Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 9 May 2010 17:08 On May 9, 1:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 9, 4:02 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > in the meantime, I realized a fromalism > > for the "splitting" of the fullerene. anyway, > > you are simply wrong about the detection of a photon; > > that is merely a prevailing interpretation of a "beep" > > in the electronics; you could just as well say, > > the beep is a "phonon." > > > whether the splitting of a fullerene actually might occur > > in the experiment, would require more detail; > > If the C-60 molecule actually split in the experiment and you placed > detectors at the exits to the slits the instant prior to the C-60 > molecule exiting the slit then the C-60 molecule would not be detected > exiting a single slit. > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single > slit. Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule creates > an interference pattern. > > Now, I realize you like all others, except for one poster who insists > the future determines the past, can not answer this question. The > reason why you can not answer this question is because the C-60 > molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit in a double slit > experiment and it is the aether displacement wave which enters and > exits multiple slits. When detectors are placed at the exits to the > slits the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit > because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. The > detectors at the exits to the slits cause decoherence of the > associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference. > Placing and removing the detectors from the exits to the slits allows > the associated aether displacement wave to create interference which > alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > The C-60 molecule does not split. If it did split there would be > experimental evidence of it. > > The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single > slit in a double slit experiment because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS > enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > but, > > I'm sure you could tell, what degree of "preparation" is needed > > to do the experiment, and how much artifice is involved. that is, > > how did they get a bunch of pure C-60, or how pure was it, > > in the first place? > > > the real question is, > > Can you actually explain a property of light, such > > as permitivity & permeability, or Snell's law of refraction, or > > can we explain the latter two in terms of one another, > > in the first place?... or is it just a nicety of poesy, > > that you think that you have created out of no air (vacuum) ?? > > > and, we've seen your prefered pictograph, > > the one that is the same as de Broglie's attempt > > (a linear "wave" -- an oscilloscope trace, actually -- > > with a "particle" at its tip, like an arrow that was aimed > > at your cone-head .-) > > > > A photon is detected as a particle. My preferred concept of a photon > > > is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a > > > particle. > > > thus: > > there is a standard answer to the question, > > Am you on drugs?... which is, > > Ask my God-am lawyer, Fool! > > > there is also a very standard answer to, > > How many "holes" are there in the ozone, although > > it is quite silly, or merely inadequate, but not "one;" > > do you recall this "news?" > > > > > > How many "holes" in the ozonosphere, are there? > > > thus: > > sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but > > later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may > > have read in an article about his retirement. > > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, capNtrade e.g.). > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > > --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost > > of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was in > > '91 > > under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - How many kinds ot aether waves are there?
From: mpc755 on 9 May 2010 17:15 On May 9, 5:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 9, 1:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 9, 4:02 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > in the meantime, I realized a fromalism > > > for the "splitting" of the fullerene. anyway, > > > you are simply wrong about the detection of a photon; > > > that is merely a prevailing interpretation of a "beep" > > > in the electronics; you could just as well say, > > > the beep is a "phonon." > > > > whether the splitting of a fullerene actually might occur > > > in the experiment, would require more detail; > > > If the C-60 molecule actually split in the experiment and you placed > > detectors at the exits to the slits the instant prior to the C-60 > > molecule exiting the slit then the C-60 molecule would not be detected > > exiting a single slit. > > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > > is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single > > slit. Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule creates > > an interference pattern. > > > Now, I realize you like all others, except for one poster who insists > > the future determines the past, can not answer this question. The > > reason why you can not answer this question is because the C-60 > > molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit in a double slit > > experiment and it is the aether displacement wave which enters and > > exits multiple slits. When detectors are placed at the exits to the > > slits the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit > > because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. The > > detectors at the exits to the slits cause decoherence of the > > associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference. > > Placing and removing the detectors from the exits to the slits allows > > the associated aether displacement wave to create interference which > > alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > > The C-60 molecule does not split. If it did split there would be > > experimental evidence of it. > > > The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single > > slit in a double slit experiment because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS > > enters and exits a single slit. > > > > but, > > > I'm sure you could tell, what degree of "preparation" is needed > > > to do the experiment, and how much artifice is involved. that is, > > > how did they get a bunch of pure C-60, or how pure was it, > > > in the first place? > > > > the real question is, > > > Can you actually explain a property of light, such > > > as permitivity & permeability, or Snell's law of refraction, or > > > can we explain the latter two in terms of one another, > > > in the first place?... or is it just a nicety of poesy, > > > that you think that you have created out of no air (vacuum) ?? > > > > and, we've seen your prefered pictograph, > > > the one that is the same as de Broglie's attempt > > > (a linear "wave" -- an oscilloscope trace, actually -- > > > with a "particle" at its tip, like an arrow that was aimed > > > at your cone-head .-) > > > > > A photon is detected as a particle. My preferred concept of a photon > > > > is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a > > > > particle. > > > > thus: > > > there is a standard answer to the question, > > > Am you on drugs?... which is, > > > Ask my God-am lawyer, Fool! > > > > there is also a very standard answer to, > > > How many "holes" are there in the ozone, although > > > it is quite silly, or merely inadequate, but not "one;" > > > do you recall this "news?" > > > > > > > How many "holes" in the ozonosphere, are there? > > > > thus: > > > sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but > > > later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may > > > have read in an article about his retirement. > > > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > > > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > > > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > > > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, capNtrade e.g.). > > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... > > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > > > --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost > > > of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was in > > > '91 > > > under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > How many kinds ot aether waves are there? There aether behaves as a one something. As such there are only aether waves in the aether.
From: BURT on 9 May 2010 19:21 On May 9, 2:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 9, 5:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 9, 1:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 9, 4:02 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > in the meantime, I realized a fromalism > > > > for the "splitting" of the fullerene. anyway, > > > > you are simply wrong about the detection of a photon; > > > > that is merely a prevailing interpretation of a "beep" > > > > in the electronics; you could just as well say, > > > > the beep is a "phonon." > > > > > whether the splitting of a fullerene actually might occur > > > > in the experiment, would require more detail; > > > > If the C-60 molecule actually split in the experiment and you placed > > > detectors at the exits to the slits the instant prior to the C-60 > > > molecule exiting the slit then the C-60 molecule would not be detected > > > exiting a single slit. > > > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > > > is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single > > > slit. Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule creates > > > an interference pattern. > > > > Now, I realize you like all others, except for one poster who insists > > > the future determines the past, can not answer this question. The > > > reason why you can not answer this question is because the C-60 > > > molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit in a double slit > > > experiment and it is the aether displacement wave which enters and > > > exits multiple slits. When detectors are placed at the exits to the > > > slits the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit > > > because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. The > > > detectors at the exits to the slits cause decoherence of the > > > associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference. > > > Placing and removing the detectors from the exits to the slits allows > > > the associated aether displacement wave to create interference which > > > alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > > > The C-60 molecule does not split. If it did split there would be > > > experimental evidence of it. > > > > The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single > > > slit in a double slit experiment because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS > > > enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > but, > > > > I'm sure you could tell, what degree of "preparation" is needed > > > > to do the experiment, and how much artifice is involved. that is, > > > > how did they get a bunch of pure C-60, or how pure was it, > > > > in the first place? > > > > > the real question is, > > > > Can you actually explain a property of light, such > > > > as permitivity & permeability, or Snell's law of refraction, or > > > > can we explain the latter two in terms of one another, > > > > in the first place?... or is it just a nicety of poesy, > > > > that you think that you have created out of no air (vacuum) ?? > > > > > and, we've seen your prefered pictograph, > > > > the one that is the same as de Broglie's attempt > > > > (a linear "wave" -- an oscilloscope trace, actually -- > > > > with a "particle" at its tip, like an arrow that was aimed > > > > at your cone-head .-) > > > > > > A photon is detected as a particle. My preferred concept of a photon > > > > > is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a > > > > > particle. > > > > > thus: > > > > there is a standard answer to the question, > > > > Am you on drugs?... which is, > > > > Ask my God-am lawyer, Fool! > > > > > there is also a very standard answer to, > > > > How many "holes" are there in the ozone, although > > > > it is quite silly, or merely inadequate, but not "one;" > > > > do you recall this "news?" > > > > > > > > How many "holes" in the ozonosphere, are there? > > > > > thus: > > > > sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but > > > > later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may > > > > have read in an article about his retirement. > > > > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > > > > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > > > > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > > > > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, capNtrade e.g.). > > > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... > > > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > > > > --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost > > > > of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was in > > > > '91 > > > > under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > How many kinds ot aether waves are there? > > There aether behaves as a one something. > > As such there are only aether waves in the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I know there are three aether matter waves. That is what Quantum Mechanics is going to become. There are subatomic aether waves that collapse. There are atomic vibrations that don't. And there are macro aether waves that will collapse when the micro aether waves do. Light flow collapses aether matter wave flow. When they collapse they go into the infinitely small energy point particle temporarily. That is why there is no interference in Two Slit. Light flow collapses aether matter wave flow or electric particle quantum vibration and its wave of flow. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 9 May 2010 19:32 On May 9, 7:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 9, 2:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 9, 5:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 9, 1:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 9, 4:02 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > in the meantime, I realized a fromalism > > > > > for the "splitting" of the fullerene. anyway, > > > > > you are simply wrong about the detection of a photon; > > > > > that is merely a prevailing interpretation of a "beep" > > > > > in the electronics; you could just as well say, > > > > > the beep is a "phonon." > > > > > > whether the splitting of a fullerene actually might occur > > > > > in the experiment, would require more detail; > > > > > If the C-60 molecule actually split in the experiment and you placed > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits the instant prior to the C-60 > > > > molecule exiting the slit then the C-60 molecule would not be detected > > > > exiting a single slit. > > > > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > > > > is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single > > > > slit. Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > > while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule creates > > > > an interference pattern. > > > > > Now, I realize you like all others, except for one poster who insists > > > > the future determines the past, can not answer this question. The > > > > reason why you can not answer this question is because the C-60 > > > > molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit in a double slit > > > > experiment and it is the aether displacement wave which enters and > > > > exits multiple slits. When detectors are placed at the exits to the > > > > slits the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit > > > > because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. The > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits cause decoherence of the > > > > associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference. > > > > Placing and removing the detectors from the exits to the slits allows > > > > the associated aether displacement wave to create interference which > > > > alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > > > > The C-60 molecule does not split. If it did split there would be > > > > experimental evidence of it. > > > > > The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single > > > > slit in a double slit experiment because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS > > > > enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > > but, > > > > > I'm sure you could tell, what degree of "preparation" is needed > > > > > to do the experiment, and how much artifice is involved. that is, > > > > > how did they get a bunch of pure C-60, or how pure was it, > > > > > in the first place? > > > > > > the real question is, > > > > > Can you actually explain a property of light, such > > > > > as permitivity & permeability, or Snell's law of refraction, or > > > > > can we explain the latter two in terms of one another, > > > > > in the first place?... or is it just a nicety of poesy, > > > > > that you think that you have created out of no air (vacuum) ?? > > > > > > and, we've seen your prefered pictograph, > > > > > the one that is the same as de Broglie's attempt > > > > > (a linear "wave" -- an oscilloscope trace, actually -- > > > > > with a "particle" at its tip, like an arrow that was aimed > > > > > at your cone-head .-) > > > > > > > A photon is detected as a particle. My preferred concept of a photon > > > > > > is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a > > > > > > particle. > > > > > > thus: > > > > > there is a standard answer to the question, > > > > > Am you on drugs?... which is, > > > > > Ask my God-am lawyer, Fool! > > > > > > there is also a very standard answer to, > > > > > How many "holes" are there in the ozone, although > > > > > it is quite silly, or merely inadequate, but not "one;" > > > > > do you recall this "news?" > > > > > > > > > How many "holes" in the ozonosphere, are there? > > > > > > thus: > > > > > sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but > > > > > later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may > > > > > have read in an article about his retirement. > > > > > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > > > > > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > > > > > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > > > > > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, capNtrade e.g.).. > > > > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > > > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > > > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > > > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... > > > > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > > > > > --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost > > > > > of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was in > > > > > '91 > > > > > under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > How many kinds ot aether waves are there? > > > There aether behaves as a one something. > > > As such there are only aether waves in the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I know there are three aether matter waves. That is what Quantum > Mechanics is going to become. There are subatomic aether waves that > collapse. There are atomic vibrations that don't. And there are macro > aether waves that will collapse when the micro aether waves do. Light > flow collapses aether matter wave flow. > > When they collapse they go into the infinitely small energy point > particle temporarily. That is why there is no interference in Two > Slit. Light flow collapses aether matter wave flow or electric > particle quantum vibration and its wave of flow. > > Mitch Raemsch An aether wave is an aether displacement and as such there are only aether waves.
From: BURT on 9 May 2010 20:39
On May 9, 4:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 9, 7:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 9, 2:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 9, 5:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 9, 1:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 9, 4:02 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > in the meantime, I realized a fromalism > > > > > > for the "splitting" of the fullerene. anyway, > > > > > > you are simply wrong about the detection of a photon; > > > > > > that is merely a prevailing interpretation of a "beep" > > > > > > in the electronics; you could just as well say, > > > > > > the beep is a "phonon." > > > > > > > whether the splitting of a fullerene actually might occur > > > > > > in the experiment, would require more detail; > > > > > > If the C-60 molecule actually split in the experiment and you placed > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits the instant prior to the C-60 > > > > > molecule exiting the slit then the C-60 molecule would not be detected > > > > > exiting a single slit. > > > > > > Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > > > > > is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single > > > > > slit. Detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > > > while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The C-60 molecule creates > > > > > an interference pattern. > > > > > > Now, I realize you like all others, except for one poster who insists > > > > > the future determines the past, can not answer this question. The > > > > > reason why you can not answer this question is because the C-60 > > > > > molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit in a double slit > > > > > experiment and it is the aether displacement wave which enters and > > > > > exits multiple slits. When detectors are placed at the exits to the > > > > > slits the C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit > > > > > because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. The > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits cause decoherence of the > > > > > associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference. > > > > > Placing and removing the detectors from the exits to the slits allows > > > > > the associated aether displacement wave to create interference which > > > > > alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > > > > > The C-60 molecule does not split. If it did split there would be > > > > > experimental evidence of it. > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is ALWAYS detected entering and exiting a single > > > > > slit in a double slit experiment because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > > > but, > > > > > > I'm sure you could tell, what degree of "preparation" is needed > > > > > > to do the experiment, and how much artifice is involved. that is, > > > > > > how did they get a bunch of pure C-60, or how pure was it, > > > > > > in the first place? > > > > > > > the real question is, > > > > > > Can you actually explain a property of light, such > > > > > > as permitivity & permeability, or Snell's law of refraction, or > > > > > > can we explain the latter two in terms of one another, > > > > > > in the first place?... or is it just a nicety of poesy, > > > > > > that you think that you have created out of no air (vacuum) ?? > > > > > > > and, we've seen your prefered pictograph, > > > > > > the one that is the same as de Broglie's attempt > > > > > > (a linear "wave" -- an oscilloscope trace, actually -- > > > > > > with a "particle" at its tip, like an arrow that was aimed > > > > > > at your cone-head .-) > > > > > > > > A photon is detected as a particle. My preferred concept of a photon > > > > > > > is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a > > > > > > > particle. > > > > > > > thus: > > > > > > there is a standard answer to the question, > > > > > > Am you on drugs?... which is, > > > > > > Ask my God-am lawyer, Fool! > > > > > > > there is also a very standard answer to, > > > > > > How many "holes" are there in the ozone, although > > > > > > it is quite silly, or merely inadequate, but not "one;" > > > > > > do you recall this "news?" > > > > > > > > > > How many "holes" in the ozonosphere, are there? > > > > > > > thus: > > > > > > sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but > > > > > > later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may > > > > > > have read in an article about his retirement. > > > > > > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > > > > > > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > > > > > > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > > > > > > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, capNtrade e.g..). > > > > > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > > > > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > > > > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > > > > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... > > > > > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > > > > > > --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost > > > > > > of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was in > > > > > > '91 > > > > > > under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > How many kinds ot aether waves are there? > > > > There aether behaves as a one something. > > > > As such there are only aether waves in the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I know there are three aether matter waves. That is what Quantum > > Mechanics is going to become. There are subatomic aether waves that > > collapse. There are atomic vibrations that don't. And there are macro > > aether waves that will collapse when the micro aether waves do. Light > > flow collapses aether matter wave flow. > > > When they collapse they go into the infinitely small energy point > > particle temporarily. That is why there is no interference in Two > > Slit. Light flow collapses aether matter wave flow or electric > > particle quantum vibration and its wave of flow. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > An aether wave is an aether displacement and as such there are only > aether waves.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Unified light form has aether sides. Mitch Raemsch |