Re: Sir Eric Gisse you are Brilliant
From: Eric Gisse (fseggNO!SPAM_at_uaf.edu)
Date: 08/15/04
- Next message: vernonner3voltazim: "Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Interstellar Propulsion idea using an Asteroid and a few comets!"
- In reply to: Peter K.: "Sir Eric Gisse you are Brilliant"
- Next in thread: Peter K.: "Re: Sir Eric Gisse you are Brilliant"
- Reply: Peter K.: "Re: Sir Eric Gisse you are Brilliant"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 02:33:10 -0800
On 15 Aug 2004 00:56:41 -0700, guskz@hotmail.com (Peter K.) wrote:
>I *KNOW* you will still insult me but either way you are Brilliant.
I guess you can learn after all. Lets see if you can avoid being
stupid if I try to educate instead of insult.
>
>For your knowledge of Heisenberg uncertainty principle has pointed my
>nostrels to a more carefull study of the man who helped found quantum
>mechanics.
Wrong person. Try Planck and look up information about the UV
catastrophe. 1900 or so, a bit before SR.
>
>A very quick analysis of Heisenberg's logic seems to concure with my
>own beliefs that the Ether perhaps is the Big Bang's inital Alpha
>Radiation wave and behaves EXACTLY like a carrier wave (look up
>communication signals) Modulating everything we see in nature.
Read it again, and this time read it slower so your comprehension of
the material isn't affected.
1) While the CMBR would be an ideal reference frame in of itself, it
is not the ether.
2) There is no ether. MMX and its' children over the last 120 years.
3) The CMBR modulates nothing, especially anything else other than
itself.
4) Alpha radiation is a Helium atom stripped of electrons. Helium is
~25% of the intial matter makeup of the universe, most definetly not
an ether candidate.
>
>Therefore everything we see (and are part of) is nothing but a ripple
>of the Ether (Same as a ripple in water):
No.
>
>
>The closer we get to notice a particle as a sphere object the more
>instead it will look like a wave since it does not really exist, it is
>simply a ****MODULATED ripple**** manifestation of the Big Bang's
>initial blasted Energy Wave we call the Ether. (And what we perceive
>from a far distance as a particle, object, substance, and matter).
No, on so many levels.
The closer you get to an object, the more it will blur due to the
uncertainty principle. Energy/time or momentum/position - pick one,
sacrafice the other.
None of this nonsense about it turning into a wave. That is de
Brogile's wave/particle duality.
The CMBR wasn't made 'initially', it was frozen into its' present
shape 300kyr after the big bang, and into its present state after 13.6
billion years of expanding with space. Furthermore, the CMBR is itself
and nothing else - not matter, not anything else other than noise.
>
>
>Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
>
>"As you proceed downward in size to atomic dimensions, it is no longer
>valid to consider a particle like a hard sphere, because the smaller
>the dimension, the more wave-like it becomes. It no longer makes sense
>to say that you have precisely determined both the position and
>momentum of such a particle."
No. It does not become wave-like. It already is that way. The more you
constrain one of the Energy/time or momentum/position conjugate
variables, the more the other becomes unknown.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
The position blur can be manifested in some seriously wonky ways if
you play with the Schrodinger equation and an infinite potential well.
There are plenty of books that show this stuff.
As I have said before, get an education. It is nice to have.
>
>
>
>So perhaps the closer you get to look at the particle the more you
>might notice it is but a peek(crest) of the Modulated Ether wave?
No.
Again, there is no ether.
- Next message: vernonner3voltazim: "Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Interstellar Propulsion idea using an Asteroid and a few comets!"
- In reply to: Peter K.: "Sir Eric Gisse you are Brilliant"
- Next in thread: Peter K.: "Re: Sir Eric Gisse you are Brilliant"
- Reply: Peter K.: "Re: Sir Eric Gisse you are Brilliant"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
