Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: srp <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:58:43 GMT
T Wake a écrit :
"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:44888AA0.9080108@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxQuite refreshing to see plain common sense raising its head
again Ken.
Without being unduly rude, it is often the case that people see common sense when it is simply a matter of someone agreeing with them.
Not in this case. I have had the same view as Hubble and apparently Ken
for quite a long time, and for apparently the same reason : absense
of proof.
There are lots of aspects of physics (on all scales) which can be seen to defy immediate common sense, although they tend to become clearer with study - this is not always the case.
In all cases I dug to the bottom, I found that when things appeared
to make no sense, it was always due to insufficient verified data
being considered or insufficient verified data being available at
the time of consideration.
My conclusion in this regard is that things always become clear and
always make sense when sufficient data has been gathered and considered.
Although apparently unrelated, I have a view that separate
confirmation that the pioneer axial spin so-called "anomaly"
(that I have just heard about) is not an anomaly at all,
may go a long way to do away for good with the Doppler
interpretation of the Hubble red shift.
That would be an interesting change to cosmology. For a start it would cause all manner of problems regarding the age of the universe and the results from parallax measurements (as these all "agree," a flaw would have implications throughout)
Total agreement. Maybe more than you think.
Unfortunately for the time scale, there is no way for my
own views to be formally published.
Why not?
Because I am just a Joe out of the street. Not part of the
community. I have no control over the time it will take for
my ideas to filter up and even be discussed.
I am positive however that reason will ultimately prevail.
Yes. Good.
Glad to hear that.
André Michaud
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: T Wake
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Phineas T Puddleduck
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- References:
- Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Martha
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: PD
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: PD
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: PD
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Greg Hansen
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: srp
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: srp
- Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- From: T Wake
- Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Prev by Date: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Next by Date: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Previous by thread: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Next by thread: Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|