Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670854
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Theatheory: modern super-classical physics (Finlayson) |
| Date | 2026-04-29 14:31 -0700 |
| Organization | The Starmaker Organization |
| Message-ID | <69F278B0.97@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <1FGdnQNwUcl8MHL0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <kQidnWbJ0eC3f3L0nZ2dnZfqn_ph4p2d@giganews.com> <7Q2dnZpJFbTiaG30nZ2dnZfqn_dg4p2d@giganews.com> <R0CdnXGj65Vh_2_0nZ2dnZfqn_Ri4p2d@giganews.com> <10str47$6hv2$5@dont-email.me> |
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. -- 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
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