Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #663680 > unrolled thread

Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-27 03:27 +0000
    Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-05-27 11:37 +0200
      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-27 15:49 +0000
        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-27 09:46 -0700
        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Leolin Baboshkin <aino@ki.ru> - 2025-05-27 17:04 +0000
        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-05-29 21:31 +0200
          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-29 21:40 +0000
            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-05-30 19:31 +0200
              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-30 19:24 +0000
                Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-05-30 22:04 +0200
              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-05-31 06:44 +0200
                Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-05-31 14:33 +0000
                  Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-05-31 20:01 +0200
                    Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-05-31 21:01 +0200
                      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-31 20:44 +0000
                        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-01 12:02 +0200
                          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-01 12:25 +0200
                            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-01 13:43 +0200
                              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-06-01 12:38 -0700
                          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-01 12:34 +0200
                            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-01 14:23 +0200
                              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-01 14:37 +0200
                          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-01 21:22 +0000
                            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-04 21:51 +0200
                              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-04 23:47 +0200
                                Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Jhon Dobrenkov <krj@oknnr.ru> - 2025-06-04 22:40 +0000
                                Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-16 21:42 +0000
                                  Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-17 14:21 +0200
                                    Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-17 20:20 +0200
                          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-02 17:58 +0200
                            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-02 19:36 +0200
                              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-03 08:50 +0200
                                Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-03 09:40 +0200
                                Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-04 07:42 +0000
                            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-02 20:38 +0200
                              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-03 08:56 +0200
                                Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-03 14:30 +0200
                                  Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-03 14:56 +0200
                                  Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-03 19:34 +0200
                                  Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-03 19:44 +0200
                                    Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-03 21:22 +0200
                                      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-04 08:58 +0200
                                    Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-04 08:41 +0200
                                      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-04 14:50 +0200
                                        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Elick Tulaev <atec@ltvluaav.ru> - 2025-06-04 22:59 +0000
                                        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-05 11:36 +0200
                                          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-05 13:53 +0200
                                            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Emory Batsanov <veb@norerooa.ru> - 2025-06-05 21:36 +0000
                                            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-08 11:01 +0200
                                              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Darin Patrianakos <nr@irnirit.gr> - 2025-06-08 21:34 +0000
                                  Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-04 08:33 +0200
                                    Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-04 14:50 +0200
                                      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-04 14:58 +0200
                                        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-06-04 13:11 +0000
                                          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-04 15:41 +0200
                                            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Raikhlin Balabanov <ahrna@lihrn.ru> - 2025-06-04 15:58 +0000
                                      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-07 08:52 +0200
                                        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Osmani Babakhanov <ol@npsa.ru> - 2025-06-07 10:16 +0000
                              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-04 07:49 +0000
                            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-03 14:17 +0200
                              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-03 14:53 +0200
                              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Bobauk Bakharev <bb@kaak.ru> - 2025-06-03 13:54 +0000
                              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-04 08:21 +0200
                                Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-04 14:04 +0200
                      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Baldemar Pokhojaev <evlr@hmao.ru> - 2025-05-31 21:09 +0000
                  Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-31 21:03 +0000
          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-29 22:08 +0000
            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-05-30 21:42 +0200
              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-30 20:45 +0000
              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-30 21:12 +0000
          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-29 22:56 +0000
          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-29 22:57 +0000
    Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-05-27 13:18 -0700
      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-27 13:23 -0700
        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-27 21:11 +0000
          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 08:27 -0700
            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-29 21:25 +0000
              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 17:16 -0700
                Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-30 00:54 +0000
        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-27 21:54 +0000
      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-27 21:03 +0000
      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-05-28 07:59 +0200
        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-28 18:56 +0000
          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-05-30 12:06 +0200
            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Felierix Babaev <ebe@elfal.ru> - 2025-05-30 12:17 +0000
            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-30 19:08 +0000
              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-05-31 09:09 +0200
                Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-31 20:50 +0000
                  Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-01 09:22 +0200
                    Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Jerrold Kalistratov <avsld@oro.ru> - 2025-06-01 16:47 +0000
            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-31 23:45 +0000
        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Kennon Babashov <naben@nsan.ru> - 2025-05-29 07:05 +0000
      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-05-29 08:55 -0700
        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-05-29 08:56 -0700
          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-05-29 09:09 -0700
            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-05-29 11:12 -0700
              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. x <x@x.org> - 2025-05-29 16:30 -0700
              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-05-30 20:36 -0700
    Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-27 22:08 +0000
      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-27 22:30 +0000
        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-28 12:36 +0000
          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-28 19:04 +0000
            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-28 20:59 +0000
              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-28 21:10 +0000
                Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-28 21:28 +0000
                  Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-28 21:40 +0000
                  Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-28 23:49 +0000
                    Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-29 00:54 +0000
                      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-29 03:35 +0000
                      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-29 03:41 +0000
                        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-29 08:14 +0000
                          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-29 13:10 +0000
                            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-29 21:20 +0000
                              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-29 23:14 +0000
                                Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-29 23:33 +0000
                                  Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-06-02 13:52 +0000
                          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-29 21:14 +0000
                            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-06-03 06:12 +0000
    Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-28 12:04 +0300
      Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-28 19:02 +0000
        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-29 13:36 +0300
          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-29 21:18 +0000
            Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-30 13:05 +0300
              Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-30 19:11 +0000
                Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-31 13:29 +0300
                  Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Walmo Belorussov <oolvw@rvvasv.ru> - 2025-05-31 14:19 +0000
                  Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-31 20:52 +0000
                    Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-03 11:14 +0300
        Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 08:30 -0700
          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. Hollis Molotkov <msmmvm@hlo.ru> - 2025-05-29 18:20 +0000
          Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-05-29 21:28 +0000

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

#663701

On Tue, 27 May 2025 20:18:05 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>> Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
>> experimentally disproven.
>>
>> The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>>
>> "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>>
>> Light is a wave and not a particle.
>
>
> There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
> wave.
>
>
> A pool stick whether long or short is still a pool stick.
>
>
>
You're too serious to be a relativist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663708

Am Dienstag000027, 27.05.2025 um 22:18 schrieb The Starmaker:
> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>> Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
>> experimentally disproven.
>>
>> The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>>
>> "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>>
>> Light is a wave and not a particle.
> 
> 
> There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
> wave.
> 


No

Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not 
stable, hence move through space.

But stability is a question of the perspective.

E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly 
parallel to the wave.

IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say- 
laser beam, which stems from your home station.

Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.

Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the 
wave as a particle.

Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.

This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that 
case the wave does not move through space anymore.



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663714

On Wed, 28 May 2025 5:59:59 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Dienstag000027, 27.05.2025 um 22:18 schrieb The Starmaker:
>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>
>>> Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
>>> experimentally disproven.
>>>
>>> The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>>>
>>> "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>>>
>>> Light is a wave and not a particle.
>>
>>
>> There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
>> wave.
>>
>
>
> No
>
> Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not
> stable, hence move through space.
>
> But stability is a question of the perspective.
>
> E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
> parallel to the wave.
>
> IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
> laser beam, which stems from your home station.
>
> Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.
>
> Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the
> wave as a particle.
>
> Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
>
> This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that
> case the wave does not move through space anymore.
>
>
>
> TH
I don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that
what light is is a matter of perspective.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663766

Am Mittwoch000028, 28.05.2025 um 20:56 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:

>>>>
>>>> Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
>>>> experimentally disproven.
>>>>
>>>> The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>>>>
>>>> "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>>>>
>>>> Light is a wave and not a particle.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
>>> wave.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No
>>
>> Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not
>> stable, hence move through space.
>>
>> But stability is a question of the perspective.
>>
>> E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
>> parallel to the wave.
>>
>> IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
>> laser beam, which stems from your home station.
>>
>> Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.
>>
>> Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the
>> wave as a particle.
>>
>> Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
>>
>> This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that
>> case the wave does not move through space anymore.
>>
>>
>>
>> TH
> I don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that
> what light is is a matter of perspective.


It makes actually some sense, if we would give up the so called 
'particle concept' altogether.

Actually we need a continuum, which could be both: particle and vacuum 
(depending on the perspective).

But since 'materialism' is hard wired into our brains, we cannot even 
think about this possibility.

But I would guess, that the idea of real, lasting, material particles is 
plain wrong.

I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured 
spacetime', which works quite well.

The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum 
mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological 
necessities.

Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think 
'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive 
only a certain subset.

The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher 
dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.

This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot 
see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.

But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world 
would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by simply 
observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.

Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663769

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Mittwoch000028, 28.05.2025 um 20:56 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> I don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that
>> what light is is a matter of perspective.
> 
> Actually we need a continuum, which could be both: particle and vacuum
> (depending on the perspective).

how the fuck particles would be a continuum, you uneducated stupid natzi 
lying shit. 

"𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙩𝙝_𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝_𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮", that's what EU is, a fascist conglomerate of natzi 
kraut shit. You want to kill rusians, you deplorable sack of shit. 
Balkanize, like Yugoslavia, enter and steal the gas and oil everything. 
You stinking natzi jew. The jew hitler kept you in recreation protection 
camps, with food and everything. Khazar polak fag nethaniake is admitting 
it.

Keith Kellogg’s daughter Meaghan Kellogg supplies the Ukrainian army with 
weapons and medical supplies. Why would the Russians believe anything 
coming out of the mouth of this American snake?

Whether their ‘word’ is verbal or written, NEVER trust the USA!

It is off the table but will be encouraged under the table!!

Kellogg is just another lying Jew in the employ of the U.S but working in 
Zelensky’s and Israel’s interest.

«Fair concern»? Stop the beat around Kellogg, we’re all lucky the Russians 
have extreme patience and is totally opposite to all the ill-names they 
were branded over the years. Your’e a bully trying to invoke a sense of 
reason at this point. Go to hell.

Silly old fart doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s a relic of the 
cold war and shouldn’t be allowed within a thousand miles of government 
policy. What sense does it make to have a warmonger in charge of stopping 
a war?!

NATO is a corrupt cowardly Anglo-Zionist warmongering tool and is now out 
of control. China should even more concerned as the US cowards and Zionist 
child killers ultimate aim is stoke a major war in Asia aimed at 
destroying China.

they just wanted you dead with warp-speed vaccines, and now the same 
snake, you knew it was a snake, wants peace??

North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation is always stand for NATO. While my 
crazy senior minister welcome them to Pacific to counter China in future 
by installing nuclear missile in Singapore once Taiwan and rest of island 
under PRC control. Being an Ace in the Hole for Usrael to strike Mainland 
and Russia.

The West will throw as many wrenches into the process as possible so to 
wait Trump out, welcome back the old guard, and keep Slavs grinding up 
Slavs for another 10 years.

https://www.rt.com/news/618343-kellogg-nato-expansion-ukraine/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663775

On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:06:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Mittwoch000028, 28.05.2025 um 20:56 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
>>>>> experimentally disproven.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>>>>>
>>>>> Light is a wave and not a particle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
>>>> wave.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No
>>>
>>> Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not
>>> stable, hence move through space.
>>>
>>> But stability is a question of the perspective.
>>>
>>> E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
>>> parallel to the wave.
>>>
>>> IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
>>> laser beam, which stems from your home station.
>>>
>>> Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.
>>>
>>> Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the
>>> wave as a particle.
>>>
>>> Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
>>>
>>> This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that
>>> case the wave does not move through space anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>> I don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that
>> what light is is a matter of perspective.
>
>
> It makes actually some sense, if we would give up the so called
> 'particle concept' altogether.
>
> Actually we need a continuum, which could be both: particle and vacuum
> (depending on the perspective).
>
> But since 'materialism' is hard wired into our brains, we cannot even
> think about this possibility.
>
> But I would guess, that the idea of real, lasting, material particles is
> plain wrong.
>
> I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured
> spacetime', which works quite well.
>
> The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
> mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological
> necessities.
>
> Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
> 'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive
> only a certain subset.
>
> The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
> dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
>
> This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot
> see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
>
> But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
> would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by simply
> observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.
>
> Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
>
> TH
There are no higher spatial dimensions, and spacetime is a reification
fallacy or merely a diagram.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663788

Am Freitag000030, 30.05.2025 um 21:08 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:06:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> Am Mittwoch000028, 28.05.2025 um 20:56 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
>>>>>> experimentally disproven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Light is a wave and not a particle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
>>>>> wave.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>>
>>>> Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not
>>>> stable, hence move through space.
>>>>
>>>> But stability is a question of the perspective.
>>>>
>>>> E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
>>>> parallel to the wave.
>>>>
>>>> IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
>>>> laser beam, which stems from your home station.
>>>>
>>>> Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.
>>>>
>>>> Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the
>>>> wave as a particle.
>>>>
>>>> Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
>>>>
>>>> This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that
>>>> case the wave does not move through space anymore.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>> I don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that
>>> what light is is a matter of perspective.
>>
>>
>> It makes actually some sense, if we would give up the so called
>> 'particle concept' altogether.
>>
>> Actually we need a continuum, which could be both: particle and vacuum
>> (depending on the perspective).
>>
>> But since 'materialism' is hard wired into our brains, we cannot even
>> think about this possibility.
>>
>> But I would guess, that the idea of real, lasting, material particles is
>> plain wrong.
>>
>> I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured
>> spacetime', which works quite well.
>>
>> The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
>> mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological
>> necessities.
>>
>> Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
>> 'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive
>> only a certain subset.
>>
>> The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
>> dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
>>
>> This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot
>> see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
>>
>> But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
>> would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by simply
>> observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.
>>
>> Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
>>
>> TH
> There are no higher spatial dimensions, and spacetime is a reification
> fallacy or merely a diagram.

Apaprently you want to decide what is and what is not.

But what gives you authority to decide about the existence of something?


I used the 'real-spacetime-hypothesis' to connect GR and QM.

The concept is actually quite simple and goes like this:

If you want to connect two distinct but established theories, you need 
to find a 'path' between them, since if both are valid, there should be 
a connection.

Now you could take either side as starting position and cut your way 
through the jungle, until you arrive at the other side.

I had chosen to use 'GR-side' as start and had to assume, that spacetime 
of GR is real.

Now my aim was to build the entities of QM out of spacetime.

Once that is done, that connection would be established.

Therefore, my aim was to build particles out of spacetime and possibly 
fields.

That was in fact possible, though not that easy.

But I have written a 'book' about this idea, which you can find here:


https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663797

On Sat, 31 May 2025 7:09:04 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Freitag000030, 30.05.2025 um 21:08 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:06:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Am Mittwoch000028, 28.05.2025 um 20:56 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
>>>>>>> experimentally disproven.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Light is a wave and not a particle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
>>>>>> wave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No
>>>>>
>>>>> Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not
>>>>> stable, hence move through space.
>>>>>
>>>>> But stability is a question of the perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>> E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
>>>>> parallel to the wave.
>>>>>
>>>>> IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
>>>>> laser beam, which stems from your home station.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the
>>>>> wave as a particle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
>>>>>
>>>>> This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that
>>>>> case the wave does not move through space anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TH
>>>> I don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that
>>>> what light is is a matter of perspective.
>>>
>>>
>>> It makes actually some sense, if we would give up the so called
>>> 'particle concept' altogether.
>>>
>>> Actually we need a continuum, which could be both: particle and vacuum
>>> (depending on the perspective).
>>>
>>> But since 'materialism' is hard wired into our brains, we cannot even
>>> think about this possibility.
>>>
>>> But I would guess, that the idea of real, lasting, material particles is
>>> plain wrong.
>>>
>>> I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured
>>> spacetime', which works quite well.
>>>
>>> The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
>>> mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological
>>> necessities.
>>>
>>> Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
>>> 'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive
>>> only a certain subset.
>>>
>>> The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
>>> dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
>>>
>>> This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot
>>> see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
>>>
>>> But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
>>> would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by simply
>>> observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.
>>>
>>> Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
>>>
>>> TH
>> There are no higher spatial dimensions, and spacetime is a reification
>> fallacy or merely a diagram.
>
> Apaprently you want to decide what is and what is not.
>
> But what gives you authority to decide about the existence of something?
>
>
> I used the 'real-spacetime-hypothesis' to connect GR and QM.
>
> The concept is actually quite simple and goes like this:
>
> If you want to connect two distinct but established theories, you need
> to find a 'path' between them, since if both are valid, there should be
> a connection.
>
> Now you could take either side as starting position and cut your way
> through the jungle, until you arrive at the other side.
>
> I had chosen to use 'GR-side' as start and had to assume, that spacetime
> of GR is real.
>
> Now my aim was to build the entities of QM out of spacetime.
>
> Once that is done, that connection would be established.
>
> Therefore, my aim was to build particles out of spacetime and possibly
> fields.
>
> That was in fact possible, though not that easy.
>
> But I have written a 'book' about this idea, which you can find here:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> TH
GR and QM are horrible theories that ought to be thrown out altogether.
Spacetime of GR is a diagram because time is not a spatial dimension.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663806

Am Samstag000031, 31.05.2025 um 22:50 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
..
>>>> I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured
>>>> spacetime', which works quite well.
>>>>
>>>> The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
>>>> mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological
>>>> necessities.
>>>>
>>>> Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
>>>> 'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive
>>>> only a certain subset.
>>>>
>>>> The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
>>>> dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
>>>>
>>>> This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot
>>>> see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
>>>>
>>>> But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
>>>> would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by 
>>>> simply
>>>> observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.
>>>>
>>>> Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>> There are no higher spatial dimensions, and spacetime is a reification
>>> fallacy or merely a diagram.
>>
>> Apaprently you want to decide what is and what is not.
>>
>> But what gives you authority to decide about the existence of something?
>>
>>
>> I used the 'real-spacetime-hypothesis' to connect GR and QM.
>>
>> The concept is actually quite simple and goes like this:
>>
>> If you want to connect two distinct but established theories, you need
>> to find a 'path' between them, since if both are valid, there should be
>> a connection.
>>
>> Now you could take either side as starting position and cut your way
>> through the jungle, until you arrive at the other side.
>>
>> I had chosen to use 'GR-side' as start and had to assume, that spacetime
>> of GR is real.
>>
>> Now my aim was to build the entities of QM out of spacetime.
>>
>> Once that is done, that connection would be established.
>>
>> Therefore, my aim was to build particles out of spacetime and possibly
>> fields.
>>
>> That was in fact possible, though not that easy.
>>
>> But I have written a 'book' about this idea, which you can find here:
>>
>>
>> 

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> TH
> GR and QM are horrible theories that ought to be thrown out altogether.
> Spacetime of GR is a diagram because time is not a spatial dimension.

I had use a simple trick to 'draw spacetime'.

I reduced the four-dimensional space by one dimension and told the 
reader, to 'multiply the picture by three'.

It is actually difficult to draw imaginary numbers.

But we know, that imaginary numbers are useful.

So we need to make drawings, which contain abstract dimensions.

But an Argand-diagram, for instance, is way too flat, to be a good 
description of the world, we could actually 'pump it up' by multiplying 
it by three.

This would bring us to a construct called 'bi-quaternions' (aka 'complex 
four-vectors').

Theese 'beasts' are actually, what I think, that 'spacetime of GR' is 
made of.

It is a quite unusual concept, because it is a 'continuum concept' which 
works without particles.

It also requires very few fundamental assumtions (mainly that spacetime 
of GR is real).


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663836

Thomas Heger wrote:

> It is a quite unusual concept, because it is a 'continuum concept' which
> works without particles.

https://r%74.com/russia/618455-kiev-attacked-military-airfields-russia/

Trump warned Putin he is playing with fire

This is called ‘American peace’.

Remember when the degenerate orange man stated ‘«bad things can happen to 
Russia», he was stating this: terrorism against Russia. NATO is risking 
WW3 at this time by providing satellite and GPS guidance to Ukranian 
troops. They will now be targeted in their NATO countries.

Attacking Russian strategic nuclear assets is a red line that can’t go 
unanswered.

How would they know the targets without NATO/US satellites? You do not 
drive blind deep into Russia unless you have good prior intelligence. It 
is part of NATO probing Russia defenses

Putin is like a putana. A deplorable large mouth traitor, like Gorbachev 
and Yeltzin.

taking into account the recent claim that a payload of 12 starlink 
(entered low orbit) Translated means at least 48 missiles with 48 
destroyed drone parts contained within, to make others think it was a 
drone attack.

That’s because you clowns wasted 3 years stuck in eastern Ukraine instead 
of destroying western Ukraine.

Where is the hollering from the USA? WHere is the screaming to stop 
WWIII? 

This terror attacks were planned, manufactured , coordinated and ordered 
by US and UK .I wonder what will be the Russian reaction but I think that 
the Russian President will keep his composure and will not overeact .

NATO (EU/UK/US) attacked military airfields in five Russian regions – MOD

Putin will say loosing 40 strategic bombers isn’t a strategic defeat.

Thanks for update but this isn’t Ukraine – this is NATO and I would put my 
50 cents on that it’s fag Britain

Of course it’s NATO – but at the end of the day does it really matter who 
it is if you are getting the snot kicked out of you? Fight back, or die.

Always Britain. The master’s in colonialism and skullduggery. Zionist 
parliament.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663802

On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:06:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Mittwoch000028, 28.05.2025 um 20:56 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
>>>>> experimentally disproven.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>>>>>
>>>>> Light is a wave and not a particle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
>>>> wave.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No
>>>
>>> Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not
>>> stable, hence move through space.
>>>
>>> But stability is a question of the perspective.
>>>
>>> E.g. you could 'adjust the own velocity' (theoretically) and fly
>>> parallel to the wave.
>>>
>>> IoW: you fly with the speed of light and look backwards, to a -say-
>>> laser beam, which stems from your home station.
>>>
>>> Now the ray from home gets red-shifted, the more the faster you fly.
>>>
>>> Once you reach c, the ray had frequency zero and you could regard the
>>> wave as a particle.
>>>
>>> Or you could try to 'catch' a wave and keep it in your realm.
>>>
>>> This would also make a particle out of the wave, too, because in that
>>> case the wave does not move through space anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>> I don't think relative motion can make a particle out of a wave or that
>> what light is is a matter of perspective.
>
>
> It makes actually some sense, if we would give up the so called
> 'particle concept' altogether.
>
> Actually we need a continuum, which could be both: particle and vacuum
> (depending on the perspective).
>
> But since 'materialism' is hard wired into our brains, we cannot even
> think about this possibility.
>
> But I would guess, that the idea of real, lasting, material particles is
> plain wrong.
>
> I have actually developed an alternative approach called 'structured
> spacetime', which works quite well.
>
> The reason is, that some aspects of reality fit to current quantum
> mechanics, but some aspects contradict simple logic and cosmological
> necessities.
>
> Since a good concept needs to match all known facts, we had to think
> 'beyond our limits' and about higher dimensions, from which we perceive
> only a certain subset.
>
> The tricky part is now, to estimate the structure of these higher
> dimension from the behavior of objects in our own realm.
>
> This is very similar to the popular picture of 'flatlanders, who cannot
> see, that they are flat and a world exists, which is not flat.
>
> But 'flatlanders' can actually assume, that such an invisible world
> would exist and calculate, how that could eventually look like by simply
> observing their flat world and extrapolating that to three dimensions.
>
> Same can we, but with a few more dimensions.
>
> TH
"But it has
been known since the time of Sir Arthur Eddington that the curved
spacetime explanation is
not required by general relativity [see Van Flandern, T., "Relativity
with Flat Spacetime", MRB
3, 9-12 (1994)] or certain other variants that preserve agreement with
the classical
observational tests of the theory. Other authors have proposed minor
modifications of the
field equations to replace spacetime curvature tensors with
gravitational energymomentum density tensors [Rosen, N., "General
Relativity and Flat Space. I & II", Phys.Rev.
57, 147-153 (1940)]. Indeed, there is even some direct experimental
evidence against the
curved spacetime explanation that is provided by neutron
interferometers. ["The Role of
Gravity in Quantum Mechanics", D.M. Greenberger and A.W. Overhauser,
Sci.Amer. 242,
May, pp. 66-76 (1980).] The results are incompatible with the geometric
weak equivalence
principle because the interference depends on mass." - "Possible New
Properties of Gravity" Tom Van Flandern

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663734

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Particles are actually 'timelike stable patterns', while waves are not
> stable, hence move through space.

nonsense; a standing wave is stable and moves through space.

that's exactly where you guys are getting confused. The speed of light is 
an error necessary for this world to exists. A brake imposed by the 
quantum domain into the macro world. Read my paper

"𝗢𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹"

or you dont know what a standing wave is??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663744

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >
> > Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
> > experimentally disproven.
> >
> > The question regarding photons is still disputed.
> >
> > "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
> >
> > Light is a wave and not a particle.
> 
> There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
> wave.

Yous guys are too close to the ocean to sea the particle.

If you ask a fish
does the ocean waves
affect your in any way?

The fish wil be puzzled.

He'll say, "What ocean waves?, those are particles!" 

You say to the fish "Don't you feel wet?"

He'll say "What's wet?"



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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663745

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > >
> > > Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
> > > experimentally disproven.
> > >
> > > The question regarding photons is still disputed.
> > >
> > > "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
> > >
> > > Light is a wave and not a particle.
> >
> > There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
> > wave.
> 
> Yous guys are too close to the ocean to sea the particle.
> 
> If you ask a fish
> does the ocean waves
> affect your in any way?
> 
> The fish wil be puzzled.
> 
> He'll say, "What ocean waves?, those are particles!"
> 
> You say to the fish "Don't you feel wet?"
> 
> He'll say "What's wet?"


When I go to the beach and jump into the ocean...

I can feel all those particles.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663746

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
> > > > experimentally disproven.
> > > >
> > > > The question regarding photons is still disputed.
> > > >
> > > > "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
> > > >
> > > > Light is a wave and not a particle.
> > >
> > > There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
> > > wave.
> >
> > Yous guys are too close to the ocean to sea the particle.
> >
> > If you ask a fish
> > does the ocean waves
> > affect your in any way?
> >
> > The fish wil be puzzled.
> >
> > He'll say, "What ocean waves?, those are particles!"
> >
> > You say to the fish "Don't you feel wet?"
> >
> > He'll say "What's wet?"
> 
> When I go to the beach and jump into the ocean...
> 
> I can feel all those particles.




A fish doesn't breathe ocean waves...

a fish breathes ...particles.



A person doesn't breathe air waves..

a person breathes ...particles, air particles.


Is the fish wet?


The fish
swims
in the
same ocean
as you do.


Remove the gravity..
and you are swiming
 like a fish.


Are you wet?


What's wet?




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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663747

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
> > > > > experimentally disproven.
> > > > >
> > > > > The question regarding photons is still disputed.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
> > > > >
> > > > > Light is a wave and not a particle.
> > > >
> > > > There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
> > > > wave.
> > >
> > > Yous guys are too close to the ocean to sea the particle.
> > >
> > > If you ask a fish
> > > does the ocean waves
> > > affect your in any way?
> > >
> > > The fish wil be puzzled.
> > >
> > > He'll say, "What ocean waves?, those are particles!"
> > >
> > > You say to the fish "Don't you feel wet?"
> > >
> > > He'll say "What's wet?"
> >
> > When I go to the beach and jump into the ocean...
> >
> > I can feel all those particles.
> 
> A fish doesn't breathe ocean waves...
> 
> a fish breathes ...particles.
> 
> A person doesn't breathe air waves..
> 
> a person breathes ...particles, air particles.
> 
> Is the fish wet?
> 
> The fish
> swims
> in the
> same ocean
> as you do.
> 
> Remove the gravity..
> and you are swiming
>  like a fish.
> 
> Are you wet?
> 
> What's wet?

okay, i knows yous guys don't understand Real World Physics...
(especially since yous graduated from Google High or wiki university)

The ocean
is Blue.

Now, I'm not
talking about
that thing
you call
the wet
ocean blue...
(where all the fishes live)

i'm talking about
the sky ocean blue.


The sky is Blue.

It begins
way up there..
and it ends way down there.

Now, down there
would be where you are
standing on...
and way up there
would be around
70 miles.


So, the sky ocean blue.

(the sky is an ocean)
(and it is blue)

means..

you are living
at the bottom
of the ocean.





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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663760

On 5/29/25 11:12, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
>>>>>> experimentally disproven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Light is a wave and not a particle.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
>>>>> wave.
>>>>
>>>> Yous guys are too close to the ocean to sea the particle.
>>>>
>>>> If you ask a fish
>>>> does the ocean waves
>>>> affect your in any way?
>>>>
>>>> The fish wil be puzzled.
>>>>
>>>> He'll say, "What ocean waves?, those are particles!"
>>>>
>>>> You say to the fish "Don't you feel wet?"
>>>>
>>>> He'll say "What's wet?"
>>>
>>> When I go to the beach and jump into the ocean...
>>>
>>> I can feel all those particles.
>>
>> A fish doesn't breathe ocean waves...
>>
>> a fish breathes ...particles.
>>
>> A person doesn't breathe air waves..
>>
>> a person breathes ...particles, air particles.
>>
>> Is the fish wet?
>>
>> The fish
>> swims
>> in the
>> same ocean
>> as you do.
>>
>> Remove the gravity..
>> and you are swiming
>>   like a fish.
>>
>> Are you wet?
>>
>> What's wet?
> 
> okay, i knows yous guys don't understand Real World Physics...
> (especially since yous graduated from Google High or wiki university)
> 
> The ocean
> is Blue.
> 
> Now, I'm not
> talking about
> that thing
> you call
> the wet
> ocean blue...
> (where all the fishes live)
> 
> i'm talking about
> the sky ocean blue.
> 
> 
> The sky is Blue.
> 
> It begins
> way up there..
> and it ends way down there.
> 
> Now, down there
> would be where you are
> standing on...
> and way up there
> would be around
> 70 miles.
> 
> 
> So, the sky ocean blue.
> 
> (the sky is an ocean)
> (and it is blue)
> 
> means..
> 
> you are living
> at the bottom
> of the ocean.

Yes the people of the world are insane meaning not true.

This is because they believe that images and sounds portrayed
by machines called television sets and radios are true.

It might be that something like 'chemistry' with 'orbitals'
and the like exists, but when they try to 'prove' it with
images and sounds from televisions and radios they fail
to understand how totally they have retreated into gibberish
for their supposed 'proofs'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663783

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
> > > > > > experimentally disproven.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The question regarding photons is still disputed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Light is a wave and not a particle.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no "duality" of a wave and a particle, but it is a particle
> > > > > wave.
> > > >
> > > > Yous guys are too close to the ocean to sea the particle.
> > > >
> > > > If you ask a fish
> > > > does the ocean waves
> > > > affect your in any way?
> > > >
> > > > The fish wil be puzzled.
> > > >
> > > > He'll say, "What ocean waves?, those are particles!"
> > > >
> > > > You say to the fish "Don't you feel wet?"
> > > >
> > > > He'll say "What's wet?"
> > >
> > > When I go to the beach and jump into the ocean...
> > >
> > > I can feel all those particles.
> >
> > A fish doesn't breathe ocean waves...
> >
> > a fish breathes ...particles.
> >
> > A person doesn't breathe air waves..
> >
> > a person breathes ...particles, air particles.
> >
> > Is the fish wet?
> >
> > The fish
> > swims
> > in the
> > same ocean
> > as you do.
> >
> > Remove the gravity..
> > and you are swiming
> >  like a fish.
> >
> > Are you wet?
> >
> > What's wet?
> 
> okay, i knows yous guys don't understand Real World Physics...
> (especially since yous graduated from Google High or wiki university)
> 
> The ocean
> is Blue.
> 
> Now, I'm not
> talking about
> that thing
> you call
> the wet
> ocean blue...
> (where all the fishes live)
> 
> i'm talking about
> the sky ocean blue.
> 
> The sky is Blue.
> 
> It begins
> way up there..
> and it ends way down there.
> 
> Now, down there
> would be where you are
> standing on...
> and way up there
> would be around
> 70 miles.
> 
> So, the sky ocean blue.
> 
> (the sky is an ocean)
> (and it is blue)
> 
> means..
> 
> you are living
> at the bottom
> of the ocean.



In other words, dat which you call 'atmosphere' is in fact...


an ocean of air

and you live 
at the bottom
of the ocean.



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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663704

On Tue, 27 May 2025 3:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

> Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
> experimentally disproven.
>
> The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>
> "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>
> Light is a wave and not a particle.

Absolutely.
No schizophrenia in light.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663705

On Tue, 27 May 2025 22:08:14 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

> On Tue, 27 May 2025 3:27:05 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>
>> Particle wave duality is no longer accepted as it has been
>> experimentally disproven.
>>
>> The question regarding photons is still disputed.
>>
>> "Did We Get the Double Slit Experiment All Wrong?"
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMcC-E5l5c
>>
>> Light is a wave and not a particle.
>
> Absolutely.
> No schizophrenia in light.
>
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof
>
> Bertietaylor
>
> --
Thanks Bertie. I wish we could say the same for the relativists.

The only remaining hint of a particle nature is the difficulty of a wave
traversing the vacuum of space. How do we solve that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web