Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

[AlexG]

Rewards people that destroy current theories? :roflmao:

Sure, as long as they provide something that works better than current theories. They give Nobel prizes for that.

I've been showing proof that the lumineferous aether exists. I've been showing you pictures of the hydrogen wave-function; those are aetheric duplicates to the hydrogen atom; those are aetheric structures in the aether plane. And you all dogmatically insist there is no aether. I have explained why there are interference patterns in the two slit experiment, even when the particles travelone at a time. The pathways are wave-functions that exist even when the particle is not present. Only when you close one of the slits does the wave-function cease to exist. When you do that, the sole remaining wave function has nothing to interfere with, and the interference pattern goes away. Yet you all perpetuate the dogma that particles interfere with themselves. You perpetuate the dogma that there is no aether. You should be laughing at the physics community's dogma!

You've never shown jack sh*t. You wave your hands a lot and keep writing the same nonsense over and over.

 

[Mazulu]

You've never shown jack sh*t. You wave your hands a lot and keep writing the same nonsense over and over.

I say the same thing about quantum loops, multiverse explanations of QM, and most of the scientific mathematical rubbish that doesn't mean anything and has no practical applications.

If you have an honest bone in your body, then explain to me why Two Slit Diffraction interference patterns occur one particle at a time?

 

[origin]

If you have an honest bone in your body, then explain to me why Two Slit Diffraction interference patterns occur one particle at a time?

Sometimes the single 'particle' goes through both slits at the same time.

 

[Mazulu]

Sometimes the single 'particle' goes through both slits at the same time.

I thought particles were classical objects, hard spheres or points. Such an object could never go through both slits. How can this photon or electron go through both slits at the same time?

 

[Aqueous Id]

The original question asked by darryl calls for discussion about whether or not evolution was directed. This thread is clearly a discussion of evolution versus creationism. Believers in creationism are expected to show support for God, which I did. In doing so, I am immediately attacked for believing in God.

No, I think you were found to be in error of the definition of evolution, which is a purely scientific question.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I've been showing proof that the lumineferous aether exists.

You have not done that, nor can it be done, since that's not what nature is exhibiting. Anything that goes against nature is invalid.

And you all dogmatically insist there is no aether.

No, science insists that nature is what it is. And since nature does not exhibit an ether, we are forced to note that and move on.

I have explained why there are interference patterns in the two slit experiment, even when the particles travelone at a time. The pathways are wave-functions that exist even when the particle is not present. Only when you close one of the slits does the wave-function cease to exist. When you do that, the sole remaining wave function has nothing to interfere with, and the interference pattern goes away.

You haven't added anything to the existing science, which is older than (almost) anyone alive today.

Yet you all perpetuate the dogma that particles interfere with themselves. You perpetuate the dogma that there is no aether. You should be laughing at the physics community's dogma!

No, you should be observing nature instead of expecting nature to wrap itself around your personal ideas and beliefs.

 

[Mazulu]

You have not done that, nor can it be done, since that's not what nature is exhibiting. Anything that goes against nature is invalid.
No, science insists that nature is what it is. And since nature does not exhibit an ether, we are forced to note that and move on.
You haven't added anything to the existing science, which is older than (almost) anyone alive today.
No, you should be observing nature instead of expecting nature to wrap itself around your personal ideas and beliefs.

Let's go through it together. When the two slit diffraction experiment is performed, the particle goes through the slits with an interference pattern. Even if one particle goes through, at a time. But if you close one of the slits, there is no diffraction pattern. Why is there a diffraction pattern when both slits are open?

Let me get you started. Because the particle goes through both slits.

Then I say: But in Classical mechanics, particles are supposed to be hard shells or point particles. Hard shells or point particles can't go through both slits as an intereference pattern.

And then you say something about particle-wave duality.

 

[Epictetus]

God, and/or other supernatural agents, can manipulate matter through its etheric duplicate. The etheric duplicate of the hydrogen atom looks like this. In effect, quantum mechanics can only predict the probability that a quantum system will be in one particular quantum state. A supernatural agent can predict the exact quantum state without disturbing the system; a more powerful supernatural agent can control which eigenstate the quantum system will be in with >99% certainty. Therefore, a supernatural agent could have influenced the evolution of species without leaving a scientifically detectable trace. Whether or not you believe in supernatural agents will largely depend upon whether or not you have ever witnessed their phenomena. Atheist physicists don't witness supernatural phenomena because they're a bunch of dogmatic God-haters. For example,

"God, and/or other supernatural agents!?" You mean like Casper the friendly ghost? Or Count Chocula? Think of what the word 'supernatural means:
adjective
1.of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2.of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3.of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4.of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

I know you'll like the second definition, but look at the company it keeps. "Super means 'above and beyond' as in above and beyond the Alternative Theories role in this Science forum. I'll look for you in the Religion section, chum.