DraftScience

What would I be banned for? I haven't invaded your privacy or talked about how you make a living. Too silly is doing those things and clearly if he was doing them to you this message board would protect you. Clearly you have double standards. Just for fun could you quote something I've said that's factually wrong? Accurately quoting me "So you don't think gravitational air pressure makes it possible for air to transmit sound?" Is Gravity the proximate cause of air pressure in a strict sense? Is uncompressed air capable of transmitting sound? Where does the model explain the two slit experiment? You apparently think all particle models are the same? Is many worlds the same as Copenhagen? You have certain knowledge of the kinematics of photon production and reception? Can you post a reference? Future history will tell the tale... I am confident reguarding my pristine intentions. And it's just a plain fact that you are Rude enough to make accusations you can't back up with a fact. If you're an example of the Forum educated I am less than impressed... So far You've just talked trash and haven't said anything specific on the subject of the two slit experiment. Do you think two wave Math Works? I provided an image clearly marking shortest distance and largest distance between surfaces. In an example where the slits are wider than the central impediment, the distance between the surfaces of the impediment will tell you the envelope Fringe size, and the distance between the two outer most surfaces will tell you how large the small fringes will be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction This is the only mathematics (Other than my own) that makes accurate predictions regardless of the number of slits. It considers each surface a point source... That means the single slit is really the two Source experiment. The single impediment is another two Source experiment. The double slit is the four Source experiment. etc Physics commonly uses the word wavelength to describe objects at a frequency. You clearly have been asserting only waves can have a wavelength. I am asserting golf balls can have a wavelength without waiving in any manner. Another accusation without any evidence... Link me to the experiment for which I am unaware or ignorant. You choose a double slit configuration... slit width and impediment width... You predict with your math and I'll predict with my math. Clearly you're desperate to close the thread because you can't deal with the actual arguments. You are clearly showing your true character and the show isn't a good one How is it the opposite of what I predict? In my formulation the wavelength of the light clearly dictates the width of the fringes. Your accusation is outrageously incorrect. No surprise you can't take anything seriously. The truth is you hurled a lot of reckless insults and aren't willing to put up anyting of any Integrity behind them.

You shouldn't even be considering "if that's the case". You have no right to obligate me to counter his personal attacks. If the same attacks were directed at you, you would ban him. Your duplicitous standards are obvious. I would argue you haven't said anything worth anyone's time

So if I merely suggested that too silly is actually a psychotic child molester without providing any evidence whatsoever... Your theory is, you would thank me as a common courtesy and allow me to continue posting on this board. I would suggest you're not very good at theoretical reality So your theory is that something in the garbage he typed might have something to do with facts concerning the double slit experiment. Once again I don't think you're grasping the concept of reality It is a plain fact that I have diligently attempted to stay on the subject. Why do I need any benefit of a doubt? So you don't think gravitational air pressure makes it possible for air to transmit sound? And you disagree that the two slit experiment math predicts a pattern on a curved surface? can you quote the sentence where I said something incorrect about pressure? You don't think there can be a wavelength between cannonballs? "action at a distance" is a very basic principle? Is the Holy Ghost a very basic principle? This is an accusation you will never back up with a fact I wouldn't let you babysit a goldfish either Compared to what? science forums? LOL I might question whether you have ever gotten a baby or bath water judgement right Like your scientific predictions i'll be betting that that hot air was just another of your smelly brain farts. Since none of you can make anything like a civil scientific counter argument... How about just providing a reference to any scientific presentation on the subject of the two slit experiment that accurately describes the pattern, the experiments performed, and provides a reasonable explanation for the patterns features (the envelope and a larger central Maxima)

You do realize that you were asserting that air isn't "stuck together". I reasonably explained the atmosphere transmits sound because the molecules are forced into close contact. Effectively meaning if one moves others must move and that is why sound is allowed to propagate. Remove air pressure and sound no longer propagates. Obviously bullets have no such limitation.

(d/lambda) *pi*D = this equals the width of a on or off Fringe. Applying this formula to the shortest distance between two surfaces will give you the size of the envelope fringes. Applying it to the largest distance between two surfaces gives you the size and number of the smaller fringes. Any two source math applied to the double slit experiment will in fact not get the correct answer. You have to use the 4 source math are you will not get experimental confirmation. Your assertion is plainly false. My simple math not only predicts as well as their complex math. It properly accounts for the fact that the pattern starts at the 90 degree angle where there is a maximum path length difference. I can also explain why the central grouping of fringes is twice as large as the other fringes. The physical reasoning is based on understanding that there are a finite number of possible wavelength long path length differences that any two points can create. The simple fact is you are just projecting the number of wavelengths between the two points onto a longer line some distance away. So if two golf balls are on the same trajectory 5 m different in distance you're claiming they must be waving? An assertion without evidence Swansont did nothing but distort what I wrote. Can you give me an Einstein quote claiming photons have no Mass? Gas particles outside of atmospheric pressure will not transmit sound. Gravity forces close contact which is essentially the same as being stuck. The ideal gas law does not say gases under zero pressure transmit sound If they are massless how do they carry momentum and how can they be bent twice as much by gravity? The fact is it predicts better and I'm willing to wager any amount you wish to put up on a proving experiment. Like those College students I bet you don't even realize that if you do any math predicting a pattern on a flat screen you'll get wrong answers. The distance to the screen is a radius and the mathematics predicts the pattern on an ark created by that radius. If you don't view the pattern on a curved screen you won't see the pattern the mathematics predicts. You are demonstrating gross hypocrisy! The unfounded a unevidenced personal attacks made by the commenter "too silly" would not be tolerated if they were directed at one of you. What experiments? You have no Postcards From The Multiverse... Nor do you have any video of a wave function. Just as "jamming" explains two source " interference" in radar experiments, I am asserting that photon "reconstruction" completely explains the double slit results. Why are you thanking someone for making a non evidence personal attack totally irrelevant to the subject?

Particles in a transmitting medium are "stuck to each other" and are affected by each other's movement. They do not scatter independently like a bullet can. Whether photons have mass is far from settled science. Einstein clearly thought they did. Yes I believe most of your physics is wrong and believe given the opportunity I can prove it... But let's start with the two slit experiment and my assertion that the particle theory provides a better more complete explanation. I have spent 10 years analyzing the key experiments and I've earned what I consider my improved understanding of reality. I am offering $2,000 to any notable physicists who can debunk my observations.

The vector math is already conceded in the Argument ""The math that works reliably regardless of the slit width, views the experiment as having four (wave) sources with centers located at the slit surfaces" and I did post my derivation: slit distance divided be wavelength x pi x distance to target = fringe size All manner of objects that are not waving can have a wavelength...bullets, cars on a highway etc. The calculation predicts the size and position of the fringes The equation isn't in any way improper and gets to the truth a lot faster than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction The math is merely deriving A "path length difference" there is agreement that the path length difference creates the phase differences. As stated their 4 Source Math Works but their analysis of cause is incorrect and frankly irrational. D1 creates the large envelope pattern d2 creates the smaller Fringe pattern

I am asserting that there are no waves involved... A photon is a sequence of "bit" particles arriving at a frequency. They are small bits of mass that move at a constant speed in free space and carry a quantum of momentum. Obviously a photon couldn't cause effects without them. A deeper truth is when these bits are not at a frequency they cause gravity charge and magnetism. All force moving the speed of light (the speed of force) is made of these bits in different configurations.

As I explained in the linked video the mathematics is rather simple. The shortest distance between any of the surfaces will tell you the number and placement of the envelope fringes (the big fringes) Just divide the wavelength of the light into the distance between the surfaces and multiply by pi x the distance to the target. That product will tell you how large the individual fringes are as a portion of a 180 degree arc. You do the same for the largest distance between two surfaces and that will tell you the fringe size for the smaller pattern inside the envelope. Where the two patterns superimpose on top of each other in phase (the four sources are in phase) you see a photon.

The two slit experiment can be better, and more completely, explained by a particle theory. It should now be known by most physicists that two waves cannot explain the complex pattern (a pattern in an envelope pattern) of the double slit experiment in light. Two wave math will fail if the slits and the width of the impediment are much larger than the wavelength of the light. The math that works reliably regardless of the slit width, views the experiment as having four (wave) sources with centers located at the slit surfaces. When this correct math, is drawn as waves the image is irrational. The waves must pass through the blocking material and they without sensible cause must break in the middle of the open slit... Good reason to believe waves are not a complete or correct explanation. It can also be clearly deduced, that events at the surfaces is the cause of the effect which cast doubt on Richard feynman's random Randomness Theory. I would argue that a photon of light is a "pattern" of corpuscles travelling at a frequency between each other. When the photon interacts with the surfaces, elements of the pattern are scattered by electrons on the surfaces. The scattered elements of the photon pattern hit all locations on the target screen and in places where the scattered bits arrived in the proper sequence, or phase, a visible photon is reconstructed. No interference No superposition No wave function Just a completely mechanical and understandable probability of reconstruction.