Ashtar Command Crew - The Awakening Movement

Comments

• 

  marker dragon June 16, 2021 at 6:21pm

  Needing volumes to explain quantum mechanics is applying 3d models to a 5d problem
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 5:45pm

  String theory is a mathematical nonsense, not science!!
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 5:41pm

  

  No, string theory is not true,...,it is not even false!! It is not a scientific theory. It is unfalsifiable, and here I explain. Note the article says:
  
  "But is string theory any closer to describing reality? “People say that string theory doesn’t make predictions, but that’s simply not true. It predicts the dimensionality of space, which is the only theory so far to do so, and it also predicts, at tree level"
  
  Prediction is not what counts. Testing it does. Is this 'dimensions' testable? No!! We are stuck in 3d and this surverely limits our ability to test any theory that talks of 'other dimensions'. To test 'other dimensions', we must see if kinetic energy is as described by:
  
  E=mvx2+ mvy2+mvz2,
  
  or we have to add more terms other than just the 3 for the 3 dimensions. If, for instance, there is a 'fourth dimension', then we expect even an object that looks stationary to, at times surreptitiously moves due to 'its motion in fourth dimension being bent towards the third dimension' in some way. As you can see, this method of testing is not practical!! It demands that we know everything!! How are we to be sure that the particle is not being simply hit by an unknown, invisible particle, hence its kinetic energy increases unexpectedly but without anything 'going to another dimension'.?
  
  What we need when testing in science is never 'confirmation'. Rather, we do 'falsification'. A theory that can only be 'tested' by supposing that 'we know everything' is not falsifiable, hence not science.
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 3:12pm

  

  "Are some competing on a most words wins basis? Sorry. A little humor.... Hope you are not offended RL"
  
  This is humorous, I mean in the sense of hilarious. The topic of QM demands a lot of words if you are not to be simplistic like those guys who tell you that you are a god who creats the moon and the stars by a blink of an eye.
  
  Quantum books are often 3 centimetres or so thick! Pple who think they know QM by reading a 9min read article are fooling themselves!!
• 

  marker dragon June 16, 2021 at 2:29pm

  Are some competing on a most words wins basis? Sorry. A little humor.... Hope you are not offended RL
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 12:44pm

  

  How can a physicist fail to understand that observation necessarily involves interaction between objects?? Furthermore, it is even worse in microscopic objects as we cannot observe them directly. An electron has to hit a screen and then emit light before we see one. So we actually seeing light, not the electron. Why should we not suppose that the interaction with the screen 'collapses' the wavefunction?? Nope! This is a stupid stop-gap done before the advent of Quantum Elecyrodynamics (QED) that says, yes, the electron does interact with the photonic field to emit light from the spot. Thus light beams from a spot way before it reaches the eyes of the observer. Therefore the 'collapse' does take place upon the interaction between the electron and the photon!! It is not in the 'fundamental understanding of QM' simply because such 'understanding' was done before QED, a quantum theory that involves interactions.
  
  Thus to understand what happens during observation, you must drop 'fundamental QM' done by the likes of Neumann and use more complete theories like QED. The 'fundamental QM' misleadingly removes a particle off its environment and considers an ideal, non-interacting particles, which we know they don't exists, therefore irrelevant! Its just like Newt considers an object moving in a perfect vacuum and then concludes that such object can move forever, or the way he 'removes' all evenly bodies and considers only the earth and the moon as though they are the only things in the universe.
  
  These guys who say 'in QM, observation does it all' applies 'fundamental QM where it obviously doesn't apply: in interacting particles! It is like claiming that a billiard ball can never stop because Newts first law of motion does not mension 'friction'. It woefully misleading and stupid!!
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 12:23pm

  SAN,
  
  If you truely want to understand QM, you will have no option but to go further than listening to physicists who are stuck with 1920's understanding if QM!! The guy in that vid talks of 'fundamental QM'. But he means 'Copenhagen interpratation' as formulated by the likes of Neumann and Dirac. These guys did not include some things in QM as part of 'fundamental understanding' simply because the model was a stop-gap measure to allow physicists to proceed anyway, without understanding the details of what goes on in a process termed 'collapse of wavefunction'. Thus they never mensioned 'interaction between micriscopic world and macroscopic world' simply because they were slopy, and like I said, physicist don't like admitting their errors or even shortcomings cause they want to look perfect!! In this case, their 'fundamental understanding if QM' is unscientificaly seen as 'perfect', like a closed canon of scriptures, lol!
  
  However, much has gone on since Bohr et-al did the sloppy work, most notably, Quantum Decoherence, which shows that we can model the 'collapse' using interaction between the wavicles in the microscopic object and the ensemble of waves that forms the macroscopic object.
  
  Such physicists like below neglects further research into QM because it doesn't confirm their world view! This is not a scientific attitude. There is no 'fundamental understanding' of anything in science as it is an ever on-going research. We can't fail to talk about quantum Decoherence just because bohr et-al had no clue about and thus failed to enshrine it in 'fundamental understanding of QM ). We must update our understanding based on new ideas and discoveries. In this instance, pple are stuck in 1920s and as such, don't understand anything!!
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 11:04am

  

  How We Determine QM Experimentaly.
  
  We use the so called 'Aspects Experiment'. We know that 'observation' affect the results by observing how a photon behaves 'when not being observed' and how it behaves 'when being observed'! Of course this is nonsense! What we are realy doing is 'observing' a certain polarization of a photon while neglecting the other polarization. Then we notice that merely changing what we are 'observing' changes the behaviour of the photon. This is done by tiliting the measuring apparatus accordingly.
  
  The point is that in all the experimental set ups, we are actually seeing the photon! Of course you see that It has nothing to do with 'creation of photons by observation'. This ridiculous notion championed by 'new agers' has zero to do with QM. QM is not about 'creation'. It is about 'altering'.
  
  One analogy is this: suppose you see the face of someone moving eastwards. Then you can't see his back. Suppose you note that every time you turn around and sees his back, he turns an moves northwards. So you can conclude that observation of his back 'turns the guy from walking eastwards into walking morthwards'.
  
  Same applies in qm where 'observation of a particle's location collapses its wave nature turning it into a particle'. You see the irreconcilable difference QM and the 'new age' nonesense?? We can see both the particle's wave-like nature and its particle-like nature. 'Observation' is not 'observing the particle' but rather 'observing an aspect of it', in this case its 'location'.
  
  In new age, 'when we are not seeing the electron' means we are not seeing it entirely!! It means we have closed our eyes. Then electrons pops into being solely because we saw one in our consciousness!! So in new age, we don't see the wave nature as this is the mischievious drama taking place when we close our eyes!! New age is a total walk off the road! They score zero out of ten!!
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 10:45am

  

  Quantum Observation
  
  When we say 'observation' in QM, We rather mean 'an interaction between microscopic world and the macroscopic world'. It is an unfortunate misnomer because what we normally call it 'observation' is an interaction between the observed and the observer. Therefore observation is an interaction, but an interaction is, of course, not necessarily an observation. This is the blunder that the drunk physicists made. (Unfortunately they never like admitting their errors cause they want to look perfect)!
  
  There is no real observation in quantum interactions, unless an electron shoots directly to your eyes. Then the retina, the visual cortex or the celebrum 'collapses' the wavefunction. Only in this sense do 'observation' alters the subatomic world. But then this is always the case even in classic physics!!! When we observe, we alter the wavelength of light that hits the eye for reasons straight foward to understand. There is nothing QM adds as far as interaction between what causes conscious perception and the outer world!
• 

  Roaring Lovely June 16, 2021 at 8:15am

  

  High, its OK. Its good when topics flow.☺
  
  I was referring specifically to a switch of topic termed 'red herring'.
  
  THE LION:We don't observe an electron because it is gazillions times smaller than the smallest thing naked eye can see. Therefore when they say 'observe' in QM, they don't mean a conscious registration of an electron in one's mind.
  
  THE HORSE: Arguments are pointless.
  
  This is an example of what is called red herring fallacy. A person, when he can't argue against a point simply switches the topic to turn attention away. In this case, the lion's argument should be rejected because generaly, 'arguments are pointless' and the lion is tabling an argument. To substantiate his point, the 'lion' has now to focus on the question of whether arguments can make a point. Thus the topic changes and that was the aim of the red herring: to change the topic and create a complexity that distorts the simle argument in pple's minds!!
  
  This tactic is at times done intentionally, but often it is unintentional!