Prev: ALWAYS REPRIEVING RELATIVITY
Next: The moving system is not an inertial frame in 1905 Relativity
From: bert on 1 Jul 2010 10:41
On Jul 1, 10:29 am, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 11:27 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 11:24 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 6/30/2010 1:10 PM, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > QM is too wavy. There is only a single sin wavelength for the wave
> > > > > function. Even Stephen Hawking pointed this out in his book.
>
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > Are you talking about a wave or a wave function? Let's
> > > > see how much trouble you can get yourself into this time.
>
> > > Really the is not wave function in nature but QM people want to make
> > > it a math. It is just a quantum wave.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > The quantum wave in theory is mathematical but in nature it is
> > immaterial aether wave.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> burt, do yourself a favor and stop wasting youre
> life away with nonsense.
> it is not how much you say but what you say!
>
> r.y- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Use this post topic to add one of my "What if" in the QM realm space
what we in the macro realm call "aether".is one big force field? Its a
thought. We could play with this idea. Its new and can be
interesting TreBert
From: BURT on 1 Jul 2010 14:07
On Jul 1, 7:29 am, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 11:27 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 11:24 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 6/30/2010 1:10 PM, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > QM is too wavy. There is only a single sin wavelength for the wave
> > > > > function. Even Stephen Hawking pointed this out in his book.
>
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > Are you talking about a wave or a wave function? Let's
> > > > see how much trouble you can get yourself into this time.
>
> > > Really the is not wave function in nature but QM people want to make
> > > it a math. It is just a quantum wave.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > The quantum wave in theory is mathematical but in nature it is
> > immaterial aether wave.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> burt, do yourself a favor and stop wasting youre
> life away with nonsense.
> it is not how much you say but what you say!
>
> r.y- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Space and time are also of the nature of the immaterial.

Mitch Raemsch
From: purple on 1 Jul 2010 14:24
On 7/1/2010 1:07 PM, BURT wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:29 am, Raymond Yohros<b...(a)birdband.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 2:10 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 30, 11:27 am, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jun 30, 11:24 am, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 6/30/2010 1:10 PM, BURT wrote:
>>
>>>>>> QM is too wavy. There is only a single sin wavelength for the wave
>>>>>> function. Even Stephen Hawking pointed this out in his book.
>>
>>>>>> Mitch Raemsch
>>
>>>>> Are you talking about a wave or a wave function? Let's
>>>>> see how much trouble you can get yourself into this time.
>>
>>>> Really the is not wave function in nature but QM people want to make
>>>> it a math. It is just a quantum wave.
>>
>>>> Mitch Raemsch
>>
>>> The quantum wave in theory is mathematical but in nature it is
>>> immaterial aether wave.
>>
>>> Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> burt, do yourself a favor and stop wasting youre
>> life away with nonsense.
>> it is not how much you say but what you say!
>>
>> r.y- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Space and time are also of the nature of the immaterial.

When you hit some threshold of craziness they'll finally
be able to help you. I'm pleased with your progress in
that direction.
From: BURT on 1 Jul 2010 14:27
On Jul 1, 11:24 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote:
> On 7/1/2010 1:07 PM, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 7:29 am, Raymond Yohros<b...(a)birdband.net>  wrote:
> >> On Jun 30, 2:10 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 30, 11:27 am, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jun 30, 11:24 am, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 6/30/2010 1:10 PM, BURT wrote:
>
> >>>>>> QM is too wavy. There is only a single sin wavelength for the wave
> >>>>>> function. Even Stephen Hawking pointed this out in his book.
>
> >>>>>> Mitch Raemsch
>
> >>>>> Are you talking about a wave or a wave function? Let's
> >>>>> see how much trouble you can get yourself into this time.
>
> >>>> Really the is not wave function in nature but QM people want to make
> >>>> it a math. It is just a quantum wave.
>
> >>>> Mitch Raemsch
>
> >>> The quantum wave in theory is mathematical but in nature it is
> >>> immaterial aether wave.
>
> >>> Mitch Raemsch
>
> >> burt, do yourself a favor and stop wasting youre
> >> life away with nonsense.
> >> it is not how much you say but what you say!
>
> >> r.y- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Space and time are also of the nature of the immaterial.
>
> When you hit some threshold of craziness they'll finally
> be able to help you. I'm pleased with your progress in
> that direction.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The QM wave is round and immatterial sin wave.

Mitch Raemsch
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: ALWAYS REPRIEVING RELATIVITY
Next: The moving system is not an inertial frame in 1905 Relativity