Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670869

Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson)

Show all headers | View raw

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On 04/29/2026 02:31 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > x3 wrote:
> >>
> >> Note:
> >>
> >> This appears like a rather long set of posts to me.
> >>
> >> Anyway.  i would like to posit the idea that the words 'particle'
> >> and 'wave' are generally undefined terms because they look and sound
> >> like 'point' and 'curve' in mathematics.  This allows 'particle'
> >> and 'wave' to not have clear meanings.
> >>
> >> I think that 'light' IS electromagnetic radiation BUT PHOTONS
> >> are NOT PARTICLES.
> >>
> >> This is because MORE THAN ONE PHOTON can exist in a wafeform.
> >>
> >> Thus FERMI-DIRAC statistics (Fermions) ARE PARTICLES and Bose-Einstein
> >> statistics (Bosons) ARE NOT PARTICLES.  This MEANS - you have to
> >> think about the question - WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PARTICLE' mean?
> >
> > "Particle" is a fish.
> >
> > There are no lightwaves..they are particles in a school fish.
> >
> > An ant doesn't travel in a straight line..it travels in wavy lines.
> >
> > Nature does not have any ...straight lines.
> >
> > The bark of a tree does not have any straight lines...
> >
> > a girl has wavy lines..
> >
> > A wave is just some sort of communication devise to keep the fish moving
> > in a certain direction.
> >
> >
> > "Particle" is a fish.
> >
> >
> > Gravity is a particle, not a wave.
> >
> >
> > A gravitional wave is a school of fishes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Ah, a usual known troll's non-sensical account does not belong.

First I like to point out to you that there is NO hyphen, the correct
speling is "nonsensical". But I understand
English is your third language..so, I'll let that go...for now.


Can you point 'which part' seems non-sensical to you???? (thats' if you
have the ability to find which part)

Saying 'all of it' doesn't count and would be a cop-out on your part.
You need to 'point' to the part which is
non-sensical to you. Maybe you can get help from GG...God knows you need
it.




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-04-29 13:53 -0700
  Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-29 14:31 -0700
    Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-04-29 14:45 -0700
      Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-29 20:29 -0700
      Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 08:54 -0700
        Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 09:59 -0700
    Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 08:55 -0700
      Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-30 11:42 -0700
        Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-30 15:32 -0700
          Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 20:03 -0700
        Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-01 08:33 -0700
          Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 09:05 -0700

csiph-web