NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist" -- Financial reform promotes BP's cap&trade to the max.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Test post
Next: Researchers are puzzling over a sharper-than-expected collapseof Earth's upper atmosphere
From: spudnik on 15 Jul 2010 19:12 is the study that you cite unworthy of analysis -- although there is no discernible paradox with waves of light -- since, with fullerenes we have a true manifestation of de Broglie's concerns? how can you get anything out of this, without actually looking at the particulars of the experiment -- was it actually carried-out, according to the authors? oh, well; have a nice day, anyway, cause I can't waste any more of my life on this kind of "debate." > How does a C-60 molecule enter, travel through, and exit multiple > slits simultaneously without losing momentum? --the Queen of the sciences! http://wlym.com --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net
From: mpc755 on 15 Jul 2010 19:19 On Jul 15, 7:12 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > is the study that you cite unworthy of analysis -- although > there is no discernible paradox with waves of light -- since, > with fullerenes we have a true manifestation > of de Broglie's concerns? > > how can you get anything out of this, without actually looking > at the particulars of the experiment -- was it actually carried-out, > according to the authors? > > oh, well; have a nice day, anyway, cause I can't waste any more > of my life on this kind of "debate." > How does a C-60 molecule enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without losing momentum? How does a C-60 molecule travel through the divider without losing momentum? It doesn't. A C-60 molecule travels a single path and always enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. It is the associated dark matter displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits.
From: spudnik on 15 Jul 2010 20:25
uh-huh; thanks for leaving my polemical header. > It doesn't. thus: anyway, this is the sum-total of the Bush and Obama policy for energy, which should be called, Free-er Trade, although referred to as Captain Tax by Murdoch's Climategateways, the WSurinal etc.... surely, it'll work, as apparently Waxman's bill of '91 worked for acid rain; so, Where's the beef on that? the OP's citation seems to assume that cap&trade is the way to go, whereas I have at least two sources that admitted that good effect could be achieved by an actual, small, accountable tax on carbon, instead of this "free trade" nostrum, which is already huge in the USA (CCX and ICE e.g.; tens of bllions in hedging per year, since 2003 and 2005, repsectively), but dwarfed by the mandatory EU one. Waxman's bill, just like his '91 bill, just like Kyoto, presaged by Montreal, mandatorizes the voluntary system. however, the main problem is the incoming "reform" bill, which is a total sop to the derivatives freaks that causes the current blow-out. --the Queen of the sciences! http://wlym.com --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net |