Re: Surviving Einstein.
From: Stonelock (crypto_stonelock_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/17/03
- Next message: mhamrick: "NIST's GSC-IS rev 2.1 to be released tomorrow"
- Previous message: Stonelock: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- In reply to: AE: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Next in thread: AE: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Reply: AE: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 17 Jul 2003 11:18:58 -0700
AE <hidden@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3F1644BC.8060603@nospam.com>...
> Stonelock wrote:
> > AE <hidden@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3F13BC66.50802@nospam.com>...
> >> ...
> > It does not collapse since it becomes stable at some point on
> > eliptical orbits all round the atom.
>
> Now you are back to eliptical orbits?
>
> Not long ago you claimed they would be irregular :-/
Irregular in a certain measure but mostly eliptical as no circular
orbital movement can exist in this world.
> >>But what premises are you talking about?
> >
> > They are legion; in einstein's relativity: time contraction leading to
> > a closed theory that can not adapt to the world around us;
>
> Einstein's relativity was never a premise: It's a theory based on the
I never said it was; reread my intervention.
> observation speed of light measured is independent of the movement of
> oneself. The theory allowed to predict the results of different
> experiments including the change of observed lifetime in fast-moving
> particles.
>
> Interestingly these theory showed to allow a very precise description of
> the world around us.
Very simply now; can you explain to me why myriads of theories are
required to explain the same reality at different levels
(sub-microscopic, microscopic and macroscopic)? Its really very
simple. Yes they do allow for accurate predictions, that doesn't make
a theory similar in structure. A theory will be truely similar in
structure to the world around us when there is NO discontinuity
between the sub-microscopic, the microscopic and the macroscopic. When
everything is explained with a single uniform theory.
> > QM calculation method: considering particles and photons being PHYSICALLY
> > statistic instead of realizing that the only thing statistic about
> > them is OUR statistic description of them
>
> Once again: QM was never a premise.
Never said it was; reread my intervention.
> Instead after having proven (sorry for repeating this, but it's a
> fundamental fact) that electrons on their orbit are not located in the
> way particles are there was a need to find a better description.
>
> The problem was that the classic approach allows to use statistics only
> on a large number of particles while the effects observed in quantum
> mechanics frequently include only a single particle (like the electron
> in an hydrogene atom) or a small number of particles (like the electrons
> in other atoms).
>
> One might see this model as a crude simplification or whatever -
> nevertheless it allows to predict the behaviour of electrons where the
> classic approach fails.
In your frame of reference; of course it does, its a statistical
method and it takes in consideration all possibilities for the given
'position' of a particle which then particles are not perceived as
particles anymore but as 'clouds of probabilities'. A very common
distortion due to taking mathematical methods of calculation for
reality. Particles do not cease to be particles simply because our
methods of calculation are statistical.
> > Particle not PHYSICALLY following trajectories to get from
> > one point to another is in the same line of thought, etc..
>
> Nevertheless the occurence of a single electron after being deflected
> follows the rules of interference which cannot be explained usig the
> classic approach.
The explanation would be the same as for photon-slitparticles
interactions.
Stonelock
- Next message: mhamrick: "NIST's GSC-IS rev 2.1 to be released tomorrow"
- Previous message: Stonelock: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- In reply to: AE: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Next in thread: AE: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Reply: AE: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
