Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 19 May 2010 21:25 On May 19, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 19, 4:18 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 19, 1:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 3:08 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 19, 1:34 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > weren't you the one who was complaining > > > > > > about paradoxical things in QM?... so, > > > > > > you seem to be able to have it both ways, > > > > > > having your wave & your little pizza pie, two, > > > > > > when they were only ever just dual, mathematical representations > > > > > > of one thing; you just don't need to use them, > > > > > > at teh same time, and will probably not be able to > > > > > > in any realistic way. certainly, no-one else has! > > > > > > de Broglie originated wave-particle duality. In de Broglie wave > > > > > mechanics, the 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave. In > > > > > a double slit experiment the wave enters and exits multiple slits > > > > > while the 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The wave creates > > > > > interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the > > > > > 'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the > > > > > associated wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no > > > > > interference. > > > > > > Why is the 'particle' ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit when > > > > > detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the 'particle' is > > > > > in the slit(s)? > > > > > > Because the 'particle' ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.. > > > > > > How is a C-60 molecule able to create an interference pattern in a > > > > > double slit experiment? > > > > > > Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and it > > > > > is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits > > > > > multiple slits. The associated aether displacement wave creates > > > > > interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the > > > > > C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence > > > > > of the associated aether displacement wave and there is no > > > > > interference. > > > > > > Why is the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit when > > > > > detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > > > > > is in the slit(s)? > > > > > > Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > > > anyway, arguing with you guys makes me into > > > > > > that "exotic negative mass" stuff, > > > > > > that could build an Einstin-Rosen superbridge > > > > > > to when God-am ever. > > > > > > > > The above is correct. The 'particle' portion of the photon can be > > > > > > > considered to be part of the wave itself. The 'particle' portion of > > > > > > > the photon does not have to be a rock of light. > > > > > > > thus prove: > > > > > > prove and/or define the most canonical "law > > > > > > of cosines" in trgionometry taht you can; > > > > > > you can define canonical, two. > > > > > > > well, I just read the definition > > > > > > of the law, or the supposed outcome of formula, > > > > > > in a large dictionary (of English). > > > > > > > thus: > > > > > > I haven't proven that the Bible Code was a hoax; > > > > > > only a hueristical argument about any ring > > > > > > of letters of "all of the letters" ... not the Object or > > > > > > Bunny Rings, neccesarily. however, > > > > > > the biblical topic is "skip codes." > > > > > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > The proton is an infinitely small trio of quarks. It has no radius. > > > > Actually, that's counter to experiment. The radius of the proton has > > > been measured to be about 1E-15m. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > No. All particles are infinitely small. We can't predict a seperation > > of the trio of quarks or 3 points of energy. > > > How acccurate is the measurement you talk about? How can we observe > > anything that small in the first place. No. we can't. > > We don't have the ability. > > Oh, sure we can. The proton size has been measured since the late > 1960s. Can you prove it? Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 20 May 2010 09:49 On May 19, 8:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 19, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 4:18 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 19, 1:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 1:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 19, 3:08 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:34 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > weren't you the one who was complaining > > > > > > > about paradoxical things in QM?... so, > > > > > > > you seem to be able to have it both ways, > > > > > > > having your wave & your little pizza pie, two, > > > > > > > when they were only ever just dual, mathematical representations > > > > > > > of one thing; you just don't need to use them, > > > > > > > at teh same time, and will probably not be able to > > > > > > > in any realistic way. certainly, no-one else has! > > > > > > > de Broglie originated wave-particle duality. In de Broglie wave > > > > > > mechanics, the 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave. In > > > > > > a double slit experiment the wave enters and exits multiple slits > > > > > > while the 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The wave creates > > > > > > interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the > > > > > > 'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the > > > > > > associated wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no > > > > > > interference. > > > > > > > Why is the 'particle' ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit when > > > > > > detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the 'particle' is > > > > > > in the slit(s)? > > > > > > > Because the 'particle' ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > How is a C-60 molecule able to create an interference pattern in a > > > > > > double slit experiment? > > > > > > > Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and it > > > > > > is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits > > > > > > multiple slits. The associated aether displacement wave creates > > > > > > interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the > > > > > > C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence > > > > > > of the associated aether displacement wave and there is no > > > > > > interference. > > > > > > > Why is the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit when > > > > > > detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > > > > > > is in the slit(s)? > > > > > > > Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit.. > > > > > > > > anyway, arguing with you guys makes me into > > > > > > > that "exotic negative mass" stuff, > > > > > > > that could build an Einstin-Rosen superbridge > > > > > > > to when God-am ever. > > > > > > > > > The above is correct. The 'particle' portion of the photon can be > > > > > > > > considered to be part of the wave itself. The 'particle' portion of > > > > > > > > the photon does not have to be a rock of light. > > > > > > > > thus prove: > > > > > > > prove and/or define the most canonical "law > > > > > > > of cosines" in trgionometry taht you can; > > > > > > > you can define canonical, two. > > > > > > > > well, I just read the definition > > > > > > > of the law, or the supposed outcome of formula, > > > > > > > in a large dictionary (of English). > > > > > > > > thus: > > > > > > > I haven't proven that the Bible Code was a hoax; > > > > > > > only a hueristical argument about any ring > > > > > > > of letters of "all of the letters" ... not the Object or > > > > > > > Bunny Rings, neccesarily. however, > > > > > > > the biblical topic is "skip codes." > > > > > > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > The proton is an infinitely small trio of quarks. It has no radius. > > > > > Actually, that's counter to experiment. The radius of the proton has > > > > been measured to be about 1E-15m. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > No. All particles are infinitely small. We can't predict a seperation > > > of the trio of quarks or 3 points of energy. > > > > How acccurate is the measurement you talk about? How can we observe > > > anything that small in the first place. No. we can't. > > > We don't have the ability. > > > Oh, sure we can. The proton size has been measured since the late > > 1960s. > > Can you prove it? Sure. The documentation is in the library, written by Robert Hoftstadter. The work was actually done in the 1950's by the way. He became quite famous for it. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1961/hofstadter-bio.html > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 17:42 On May 20, 6:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 19, 8:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 19, 4:18 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 1:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 19, 1:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:08 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:34 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > weren't you the one who was complaining > > > > > > > > about paradoxical things in QM?... so, > > > > > > > > you seem to be able to have it both ways, > > > > > > > > having your wave & your little pizza pie, two, > > > > > > > > when they were only ever just dual, mathematical representations > > > > > > > > of one thing; you just don't need to use them, > > > > > > > > at teh same time, and will probably not be able to > > > > > > > > in any realistic way. certainly, no-one else has! > > > > > > > > de Broglie originated wave-particle duality. In de Broglie wave > > > > > > > mechanics, the 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave. In > > > > > > > a double slit experiment the wave enters and exits multiple slits > > > > > > > while the 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The wave creates > > > > > > > interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the > > > > > > > 'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the > > > > > > > associated wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no > > > > > > > interference. > > > > > > > > Why is the 'particle' ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit when > > > > > > > detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the 'particle' is > > > > > > > in the slit(s)? > > > > > > > > Because the 'particle' ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > How is a C-60 molecule able to create an interference pattern in a > > > > > > > double slit experiment? > > > > > > > > Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and it > > > > > > > is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits > > > > > > > multiple slits. The associated aether displacement wave creates > > > > > > > interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the > > > > > > > C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence > > > > > > > of the associated aether displacement wave and there is no > > > > > > > interference. > > > > > > > > Why is the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit when > > > > > > > detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > > > > > > > is in the slit(s)? > > > > > > > > Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > > > > > anyway, arguing with you guys makes me into > > > > > > > > that "exotic negative mass" stuff, > > > > > > > > that could build an Einstin-Rosen superbridge > > > > > > > > to when God-am ever. > > > > > > > > > > The above is correct. The 'particle' portion of the photon can be > > > > > > > > > considered to be part of the wave itself. The 'particle' portion of > > > > > > > > > the photon does not have to be a rock of light. > > > > > > > > > thus prove: > > > > > > > > prove and/or define the most canonical "law > > > > > > > > of cosines" in trgionometry taht you can; > > > > > > > > you can define canonical, two. > > > > > > > > > well, I just read the definition > > > > > > > > of the law, or the supposed outcome of formula, > > > > > > > > in a large dictionary (of English). > > > > > > > > > thus: > > > > > > > > I haven't proven that the Bible Code was a hoax; > > > > > > > > only a hueristical argument about any ring > > > > > > > > of letters of "all of the letters" ... not the Object or > > > > > > > > Bunny Rings, neccesarily. however, > > > > > > > > the biblical topic is "skip codes." > > > > > > > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > The proton is an infinitely small trio of quarks. It has no radius. > > > > > > Actually, that's counter to experiment. The radius of the proton has > > > > > been measured to be about 1E-15m. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > No. All particles are infinitely small. We can't predict a seperation > > > > of the trio of quarks or 3 points of energy. > > > > > How acccurate is the measurement you talk about? How can we observe > > > > anything that small in the first place. No. we can't. > > > > We don't have the ability. > > > > Oh, sure we can. The proton size has been measured since the late > > > 1960s. > > > Can you prove it? > > Sure. The documentation is in the library, written by Robert > Hoftstadter. The work was actually done in the 1950's by the way. > > He became quite famous for it.http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1961/hofstadter-... > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Can you demonstrate the accuracy of such a measurement? You seem to think we have something more than we really do at the library. Science measurements are not very old and cannot be expected to be very accurate. So your attitude that it does is unfounded. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 20 May 2010 18:28 On May 20, 4:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 6:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 8:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 19, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 4:18 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 19, 1:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:08 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:34 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > weren't you the one who was complaining > > > > > > > > > about paradoxical things in QM?... so, > > > > > > > > > you seem to be able to have it both ways, > > > > > > > > > having your wave & your little pizza pie, two, > > > > > > > > > when they were only ever just dual, mathematical representations > > > > > > > > > of one thing; you just don't need to use them, > > > > > > > > > at teh same time, and will probably not be able to > > > > > > > > > in any realistic way. certainly, no-one else has! > > > > > > > > > de Broglie originated wave-particle duality. In de Broglie wave > > > > > > > > mechanics, the 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave. In > > > > > > > > a double slit experiment the wave enters and exits multiple slits > > > > > > > > while the 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The wave creates > > > > > > > > interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the > > > > > > > > 'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the > > > > > > > > associated wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no > > > > > > > > interference. > > > > > > > > > Why is the 'particle' ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit when > > > > > > > > detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the 'particle' is > > > > > > > > in the slit(s)? > > > > > > > > > Because the 'particle' ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > How is a C-60 molecule able to create an interference pattern in a > > > > > > > > double slit experiment? > > > > > > > > > Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and it > > > > > > > > is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits > > > > > > > > multiple slits. The associated aether displacement wave creates > > > > > > > > interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence > > > > > > > > of the associated aether displacement wave and there is no > > > > > > > > interference. > > > > > > > > > Why is the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit when > > > > > > > > detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > > > > > > > > is in the slit(s)? > > > > > > > > > Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > anyway, arguing with you guys makes me into > > > > > > > > > that "exotic negative mass" stuff, > > > > > > > > > that could build an Einstin-Rosen superbridge > > > > > > > > > to when God-am ever. > > > > > > > > > > > The above is correct. The 'particle' portion of the photon can be > > > > > > > > > > considered to be part of the wave itself. The 'particle' portion of > > > > > > > > > > the photon does not have to be a rock of light. > > > > > > > > > > thus prove: > > > > > > > > > prove and/or define the most canonical "law > > > > > > > > > of cosines" in trgionometry taht you can; > > > > > > > > > you can define canonical, two. > > > > > > > > > > well, I just read the definition > > > > > > > > > of the law, or the supposed outcome of formula, > > > > > > > > > in a large dictionary (of English). > > > > > > > > > > thus: > > > > > > > > > I haven't proven that the Bible Code was a hoax; > > > > > > > > > only a hueristical argument about any ring > > > > > > > > > of letters of "all of the letters" ... not the Object or > > > > > > > > > Bunny Rings, neccesarily. however, > > > > > > > > > the biblical topic is "skip codes." > > > > > > > > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > The proton is an infinitely small trio of quarks. It has no radius. > > > > > > > Actually, that's counter to experiment. The radius of the proton has > > > > > > been measured to be about 1E-15m. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > No. All particles are infinitely small. We can't predict a seperation > > > > > of the trio of quarks or 3 points of energy. > > > > > > How acccurate is the measurement you talk about? How can we observe > > > > > anything that small in the first place. No. we can't. > > > > > We don't have the ability. > > > > > Oh, sure we can. The proton size has been measured since the late > > > > 1960s. > > > > Can you prove it? > > > Sure. The documentation is in the library, written by Robert > > Hoftstadter. The work was actually done in the 1950's by the way. > > > He became quite famous for it.http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1961/hofstadter-... > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Can you demonstrate the accuracy of such a measurement? > You seem to think we have something more than we really do at the > library. > > Science measurements are not very old and cannot be expected to be > very accurate. So your attitude that it does is unfounded. No, it's quite accurate. The accuracy is actually documented in the paper. If it's your contention that science is not to be believed because it cannot explain everything, and that science is not to be believed because all measurements are inaccurate, then you're just basically saying that you don't buy the scientific process at all. If that's the case, then you're just trolling here, muttering "I don't believe it, I don't believe it, I don't believe it." It's not the objective of science to get you to believe. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 18:34
On May 20, 3:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 20, 4:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 20, 6:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 19, 8:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 19, 4:18 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:08 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:34 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > weren't you the one who was complaining > > > > > > > > > > about paradoxical things in QM?... so, > > > > > > > > > > you seem to be able to have it both ways, > > > > > > > > > > having your wave & your little pizza pie, two, > > > > > > > > > > when they were only ever just dual, mathematical representations > > > > > > > > > > of one thing; you just don't need to use them, > > > > > > > > > > at teh same time, and will probably not be able to > > > > > > > > > > in any realistic way. certainly, no-one else has! > > > > > > > > > > de Broglie originated wave-particle duality. In de Broglie wave > > > > > > > > > mechanics, the 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave. In > > > > > > > > > a double slit experiment the wave enters and exits multiple slits > > > > > > > > > while the 'particle' enters and exits a single slit. The wave creates > > > > > > > > > interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the > > > > > > > > > 'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the > > > > > > > > > associated wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no > > > > > > > > > interference. > > > > > > > > > > Why is the 'particle' ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit when > > > > > > > > > detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the 'particle' is > > > > > > > > > in the slit(s)? > > > > > > > > > > Because the 'particle' ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > > > > > > How is a C-60 molecule able to create an interference pattern in a > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment? > > > > > > > > > > Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and it > > > > > > > > > is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits > > > > > > > > > multiple slits. The associated aether displacement wave creates > > > > > > > > > interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence > > > > > > > > > of the associated aether displacement wave and there is no > > > > > > > > > interference. > > > > > > > > > > Why is the C-60 molecule ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit when > > > > > > > > > detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule > > > > > > > > > is in the slit(s)? > > > > > > > > > > Because the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > anyway, arguing with you guys makes me into > > > > > > > > > > that "exotic negative mass" stuff, > > > > > > > > > > that could build an Einstin-Rosen superbridge > > > > > > > > > > to when God-am ever. > > > > > > > > > > > > The above is correct. The 'particle' portion of the photon can be > > > > > > > > > > > considered to be part of the wave itself. The 'particle' portion of > > > > > > > > > > > the photon does not have to be a rock of light. > > > > > > > > > > > thus prove: > > > > > > > > > > prove and/or define the most canonical "law > > > > > > > > > > of cosines" in trgionometry taht you can; > > > > > > > > > > you can define canonical, two. > > > > > > > > > > > well, I just read the definition > > > > > > > > > > of the law, or the supposed outcome of formula, > > > > > > > > > > in a large dictionary (of English). > > > > > > > > > > > thus: > > > > > > > > > > I haven't proven that the Bible Code was a hoax; > > > > > > > > > > only a hueristical argument about any ring > > > > > > > > > > of letters of "all of the letters" ... not the Object or > > > > > > > > > > Bunny Rings, neccesarily. however, > > > > > > > > > > the biblical topic is "skip codes." > > > > > > > > > > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > The proton is an infinitely small trio of quarks. It has no radius. > > > > > > > > Actually, that's counter to experiment. The radius of the proton has > > > > > > > been measured to be about 1E-15m. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > No. All particles are infinitely small. We can't predict a seperation > > > > > > of the trio of quarks or 3 points of energy. > > > > > > > How acccurate is the measurement you talk about? How can we observe > > > > > > anything that small in the first place. No. we can't. > > > > > > We don't have the ability. > > > > > > Oh, sure we can. The proton size has been measured since the late > > > > > 1960s. > > > > > Can you prove it? > > > > Sure. The documentation is in the library, written by Robert > > > Hoftstadter. The work was actually done in the 1950's by the way. > > > > He became quite famous for it.http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1961/hofstadter-... > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Can you demonstrate the accuracy of such a measurement? > > You seem to think we have something more than we really do at the > > library. > > > Science measurements are not very old and cannot be expected to be > > very accurate. So your attitude that it does is unfounded. > > No, it's quite accurate. The accuracy is actually documented in the > paper. > > If it's your contention that science is not to be believed because it > cannot explain everything, and that science is not to be believed > because all measurements are inaccurate, then you're just basically > saying that you don't buy the scientific process at all. > > If that's the case, then you're just trolling here, muttering "I don't > believe it, I don't believe it, I don't believe it." It's not the > objective of science to get you to believe. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I don't think so. We have no accurate measurments of subatomic entities and there is no reason that it should be any different at this time. Mitch Raemsch |