is it possible for science to prove & disprove the same thing?

Show me a physical model. Physical models can't lie. Physics doesn't care about math, build something!

{{pasta model}}

PASTA MODELS ARE IRRELEVANT!

The only true models are made of scrap paper loops and the largest washers you can find!

 

Build a physical model that can completely collapse.

Real Physics ain't about argument. It does things in REALITY.

psik

 

It's very simple psi. How does the conservation of momentum apply to the example shown here:



Is momentum conserved above, or not?

 

The "example" which you claim is so important only has one mass of any significance and it is not impacting an equivalent mass. No, the conservation of momentum is not important to that example but that is because that example is totally irrelevant to 9/11.

My model has 33 masses of similar size. Your example is not transferring momentum to any mass of similar size. You are just dishing out time wasting BS.

psik

 

ask him to explain why it broke the way it did lol he wont understand you are correct if he cant work his way through that one. he always pounds square pegs in round holes it seems

 

Did this not raise an eyebrow for you?

You're talking about the smallest of levels, and electrons are something we STILL can't see, let alone observe. Whatever "observes" it is not us, therefore whatever result it produces subject to our own interpretation.

Now they said the presence of the observation device, obviously no sort of microscope or any practical thing we could use to actually "see" it, affects the properties about what this wave is doing... How do we know it's the "observation" that's doing this, and not some other property of the device itself, nearby to what it is meant to be observing?!?!? We're not just watching it with our eyes we're putting an instrument near it.

They still just barely got around to figure out if an electron even has mass or not, and they still don't really know for sure... The electron is something we've pretty much had to conclude that we CAN'T see just now.. We can only attempt to interpret its effects on other things that we can see. yet we know why it behaves the way it does when when we're "watching"?

Also, there's a fundamental paradox here I thought of...

If you are comparing its behavior while observed vs. its behavior while not observed.... Well how do you determine the latter? Wouldn't you have to observe it in order to know what it's doing while not being observed? How can you know what something's doing while you're NOT observing it? To claim you know what it does while not being observed means you MUST have somehow "observed" it.

Hello!?!!?!?

At any rate, I'm a bit skeptical on this one.

 

How ironic. Yes, Psi, ask me how it broke the way it did. Koko, Psi doesn't understand why it broke the way it did. That's what I've been trying to explain to him.

In the example above, the spaghetti shatters because the force applied by the falling mass is greater than its buckling strength. Momentum from the falling mass cannot be transferred from the falling mass to the static piece of spaghetti because it is not strong enough to withstand the transmittion of energy. This energy wave creates moments within the strand that rotate matter out from under the falling mass. As a result, the mass from below is not accelerated by the mass from above and within that closed system, momentum is not conserved between the mass of the falling object and the mass of the spaghetti.

This is because the acceleration of gravity adds momentum to the spaghetti and the falling mass before the two masses are able to combine in a plastic collision, or bounce off each other in an elastic one.

Psi keeps saying this example is irrelevant because the "model" doesn't have levels of mass, but he's wrong about the purpose of the model. The purpose is to model the types of impacts that took place in the collapse. It shows that his premise is wrong. Falling mass did not combine with static mass below in perfectly plastic collisions. What really happened was that falling mass buckled supports for mass below, allowing the mass to be accelerated by gravity before the falling mass came into contact. Some mass from below was ejected outward, some mass from below was injected inward. Some mass was unaffected by impact and remained in place. This invalidates Psi's model. Psi's model is a crush model, with perfect plastic impacts. It clearly does not model the collapse of the WTC.

 

The observation / reality topic doesn't have much to do with the mechanics of the collapse. I only mentioned it because it helps to illustrate that Psi's "high school" understanding of the world is too basic to accurately describe the world around him. High school truisms like "reality is reality no matter what we think" don't accurately define what we know to be true.

Also, I think if you studied the phenomenon you'd have a solution for your perceived paradox. There's a lot of information out there on the double slit experiment. If you don't understand after a brief search, I can better explain it to you.

 

Does anyone think that the steel in the WTC towers shattered?

Did the paper loops in my model shatter?

Was there any other mass in your pasta example comparable to the impacting mass? Oh, I don't even see information specifying how great that mass was. Who cares? You are just bringing up more complicated but irrelevant BS, FB.

psik

 

Who said steel shattered? I said it buckled

Nope. They couldn't buckle either. They were crushed.

The pasta models the reason why conservation of momentum cannot be used to describe a gravitational collapse similar to the WTC. I did not say the pasta models the WTC collapse. The entire building, as a system, is like the strand of pasta. They were both long slender cantilevers that were hit along their axis. When impacted from the top, they both must transmit the energy of the impact down to the ground. This happens as a wave of energy that can been seen in the pasta. The building itself was a system of steel columns that were fastened together with welds and bolts. Steel within the column does not have to shatter for those connections to come apart.

In your model, your wooden dowel provides stability that helps your "columns" resist the moment of the wave of energy that's generated by each impact. The columns therefor could not "come apart" like the pasta or the WTC. This forced the collapse into a crush mode of failure which absorbs far more energy than failure in buckling mode. The picture of the pasta should help your to visualize why this is the case. In the buckled mode, there's literally zero means of support to resist the mass from above.



Do you see the large section of outer columns completely disconnected from the building in the photo above? Where did it come from? Was it above the plane of collapse or below? Is it impacting and slowing any of the mass above it?

 

You provided the spaghetti physics and said this.

I said it was irrelevant.

psik

 

I still don't see where you think I said steel shattered. Do you plan on responding to the content of my post or do you intend to play similar games?

 

I am not accusing you of saying that steel shattered. But you brought up the pasta example and it does shatter so you are it least trying to imply that it is relevant to this issue.

I regard it as simply a demonstration of stupidity but that is just my opinion.

Your example does not even specify the weight of the single mass of significant size and there is no similar mass in the pictures to be impacted but then you bring up the conservation of momentum which involves mass impacting mass of reasonably similar size but expect me to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the broken pieces of pasta. You are quite entertaining.

I wonder if sophistry is like a virus in the mind of European culture and it has become confused with intelligence.

psik

 

Conspicuously missing from your ad hom argument is an explanation of why you think the conservation of momentum is relevant when I have shown that it could not have been conserved within the system as you define it. Levels of mass did not impact levels of mass in perfectly plastic or perfectly elastic collisions. Some mass buckled out from under the impact, some mass was not impacted at all.

Unless of course you can explain how your python model should be expected to find a minimum transit time for a mass that impacts another mass that buckles out from under it.

 

what you dont get is that your model is absurd and in no way fashion or manner is applicable to the towers. that ghetti shattered it did not bucikle. there are principles at work its doubtful you are even aware of going on there and I do not intend to spend the 500 posts explaining it to people who insist on pounding square pegs in round holes.

oh ans psi already explained to you the reason why your model is trash so I dont see a need to furhter comment on that either.


,

 

At any rate, you brought it up, and it simply does not demonstrate what you claim it does. To date, "reality is reality no matter what we think" has never been proven false.. It likely can't be, as it will only ever be defined as that which we can observe. Nevertheless, many experiments like the ones you've cited have cropped out, in a bid to prove the proverbial cat in the box both alive and dead, time and time again, and none to date have yet succeeded, not this one from 1998 at any rate.

I understand the double slit experiment quite well. This never determined the properties of something that wasn't observed. The experiment is world famous for establishing, based on keen observations, that light behaves as a particle and a wave. It has properties of both. This doesn't mean it's influenced by you "watching" it.

This Israeli experiment from 1998 you linked to is not "the double slit experiment". It may be "a double slit experiment" but it is not "the double slit experiment".

The article CLEARLY described how they managed to induce different results in interference. It was NOT by changing the degree to which they "watched" the particles. Read very carefully the actual mechanism used in the experiment:

"The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it."

You see they're not just putting some electronic eyeball nearby, they are actually passing the current in question through this nanoscopic eyeball, and changing the properties of it, including its conductiviity!

That's not anywhere near the same as just "watching" it..

The only possible way to reconcile the obvious variable that will introduce unseen consequences into the results, going beyond mere "watching" is to try to assure us that somehow, changing the conductivity and other properties of the device doing the watching doesn't change anything, that it's really that which it's watching which is changing!

"Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current." Okay.. Even though you're passing the current through this detector, changing this detectors conductivity, and its physical properties.

Right and then come check out this bridge, I've got a great bargain on it right now if you act fast.

The most logical and likely explanation is there's something about this nanoscopic hardware. Such technology is barely in its infancy even today.

I don't see this much different as swopping lenses on a camera having an effect on the tint of the picture it produces.

But if you have an explanation for how you can determine what the properties of something are when you don't "observe" it like you offered then I'd like to hear it.

 

You're simply not correct. Quantum super positions are not proven incorrect. Quite the opposite.

I don't think you understand it quite well at all.

It actually does mean that electrons are influenced by us watching them. When we watch them they have a position. When we don't watch them they exist in multiple places at the same time.

You're missing the point. Changing the properties of the eyeball, changes the clarity of the position of the particle the eyeball is observing. It is the same as the difference between looking at the moon through 3x binoculars, and looking at the moon through a 1000x telescope. Except at the quantum level the difference would be that 3x binoculars effect the actual position of the moon less than the 1000x telescope defines it.

When you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to keep silent. What changes is the pattern detected by the screen at the second point of observation. Clearly something has to change the electron from a wave function to a particle before it hits the screen. Changing the current passing through the detector changes the clarity at which the position of the electron is defined. This affects how wide or narrow the 2 bands of electron impacts on the screen will be.

The difference is the point at which the particle is observed. The screen is a particle detector too. The double slit experiment shows us that if you fire a particle at a double slit, the particle will hit a screen behind the slits in two bands. If you fire a wave at the double slit, the wave will hit the screen behind the two slits in an interference pattern of multiple bands. This is because a particle must go through one slit or the other, and a wave goes through both slits at the same time.

Knowing these properties of waves and particles we find that if you fire a single electron through a double slit without watching it, it passes through both slits at the same time and hits the screen in a location consistent with a wave generated interference pattern. If you watch the slits for the electron, the electron has a defined position in one slit or the other and hits the screen in a location consistent with a particle. This very much is the very definition of observation creating reality, and a direct refutation of "reality is reality no matter what we think."

 

You don't have a clue what buckling is do you? That's okay. Psi doesn't either.

Briefly, the spaghetti fractures because it has a different stress strain curve than steel. This difference in material strength does not invalidate the example's ability to demonstrate the principal in affect that actually does invalidate Psi's premise that conservation of momentum can be used to determine a minimum collapse time. Conservation of momentum cannot be used, because momentum was not conserved to the system he's measuring.

Something tells me all 500 of your posts would display a total ignorance of physics.

 

That's not what I was referring to.. You must not have got the reference to Shrodinger's cat.. That is the ultimate state of the cat not inside the box, but to the observers outside the box prior to the box being opened.

Okay put your money where your mouth is.. You think you understand this experiment so much better.. I thought they observed patterns on a screen caused by light beams fired through a single slit, and then a double slit.. But since you insist they determined of things that weren't observed...

Why don't you tell me what data they collected in this experiment that wasn't the result of "observation". Since I'm so crazy for suggesting the conclusions derived from observing first hand different patterns on a screen.

That's not a very good comparison.. Are you suggesting binoculars or telescopes change anything about the actual position of the moon itself?

This "quantum observer" is not outside the system it's observing. Rather, it's making measurements, allegedly, on interference patterns of currents being passed right through it, while its own properties are being manipulated.

Of course SOMETHING has to change it.. The problem is you're ruling out the glaring variable of a quantum device, being placed right in the middle of the system, and its own properties, as being what possibly causes that change. Apparently, it's merely the virtue of the fact this little nano machine is "observing" that causes the change, not possibly any of its other physical properties having any bearing on the system it's placed right smack in the middle of.

They understand little to nothing of the quantum world, even still to this day. We don't know why stuff does what it does, and the total consequences of it.

So it's like before they discovered magnetism, they notice one metal object might repel another metal object and think it's a magical force. It's God. Or they have no idea what caused that.. They might say it's the motion of their hand while they wave about this metal "wand". Now they still don't know what causes many fundamental quantum interactions, like it used to be for magnetic forces.. So it can be properties of matter, or its subatomic constituents, that we still don't understand... EVEN the matter that the nanoscopic eyeball is made of being placed right in the middle of the electron stream. The fact that the changes in the properties and conductivity of the "observer" medium correlate to the changes in observed interference phenomenon SHOULD be anyone's first clue.

The double slit experiment in no way whatsoever was based on whether they "watched" it or not. They simply observed the results on the screen, to notice both visible signs of waves as well as absorption of particles, demonstrating that light has properties of both.

Now in "THE" double slit experiment, are you suggesting part of that experiment was the scientists blindfolding themselves at some point or otherwise determining the properties of anything for which no observations were made?

The results of the experiment was BASED ON their observations of the results on this screen after they shot the light beam through the slits.

I don't think the scientists blindfolding themselves while they shot the beam and then taking off their blindfolds to look at the results on the screen to see things were different this time had anything to do with it.

I suspect maybe you're referring to the Israeli experiment? Again that's not "the double slit experiment".

You're definatily referring to the Israeli experiment here.

This all makes sense, but my disagreement comes from, the point you've not fully addressed, that which you define as "watching".

I agree you get different results when you "watch" them or not. Everything you say here is true, that "watching" changes things.

The fact is, that what they mean by "watching" is forcing the current through a specific conductive medium, altering the conductivity of the medium. Making it go through their little nano machine.

That's no more "watching" then a coffee filter is merely "watching" the coffee liquid trickle through it.

Or to put it another way, what they and you are claiming is merely "watching" is actually something much more than just watching. Even putting a device near to the system can produce variables, let alone integrating it into the system itself.

I've done a better experiment than these Israeli scientists. I discovered electrons behave different when you change your level of observing them.

I simply made a current go through a potentiometer.. I put my voltmeter to check the current on the other side after the current went through it.. I notice when I increased the level of "observation" on the potentiometer, the current on the other side decreased, but when I decreased the level of "observation" of the potentiometer, the current was higher!

Wow, the level to which you "observe" a current directly changes its amperage!

(nevermind that what I really mean when I vary the level of "observation" is I'm actually varying the resistance of the circuit)..

That's basically what they are doing when they are changing the conductivity and whatever other properties on the medium they force the electrons through in this experiment. It's not exactly a "fly on the wall" and not merely "observation" that affects reality here.

 

Nope. That's not basically what is done. Consider:

1. Without observation the electron exists in two places at once. It moves through the right slit and the left slit at the same time. It then becomes a particle with a fixed position at the point that it impacts the screen. The location of these impacts make it clear that the electron moves through the distance between emission and detection like a wave.

2. With observation at the slit, the electron's position becomes defined as either passing through the left slit, or the right slit. It then impacts the screen consistent with having traveled the distance between the slit and screen as a particle.

This means that in the first instance, the particle is in a super position as it passes through the slits and in the second instance it has a defined position. The observation only defines the position of the electron which changes the way it behaves.

What happens when the electron, after being observed through a first set of slits, passes through a second set of slits where no observation takes place?

 

http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/

This should help explain the answer to that question.

If you destroy the ability to determine which way the electron went by inserting a second gate, the interference should come back.

Meaning, the electron only exists as a particle at the place where we measured its position.

 

on the contrary, its you do not have a clue what it is any more than you have a clue whats going on with your little light diatribe and why they are both red herrings.

Interestingly however you unwittingly, unknowingly proved tesla right. So I will give you credit for that. Unfortunately science hasnt gotten that far yet. 100+ year old technology is beyond their comprehension.

 

Quite possibly, one of the greatest sentences ever written.

Way to step up your game Koko.

 

what would you have me do prove all his red herrings are bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to people who do not know the difference and do not want to know the difference? theres no point in it.

 

I don't know. I think I've seen better from him.

The discussion about quantum super position is not a red herring. It's a completely different discussion, as was noted in my response to happy fun dude.

The discussion about buckling is necessary to the discussion regarding the collapse of the WTC.