Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "Fabrication" or "Lie" in the IPCC AR4 WGI
Next: Chapt 3, Fiberglass Experiment; using only luminosity for distance measure #62; ATOM TOTALITY
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 20:41 On May 8, 8:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 3:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 8, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > > > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > > > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > > > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > > > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > > > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > > > > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > > > > > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > You would. > > > > > > > > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > > > > > > > > Physics today: > > > > > > > > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > > > > > > > > - mistakes energy for cause. > > > > > > > > Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what > > > > > > > physics today really says. > > > > > > > It does both those things exactly. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave > > > > > > function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a > > > > > > double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many > > > > > > books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical > > > > > > construct > > > > > > No, it isn't. As I said, you should study up on what physics today > > > > > really says, rather than looking up comic-book articles about stuff or > > > > > making things up. > > > > > > > and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a > > > > > > double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand > > > > > > the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in > > > > > > nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. > > > > > > > The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass > > > > > > converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature > > > > > > there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' > > > > > > physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs > > > > > > physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy. > > > > > > 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. > > > > > > I'm sorry, you said mainstream physics "mistakes energy for cause". > > > > > Nothing like that is true, and nothing you've said in the paragraph > > > > > above supports that contention. > > > > > That is exactly what 'mainstream' physics does. > > > > > I can ask you the simple question and your refusal to answer it is > > > > evidence of 'mainstream' physics inability to understand energy is an > > > > effect of what physically occurs. > > > > Don't be ridiculous. I'm not the spokesman for mainstream physics and > > > I'm not your trained monkey. > > > I don't answer your questions because you're a dirtbag, not because > > > there is no mainstream physics understanding. > > > > Just because you are not provided something you sulk and whine and > > > demand should not be evidence to you that the something doesn't exist.. > > > It just means that you are a whining baby with severe emotional > > > problems who goes after things the wrong way. > > > > PD > > > You insist I read many, many books in order to 'understand' mass is > > not conserved when mass is conserved. > > I don't insist anything of you. I suggest you do that, yes. I don't > why you would steadfastly refuse to read something that is at least > partially in opposition to your point of view. Do you only read that > which you fully agree with? Are you afraid of reading? Since I understand mass is conserved and, in terms of E=mc^2, energy is the effect of mæther decompressing, I prefer to conceptually understand how nature works physically and what causes the effect of energy. For example, any particle in a double slit experiment is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. This is evidence the particle ALWAYS enters a single slit. Since I understand the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether wave which enters and exits multiple slits, I prefer to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
From: PD on 8 May 2010 21:20 On May 8, 7:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 8:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 3:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 8, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > > > > > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > > > > > > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > You would. > > > > > > > > > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > > > > > > > > > Physics today: > > > > > > > > > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > > > > > > > > > - mistakes energy for cause. > > > > > > > > > Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what > > > > > > > > physics today really says. > > > > > > > > It does both those things exactly. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave > > > > > > > function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a > > > > > > > double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many > > > > > > > books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical > > > > > > > construct > > > > > > > No, it isn't. As I said, you should study up on what physics today > > > > > > really says, rather than looking up comic-book articles about stuff or > > > > > > making things up. > > > > > > > > and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a > > > > > > > double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand > > > > > > > the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in > > > > > > > nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. > > > > > > > > The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass > > > > > > > converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature > > > > > > > there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' > > > > > > > physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs > > > > > > > physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy. > > > > > > > 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. > > > > > > > I'm sorry, you said mainstream physics "mistakes energy for cause". > > > > > > Nothing like that is true, and nothing you've said in the paragraph > > > > > > above supports that contention. > > > > > > That is exactly what 'mainstream' physics does. > > > > > > I can ask you the simple question and your refusal to answer it is > > > > > evidence of 'mainstream' physics inability to understand energy is an > > > > > effect of what physically occurs. > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. I'm not the spokesman for mainstream physics and > > > > I'm not your trained monkey. > > > > I don't answer your questions because you're a dirtbag, not because > > > > there is no mainstream physics understanding. > > > > > Just because you are not provided something you sulk and whine and > > > > demand should not be evidence to you that the something doesn't exist. > > > > It just means that you are a whining baby with severe emotional > > > > problems who goes after things the wrong way. > > > > > PD > > > > You insist I read many, many books in order to 'understand' mass is > > > not conserved when mass is conserved. > > > I don't insist anything of you. I suggest you do that, yes. I don't > > why you would steadfastly refuse to read something that is at least > > partially in opposition to your point of view. Do you only read that > > which you fully agree with? Are you afraid of reading? > > Since I understand mass is conserved You have religious faith that this is the case, and you use as support your own assertion that it is the case. > and, in terms of E=mc^2, energy > is the effect of mæther decompressing, I prefer to conceptually > understand how nature works physically and what causes the effect of > energy. Yes, I know. You always do what you PREFER, whether that has any usefulness or not. > > For example, any particle in a double slit experiment is ALWAYS > detected exiting a single slit. This is evidence the particle ALWAYS > enters a single slit. Since I understand the particle ALWAYS enters > and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether wave which > enters and exits multiple slits, I prefer to understand what occurs > physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 23:19 On May 8, 9:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 7:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 8:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 3:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 8, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > > > > > > > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You would. > > > > > > > > > > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > > > > > > > > > > Physics today: > > > > > > > > > > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > > > > > > > > > > - mistakes energy for cause. > > > > > > > > > > Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what > > > > > > > > > physics today really says. > > > > > > > > > It does both those things exactly. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave > > > > > > > > function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a > > > > > > > > double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many > > > > > > > > books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical > > > > > > > > construct > > > > > > > > No, it isn't. As I said, you should study up on what physics today > > > > > > > really says, rather than looking up comic-book articles about stuff or > > > > > > > making things up. > > > > > > > > > and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a > > > > > > > > double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand > > > > > > > > the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in > > > > > > > > nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. > > > > > > > > > The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass > > > > > > > > converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature > > > > > > > > there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' > > > > > > > > physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs > > > > > > > > physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy. > > > > > > > > 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, you said mainstream physics "mistakes energy for cause". > > > > > > > Nothing like that is true, and nothing you've said in the paragraph > > > > > > > above supports that contention. > > > > > > > That is exactly what 'mainstream' physics does. > > > > > > > I can ask you the simple question and your refusal to answer it is > > > > > > evidence of 'mainstream' physics inability to understand energy is an > > > > > > effect of what physically occurs. > > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. I'm not the spokesman for mainstream physics and > > > > > I'm not your trained monkey. > > > > > I don't answer your questions because you're a dirtbag, not because > > > > > there is no mainstream physics understanding. > > > > > > Just because you are not provided something you sulk and whine and > > > > > demand should not be evidence to you that the something doesn't exist. > > > > > It just means that you are a whining baby with severe emotional > > > > > problems who goes after things the wrong way. > > > > > > PD > > > > > You insist I read many, many books in order to 'understand' mass is > > > > not conserved when mass is conserved. > > > > I don't insist anything of you. I suggest you do that, yes. I don't > > > why you would steadfastly refuse to read something that is at least > > > partially in opposition to your point of view. Do you only read that > > > which you fully agree with? Are you afraid of reading? > > > Since I understand mass is conserved > > You have religious faith that this is the case, and you use as support > your own assertion that it is the case. > I have the experimental evidence. Whenever an experiment is performed the particle is always detected exiting a single slit. If detectors are placed at the entrances to the slits the particle is always detected entering a single slit. This is experimental evidence the particle always enters and exits a single slit. > > and, in terms of E=mc^2, energy > > is the effect of mæther decompressing, I prefer to conceptually > > understand how nature works physically and what causes the effect of > > energy. > > Yes, I know. You always do what you PREFER, whether that has any > usefulness or not. > The C-60 molecule is always detected entering and exiting a single slit because it ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. To believe otherwise is to disregard the experimental evidence. > > > > For example, any particle in a double slit experiment is ALWAYS > > detected exiting a single slit. This is evidence the particle ALWAYS > > enters a single slit. Since I understand the particle ALWAYS enters > > and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether wave which > > enters and exits multiple slits, I prefer to understand what occurs > > physically in nature in a double slit experiment. > >
From: spudnik on 9 May 2010 00:22 it is too bad that U.Al cannot engage in debate, because he certainly has a valid "point" about the duality, and that is your only real problem. admittedly, it is more of a quandary with fullerenes, but there is not even any "where," there, with the "photon" -- unless you think that a Nobel is an adequate laurel, to resurrect Sir Isaac's nutty corpuscle (the one that goes faster in denser media .-) more precisely, E's neologism of "quantum of light, I shall call, photon," does not neccesitate that "the photon must be a particle (zero-dimensional, no mass, no momentum QED .-) > I have the experimental evidence. Whenever an experiment is performed > the particle is always detected exiting a single slit. thus: NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_ for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but, this is just the original "vectors." so, compare Lanczos' biquaternions with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. anyway, "worldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants," totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism -- time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability (of dimensionality !-) thus: Gauss meaasured the curvature of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine, triangulatin' that contested area .-) thus: notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway, I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy, who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind. 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?
From: mpc755 on 9 May 2010 08:09
On May 9, 12:22 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > it is too bad that U.Al cannot engage in debate, because > he certainly has a valid "point" about the duality, and > that is your only real problem. > > admittedly, it is more of a quandary with fullerenes, but > there is not even any "where," there, with the "photon" > -- unless you think that a Nobel is an adequate laurel, > to resurrect Sir Isaac's nutty corpuscle (the one > that goes faster in denser media .-) > > more precisely, E's neologism of "quantum > of light, I shall call, photon," does not neccesitate that > "the photon must be a particle (zero-dimensional, > no mass, no momentum QED .-) > 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. > > I have the experimental evidence. Whenever an experiment is performed > > the particle is always detected exiting a single slit. > > thus: > NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_ > for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and > "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but, > this is just the original "vectors." so, > compare Lanczos' biquaternions > with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, > to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. anyway, > "worldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants," > totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism -- > time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability > (of dimensionality !-) > > thus: > Gauss meaasured the curvature > of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure > of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine, > triangulatin' that contested area .-) > > thus: > notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and > the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway, > I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy, > who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind. > > 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? |