Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Are you what whe could name a sophist ?No nothing like that. I am saying I agree with the scientific community. You on the other hand have something you made up on your own, that does not agree with observation.
"I am great because i am great. kneel before the king !!"
Lol.
It is still an illusion.First of all, it is important to note that "and many others" is actually all of the scientific community.
i dont understand why you (and many others) cant agree with this obvious thing.
Why is it an "illusion" ?Please explain what you mean by this statement.
I repeat : Because the full phenomenon is not available at distant observers.
So the mathematical proof can not be a physical proof.What do you mean by this, AFAIK the mathematical explanation matches the physical observations
More or less the one given in that video- in which the guy cites Feynman's books on the subject.Well that's pretty humorous, so apparently the video is accurate it's just that hamdani doesn't understand it.
Those books are older than I am
Have you seen the video?No, the reason there is no need to see it is this statement you made:
why?Because we already know why the speed of light slows down when it passes through glass, water, etc. obviously.
I expect to see massive revisions on physics textbooks in not so distant futureI don't..
You just said here that the [second] vector's magnitude is momentum, so you are saying that the magnitude of a vector is a vector. That is nonsense.A vector is a quantity that has a magnitude and a direction. Velocity is a vector. That means velocity will have a magnitude, which is the speed and it will have direction. For example if I was in a car I might say my velocity (a vector quantity) is 100 km/hr heading east. Both a magnitude (100 km/hr) and a direction (east).
Why do you say it's nonsense?The magnitude of a vector CANNOT be a vector. A vector has a magnitude AND direction. Magnitude does not have a direction so it cannot be a vector.
The second vector points along y-axis and its magnitude represents the momentum by a density-energy value.Sorry I didn't see this post.
For the pressure it's a bit more complicated than that. We need to relate the energy-density value of y which corresponds to the second vector.No, really?? The second vector?
The vector length between -x or x in relation to x=0 indicates the exact position of the particle. I will draw you a GIF.Not that it matters at this point but your gif has the particle at X = 0 for the whole sequence.
The vector length between -x or x in relation to x=0 indicates the exact position of the particle.Please stop using the term 'vector', you don't know what it means and using the term incorrectly is very confusing. Length is a scalar not a vector!
The specific vector interprets along x-axis:I see the problem, you don't know what vector you are talking about. You have some half thought out idea and you are arbitrarily calling this vague idea a vector.
1. the exact postion of the particle1. That in itself has nothing to do with a vector.
2. the velocity
3. the pressure
This vector corresponds in some way to the amplitude/magnitude in relation to x=0. IOW the base of the matrix is at x=0 and its linear vector in relation to x-axis determines by its length the position of the particle always following x-axis.Why do you you always refuse to answer simple direct questions. It is really frustrating.
The vector that points to the center of the particleWhat specific vector are you talking about?
But during a weak or almost non-existent oscillation, the particle is then represented by a vectorial direction during its movement along x-axis.The particles velocity is a vector, that does make sense.
After that by acceleration of the oscillation of the particle by jamming of the vector becomes chaotic in its punctual interpretation. That's why I talked about entropy of a vector hence the following answering to this rhetoric:Unfortunately that is just more word salad.
identification of the particle either by a scalar value or by a vector valueHow could a particle be a vector? That makes no sense.
During a very high frequency oscillation, the entropy of the vector which points to the barycenter of the particle determines the scalar density not by the uncertainty principleThis is word salad.