'Particles' are dismissed: for lack of evidence.

[RascalPuff]

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[MJA]

Hi RP,

I got hit by a dust storm on the way home from work tonight. My eyes are still hurting from the dust particles they collected. Particles are as real as my red eyes.

=
MJA

PS: Do you believe our Sun gravitates star light?
I am have severe difficulty fathoming that theory of Einstein's.
I believe the Sun radiates star light, its own, and cannot attracts light at the same time.
What do you think?
Are the eclipse experiments flawed?
Thanks!

[RascalPuff]

Hi RP,

I got hit by a dust storm on the way home from work tonight. My eyes are still hurting from the dust particles they collected. Particles are as real as my red eyes.

=
MJA

PS: Do you believe our Sun gravitates star light?
I am have severe difficulty fathoming that theory of Einstein's.
I believe the Sun radiates star light, its own, and cannot attracts light at the same time.
What do you think?
Are the eclipse experiments flawed?
Thanks!

___________________

Dear MJA:

The dust particles you speak of are systems of electric charges that have no distinct 'surface', separating them from surrounding space. Newtonian-conceptualized 'particles' have yet to be found or isolated.
____________________

Do you feel that the solar eclipse expedition of 1919 failed to take some (omitted) factor of observation into account?

- Best regards.
- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

Is it really a particle that stands before us? Is there really a difference between a wave
and a particle,and if there is,will it enhance your life any by knowing?



regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Is it really a particle that stands before us? Is there really a difference between a wave
and a particle,and if there is,will it enhance your life any by knowing?



regards michael.

A'particle' has traditionally presumed to have a discontinuous surface and to be the constituent building block of the entire physical universe. A particle is anticipated as being contained by a distinct 'surface', separating it from surrounding space. It doesn't look like there are any particles - but rather, surfaceless wave and field systems - 'standing before us'...

Your question of 'enhancement of life' might be appended to any of the questions and answers on this website, Michael. You know, the 'So what?' modality of dialogue busters.

Regards.
- RP

[MJA]

Dearest RP,

___________________

Dear MJA:

The dust particles you speak of are systems of electric charges that have no distinct 'surface', separating them from surrounding space. Newtonian-conceptualized 'particles' have yet to be found or isolated.

MJA: Then my eyes were electrocuted, ouch!
____________________

Do you feel that the solar eclipse expedition of 1919 failed to take some (omitted) factor of observation into account?

MJA: Obviously the conclusion is a natural contradiction. What was missing, RP. the enertia of the sun, or the motion of the star, the Earth, the observer, The speed of light, the flaw of measure, the true concept of light, of gravity, or was it simply all of the above? You know this history better than me, due tell.

- Best regards.
- RP

Thanks,

=
MJA

[mkirkpatrick]

A'particle' has traditionally presumed to have a discontinuous surface and to be the constituent building block of the entire physical universe. A particle is anticipated as being contained by a distinct 'surface', separating it from surrounding space. It doesn't look like there are any particles - but rather, surfaceless wave and field systems - 'standing before us'...

Your question of 'enhancement of life' might be appended to any of the questions and answers on this website, Michael. You know, the 'So what?' modality of dialogue busters.

Regards.
- RP

I understand your point here rascal,and have taken it.



regards michael.

[dleviwing]

I guess the particle physicist are going to be very disappointed to learn how dumb they are.

[RascalPuff]

It may be chalked up as a notably extended hangover from the Newtonian celebration, Dave.

There appears to be a well established paradigm shift from 'particles' to 'waveicles' which has yet to be acknowledged.

The entrenched 'particle' vocabulary is a powerfully telling regression from that evolution.

(Einstein wasn't the only one who acquired headaches from 'particles'.)

Best regards,
- RP

[Graybeard]

I understand your point (particle) here rascal,and have taken it.
regards michael.

Well give it back Michael, as neither Dave nor Rascal appear to be able to find it.

cool bananas ... greg