ether, but with another interpretation of QM. Do you know how many interpretations of QM there are out there? So, this experiment shows evidence that may support one of them. But what does that have to do with your ether? Because I see nothing of value.

de Broglie, who originated pilot-wave theory, understood a moving physical particle has an associated physical wave. I am explaining what the medium is in which the physical wave propagates.

And David Deutsch one of the proponents of the MWI of QM :

David Deutsch of the University of Oxford, UK, is not convinced that the experiment has told us anything new about how the universe works. He says that although "it's quite cool to see strange predictions verified", the results could have been obtained simply by "calculating them using a computer and the equations of quantum mechanics".

"calculating them using a computer and the equations of quantum mechanics" has nothing to do with understanding what occurs physically in nature.

mpc755 wrote:
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the ether at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the ether.

A particle physically displaces the ether. A moving particle has an associated ether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated ether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. As the ether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated ether wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the ether of relativity.

Again I dealt with the above. But you are refusing to listen. You are refusing to answer the question I put to you and repeating the same paragraph again and again. You have absolutely no fucking evidence, and you are acting like someone repeating the same mantra, producing the same articles again and again, has not read them or understood them...

And as I told you, Einstein did not believe in the ether. He just said that space itself has physical properties and can be thought as the "ether". And even if Einstein believed in the ether, well, it does not matter. What matters is evidence and you have not presented any. Argument from authority will not cut it. Nor rectally extracted assertions.

Einstein believed in the aether from his teenage years.

Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether.

Einstein's 'First Paper'
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/ ... _chap1.pdf

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

More correctly stated as the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

And I will repeat my question again, because they remain unanswered:

Mpc755 how do you explain the Michelson-Morley experiment that showed that there is no ether medium?

The MMX experiment was looking for an ether at rest which the Earth moved through. The MMX experiment was looking for an ether similar to the ether of Lorentz. The ether of relativity is mobile. The state of the ether connected to the Earth and the state of the ether neighboring the Earth is the state of displacement of the ether. The ether is in the same state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about its axis and orbit of the Sun.

How do you explain the fact that when there is an observer in the double slit experiment, the particles pass through one of the two slits, and not through both of them simultaneously?

The particle in a double slit experiment ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment and it is the associated physical wave which enters and exits both.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

mpc755 wrote:
My mistake. I thought this web site was titled 'RationalSkepticism.org' and I thought the tag line read "A lifeboat for the rational mind..."

If this were the site I thought it was, rational minds would be able to discuss the following rationally.

It does indeed say that, but it doesn't infer that everything posted on this site is worthy of rational discussion, or that all members are engaging in rationally skeptical thought.

This topic, and numerous other claims that are not supported by the consensus opinion of numerous experts in their respective fields, are quite routinely brought up by method of assertions. Generally, the rationally skeptical person will ask for evidence to support claims. When such a request is not satisfied, what is the rationally skeptical thing to do?

Spearthrower wrote:

mpc755 wrote:
My mistake. I thought this web site was titled 'RationalSkepticism.org' and I thought the tag line read "A lifeboat for the rational mind..."

If this were the site I thought it was, rational minds would be able to discuss the following rationally.

It does indeed say that, but it doesn't infer that everything posted on this site is worthy of rational discussion, or that all members are engaging in rationally skeptical thought.

This topic, and numerous other claims that are not supported by the consensus opinion of numerous experts in their respective fields, are quite routinely brought up by method of assertions. Generally, the rationally skeptical person will ask for evidence to support claims. When such a request is not satisfied, what is the rationally skeptical thing to do?

What are you unable to understand in the following correct understanding of what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

What am I supposed to do when you are incapable of understanding the following?

The particle is always detected entering and exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment because the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and it is the associated physical wave which enters and exits both slits. The associated physical wave creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit, the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting the particle strongly causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated physical wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

What am I supposed to do when you have to disregard the physical evidence in order to choose to believe what you do?

The particle is always detected entering or exiting a single slit. This is evidence the particle always enters and exits a single slit.

Your response? "No, when you do not detect the particle [insert absurd notions here] occurs."

Why is the particle always detected entering and exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment?

Because it ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. Duh!

How is it not rational to understand the particle always being detected entering and exiting a single slit is evidence the particle always enters and exits a single slit?

Is my mind to rational for RationalSkepticism.org? Is there no lifeboat for the rational mind which actually understands what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment?

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the ether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the ether.

A moving particle has an associated ether displacement wave.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the ether of relativity.

mpc755 - look who you are replying to... I am an individual, not a representative of a group. I have never in my life said "No, when you do not detect the particle [insert absurd notions here] occurs." - and I certainly haven't written it to you.

Further, I am not sure how you've managed to intuit what I believe solely from the above post....?

mpc755 wrote:

The particle in a double slit experiment ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment and it is the associated physical wave which enters and exits both.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

This is referring to the weak measurement experiment that we already discussed here.

twistor59 wrote:

mpc755 wrote:

The particle in a double slit experiment ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment and it is the associated physical wave which enters and exits both.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

This is referring to the weak measurement experiment that we already discussed here.

I know what the experiment is about.

I also know what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

A rational explanation for the particle always being detected entering and exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment is the particle always enters and exits a single slit and it is the associated physical wave which enters and exits both.

Ether is physically displaced by matter. A moving particle has an associated ether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated ether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. As the associated ether displacement wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting the particle strongly causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated ether displacement wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

Is the above too rational for you?

The above is too repetitious for the Forum Users' agreement to which you agreed to adhere when you signed up for the forum, to whit:

FUA wrote:

Members of rationalskepticism.org agree to:

1.2. not cause harm or disruption to the forum or other members, for example please don't:

f. post multiple copies of your posts

You should also be aware that argumentum ad nauseum is a logical fallacy, as well as being really cuntish behaviour.

Of course, if you wish to be a cunt, and if you further wish your tenure here to be brief, please carry on.