Prev: CERN is your potential killer. I’ll send my last 100 baxes to that CERN worker, who will destroy the LHC.
Next: Confirm or deny
From: glird on 23 Dec 2009 10:12
On Dec 23, 8:22 am, mpc755 wrote:
>
><The alignment of the H2O molecules in the aether allow there to be more aether per volume in ice than there is in water, causing the ice to be less dense than the water. >

That requires the water to be denser than the aether. How can that be
right, if the word "density" is inapplicable to your aether?

glird
From: mpc755 on 23 Dec 2009 10:17
On Dec 23, 10:12 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 8:22 am, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> ><The alignment of the H2O molecules in the aether allow there to be more aether per volume in ice than there is in water, causing the ice to be less dense than the water. >
>
> That requires the water to be denser than the aether. How can that be
> right, if the word "density" is inapplicable to your aether?
>
> glird

Because the aether contains H2O molecules, making it denser than
aether without H2O molecules.

The density of the aether itself has not changed. The density of the
stuff occupying three dimensional space where the stuff consists of
H2O molecules and aether is denser.
From: PD on 23 Dec 2009 10:14
On Dec 23, 7:58 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Let me ask you - if you had a length C = 100, and you said that it has
> a 3/4 probability of existing, what do you think the expected length
> would be ?? Obviously - it is 75.

What?????
Good heavens, you have NO idea what you're talking about, do you?

From: glird on 23 Dec 2009 10:47
On Dec 20, 9:08 pm, Huang wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2:23 pm, glird wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 4:36 pm, Huang wrote:
>
> > >< Maxwell is ok but Bohm is better. I dont have the exact quote right in front of me, but he did mention some things about "conservation of probabilities". >
>
>< If he (or anyone else) was talkig about "the probability, psi" -- as in Max Born's defective interpretation of Schrodinger's use of that symbol, -- forget it. Otherwise, please look it up and quote it for us. >
>
>< Why is Max Born's interpretation defective ? I'm not exactly sure of
what all the details were, but I think that he was the one who said
that Psi represents the probability of finding an electron in a given
region of space.
Was there more to it than that? Why is this incorrect?

Born's interpetation of Schrodinger's "psi" is incorrect because in
Schro's paper psi replaced p, for PRESSURE. In reason his equations
delat with "proabilities" is that they all depend on given conditions;
and since the initial conditions ar never exactly known, the
"predictions" of his equations will be increasingly defective per
successive applications. (If your entered data is 99% right at step
1, then the distribution it predicts in step 2 will be, say, 75%
right, and step 3 will be perhaps 50% right etc. In short, the
probability that THE EQUATION will accurately predict related events
diminishes increasingly fast.
THAT, however, has nothing to do with the pressure, psi, or the
length, l, or the weight, m, or anything else; other than that the
initial values of ALL of them are never 100% accurately known at the
same instant.

glird
From: glird on 23 Dec 2009 11:05
On Dec 20, 9:36 pm, Paul Stowe wrote:
> On Dec 20, 5:47 pm, glird wrote:

PS: Notice that in the Maxwellian version given above elemental charge
is not present and is replaced with basic EM field parameters z, u,
and Planck's constant h which accounts for the field couplings
correctly, without need for the g/2 factor. >

glird: Notice that 1 times 1 times 234 = 468/2 without need for ANY
other
factors. >
>
> and your point is???

that there is a HUGE difference between mathematically correct
equations and our interpretation of what the equations are saying
about the things their symbols represent.

Btw, Paul, thank you for your attitude and your patience with me.

> >> There does remain a 0.013% variance that still needs accounting for. >
> >  There also remains a 78.01299% variance between the equations and the
> > physical meaning of the things their symbols represent.>
> no, there does not, if you use the correct values and right dimensional system.>

In the equations F = ma and e = mc^2, a denotes acceleration and c
denotes the speed of light in a vacuum. Define *the meaning* of each
of the things the other symbols denote.

glird
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Prev: CERN is your potential killer. I’ll send my last 100 baxes to that CERN worker, who will destroy the LHC.
Next: Confirm or deny