Atoms in molecules have to expand at bond when heated
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: !!! Isn't Mark(ie) Great !!!
Next: Static g-fields
From: BURT on 11 Dec 2009 20:13 On Dec 11, 5:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:6a97ab54-db8b-4ea1-9a98-dfdaa0ca83ba(a)a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 4:35 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:87654a72-0b65-4b2c-8c2f-5675c8186736(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Dec 11, 4:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:c482799f-ea56-4f95-bb97-b72bceac32a1(a)v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Dec 10, 6:43 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Dec 10, 6:38 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >>> Also quantization doesn't work for a mirror. > >> >> >> Opaque objects violate quantization in that they absorb every > >> >> >> frequency. This is further dispoof of Quantum Mechanics in more > >> >> >> than > >> >> >> one case. > > >> >> Nope . doesn't disprove it at all. > > >> > It dispoves the primary principle of Quantum quantization. That is > >> > where it got its name. > > >> Nope .. it does not disprove that at all. > > >> You really need to read and learn before posting and publicizing your > >> ignorance.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > I have proven the disproof. > > Nope .. you're just making wild uninformed assertions from ignorance.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Then you demonstrate quantization for the case of a mirror. See if you can do it. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 12 Dec 2009 21:45 "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:73472627-fc1c-4c78-acb7-8405fa206d24(a)u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 11, 5:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:6a97ab54-db8b-4ea1-9a98-dfdaa0ca83ba(a)a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Dec 11, 4:35 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:87654a72-0b65-4b2c-8c2f-5675c8186736(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Dec 11, 4:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:c482799f-ea56-4f95-bb97-b72bceac32a1(a)v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Dec 10, 6:43 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Dec 10, 6:38 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Also quantization doesn't work for a mirror. >> >> >> >> Opaque objects violate quantization in that they absorb every >> >> >> >> frequency. This is further dispoof of Quantum Mechanics in more >> >> >> >> than >> >> >> >> one case. >> >> >> >> Nope . doesn't disprove it at all. >> >> >> > It dispoves the primary principle of Quantum quantization. That is >> >> > where it got its name. >> >> >> Nope .. it does not disprove that at all. >> >> >> You really need to read and learn before posting and publicizing your >> >> ignorance.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> > I have proven the disproof. >> >> Nope .. you're just making wild uninformed assertions from ignorance.- >> Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Then you demonstrate quantization for the case of a mirror. See if you > can do it. What quantisation do you think should be there?
From: BURT on 12 Dec 2009 21:49 On Dec 12, 6:45 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:73472627-fc1c-4c78-acb7-8405fa206d24(a)u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 5:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:6a97ab54-db8b-4ea1-9a98-dfdaa0ca83ba(a)a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Dec 11, 4:35 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:87654a72-0b65-4b2c-8c2f-5675c8186736(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Dec 11, 4:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:c482799f-ea56-4f95-bb97-b72bceac32a1(a)v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On Dec 10, 6:43 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Dec 10, 6:38 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> Also quantization doesn't work for a mirror. > >> >> >> >> Opaque objects violate quantization in that they absorb every > >> >> >> >> frequency. This is further dispoof of Quantum Mechanics in more > >> >> >> >> than > >> >> >> >> one case. > > >> >> >> Nope . doesn't disprove it at all. > > >> >> > It dispoves the primary principle of Quantum quantization. That is > >> >> > where it got its name. > > >> >> Nope .. it does not disprove that at all. > > >> >> You really need to read and learn before posting and publicizing your > >> >> ignorance.- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> > I have proven the disproof. > > >> Nope .. you're just making wild uninformed assertions from ignorance.- > >> Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Then you demonstrate quantization for the case of a mirror. See if you > > can do it. > > What quantisation do you think should be there?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You should find it in a book. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 12 Dec 2009 22:22
"BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a01de6c6-ed36-4dcd-bfbb-4db7b6d3898b(a)g4g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 12, 6:45 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:73472627-fc1c-4c78-acb7-8405fa206d24(a)u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Dec 11, 5:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:6a97ab54-db8b-4ea1-9a98-dfdaa0ca83ba(a)a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Dec 11, 4:35 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:87654a72-0b65-4b2c-8c2f-5675c8186736(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Dec 11, 4:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:c482799f-ea56-4f95-bb97-b72bceac32a1(a)v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > On Dec 10, 6:43 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 10, 6:38 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> Also quantization doesn't work for a mirror. >> >> >> >> >> Opaque objects violate quantization in that they absorb every >> >> >> >> >> frequency. This is further dispoof of Quantum Mechanics in >> >> >> >> >> more >> >> >> >> >> than >> >> >> >> >> one case. >> >> >> >> >> Nope . doesn't disprove it at all. >> >> >> >> > It dispoves the primary principle of Quantum quantization. That >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > where it got its name. >> >> >> >> Nope .. it does not disprove that at all. >> >> >> >> You really need to read and learn before posting and publicizing >> >> >> your >> >> >> ignorance.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> >> > I have proven the disproof. >> >> >> Nope .. you're just making wild uninformed assertions from ignorance.- >> >> Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> > Then you demonstrate quantization for the case of a mirror. See if you >> > can do it. >> >> What quantisation do you think should be there?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > You should find it in a book. How would you know .. you've never read one. So .. what quantisation is there that you think existing theory says should happen in a mirror that does not happen? |