Monkeymind

• MonkeymindMay 4, 2012, 12:26 PM

  −6 points

  in reply to: Bugmaster’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  Well then you missed the series of posts (the last few) that begin with:

  “Well, I know that I said I would be back in a few months after learning more, but that will not be necessary. I have already learned enough to complete my analysis of Configurations and Amplitudes.

  So today I wrote up a brief response based on what I currently understand about Double Slit and Half Silvered Mirror Experiments. Here it is in several posts.

  What’s the matter?”

  BTW, the post I was talking about was 13 sentences. I don’t know which one you are referring to. Anyways, try to respond to content not style. See if you can exterminate any of my posts, Bugmaster. I welcome it, as I’m here to learn, not defend some sort of belief system.

• MonkeymindMay 4, 2012, 12:15 PM

  −10 points

  in reply to: dlthomas’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  Exactly! Wave is a verb, a dynamic concept implying motion and concepts can not move. ADDED: Adding ‘A’ in front of wave makes it appear it is a noun.

  One does not need to be a physicist to understand that light is not ‘a’ wave.

  There is a difference between an object and a concept. I keep saying this over and over, not because I think anyone is stupid. Because it can take months to understand (unlearn bad habbits). This is the MAIN prob with science in general and math and physics in particular.

  BTW: dlthomas, I plussed you for helping me FINALLY get to the Thingy. Defining KEY TERMS!

• MonkeymindMay 3, 2012, 9:41 PM

  −11 points

  in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  Uhuh, thanx for the thumb down, mystery person. Don’t worry about it… the physicists don’t have counterarguments either!

  Wave/​particle duality is irrational because the language is grammatically incorrect and contradictory (as I have explained repeatedly).

  The half silvered mirror experiment, and the double slit experiment are unscientific. The theory they are based upon uses abstract dynamic mathematical language to describe imaginary static objects confusing objects with concepts, instead of illustrating the objects in the hypothesis and explaining the phenomena in the theory as required by the scientific method.

  The actual phenomena is simple diffraction caused by destructive wave interference and was properly understood hundreds of years ago.

  The particle wave paradox is illogical, because it violates the three Laws of Logic.

  Finally, the Lunar Laser Ranging stations in Texas and in New Mexico clearly show the impossibility of light leaving as a photon, traveling as a wave, and arriving as a photon. Therefore, I have shown without any counterargument that Amplitudes and Configurations is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

• MonkeymindMay 3, 2012, 7:50 PM

  −10 points

  in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  x

• MonkeymindMay 2, 2012, 4:19 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  Thanx for your comment!

  Although it is long, as it broadly covers many blogs in a sequence on how to change your mind, I disagree about it being off topic.

  However, let me remind you that it is others that have kept it “off topic” not I. Others requested that I read other blogs in order that I might see more clearly where the author was coming from and the main thrust of Less Wrong.

  Yet, it is not entirely off topic, it is just that we are dealing with a very broad subject, Quantum Mechanics, and attempting to approach it from a rationalist pov. The specific topic is Amplitudes and Configurations. The foundational principles of the experiment are flawed. I have attempted to point this out. We can return to the actual experiment once we have agreed on the basic assumptions.

• MonkeymindMay 2, 2012, 4:04 PM

  −5 points

  in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  x

• MonkeymindMay 2, 2012, 3:54 PM

  −3 points

  in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  x

• MonkeymindMay 1, 2012, 4:52 PM

  −1 points

  in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Cor­rect­ing er­rors and karma

  I gave you a thumbs up for this!

• MonkeymindMay 1, 2012, 4:24 PM

  −10 points

  in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  x

• MonkeymindMay 1, 2012, 1:44 PM

  −14 points

  in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  x

• MonkeymindApr 30, 2012, 10:00 PM

  −4 points

  in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  Thanx! Added “at the hypothesis stage” for clarity.

• MonkeymindApr 30, 2012, 9:50 PM

  −13 points

  in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  x

• MonkeymindApr 30, 2012, 9:40 PM

  −18 points

  in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  x

• MonkeymindApr 30, 2012, 9:30 PM

  −12 points

  in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  x

• MonkeymindApr 30, 2012, 9:20 PM

  −21 points

  in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  x

• MonkeymindApr 20, 2012, 5:55 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  x

• MonkeymindApr 17, 2012, 2:59 PM

  −14 points

  in reply to: TimS’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  x

• MonkeymindApr 17, 2012, 12:40 PM

  −19 points

  in reply to: Monkeymind’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  x

• MonkeymindApr 16, 2012, 11:51 PM

  −25 points

  in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  BYE!

  EDIT: What negative thumbs for leaving? I said I’ll be back. Just giving you a chance to gather your thought s so you can answer my questions next time. And when I get back, I’ll know far more than I do now. I’ll either be apologizing for being so dull, or ‘splainin’ why you are dull!

• MonkeymindApr 16, 2012, 6:40 PM

  −24 points

  in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: Con­figu­ra­tions and Amplitude

  x