Can a *single** physical entity- be* at the same time* - in two **separated* locations ??!!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Liquid Water has solid-like behaviour over long-distances andtime-frames
Next: Very cheap solar power
From: whoever on 30 Jan 2010 18:21 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4cd8d459-bb43-4be5-b0da-4fa422e91d78(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 30, 10:26 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:beabce84-b030-40e0-8f26-10d71ac49768(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jan 30, 1:30 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jan 29, 3:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jan 29, 10:49 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > > "John Kennaugh" wrote: >> >> >> > > (snip) >> >> >> > > > OK but in a low light experiment what do you mean by the phase >> >> > > > of >> >> > > > individual photons? According to Tom Roberts a photon is a point >> >> > > > particle >> >> > > > with no internal structure. Waldron OTOH suggests it has a >> >> > > > structure and >> >> > > > half of its energy is in the form of rotational energy and half >> >> > > > kinetic. >> >> > > > In that case then clearly phase information is at least a >> >> > > > possibility. >> >> >> > > (snip) >> >> >> > > > -- >> >> > > > John Kennaugh >> >> >> > > ================= >> >> >> > > Imagine [something like] the 2-dimensional brane of string >> >> > > theory. >> >> > > A >> >> > > 2-dimensional single-sided only (ONE-SIDED ONLY!) photo-tissue. >> >> > > That >> >> > > is the >> >> > > closest you will ever get to picturing a photon. Single-sided >> >> > > only....a >> >> > > front only....no back, no integral particulate (no internal 3- or >> >> > > 4-d >> >> > > structure), nothing there at all to it from the back or side....NO >> >> > > OTHER >> >> > > SIDE EXISTING TO IT WHATSOEVER! >> >> >> > > You probably can't freeze it in your mind's eye, circle it and >> >> > > envision it >> >> > > totally disappearing (having instantly become non-existant as if >> >> > > it >> >> > > had >> >> > > never been there in the first place) when you try to observe it >> >> > > from >> >> > > any >> >> > > side whatsoever but the one and only side existing to it, the >> >> > > front >> >> > > side. >> >> > > And you probably can't think of a single implication deriving from >> >> > > such a >> >> > > flat single-sided-only 2-dimensionality. Implications tied [at the >> >> > > very >> >> > > least] to light. And through light...... >> >> >> > > GLB >> >> >> > > ================= >> >> >> > even if an electron wave is 3D helix >> >> > you get the same result: >> >> >> > the moment you teat its location (by detecting it >> >> > somewhere !!..) >> >> > ***you exhausted your ability*** to get more information about >> >> > what remained of it in another location - and its energy >> >> > in another location !! *** >> >> > because of the very fact >> >> > you tested it !!!! >> >> > that is the main meaning and essence of HUP >> >> > in microcosm !!! >> >> > (and the same with the couple dx dP) >> >> > am i right ??? >> >> > but >> >> > we are not done yet: >> >> >> > WHAT ABOUT >> >> > DRAWING **MORE IMPORTANT crucial INSIGHTS ABOUT IT ** (:-) >> >> >> > TIA >> >> > Y.Porat >> >> > ---------------------- >> >> >> > ATB >> >> > Y.Porat >> >> > --------------------- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> I am just trying to understand the problem better, and I am not a >> >> physicist. >> >> >> I am evidently in at least two places at the same time: my right hand >> >> and left hand are obviously in separate places. >> >> I am not sure, though, about what times my hands are occupying. If my >> >> right hand (I am right handed) is used more than my left, won't it >> >> have travelled faster than my left (it must have done as a one time >> >> fast bowler at cricket) and therefore be lagging behind time wrt my >> >> left hand (using the Twin Paradox)? >> >> >> As I am made up of many parts I can self-interfere. For example, a >> >> headache may affect my appetite for food. >> >> >> Only a point object can be thought to 'not be able' to self- >> >> interfere? And does not string/membrane theory do away with point >> >> objects? (Although I naively can only imagine a membrane as made up >> >> of lots of points!) If you erase the concept of a point object then >> >> do you not erase objections about self-interference and objections >> >> about occupying multiple points in space? >> >> >> Taking a single caesium atom for a random walk leads to the electron >> >> having a bimodal optimal location in 1D (http://www.physorg.com/ >> >> news166368043.html). To me that seems as though it is interfering >> >> with itself. But if the electron is not a point, then why shouldn't >> >> it self-interfere? This random walk experiment seems to show that a >> >> single atom interferes with itself. Does not that mean that it could >> >> pass through only one slit and still have an interference effect? >> >> After all. the random walk showed such an effect without any slits >> >> being present. >> >> >> Why does the random walk experiment show bimodal locations (without >> >> slits) whereas you need slits to show an interference pattern? Is >> >> this because the random walk effect is at a smaller order of magnitude >> >> than the slits effect? >> >> >> Ben >> >> > ------------------- >> > i am not sure i read you post inentively >> > i tryedonly to get the mian important or releveant points in yuour >> > post >> > fisrt i must say you are a thinking person!! >> > and that is the main feature for a real scientists >> > **youdont stop to ask questions !! and that is good >> > 9i forgot the famous scientists name (Rabbi ??) >> > he told that while being a youngster >> > his mother asked him every day while comming home: >> >> > WHAT GOOD QUESTION DID YOU ASKED TODAY ??!! (:-) >> >> > 2 i am afrqind that th emicrocosm world is not so familiar with you >> > (i cant say i am familiar as well (:-) >> > if you think about an electron or photon >> > in terms you think about your body thas the starting wrong point >> > those physical entities are ways more simple !! >> > yet ahve some common properties as your body but not all along >> >> > forinstance >> > i see the photon as a point particle >> >> You recently argued strongly that it was *not* a point particle, and >> there >> was no such thing as a point particle. >> >> > but not a static point!! >> >> Of course it is not. Photons move at c in all inertial frames of >> reference >> >> > and it makes a huge difference >> > between being static >> > or being dymamic >> > a static point you can find even at trhe middle of nigh >> > always at thesame point >> >> There is nothing truly static .. if it is static in one frame, of >> reference >> it is moving in another .. so it all depends on ones frame of reference. >> You CAN say something has uniform motion >> >> > (THE SAME LOCATION !!) >> > so at this oint you ahve to satrt thinking about the >> > HUP and why iys says that once you detected a particle in its location >> > *youwillnot find it again it the same location **!!! >> >> It doesn't say that >> >> > unlike your body >> > in your body your left and right hands will be always >> > left and right to your bnody >> > 2 >> > even if you get a strong hit >> > **your left and right hand WILL NOT BE TORN >> > FROM YOUR BODY!! >> > and that is not the case with a photon or electron! >> > if they are hit strongly - >> > (strong enough for them is not strong anough for you ...) >> > they will be broken and dispersed to --- God knows to were !! >> >> No .. they won't. You can't split photons or electrons .. they are >> elementary 'particles' >> >> > did you get my point ?? >> > so that is >> > were the HUIP gets in: >> > if a physical entity is oroken or stringly dsitorted >> > it wil not remain in its original situation >> >> That is NOT what the HUP says at all . Do you have ANY idea what it says? >> >> > now another aspect of HUP is >> > THATTHE VERY DETECTION OF SUCH A MICROCOAM ENTITY >> > IS BREAKING OR DISTORTING THEM !! >> >> No .. that is not an aspect of the HUP at all. >> >> >> >> > sithatis why >> > if you detect the time of the event >> > you cant anymore detect safely its energy (after >> > collision with the detector ) >> > similarly >> > if your detector (thatis inany case a massive object!!) >> > is colliding with yiou tested objest (electron or photon) >> > was locating its x location >> > you exhausted by that very event of detecing it >> > you lost your ability to detect properly its momentum >> > (your miserable detected object was so badly >> > ]'injured' he was shot to some other location >> > or was slited and his hand or legs are scattered >> > in the unknown locations that are far enough from each other and you >> > cant folow it anymore >> >> > that was my use of your TANGIBLE semaphores >> > yet by that i tried to deliver toyou something of as i see or >> > understand it tangibly it >> > because i beleive thqt some even private methephore >> > **heps aloy tounderstand andnot least **remember ** >> > the issue >> > yet the porblen is still to oick the proper releavnt >> > metaphor >> > and if you dont believe in amtaphors >> > you can stick tothe dry mathematical formulation >> > and say >> > if i found that the electronwas alleged to leave tghe two slits AT THE >> > SAME tIME >> >> It isn't definitely in either of the two slits .. it just had a >> probability >> of being there. >> >> > I CANT ANYMORE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ITS ENERGY >> >> Until it hits the detector, you don't know anything accurately about it. >> >> > and if i still can know about its energy by the wave length at the >> > second slitt >> > it means tha iwas cheated (:) >> >> > it is not rhe wave length of the orriginal electron >> > it was done >> > either by the elctronben broken to two pieces >> >> Electrons do not break into pieces >> >> > OR BY **ANOTRHE ELECTRON** >> > or another photon !! THAT ''SMUGGLED IN'' >> > ''UNDER MY NOSE'' !! >> >> Nope >> >> > so >> > bottom line >> > ONE OF THE QMPARADIGMS IS CONTRADICTING ANOTHER PARADIGM >> >> No .. nothing is contradicted >> >> > AND NEEDS BADLT TO BE DECIDED REPAIRED >> >> No .. because nothing is broken >> >> > OR WAHT EVEN >> > R >> > BUT IT CANT REMAIN PEACEFULLY-- AS IT IS !! >> >> Yes it can .. and perhaps you should learnwhat it actually says before >> making incorrect remarks about it >> >> > in case we want some real advance in physics !! >> >> If we listen to you we won't get any. >> >> > if not >> > lets go on living in the paradise of fools !! >> > and witchdoctors or crooks >> >> Like you > > ----------------- > parrot imbecile anonymous psychiatric Inertial > go discuss with Josef Goebbels Typical Porat response to valid physics .. childish name calling. No wonder you have no understanding of physics if that is your attitude toward it --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Y.Porat on 31 Jan 2010 01:06 On Jan 31, 1:21 am, "whoever >> > SAME tIME > > >> It isn't definitely in either of the two slits .. it just had a > >> probability > >> of being there. > > >> > I CANT ANYMORE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ITS ENERGY > > >> Until it hits the detector, you don't know anything accurately about it. > > >> > and if i still can know about its energy by the wave length at the > >> > second slitt > >> > it means tha iwas cheated (:) > > >> > it is not rhe wave length of the orriginal electron > >> > it was done > >> > either by the elctronben broken to two pieces > > >> Electrons do not break into pieces > > >> > OR BY **ANOTRHE ELECTRON** > >> > or another photon !! THAT ''SMUGGLED IN'' > >> > ''UNDER MY NOSE'' !! > > >> Nope > > >> > so > >> > bottom line > >> > ONE OF THE QMPARADIGMS IS CONTRADICTING ANOTHER PARADIGM > > >> No .. nothing is contradicted > > >> > AND NEEDS BADLT TO BE DECIDED REPAIRED > > >> No .. because nothing is broken > > >> > OR WAHT EVEN > >> > R > >> > BUT IT CANT REMAIN PEACEFULLY-- AS IT IS !! > > >> Yes it can .. and perhaps you should learnwhat it actually says before > >> making incorrect remarks about it > > >> > in case we want some real advance in physics !! > > >> If we listen to you we won't get any. > > >> > if not > >> > lets go on living in the paradise of fools !! > >> > and witchdoctors or crooks > > >> Like you > > > ----------------- > > parrot imbecile anonymous psychiatric Inertial > > go discuss with Josef Goebbels > > Typical Porat response to valid physics .. childish name calling. No wonder > you have no understanding of physics if that is your attitude toward it ----------------------- here goes another Josef Goebbels: and i will explain why is he a dirth pig and a *personal enemy* by definition: i was bringing physics arguments 1 2 3 4 5 etc the Nazi pigg (and his other ANONYMOUS pigs is relying: 1 no 2 no 3 no 4 no now i ask the some reasonable honest physicists or even if they are just decent rational human beings: is that a rational decent way of discussion? or is it **Josef Goebeels and his people!!* way of dsicussion ?? Y.Porat --------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 31 Jan 2010 01:36 On Jan 30, 10:27 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 6:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 30, 10:40 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 30, 2:47 pm, mpc755 < > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > > did anyone ever detected Aether?? > > > > > > on the other hand > > > > > i heard rumors that > > > > > elcrons were detected and their properties were defined > > > > > and so about photons > > > > > > we can do physics only on detected entities > > > > > the rest is guesses > > > > > 2 > > > > > i think that current physics > > > > > can do well without Aether > > > > > 3 > > > > > It doesn't do well without aether. Just look at this thread. A photon > > > > is either a directed/pointed wave in the aether or it is a moving > > > > 'particle' with an associated aether wave. > > > > > With this understanding of nature, you have the 'particle' traveling a > > > > single path and the associated wave propagating available paths. The > > > > 'particle' enters and exits a single slit and the associated wave > > > > propagates through the available slits. The wave exits the slits and > > > > creates interference and the direction the 'particle' travels is > > > > altered. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated > > > > wave and there is no interference. > > > > > That is why I have on several occasions asked you what you think is > > > > occurring in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule. The C-60 > > > > molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The analogy is > > > > the bow wave a boat makes. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > > > > slit and the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and > > > > exits multiple slits. When the aether wave exits the slits it creates > > > > interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > > > Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated > > > > aether wave and there is no interference. > > > > > With aether, de Broglie's statement of a moving particle has an > > > > associated wave becomes a moving 'particle' has an associated aether > > > > wave and if you know the particle consists of matter, the moving > > > > particle has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > With this understanding of nature, this thread is unnecessary. > > > > > > if our Universe is expanding > > > > > what happens to the **density* of Aether ??!! > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > you ddint answer my questions > > > > 1 > > > did anyone ever detected Aether?? > > > Yes. The aether is detected in every double slit experiment. The > > observed behaviors in a double slit experiment are due to the > > 'particle' traveling a single path and the associated aether wave > > propagating available paths. > > > The search for gravity waves is the search for aether displacement > > waves. > > > The pressure associated with aether displaced by massive objects is > > gravity, so the fact that you are presently effected by gravity > > evidence of aether. > > > The fact that light reaches the Earth is evidence of aether. > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > > unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation > > of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space > > and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time > > intervals in the physical sense." > > > > 2 > > > if our Universe is expanding ... > > > what happens to the **density** of you Aether ?? > > > The universe is not expanding. The matter which we see in our > > telescopes is moving away from us, but the universe as a whole is not > > expanding. > > > The universe is, or the local universe is in, a jet stream. > > > Now it is your turn. What is physically occurring in nature in a > > double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule? > > ---------------------- > --1 > does a single C-60 is inyefering with itself ?? > i ddint check it > please show me a link that proves that > C 60 is interfering with itself > even if yest > it is not an atom it is a MOLECULE . > and surely subdivided !! > > 2 > if yess > the C 60 has as you say 60 Atoms!! > not a single one > how do you know that it was passing and remained with 60 Atoms > may be it got out with 30 of them > may be with 59 ? > may be it was two molecules > 3 > how do you knoe it was a single molecule of C60 > and not two of them ?? two C 60 ?? > > ATB > Y.Porat > --------------------------- Oh Ghosh!! i thought at the beginning that C-60 is your Carbon molecule with 60 Atoms of Carbon!! (:-) i have a better molecule creature --- it is a Carbon molecule that has 120 Atoms of Carbon it is much more powerful and impressive !! BTW sometimes it can be with 121 Atoms !! (:-) now i read about your C-60 molecule and i stated to understand your 'logic' you invent a molecule or an Aether creature that no one ever detected and you even ddint specify all its properties like say having mass or charge and if having mass what is that mass etc and after inventing your C-60 aether creature cliame it exists every were ?? i am afraid (to put it in the mildest possible way ) you have no idea about what you are talking (and i ddint mention yet may be the need for hospitalization ) you cant invent your private particle that no one ever detected and then attribute to it every day a new ad hock property fitted to the daily news that you hear each day keep well Y.Porat -------------
From: artful on 31 Jan 2010 06:23 On Jan 31, 5:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 1:21 am, "whoever >> > SAME tIME > > > > > > > >> It isn't definitely in either of the two slits .. it just had a > > >> probability > > >> of being there. > > > >> > I CANT ANYMORE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ITS ENERGY > > > >> Until it hits the detector, you don't know anything accurately about it. > > > >> > and if i still can know about its energy by the wave length at the > > >> > second slitt > > >> > it means tha iwas cheated (:) > > > >> > it is not rhe wave length of the orriginal electron > > >> > it was done > > >> > either by the elctronben broken to two pieces > > > >> Electrons do not break into pieces > > > >> > OR BY **ANOTRHE ELECTRON** > > >> > or another photon !! THAT ''SMUGGLED IN'' > > >> > ''UNDER MY NOSE'' !! > > > >> Nope > > > >> > so > > >> > bottom line > > >> > ONE OF THE QMPARADIGMS IS CONTRADICTING ANOTHER PARADIGM > > > >> No .. nothing is contradicted > > > >> > AND NEEDS BADLT TO BE DECIDED REPAIRED > > > >> No .. because nothing is broken > > > >> > OR WAHT EVEN > > >> > R > > >> > BUT IT CANT REMAIN PEACEFULLY-- AS IT IS !! > > > >> Yes it can .. and perhaps you should learnwhat it actually says before > > >> making incorrect remarks about it > > > >> > in case we want some real advance in physics !! > > > >> If we listen to you we won't get any. > > > >> > if not > > >> > lets go on living in the paradise of fools !! > > >> > and witchdoctors or crooks > > > >> Like you > > > > ----------------- > > > parrot imbecile anonymous psychiatric Inertial > > > go discuss with Josef Goebbels > > > Typical Porat response to valid physics .. childish name calling. No wonder > > you have no understanding of physics if that is your attitude toward it > > ----------------------- > here goes another Josef Goebbels: > and i will explain why is he a dirth pig > and a *personal enemy* by definition: > > i was bringing physics arguments > > 1 2 3 4 5 etc > > the Nazi pigg (and his other ANONYMOUS pigs is relying: > > 1 no > > 2 no > > 3 no > 4 no > > now i ask the some reasonable honest physicists > or even if they are just decent rational human beings: > > is that a rational decent way of discussion? Yes > or is it **Josef Goebeels and his people!!* > way of dsicussion ?? > > Y.Porat > -------------------------- Well.. if you make arguments based on what you THINK physics theories say, but in reality they do NOT say that, then your argument is moot.
From: artful on 31 Jan 2010 06:32
On Jan 31, 5:36 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 10:27 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 6:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 30, 10:40 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 30, 2:47 pm, mpc755 < > > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > > > did anyone ever detected Aether?? > > > > > > > on the other hand > > > > > > i heard rumors that > > > > > > elcrons were detected and their properties were defined > > > > > > and so about photons > > > > > > > we can do physics only on detected entities > > > > > > the rest is guesses > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > i think that current physics > > > > > > can do well without Aether > > > > > > 3 > > > > > > It doesn't do well without aether. Just look at this thread. A photon > > > > > is either a directed/pointed wave in the aether or it is a moving > > > > > 'particle' with an associated aether wave. > > > > > > With this understanding of nature, you have the 'particle' traveling a > > > > > single path and the associated wave propagating available paths. The > > > > > 'particle' enters and exits a single slit and the associated wave > > > > > propagates through the available slits. The wave exits the slits and > > > > > creates interference and the direction the 'particle' travels is > > > > > altered. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the associated > > > > > wave and there is no interference. > > > > > > That is why I have on several occasions asked you what you think is > > > > > occurring in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule. The C-60 > > > > > molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The analogy is > > > > > the bow wave a boat makes. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > > > > > slit and the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and > > > > > exits multiple slits. When the aether wave exits the slits it creates > > > > > interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels.. > > > > > Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated > > > > > aether wave and there is no interference. > > > > > > With aether, de Broglie's statement of a moving particle has an > > > > > associated wave becomes a moving 'particle' has an associated aether > > > > > wave and if you know the particle consists of matter, the moving > > > > > particle has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > With this understanding of nature, this thread is unnecessary. > > > > > > > if our Universe is expanding > > > > > > what happens to the **density* of Aether ??!! > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > you ddint answer my questions > > > > > 1 > > > > did anyone ever detected Aether?? > > > > Yes. The aether is detected in every double slit experiment. The > > > observed behaviors in a double slit experiment are due to the > > > 'particle' traveling a single path and the associated aether wave > > > propagating available paths. > > > > The search for gravity waves is the search for aether displacement > > > waves. > > > > The pressure associated with aether displaced by massive objects is > > > gravity, so the fact that you are presently effected by gravity > > > evidence of aether. > > > > The fact that light reaches the Earth is evidence of aether. > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > > > unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation > > > of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space > > > and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time > > > intervals in the physical sense." > > > > > 2 > > > > if our Universe is expanding ... > > > > what happens to the **density** of you Aether ?? > > > > The universe is not expanding. The matter which we see in our > > > telescopes is moving away from us, but the universe as a whole is not > > > expanding. > > > > The universe is, or the local universe is in, a jet stream. > > > > Now it is your turn. What is physically occurring in nature in a > > > double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule? > > > ---------------------- > > --1 > > does a single C-60 is inyefering with itself ?? > > i ddint check it > > please show me a link that proves that > > C 60 is interfering with itself > > even if yest > > it is not an atom it is a MOLECULE . > > and surely subdivided !! > > > 2 > > if yess > > the C 60 has as you say 60 Atoms!! > > not a single one > > how do you know that it was passing and remained with 60 Atoms > > may be it got out with 30 of them > > may be with 59 ? > > may be it was two molecules > > 3 > > how do you knoe it was a single molecule of C60 > > and not two of them ?? two C 60 ?? > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > --------------------------- > > Oh Ghosh!! > i thought at the beginning that C-60 > is your Carbon molecule with 60 Atoms of Carbon!! > (:-) It is > i have a better molecule creature --- > it is a Carbon molecule that has 120 Atoms of Carbon > it is much more powerful and impressive !! > BTW sometimes it can be with 121 Atoms !! (:-) > > now i read about your C-60 molecule > and i stated to understand your 'logic' > > you invent a molecule or an Aether creature > that no one ever detected C60 exists and has most certainly been detected > and you even ddint specify all its properties > like say having mass or charge > and if having mass what is that mass etc > and > after inventing your C-60 aether creature > cliame it exists every were ?? C60 does exist .. not everywhere though, of course. No molecule exists everywhere > i am afraid (to put it in the mildest possible way ) > you have no idea about what you are talking > (and i ddint mention yet may be the need for > hospitalization ) > you cant invent your private particle > that no one ever detected > and then > attribute to it > every day a new ad hock property > fitted to the daily news that you hear each day He didn't. I suggest you read up on C60 molecules His aether idea though is very ad-hoc, to the point of being self- contradictory. |