Re: No Such Thing as a Particle?
From: Harry (harald.vanlintel_at_epfl.ch)
Date: 01/03/05
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: There are two logical worlds the physicist has to come to terms with"
- Previous message: Martin: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- Maybe in reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: No Such Thing as a Particle?"
- Next in thread: FrediFizzx: "Re: No Such Thing as a Particle?"
- Reply: FrediFizzx: "Re: No Such Thing as a Particle?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:03:57 +0100
"Emwizsoon" <emwizsoon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104713172.602046.302850@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
> In 1905, Einstein shows that there are particles.
Not so - it is also wrong but more correct to say that in 1904 Lorentz
showed that there are no particles, but that everything is made up of waves!
Harald
> 100 years
> later, who knows.. someone may show they are not actually
> particles. Are we going to crucify Einstein. I'm just kidding. :)
> Let's celebrate his 100 years anniversary by taking a closer
> look of the opposite, that there may be no particles at all
> but just complex standing wave composing platonic solids, etc.
> It would be easy to debunk the new hypothesis though. I'm
> still looking for that one argument that can permanently put
> it in the archive of crank dot net.
>
> Emwi
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: There are two logical worlds the physicist has to come to terms with"
- Previous message: Martin: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- Maybe in reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: No Such Thing as a Particle?"
- Next in thread: FrediFizzx: "Re: No Such Thing as a Particle?"
- Reply: FrediFizzx: "Re: No Such Thing as a Particle?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
