Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also.

Am Mittwoch000004, 04.06.2025 um 14:50 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
 

Am Dienstag000003, 03.06.2025 um 14:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>

Am Montag000002, 02.06.2025 um 20:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>

Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 12:02 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 31.05.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
>

On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:

On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Wo?niak wrote:
>

On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>

>
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\

>
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.

>
>
In science, deductive reasoning is used to test hypotheses, where a
general rule or theory is applied to a specific situation to see if
the
prediction holds true.

>
I note with interest that Richard Hertz and Maciej Wo?niak
agree that it is plain wrong that experimental evidence determines
the validity of a theory of physics.

>
As said: only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
>

>

Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory
depends on its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict
anymore than astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the
Newtonian is not valid. It does not predict.

>
I note with interest that Richard Hertz, Maciej Wo?niak and
Laurence Clark Crossen are ignorant of the scientific method.
>
Here's the scientific method:
>
1. Ask a Question: Begin with a specific question about
       a phenomenon you're interested in.
>
2. Do Research: Gather information and background knowledge
       related to your question.
>
3. Formulate a Hypothesis: Create a testable explanation or
       prediction about the question.
>
4. Experiment and Collect Data: Design and conduct experiments
       or observations to test your hypothesis and gather data.
>
5. Analyze Data: Analyze the collected data to see if it supports
       or contradicts your hypothesis.
>
6. Draw Conclusions: Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions
       about your hypothesis and its validity.
>
7. Communicate Results: Share your findings with the scientific
       community through publications or presentations.
>
------------------------------------------
>
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory).
Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
>
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.

>
Actually I do not agree, because SRT (Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics
of moving bodies') is theoretical physics only.
>
I have actually (carefully!!) 'tested' that particular paper and found,
that it is FULL of errors.
>
The number of errors (plus others issues like violation of formal
standards, missing references, bad language..) was so large (400+), that
I personally think, that Einstein was wilfully mocking the audience.

>
The audience didn't think so.
Au contraire, it was an instant succes,
among those who mattered.
Prestigeous univerisities starten trying to get Einstein
to accept a professorship.
>

>
>
I have looked at that paper very carefully and wrote about 428 comments
about statements, which were in many cases wrong.

>
Ah, some insight into yourself.
Just to help you: your comments are all wrong.

>
This was a very common comment to my 'annotated version of SRT'.
>
But I wave carefully analyzed the text of Einstein and found numerous
errors.
>
Now you could disprove my statements simply by showing that they are wrong.
>
Unfortunately you need to falsify all 428 comments, because even a
single error would be too much.
>
But I have discussed my annotations over a long period of time and
adjusted their content, once someone should me, where I made an error.
>
But this didn't reduce the number of annotations, only their content.
>
I actually made some errors myself, but have already written an entirely
new version, which, hopefully, will not contain any errors by me.
>
>
>

>

There were other issues, too, but more related to expression, grammar,
violation of formal requirements and so forth.

>
Irrelevant, for science.

>
Sure.
>
But I used a certain 'backdrop':
>
I treated the paper in question, as if it would be the homework of a
student and I would be the professor, who had to write corrections into it.

 Yes, that's precisely your mistake.
It wasn't a student's home work, it was a research paper,
presenting fundamentally new insights.
(that could solve all open problems in electrodynamics)
It was succesful in letting his collegues see what he had seen.

Sure, it since I was not a professor and Einstein not my student.
BUT: what would think about a 'scientific' paper, which would not pass this simple and realatively easy test?

 Einstein wasn't written for the likes of you,
he was writing for scientists like Planck, Lorentz,
and the like.

Well, possily he wanted Planck and Lorentz as his readers.
But authors usually do not decide, who reads the own works.
Any article in science is a priori meant for a wider audience of (qualified) readers.
This required qualification was actually assumed with 'physics professor'.
You may now question my personal abilities, but that wasn't the point, because it was this 'hypothetical' professor (of physics) who 'wrote' comments.
Now you need to prove, that no real professor of physics would write what I had written and why.
But real physicists use real physics and usual academic rules for scientific papers.
As I have an academic degree, I know these rules, while Physics I have learned as a hobby.
But 'hobby' is sufficiant here, because there ain't no rule, that only professionals may critizise something in physics.
TH
...