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

Groups > sci.physics > #590194

Re: Small enough- to be zero?

From moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups sci.physics
Subject Re: Small enough- to be zero?
Date 2016-07-21 15:25 +0000
Organization The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Message-ID <nmqph7$11p$1@pcls7.std.com> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <46c420a6-5807-460c-b9ba-669fda1dd39b@googlegroups.com> <nmp24k$ju1$2@gioia.aioe.org> <07d7cb62-2581-4eb5-966d-2b0752137168@googlegroups.com> <nmqlo2$i2r$1@pcls7.std.com> <f6ec1f47-c0df-4818-acb6-0cea132c5e1c@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:

>I think you missed the point.
>The point is: there is ORDER at a
>size scale JUST ABOVE where you say
>there is no order.
>Ergo.
>QM is totally full of shit.

You repeatedly CLAIMED that, but where is the evidence?
Where is the scientific falsification?  Where is there an
observation or experiment where the outcome if a lower
level of order exists is A but the outcome if there is no
lower level of order is B?

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

Thread

Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 11:11 -0700
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:18 -0500
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-20 12:57 -0700
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 16:30 -0500
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 14:45 -0700
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:06 -0700
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:16 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:42 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:59 -0700
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:58 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:32 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 18:39 -0500
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 17:03 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 20:06 -0500
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 14:20 +0000
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:51 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 08:25 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:36 -0400
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-22 14:05 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-07-22 14:52 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 15:25 +0000
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 11:25 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-22 00:48 +0000
                haxacontaDELTAhedronic noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 13:47 -0700
                stab a guess (or an i.s.i.s): hexacontaDELTAhedron a.k.a C_sixty noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:52 -0700
                stab a guess (or those flamethrowers): hexacontaDELTAhedron a.k.a C_sixty noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:27 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:55 -0400
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:04 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:37 -0400
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:44 -0700
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:33 -0400
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 18:39 -0500
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 02:08 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? "Eduardo J. Berringer" <invalid@example.com> - 2016-07-24 11:21 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-24 12:48 -0700
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 09:39 -0700
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 15:21 -0700
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:49 -0400
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-22 12:04 +1000
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-21 23:54 -0700
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-23 11:57 +1000
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:01 -0400
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-24 10:52 +1000
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 21:25 -0400
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 18:09 -0700
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 13:31 -0700
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:20 -0400

csiph-web