Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: BURT on 16 Feb 2010 23:31
On Feb 16, 7:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 9:26 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > My tabletop is not in a spaceship, and there is no train on the
> > > > > spaceship.
>
> > > > > Here is my question. Lets just take the first half this time:
>
> > > > > 1. We place two atomic clocks on a tabletop at the centre of a 1 metre
> > > > > ruler. We separate them very slowly so they are at either end of the one
> > > > > metre ruler. We record the time taken (according to the clocks) for
> > > > > light
> > > > > to
> > > > > travel 1 metre in a vacuum. Will the speed of light measured in this
> > > > > manner
> > > > > be c or some other value?
>
> > > > Is the aether at rest with respect to the table top?
>
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether.
>
> > > The the tabletop is the train.
>
> > > __________________________________
> > > No, a tabletop is a tabletop. Its not a train. And you haven't answered my
> > > question. Will the speed of light measured in this manner be c or some other
> > > value? It is a pretty simple question. Why won't you answer it?
>
> > How is the tabletop able to move at 'v' with respect to the aether?
>
> > It's on a train.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Nothing shrinks. There are no flat atoms. The aether is stationary for
> space but flows for energy..
>
> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Light comes goes in and out of matter while time is flowing. Light
order must them be associated with the flow of time.

From: Sam Wormley on 16 Feb 2010 09:26
On 2/16/10 5:41 AM, JT wrote:
> Idiot a distance is the spatial separation between two points, a
> length is the spatial extension of an object, a unit is a comparisson
> tool, a length*unit* should be a spatial comparisson tool.
>
> A meter as defined by modern physics is a circular definition an ECDT.



Distance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Distance.html


Unit of length (meter)
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html

JT--you should read these to clarify your understanding.



From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 10:24
On Feb 16, 12:10 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 4:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 2:29 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What ether?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every
> > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment ever performed.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits
> > > > > > > > > > > > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the
> > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits
> > > > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having
> > > > > > > > > > > > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the
> > > > > > > > > > > greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling
> > > > > > > > > > > and unable to answer such a simple question.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically
> > > > > > > > > > > behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been
> > > > > > > > > > > willing to answer this question and their answer was the future
> > > > > > > > > > > determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple
> > > > > > > > > > > slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits
> > > > > > > > > > > in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense,
>
> > > > > > > > > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you
> > > > > > > > > > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC?
>
> > > > > > > > > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is
> > > > > > > > > > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still
> > > > > > > > > > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving
> > > > > > > > > > toward the observer.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this
> > > > > > > > > > statement is absurd nonsense or not?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > but you do
> > > > > > > > > > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question.
>
> > > > > > > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle
>
> > > > > > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties
> > > > > > > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these
> > > > > > > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of
> > > > > > > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects
> > > > > > > > called quantum objects.
>
> > > > > > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are
> > > > > > > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this.
> > > > > > > > You just assert that it is so.
>
> > > > > > > > > and as such it always
> > > > > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically
> > > > > > > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical
> > > > > > > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense.
>
> > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the
> > > > > > > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single
> > > > > > > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation
> > > > > > > > > of QM for now.
>
> > > > > > > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits
> > > > > > > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60
> > > > > > > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon
> > > > > > > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will
> > > > > > > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being,
> > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future.
>
> > > > > > > > > That is absurd nonsense.
>
> > > > > > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without
> > > > > > > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and
> > > > > > > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting
> > > > > > > > this or asserting that.
>
> > > > > > > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to
> > > > > > > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't
> > > > > > > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you
> > > > > > > > > choose to believe.
>
> > > > > > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all.
> > > > > > > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what
> > > > > > > > is absurd nonsense and what is not.
> > > > > > > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so
> > > > > > > > what you CHOOSE to believe.
> > > > > > > > That's called faith, not science.
>
> > > > > > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith
> > > > > > > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium
> > > > > > > is material or believing the future determines the past?
>
> > > > > > You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding.
>
> > > > > Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical
> > > > > material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is
> > > > > displaced by matter.
>
> > > > > The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple
> > > > > slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense.
>
> > > > Sorry, but just SAYING it's absurd nonsense doesn't make it absurd
> > > > nonsense.
> > > > We've been around and around and around the block on this and you are
> > > > still too dense to figure it out.
> > > > How do you KNOW it's absurd nonsense, other than just SAYING it's
> > > > absurd nonsense.
> > > > If you don't have a method for independently determining that, then
> > > > it's just an empty assertion.
>
> > > > > > That's the point. You have to have an independent method for
> > > > > > *checking* which of the two statements is more likely.
>
> > > > > > What's your method for that independent determination?
>
> > > > > My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors
> > > > > in every double slit experiment ever performed.
>
> > > > Bullshit, and we've been around and around and around on this too.
> > > > Your SAYING it doesn't make it so.
>
> > > Just out of curiosity, why do you and other knowledgable people waste
> > > your time trying to explain things to people like mpc755?  He's
> > > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly
> > > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little
> > > capability to deal with the real world around him.  The kind of
> > > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond
> > > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world--
> > > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad,
> > > really.  I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for
> > > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life?
>
> > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and
> > > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up
> > > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have.  I really
> > > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think
> > > they're mentally healthy enough.  And I gather that after years of
> > > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing.
>
> > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them?
> > > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious.
>
> > Sometimes I ask myself the same question.
>
> Did you notice the poster you're responding to refuses to answer my
> question as to the validity of your 'understanding' of the behaviors
> in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is due to the future
> determining the past?

And you take his refusal to answer you to be assent to your claim that
it's absurd?

>
> I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also.

On what basis would he realize that? You don't have a basis either.
You just make the empty assertion that it's "absurd, absurd, absurd,
just absurd nonsense". Empty assertion.
From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 10:25
On Feb 16, 12:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 4:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 2:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 3:29 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail..com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What ether?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment ever performed.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the
> > > > > > > > > > > > greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling
> > > > > > > > > > > > and unable to answer such a simple question.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically
> > > > > > > > > > > > behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been
> > > > > > > > > > > > willing to answer this question and their answer was the future
> > > > > > > > > > > > determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple
> > > > > > > > > > > > slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you
> > > > > > > > > > > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is
> > > > > > > > > > > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still
> > > > > > > > > > > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving
> > > > > > > > > > > toward the observer.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this
> > > > > > > > > > > statement is absurd nonsense or not?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > but you do
> > > > > > > > > > > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question.
>
> > > > > > > > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle
>
> > > > > > > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties
> > > > > > > > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these
> > > > > > > > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of
> > > > > > > > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects
> > > > > > > > > called quantum objects.
>
> > > > > > > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are
> > > > > > > > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this.
> > > > > > > > > You just assert that it is so.
>
> > > > > > > > > > and as such it always
> > > > > > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically
> > > > > > > > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical
> > > > > > > > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the
> > > > > > > > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single
> > > > > > > > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation
> > > > > > > > > > of QM for now.
>
> > > > > > > > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits
> > > > > > > > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60
> > > > > > > > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon
> > > > > > > > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will
> > > > > > > > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being,
> > > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future.
>
> > > > > > > > > > That is absurd nonsense.
>
> > > > > > > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without
> > > > > > > > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and
> > > > > > > > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting
> > > > > > > > > this or asserting that.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to
> > > > > > > > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't
> > > > > > > > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you
> > > > > > > > > > choose to believe.
>
> > > > > > > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all.
> > > > > > > > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what
> > > > > > > > > is absurd nonsense and what is not.
> > > > > > > > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so
> > > > > > > > > what you CHOOSE to believe.
> > > > > > > > > That's called faith, not science.
>
> > > > > > > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith
> > > > > > > > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium
> > > > > > > > is material or believing the future determines the past?
>
> > > > > > > You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding.
>
> > > > > > Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical
> > > > > > material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is
> > > > > > displaced by matter.
>
> > > > > > The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple
> > > > > > slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense.
>
> > > > > Sorry, but just SAYING it's absurd nonsense doesn't make it absurd
> > > > > nonsense.
> > > > > We've been around and around and around the block on this and you are
> > > > > still too dense to figure it out.
> > > > > How do you KNOW it's absurd nonsense, other than just SAYING it's
> > > > > absurd nonsense.
> > > > > If you don't have a method for independently determining that, then
> > > > > it's just an empty assertion.
>
> > > > > > > That's the point. You have to have an independent method for
> > > > > > > *checking* which of the two statements is more likely.
>
> > > > > > > What's your method for that independent determination?
>
> > > > > > My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors
> > > > > > in every double slit experiment ever performed.
>
> > > > > Bullshit, and we've been around and around and around on this too..
> > > > > Your SAYING it doesn't make it so.
>
> > > > Just out of curiosity, why do you and other knowledgable people waste
> > > > your time trying to explain things to people like mpc755?  
>
> > > You really believe the reason for the observed behavior in a double
> > > slit experiment are because the future determines the past?
>
> > It doesn't hinge on what one chooses to believe. You think it does. It
> > doesn't.
>
> 'You' do not understand what is occurring physically in a double slit
> experiment so you invent a new type of object. A particle which in and
> of itself 'waves'.

It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe.

>
> In order to maintain the delusion such an object exists you are
> required to believe in the absurd nonsense of the future determining
> the past.
>
> Once 'you' realize a moving particle has an associated aether wave
> there is no need for this non-existent made up object of matter which
> in and of itself waves and there is no reason to have to choose to
> believe in the absurd nonsense the future determines the past.
>
> > > > He's
> > > > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly
> > > > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little
> > > > capability to deal with the real world around him.  The kind of
> > > > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond
> > > > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world--
> > > > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad,
> > > > really.  I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for
> > > > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life?
>
> > > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and
> > > > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up
> > > > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have.  I really
> > > > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think
> > > > they're mentally healthy enough.  And I gather that after years of
> > > > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing.
>
> > > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them?
> > > > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious.

From: BURT on 16 Feb 2010 23:35
On Feb 16, 8:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 9:26 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > My tabletop is not in a spaceship, and there is no train on the
> > > > > > spaceship.
>
> > > > > > Here is my question. Lets just take the first half this time:
>
> > > > > > 1. We place two atomic clocks on a tabletop at the centre of a 1 metre
> > > > > > ruler. We separate them very slowly so they are at either end of the one
> > > > > > metre ruler. We record the time taken (according to the clocks) for
> > > > > > light
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > travel 1 metre in a vacuum. Will the speed of light measured in this
> > > > > > manner
> > > > > > be c or some other value?
>
> > > > > Is the aether at rest with respect to the table top?
>
> > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether.
>
> > > > The the tabletop is the train.
>
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > No, a tabletop is a tabletop. Its not a train. And you haven't answered my
> > > > question. Will the speed of light measured in this manner be c or some other
> > > > value? It is a pretty simple question. Why won't you answer it?
>
> > > How is the tabletop able to move at 'v' with respect to the aether?
>
> > > It's on a train.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Nothing shrinks. There are no flat atoms. The aether is stationary for
> > space but flows for energy..
>
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Light comes goes in and out of matter while time is flowing. Light
> order must them be associated with the flow of time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Space flows through matter in the case of gravity.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights