Hi y'all - thanks for asking. I have been working on this stuff for some time and I believe I'm close to a breakthrough but..... Anyway, Heisenberg just doesn't cut it for me. He handles the momentum and location OK. and then he makes a basic mistake by assuming the act of measurement (no matter how accurate) affects the location. He is totally missing the point. We are working in three dimensions and he has failed to account for time. Once we put time into the equation we can progress - I'll show you how far I've got - perhaps you can help with the next step, with which I'm struggling.
Oh forget it - I'm using hotmail and it won't accept my equations. I'll show you when we meet over the proverbial beer. Nevertheless, the pulsation of light energy at a constant wavelength as you have indicated produces the color red. This is testable, repeatable and falsifiable. Here is an experiment to prove the theory. The correct environment is necessary for this experiment. A vacuum is not required. A large field in West Tennessee will suffice. Around 3pm you will observe a yokel on a tractor. Seize him, bend him and roll down his collar, if any. The anterior portion of the neck (thickus skinnus) will reveal the results of the said wavelength. This is the indisputable proof (and truth) of my claim. On Oct 28, 2:19 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'll have to get Clogtowner to translate all that into red neckover a beer. > > J. > > “Please elaborate on these claims.” – BC > “His description appears to be right on the mark.” – BC > > First, I’ll agree that the description appears to be on the mark. > Underline the term ‘appears’. That is my point. > > I’m talking about appearances in a philosophical way, something you > may not have had the luxury to explore yet. > > When I said “‘We’ don’t even know what waves nor light are.”, I had > hoped that one had studied enough to have come across some of the > following notions others have presented as support for the gestalt I’m > attempting to present. I’ll use a couple of them as my appeal to > authority for now, since that is what you seem to have used. > > “The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before we > can find them in things.” - Albert Einstein. > > “It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no > knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy > comes in little blobs of a definite amount. ” - Feynman. 1987 > > " We don't know what we are talking about" - Nobel laureate David > Gross referring to the current state of string theory > > “Since the mathematical physicists have taken over, theoretical > physics has gone to pot. The bizarre concepts generated out of the > over use and misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it > were not for the tragedy of the waste in time, manpower, money, and > the resulting misdirection.” - Richard Feynman > > "I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all if we > just apply working mathematical rules; that's not what the physicist > should be satisfied with." - Dirac > > For a ‘layman’s’ view of and differing arguments pro and con RE: > Uncertainty Principle > see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uncertainty_Principle > > Similar one liners and analysis are legion. > > On Oct 28, 10:36 am, BC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:06 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> “Red is a word used to refer to a light wavelength of about 650 nm. > > >> Whether you can see it or not or whether it looks purple to you does > > >> not change the wavelength. We use different words to refer to > > >> different wavelengths for simplicity sake. Red is red regardless of > > >> ones perception of it.” - J. > > > > Apparently you are using a limited and pseudoscientific epistemology. > > > ‘We’ don’t even know what waves nor light are. Tell me you don’t > > > accept the uncertainty principle. You further suggest that ‘we’ know > > > what a color is even if we can’t see it and don’t use a word for it. A > > > strange view indeed! Earlier the notion of scientific dogma arose. > > > Please tell me it ain’t so Joe! > > > Uhhhhhh...... Pseudoscientific? A strange view? WTF? Please > > elaborate on these claims. > > His description appears to be right on the mark. Research E&M and > > spectroscopy, for starters. > > -BC- > > **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, > no registration required and great graphics – check it out! > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)- > Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
