>>11249452You're the guy I was referring to in this one, right?
>>11247202>To the quantum physicist from the previous thread...Are you this guy too?
>>11249069I can tell by the fact you're only going for the easy target that you won't respond unless it's to do someone down.
Nonetheless.
I'm just a guy who got lost all enthusiasm for physics a while back but got intrigued by the triple filter paradox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5GqoV9wVh4Those results, which are as reliant on quantum mechanics as the single-photon double-slit experiment, can be replicated with an experiment entirely based in classical mechanics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFah3SZ5UdA with the difference being that we see photons as being point-like particles (or having point-like wave-fronts), whereas in the experiment (and Bohmian mechanics), photons are line-like (or string-like, if you like that theory).
Blah blah, that stuff is self-evident, so you can't do me down on that.
F=ma, Time Dilation, Length Contraction, those points corroborate.
Blah, just a re-working of the Ladder Paradox, blah, which is accepted as fact.
You never stated your position by the way, is it Copenhagen?
Feynman fan as well?
No wonder people like Hoaxfag sink their teeth in when your position boils down to "particles move in mysterious ways" so we can never divine a deeper meaning.
When your excuse for violating the speed of light is that the universe "cares" whether or your breaking of the speed of light can be used to talk faster than the speed of light, like God has a spreadsheet and the equations of the universe and makes exceptions on a case by case basis.
>>11249388And Hoaxfag, you're no better, expecting people to buy in to your brand of madness, when you won't entertain anyone else's.
If anything you should be rooting for me to consolidate all the variations on QM in to one, so that it's simpler to experimentally prove or disprove.
