Quantum Mechanics and Relativity as religion ?

[quant]

The first question is, can a Science be classified as a religion? Of course it can, take the case of Scientology, to which religion leading celebrities Tom Cruise and John Travolta belong. Scientology being an extremely secretive sect, it is difficult to understand the ideology, but according to early literature they embrace the advance of technology as being indicative of a higher being.

At one time a favourite saying was, “The mills of God grind slowly but they grind exceedingly fine.” What is ironic is that given the massive increase in technology, this saying is more indicative of the truth today than it has ever been in the past. The irony lies in the fact that the majority of people do not seem to realise this. For instance, we have amazingly realistic computer simulations, a fact which has made many people, the hugely successful and dynamic figure of Elon Musk among them, question if the Universe is real or if we are living in a computer simulation ourselves. Our data processing has reached a level where it is possible for the computing power and memory capacity of an ordinary Desk Top to keep a fairly detailed record of every person on earth, yes all 7 or 8 billion of them. A large part of this scepticism about religion, seems to emanate from science, in particular quantum mechanics and relativity, both special and general relativity. It is common to find posts on the net derogatory of religion. The other day I found a post by a perfectly formed young female, who had little to complain about, indulge in a Jeremiad about religion, she could only go on repeating, fuck religion, fuck Jesus Christ, etc ad infinitum…… This by itself was not troubling, because after all every person is entitled to their views, what is troubling is that science has left her and others like her with very little alternative than to adopt such a derogatory stance.

Is quantum mechanics a religion? Yes, at its core it is built on highly questionable premises, in one sense it is a religion that is built on the crude use of communist propaganda. Self aggrandising, boastful, adamant! if some fault is found with its reasoning it will immediately mend that fault or shortcoming and carry on as if nothing had happened, it is as if quantum mechanics has lost the spirit of grace, it lacks the ability to apologise, engage in a meaningful discussion or even admit that something might be wrong. Using a veil of abstruse mathematics that has no connection to reality they boast that quantum mechanics is the most perfect theory ever to have been devised by man. It is not. Quantum mechanics is far from being the perfect, idealistic system it is made out to be. It is riddled with inconsistencies, it is illogical and poorly constructed, it is far from being the best solution that is available, it is far from being the most perfect theory devised by man. It frequently overlooks insurmountable inconsistencies and provides esoteric and exotic excuses to make things work. Schrodinger’s equation should have never have been adopted , if logic had held sway, neither should wave-particle duality, have had a place.

My question is, is this a religion? The answer is yes, it has all the hall marks, it draws adherents to itself saying religion is false, it cannot be proved, it is veiled in mathematical abstractions into which the common man cannot enter, everything has to be taken on faith. And what a faith it is! People who do not possess the slightest inkling on what it is, will passionately defend quantum mechanics (and relativity) and passionately beat down any and all opposition to SCIENCE. Believe, me it is not science, it is misleading jargon. Leaving aside the moment of whether quantum mechanics and relativity are representative of the truth, the question is are they accountable?

Take any religion, Christian, Mussulman, Buddhist, Hindu or Jew. By belonging to a certain religion, they are accountable for their beliefs. Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists all believe that their actions will determine their fate. Do scientists believe the same thing, or do they believe that there is no need to have a religion, it is enough to behave correctly? But is that true. Don’t beliefs count? If one believes, things can be in two places at once or that multiple dimensions exist or that multiple Universes exist are they accountable for those beliefs? Is the Universe not good enough?

As a parting shot, let me state that we do not exist because of the Universe but that the Universe exists because of us. If they were no limiting speed of the Universe, there would be no causality and sentient beings and even matter could not exist, as such what we think is surely important?

 

[James R]

quant:

Previously, you claimed that quantum mechanics and relativity are somehow flawed. Then you failed to demonstrate that they are flawed.

To me, this thread looks like an attempt to change tack. Since you can't refute either theory with science, you're going to try labelling these scientific theories "religions", and complain about them on that basis.

Here's the problem: religions ask their followers to accept their claims based on faith rather than evidence. In contrast, the natural sciences demand good agreement between theories and evidence before the theories are accepted.

Another difference is that religious claims tend to be held dogmatically. Believers will often assert that the religious claims are self-evidently true, when they are not. In contrast, scientific claims are all provisional. When a theoretical prediction doesn't match the real-world evidence, and the real-world evidence is strongly confirmed, the theory is modified or replaced by a different theory. Science is self-correcting. Religions don't self-correct, for the most part; on the contrary, they often include robust self-protection mechanisms that prevent or even prohibit deviation from certain "articles of faith".

The theories of relativity and quantum mechanics are not religions. They are scientific theories. Science is not a religion. It is not faith-based. It is not dogmatic.

The chances are very high that somebody who claims that science is a religion doesn't know much about science. On examination, this almost always turns out to be the problem. Meanwhile, the same person will often be all for religions that are actually religions - or more commonly for one particular religion.

Anyway, let's look at what you've written.

The first question is, can a Science be classified as a religion? Of course it can, take the case of Scientology...

Very bad example. There is no connection between science and Scientology. Scientology is a cult that was started by a science-fiction writer. At its core, it has some crazy beliefs about alien beings inhabiting all human bodies, mixed in with lots of pseudoscientific ideas. It's also a money-making scheme for its leaders, who extract as much money as they can from their followers, while isolating them from family and friends who are not Scientologists.

A large part of this scepticism about religion, seems to emanate from science, in particular quantum mechanics and relativity, both special and general relativity.

It's not so much that scepticism emanates from science. Scepticism is built into how science works. Rational, critical thinking is taught, often implicitly, in science classes. So, it's hardly surprising that many people who are trained in science start applying critical thinking in other aspects of their lives as well, including to their religious beliefs and the beliefs other people have.

There are lots of scientists who are religious. The proportion is lower than the general population.

I don't think relativity or quantum mechanics, specifically, have had any great influence of scepticism of religion. In fact, a lot of New Age religions have taken to misappropriating ideas from quantum physics as a way of trying to prop up any number of bizarre and unevidenced claims.

It is common to find posts on the net derogatory of religion. The other day I found a post by a perfectly formed young female, who had little to complain about, indulge in a Jeremiad about religion, she could only go on repeating, fuck religion, fuck Jesus Christ, etc ad infinitum…… This by itself was not troubling, because after all every person is entitled to their views, what is troubling is that science has left her and others like her with very little alternative than to adopt such a derogatory stance.

Do you think science and religion are in conflict? If they are, which should prevail, in your opinion? Why?

Is quantum mechanics a religion? Yes, at its core it is built on highly questionable premises, in one sense it is a religion that is built on the crude use of communist propaganda.

Ooh! Interesting.

Please tell me what the questionable premises are.

And which communist propaganda is quantum mechanics built on? I can't recall seeing any communist propaganda in any quantum mechanics textbook. (Mind you, I haven't read any Soviet-era quantum mechanics texts from Russia, so maybe you're referring to those?)

Self aggrandising, boastful, adamant! if some fault is found with its reasoning it will immediately mend that fault or shortcoming and carry on as if nothing had happened, it is as if quantum mechanics has lost the spirit of grace, it lacks the ability to apologise, engage in a meaningful discussion or even admit that something might be wrong.

Science is supposed to mend its faults and shortcomings when they are discovered. That's how science works. See above about self-correction. This is a feature, not a bug.

Quantum mechanics, of course, cannot apologise for its mistakes. It's not a person. Only people can apologise for their mistakes.

Do you think somebody owes you an apology? Who? For what?

Using a veil of abstruse mathematics that has no connection to reality they boast that quantum mechanics is the most perfect theory ever to have been devised by man.

Quantum theory is a theory of reality. It is supposed to describe reality. It is also experimentally tested using real-world experiments.

How can you claim it has no connection to reality?

Quantum mechanics is far from being the perfect, idealistic system it is made out to be.

Who claims it is a perfect, idealistic system? Name names, please.

It is riddled with inconsistencies...

Give me an example of one inconsistency in quantum mechanics, please.

..., it is illogical and poorly constructed...

Please explain one thing that is illogical about it.

We can consider the question of poor vs good construction later on, after you have shown examples of inconsistencies and illogicality, I think.

... it is far from being the best solution that is available...

What is the best solution available?

... it is far from being the most perfect theory devised by man.

Maybe. Maybe not. Out of interest, do you have an opinion on what is the most perfect theory devised by man?

Are you impressed at all by the stunningly good agreement on the theoretical quantum prediction for the value of the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron and the experimentally measured value? If not, why not? And does your "best solution" do a better job?

It frequently overlooks insurmountable inconsistencies and provides esoteric and exotic excuses to make things work.

Please describe one insurmountable inconsistency for me.

 

[James R]

Schrodinger’s equation should have never have been adopted , if logic had held sway, neither should wave-particle duality, have had a place.

Well, what's done is done, unless you have something better to replace quantum physics with?

You have already hinted several times on this forum that you have your own, superior theory, to replace quantum mechanics and/or relativity. But so far, you've been very shy about presenting it for our evaluation. Why? Aren't you ready to reveal your ideas to the world yet?

My question is, is this a religion? The answer is yes, it has all the hall marks, it draws adherents to itself saying religion is false, it cannot be proved, it is veiled in mathematical abstractions into which the common man cannot enter, everything has to be taken on faith.

Neither quantum theory nor the theory of relativity has anything to say about religion being false. They are scientific theories, not critiques of religion.

And what a faith it is! People who do not possess the slightest inkling on what it is, will passionately defend quantum mechanics (and relativity) and passionately beat down any and all opposition to SCIENCE.

People who do not possess the slightest inkling say lots of crazy stuff about all kinds of things. So what? It's best to listen to those who do possess an inkling, is it not? Ignore the chatter of the ignorant. Go to the experts.

Believe, me it is not science, it is misleading jargon.

That's a big claim. Let's hope you make some attempt to support it. Otherwise, it's just empty words.

Leaving aside the moment of whether quantum mechanics and relativity are representative of the truth, the question is are they accountable?

They are testable against real-world evidence. That's the kind of accountability that science is built on.

Is that what you mean when you talk about accountability, or are you talking about something different?

Take any religion, Christian, Mussulman, Buddhist, Hindu or Jew. By belonging to a certain religion, they are accountable for their beliefs. Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists all believe that their actions will determine their fate. Do scientists believe the same thing, or do they believe that there is no need to have a religion, it is enough to behave correctly?

Science isn't about how to behave correctly. Science isn't moral philosophy and it isn't religion.

Science does hold that people's actions will determine their fate, at least in part. The natural world displays cause and effect. Actions have effects. For instance, it I jump into the air, science says that my fate will be to come back down and land on the ground. My action determined my fate, along with some laws of physics and such.

Is that the sort of thing you mean?

But is that true. Don’t beliefs count? If one believes, things can be in two places at once or that multiple dimensions exist or that multiple Universes exist are they accountable for those beliefs? Is the Universe not good enough?

I don't think I understand your question, here.

As a parting shot, let me state that we do not exist because of the Universe but that the Universe exists because of us.

How do you figure that? Can you talk me through your reasoning?

If they were no limiting speed of the Universe, there would be no causality and sentient beings and even matter could not exist, as such what we think is surely important?

Err... okay. It's a good thing there is a limiting speed of the universe, then, I guess. (You mean the speed of light, right?)

 

[Pinball1970]

The first question is, can a Science be classified as a religion?

No.

Is quantum mechanics a religion?

No.

Do scientists believe the same thing, or do they believe that there is no need to have a religion, it is enough to behave correctly? But is that true. Don’t beliefs count?

Completely irrelevant to science.

As a parting shot, let me state that we do not exist because of the Universe but that the Universe exists because of us. If they were no limiting speed of the Universe, there would be no causality and sentient beings and even matter could not exist, as such what we think is surely important?

The question started poorly, then got ill, accidentally set itself on fire then fell off a cliff into shark infested waters.

 

[quant]

Are you impressed at all by the stunningly good agreement on the theoretical quantum prediction for the value of the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron and the experimentally measured value? If not, why not? And does your "best solution" do a better job?

Enough said! Give me one quote from Newton. Faraday, Poincare or Lorentz which is as nauseating as your claim! Yes, my theory does offer better solutions all round, no esotericism or witch craft involved. No super position, no wave particle duality, no time dilation, no length contraction, no multiple dimensions. Look with such an anomalous philosophy as you support, kids aren't even sure of what gender they are any more, they can be this or that or neither. Get real, what you say and what you claim are important.

 

[quant]

Completely irrelevant to science.

Not as it at present stands. Look with classical physics, if you made a statement. You had to prove it. In QM you can claim anything and with no basis can state it is a proven theory and then get your panties in a twist when questioned. Do you think it is irrelevant that the Universe seems made for us and not the other way around. The Universe (i.e all matter and life) could not exist without causality. Even matter needs an ordered sequence of events to come into being. Causality is when a boy walks along a road sees a stone picks it up, looks up sees a window throws the stone and breaks the window. What if window breaks, boy walks along, boy throws stone. Boy picks up stone etc. If the speed of light could be broken, one could be at two or three places simultaneously, time and space would have no meaning.

 

[Pinball1970]

In QM you can claim anything and with no basis can state it is a proven theory and then get your panties in a twist when questioned.

Are you saying QM made no predictions? Predictions that have not yet been demonstrated?

 

[Pinball1970]

. In QM you can claim anything and with no basis can state it is a proven theory and then get your panties in a twist when questioned

I ask you again. Are you saying that QM has made predictions? Or predictions that have not been verified in experiments?

 

[DaveC426913]

[My theory has] ... no super position, no wave particle duality, no time dilation, no length contraction, no multiple dimensions.

That would be a pity, because most of those things (though not all) are observed.

You can't wave away the facts of nature that you don't like just because they confuse you. That's religion.
If you want to science you must start with the observations (superposition, wave particle duality, time dilation, length contraction) and build your model to match them.

If your model does not describe what is observed then it is still-born.


But it gets worse:

Look with classical physics, if you made a statement. You had to prove it. In QM you can claim anything and with no basis can state it is a proven theory and then get your panties in a twist when questioned.

Or more accurately, you are using a word that doesn't belong. Both your statements above are false.

Theories are not "proven" (except in mathematics, and even then they are based on axioms, postulates and premises). Theories are predictive models. They are an attempt to predict what we see in nature. If a given theory fails to do that, it is altered or discarded. (Both relativity and QM predict our world extremely well, and are still being modified to do better.)

It does not bode well that you are spending so much time trying to develop ideas in a discipline that is built upon a pillar you don't understand.

It certainly explains why you confuse science and religion. You are literally telling us you don't know what science is about. And it follows that this entire thread is based on that misunderstanding. You would do well to ask questions about things you don't understand, rather than declaring they're wrong in a vacuum of understanding.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Anything can be declared a religion, St. Douglas of the Adams proved that. It would idiotic to take that as a green light.

 

[James R]

quant:

I see you ignored most of what I wrote to you. I have tried to help you, but I am getting the impression that you're not interested in learning about quantum physics or relativity.

You're also not being very honest in your interactions with me.

You have made a number of specific claims, but you have not attempted to support any of them. Here's a summary of your claims:
* You claim that quantum mechanics is "based on highly questionable premises". However, you have so far failed to specify what those premise are or to explain why they are highly questionable.
* You claim that quantum mechanics is "built on the crude use of communist propaganda", but you have done nothing to even start trying to support that claim.
* You claim that quantum mechanics is "riddled with inconsistencies". So far, you have failed to identify a single inconsistency.
* You claim that quantum mechanics is "illogical". So far, you have not identified a single logical failure in the theory.
* You claim there are "insurmountable inconsistencies" that require "excuses" to make them work, but seemingly you cannot identify a single inconsistency.

Can you, in fact, support any of your hyperbolic complaints about quantum physics, or can't you? If you can't, you should probably stop with your silly posturing. If you can, then support your claims.

Also...

Yes, my theory does offer better solutions all round, no esotericism or witch craft involved. No super position, no wave particle duality, no time dilation, no length contraction, no multiple dimensions.

Are you scared to present this magnificent theory of yours?

You keep alluding to your great discoveries and making grandiose claims for your own work. But, despite being asked several times, you have not presented any part of your alternative theory.

Here's what I think. I think you're scared that your theory can't hold up to the scrutiny of somebody who understands quantum physics better than you do, and you're starting to worry that maybe I might be one of those somebodies. Your concerns are justified, I think.

Now, are you going to be honest with me, or are you going to keep strutting around, pretending you have found flaws in quantum physics and/or relativity, while never actually being brave enough to reveal what you think the flaws are?

Can your theory withstand any scrutiny, or is it a fragile concoction of nonsense?

Time to put up or shut up, quant.

 

[James R]

Look with such an anomalous philosophy as you support, kids aren't even sure of what gender they are any more, they can be this or that or neither.

Are you aware of how nutty you sound, when you post something like that?

If you're upset about transexuality or something, that is an entirely different and unrelated topic than the ones in which you're complaining about quantum mechanics and relativity. It's also something that I have said nothing about, here. Get a grip. Stop flailing around like a kid looking for an insult to fling at me, just because you're afraid to answer my reasonable questions.

 

[James R]

Look with classical physics, if you made a statement. You had to prove it. In QM you can claim anything and with no basis can state it is a proven theory and then get your panties in a twist when questioned.

That is complete, fantastical hogwash. QM is a scientific theory. It is rigorous and quantitative. It has existed and been developed for over 100 years. It has been tested over and over again in thousands of experiments. It is one of the most successful scientific theories we have.

There have been hints in your posts that you don't really understand the theory. Maybe you're angry because you don't understand it. Who knows? Whatever the reason, who do you think you're fooling when you make silly claims about the theory that you can't support - that you actually refuse to even try to support?

You claim you have a superior alternative. You want to replace the illogical, inconsistency-ridden theory of QM with your own theoretical masterpiece. Okay, so show us your masterpiece. Let us see why your work beats 100 years of work by top-flight physicists, including Nobel prize winners.

Why are you scared?

Do you think it is irrelevant that the Universe seems made for us and not the other way around.

It doesn't seem that way to me, at all. Most of the universe is utterly hostile to human life. So far, we only know of one small planet where we humans can survive in the absence of complicated artificial life-support systems.

The Universe (i.e all matter and life) could not exist without causality. Even matter needs an ordered sequence of events to come into being. Causality is when a boy walks along a road sees a stone picks it up, looks up sees a window throws the stone and breaks the window. What if window breaks, boy walks along, boy throws stone. Boy picks up stone etc. If the speed of light could be broken, one could be at two or three places simultaneously, time and space would have no meaning.

Okay. So, like I said before, it's a good thing the speed of light can't be broken, isn't it? So what?

 

[James R]

You are literally telling us you don't know what science is about. And it follows that this entire thread is based on that misunderstanding. You would do well to ask questions about things you don't understand, rather than declaring they're wrong in a vacuum of understanding.

It constantly amazes me - though it no longer surprises me - that some people have so little humility that they will presume to try to lecture other people about subjects that they barely understand anything about.

An honest inquirer after knowledge is humble enough to recognise that he still has a lot to learn. We learn by making mistakes, sure, but we also learn by asking questions and by learning from those whose level of knowledge and experience is superior to our own.

Typically, on discussion forums like this, I think we see two types of people who try to lecture others about technical subjects when they have at best an introductory-level understanding of the relevant topics. One type are the young and naive, who imagine they understand more than they actually do. The smarter ones of those quickly realise that they still have much to learn. They pull their heads in and knuckle down to actually do some work to learn about the stuff that interests them. The blockheaded ones, on the other hand, continue to delude themselves that they are undiscovered geniuses, eventually turning into the second type of these people, described below.

The second type we tend to see is people who have been around the interwebs for years or more. Their lack of expertise in the subjects they try to lecture others about has been exposed over and over again by people who have actually put in the work required to attain real expertise. But instead of pulling their heads in and making an effort to learn, they have chosen to double down on the stupid, while also becoming more strident, uncompromising and unwilling to learn anything new. They are caught up in their own little world in which they delude themselves that they are the actual expert and that everybody else who has any credentials is not only wrong, but part of a conspiracy to suppress them and their personal "truth".

Whenever I come across one of these garden-shed lecturers, I like to start with the assumption that they are a type 1 - some kid who obviously has a lot to still to learn, but who might still be reachable. It is only when the person starts displaying avoidance behaviours, steps up the posturing, starts substituting insults for arguments and such that I am reluctantly forced to conclude that I'm most likely dealing with a type 2 - a person who has made a deliberate choice somewhere along the line that they will never listen to anybody or learn anything new. The type 2s live in sort of self-protective bubble in which they imagine themselves to be persecuted geniuses - the only sane man in a sea of insanity and opposition.

For some reason - it's probably just coincidence - we often seem to get a bunch of the type 2s descending on sciforums around the same time. Something in the air, maybe. Or maybe a bunch of them get kicked off some other forum and together go looking for new pastures (or old ones that they haven't visited for a long time).

I don't know what it must be like to shop one's pet theory around the interwebs, sometimes for decades, only to have it shot down over and over again by people whom one believes are one's inferiors and oppressors. It must make for a lonely, bile-fueled sort of existence. But it is a self-imposed sort of misery. Ultimately, the type 2s only have themselves to blame.

 

[DaveC426913]

The blockheaded ones, on the other hand, continue to delude themselves that they are undiscovered geniuses, eventually turning into the second type of these people, described below.

The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.

I have this metaphor building up as each of these (tee hee) "garden-shed lecturers" parades through (we have several right now). I imagine them sweeping their arms about in a grand gesture, describing how much they know about their preferred area - completely oblivious they are alone at the bottom of a five gallon tin bucket. They fancy themselves master of all they survey - they just don't know that their entire world is contained in a bucket, and the only voice they hear is their own, echoing off every wall.

"This quantum mechanics (or atheism or persistence-hunting, etc.) is bunk! " they cry "I will tell you how things work! The world is flat on the bottom, with cylindrical walls all around - and so shiny!"

It's a crude metaphor that needs polishing.

I like to start with the assumption that they are a type 1 - some kid who obviously has a lot to still to learn, but who might still be reachable.

You have an abundance of patience.

I used to have a lot more patience and charity. I've gotten worn down over the years and now give them maybe three chances.

 

[quant]

It constantly amazes me - though it no longer surprises me - that some people have so little humility that they will presume to try to lecture other people about subjects that they barely understand anything about.

James R If you understand the virtues of temperance, justice, humility, patience, charity and diligence, you should have absolutely no problem in understanding what I am saying. Since you seem to be significantly lacking in these qualities, it is perhaps understandable that you sub-consciously or consciously, can make no sense of what I am saying. I will say it once again, how can you state that for two people starting from Los Angeles at the same time and from the same place and travelling to Las Vegas, travel DIFFERENT distances! One traveler reaches Las Vegas after travelling only 10 k while the other traveler reaches Las Vegas after travelling for 150 km. How is this possible? Do two identical cities of Las Vegas come into existence? Or does one Las Vegas occupy a different dimensional space than the other Las Vegas.. I had posted quite detailed scenarios with worked examples using Einstein’s own equation in post #15 in the: “What if Newton was Wrong?” thread in the Alternative Theories forum. It is a sad indication of the times when anyone questioning if Newton was right can end up in alternate theories. But you obtusely refuse to refer to these worked examples and stick to your own perspective, which is “That nothing changes!” everything remains the same, it is only one’s perspective that changes. So without even bothering to look at the calculations or what is being said, you continue to use the same arguments.

Your viewpoint that it is all a question of perspective and that in some miraculous way no 'real' time dilation or length contraction takes place is delusional. Special relativity is ALL about how time really does dilate and lengths do really contract. Look at twin paradox.

 

[DaveC426913]

how can you state that for two people starting from Los Angeles at the same time and from the same place and travelling to Las Vegas, travel DIFFERENT distances! One traveler reaches Las Vegas after travelling only 10 k while the other traveler reaches Las Vegas after travelling for 150 km. How is this possible?

This is how:


Once again, nature is not obliged to make sense to you. Especially if you don't do your homework and if you deny what we observe in nature.

 

[quant]

Once again, nature is not obliged to make sense to you. Especially if you don't do your homework and if you deny what we observe in nature.

Why not, it always did before? If a phenomenon could not be explained it was rejected AND an outcome that did hold up was awaited. These qualities are ignored by both quantum mechanics and relativity, hence both theories are skewed. How did all this marvelous technology come into being? It came into being using the empirical part of quantum mechanics. Such as Bohr's model of the atom (the new theory with an electron cloud does not hold water), atomic spectra, and of course Planck's theory of quanta. You are the victim of the crude communist type propaganda of the theories you support, as well as serving as a loyal missionary and fierce advocate of these theories. I had made up my mind to not respond to you, even your replies to my posts are made with the sole aim of undermining whatever I say, or obscuring it. Look at your post above (#17) you candidly state that observer B measures a distance of 10 Km ( even though A and B started off from the same place at the same time and followed the same route, to the same destination) while observer A measures a distance of 150 km and you adamantly state that this result cannot be questioned? What you say is true, if B is travelling at a speed of 0.9999998 times the speed of light, distances will contract for him and he will measure a distance of 10 Km while if traveler A is moving at 60 km/h he will measure the distance to be 150 Km. The only answer that makes logical sense is that B is travelling in a different dimension and that although the destination is nominally the same as A's destination, that the two destinations exist in different dimensions. Is there anything wrong my reasoning? If so can you explain?

 

[DaveC426913]

Why not, it always did before

You were younger, the world you knew was simpler.

If a phenomenon could not be explained it was rejected AND an outcome that did hold up was awaited.

QM and relativity ARE the explanation for what we observe.

All earlier theories have been rejected BECAUSE they didnt explain what we see.

These qualities are ignored by both quantum mechanics and relativity

You are ignoring what we observe.
Newton's theory was simple but it fell short and had ro be superceded by a better model.

, hence both theories are skewed.

Erroneous conclusion based on flawed premises.

How did all this marvelous technology come into being?

What technology?

It came into being using the empirical part of quantum mechanics. Such as Bohr's model of the atom (the new theory with an electron cloud does not hold water)

Do you mean you don't understand it?

You are the victim of the crude communist type propaganda

Okay, shall we move this thread to the conspiracy forum? Or would you rather talk science?

of the theories you support, as well as serving as a loyal missionary and fierce advocate of these theories. I had made up my mind to not respond to you, even your replies to my posts are made with the sole aim of undermining whatever I say, or obscuring it.

You recognize that you don't have sufficient knowledge to fully grasp the theories. You keep telling us you don't understand them.

The question then becomes: ehyvdo you think you know enough to come up with your own theory?

Look at your post above (#17) you candidly state that observer B measures a distance of 10 Km ( even though A and B started off from the same place at the same time and followed the same route, to the same destination) while observer A measures a distance of 150 km and you adamantly state that this result cannot be questioned?

I never stated that, never mind adamantly.

What you say is true, if B is travelling at a speed of 0.9999998 times the speed of light, distances will contract for him and he will measure a distance of 10 Km while if traveler A is moving at 60 km/h he will measure the distance to be 150 Km.

Perfect!

The only answer that makes logical sense is that B is travelling in a different dimension

Makes sense to whom? Me? We have zero evidence of different dimensions, and relativity explains it perfectly with the four we have evidence for.

and that although the destination is nominally the same as A's destination, that the two destinations exist in different dimensions. Is there anything wrong my reasoning? If so can you explain?

Yes. There is no evidence for extra dimensions. Nor is there a need.

The "extra" dimension you speak of that they are travelling through - is time. Travelling through the three spatial dimensions affects the rate at which we travel to through spacetime.

 

[quant]

Yes. There is no evidence for extra dimensions. Nor is there a need.

The "extra" dimension you speak of that they are travelling through - is time. Travelling through the three spatial dimensions affects the rate at which we travel to through spacetime.

As I said before your answers are in the dense side.