Double Slit Experiment

[chaos1956]

Feels good to be cut down to size a little

My my, you have me all figured out. Terry deludes himself into thinking he's learnt about a subject because he's seen a picture from Google image search.

Pictures are an extremely useful thing to augment learning with but you can't go very far on just pictures. Anyone whose do any viable research which has passed peer review will know that details are essential. Terry posts a picture and claims he's 'solved' the double slit experiment.

Good words as well as good numbers. I do not deny that good pictures at times can promote better understandings of the concepts to a more general audience than the specifics you can find among the detailed journals.

What an excellent way of going about deluding yourself. Everyone Terry has presented his 'work' to has thought it nonsense, but he can't face the fact its because it has no scientific merit. That kind of defence is what some religious people tell themselves, "They reject the Bible because they don't understand it". Its possible to understand something and still think its crap. In the case of Terry his work isn't even coherent, so its on an extra level of nonsense!

There is a huge difference between delusion and imagination, although I am in agreement with you that Terry is delusional I can assure you that I am not. Baring any mistakes that occur due to the inevitable human error.

Then you're naive, likely because you don't know the details of the relevant physics. Terry hasn't managed to convince those of us who have done the relevant physics that he understands it. Its the typical crank approach, trying to swindle people who don't know its BS that their work is viable.

Your calling me naive when the comment was about a video made for a child and only expressed my views of the commentator as he described the particle going through the slit.

Is that a reference to me? Its possible for people to agree on things without a leader-follower hierarchy. I'm more vocal about my views of hacks but that doesn't make me a 'leader'.

It was more a reference against someone else than specifically meant for you. A hierarchy exists to a certain extent, I'm sure you understand this to a degree. The word was "master" not leader. In a world without hierarchy it is always important to show respect to another master, but also to be respectful to those who are both willing and able to help themselves. This means following as well as leading with knowledge of your skills as well as the specialties of others. Knowing the speciality of the people around you determines the degree of "hierarchy" in particular situations. "Mind" your surroundings.

 

[chaos1956]

V/M/.66(6) = pi(r^2)/5.413*h=42

V/M/.66(6) - pi(r^2)/5.413*h=0

But still there is always more than two ways to look at any scenario. In the cc/mol. Or in the force itself.

f=[mv/.66(6)] - pi(r^2)/5.413*h

but not both at the same "time"

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Watching vids is nothing, they're only good for illustrating things you already learn about in the more traditional way. How is someone supposed to squash years of math training into a few hours of video, anyhow? Even with the actual Feynman Lectures books, which I believe cover a 2 year course, I found the material lacking, and answers to detailed questions had to be found in other, more focussed resources.

Yeah, it seems to me if Terry thinks he's communicating a brilliant new insight by taping some pages together and spamming the thread with (conceptually) disconnected diagrams, then his understanding of the building blocks in science must be awful. I think I know what he needs to fix the problem though, I think his diagrams could use a little more cowbell.

Yeah more cow bell, My stage name was Crackle , but not anymore