Re: new improved facts v011

From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 03/15/05 

Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:34:25 -0500

"paulps" <paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:1110891100.46671.1@nnrp-t71-01.news.uk.clara.net...
>
[snip]
> |
> But a Estab. Profs just cost me £8.99 for a PB so I'm going to get me moneys
> worth in lol for starters with maybe a conversion or two to thinking.Tell me
> I'm a fool and would be better of and safer in my coffin but a mans gota do
> what a mans gota do while he is still alive. Its a man thing, tet. woman
> dont get it so bad unless they take the tablets :-)
>
> | X and gamma rays can be born, do something useful and die without
> | ever getting near an atomic oscillator.
>
> What can they do thats usefull without moding an atomic oscillator unless
> you mean going from place to place.?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/635000/images/_637159_bullet150.jpg
Ahhh... the dark spots are where the bullet isn't located.
Unlikely this image was synchrotron produced but it is becoming more
common. So your argument is reduced to a proof that x and gamma rays
can only be detected with atomic oscillators. I wouln't want go that far
out on a limb... but knock yerself out. :o)
>
> | "Light is emitted or absorbed by an *atom* in discrete amounts called
> quanta."
> | --Max Planck
>
> 100% agree with that but they then seemed to build QM on the fact its
> difficult to nail a thing down and measure its velocity at the same time
That is a mathematical principle shared by any complex unit of measurement.
Velocity expresses both units of time and position.
> seemed mentaly deranged to me and I should know :-)?. And then they double
> slit yu and claim mystery time travel recent stuff.
Sigh... the time travel stuff is about 100 yrs overdue a decent burial.... IMHO.
>
> | Methinks you are confusing the statisical formalism of Quantum Mechanics
> | for a qualitative theory.
>
> Of course, kick myself in head, I must be getting even more brain damaged
> posting to this group:-)
>
> But hang on I have a PB by an establishment prof 2000 who at least implies
> that if you took Planck away from QM that it would fall ? Did it fall to
> those in the know and I didnt notice? if it has then that will free up up a
> few gigs :-)

Bon Jour, Como Esta,
Muy Bvien, Danka.
?habla engles?
>
> | Tip: If ya wanna stay off the wave/particle merry-go-round, learn all
> | the different ways to determine and specify "free space permeability"
> |
> I want to be able to describe the construction of a partical as a minimum
> target.
> Working.....................freeSP.................out of data and decoding
> error :-)
Hmmm... that could really blow up in your face if particles turn out to
have great extent and influences described by !!! 1/r^2 !!!.
> Have a look up front lol but post here perhaps we wont get noticed:-)
> Are you wet yet,

No... I stopped lurking on "Ken S. Tucker" 's posts at the
first sign of dampness. ;-)

> my wife will kill me if you are :-)

A bright girl. It looks like you "married up" :o)

Sue...

I'll tel her as I'm
> only sneaky for fun, kick me in the cruch if you think thats best :-)
> Paulps
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantcast