Re: Paradoxes
- From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:06:42 +0100 (CET)
Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:45:12 +0000:
{pile of stuff ignored by guidelines 4, 5, and 6}
merely
Back to the subject: How is it that muon decay is "deterministic" (as in
the Schroedinger equation)?
That is deliberately a "mirror" for you: if you cannot answer that
direct question, perhaps you should review your own behavior against the
"guidelines" you post. And perhaps you should review your own
understanding of the foundations of QM (or better, its LACK of
foundations)....
As I have often said around here, IMHO the foundation of SR is
as the local limit of GR (i.e. there's no need to supportEinstein's
original postulates). Similarly, I consider the foundation of QMto be
as a non-relativistic limit of QFT.
Tom Roberts
As stated in guidelines #5
{BLOCKQUOTE
When you correct some of their mistakes, they often reply by making more
mistakes. Avoid this trap also! It fills the network with useless noise
in some exponential way.
}
Thus, my reply to you may be again a concise,
"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
--- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts in sci.physics.research Feb 2008
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Paradoxes
- From: Jerry
- Re: Paradoxes
- References:
- Re: Paradoxes
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Paradoxes
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Paradoxes
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Paradoxes
- Prev by Date: Re: Circular motion in SR
- Next by Date: Re: Paradoxes
- Previous by thread: Re: Paradoxes
- Next by thread: Re: Paradoxes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
