Artificial Reality

[RascalPuff]

Newton, understandably for his time, presumed that corporeal reality - matter - is reducible to tiny, ‘billiard ball like’ particles. But modern science has probed the microcosms only to find that matter is made up of ‘fields’ and ‘waves’, that have no discontinuous surfaces; that billiard balls in collision (for example) do not ever actually ‘touch’ or make ‘contact’.

Contact requires the interaction of two or more surfaces, and there are no surfaces - separating the collective system of an exemplary billiard ball, making it discontinuous from the space surrounding it.

Rather, the constituents of the billiard ball are emanating concentric fields (atoms, electrons, etc.), which disallow the simultaneous occupation of it's space by any other so called 'particle' (or collective system of particles) , only become more dense - and resistant to intrusion on its space - as you approach their (unreached) centers.

For all the dominant controversy of ‘particles’, and ‘particle accelerators’, and ‘particle chambers’, and ‘particle physicists’: until further notice - as they are vacantly anticipated - there aren’t any particles.

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[mkirkpatrick]

Another great thread,right on cue,if you pardon the pun!It would seem to me that this
relative universe is the best example of artificial reality,one that is choc-full of snooker
type balls that collide with deep-thoughtout consciousness,which reveals the fallacy of
particle-patter.





regards michael.

[dleviwing]

For all the dominant controversy of ‘particles’, and ‘particle accelerators’, and ‘particle chambers’, and ‘particle physicists’: until further notice - as they are vacantly anticipated - there aren’t any particles.

Sorry RascalPuff, but even those of us who understand the wave phenomena do not abandon the aspects of standing wave particles. There is a great deal of evidence that particles DO exist; Where is the data and experimentation that supports your view that they DO NOT????? Could this just be another RP opinion or are you quoting some other website you've been reading?

[RascalPuff]

Sorry RascalPuff, but even those of us who understand the wave phenomena do not abandon the aspects of standing wave particles. There is a great deal of evidence that particles DO exist; Where is the data and experimentation that supports your view that they DO NOT????? Could this just be another RP opinion or are you quoting some other website you've been reading?

'Standing wave particle' - non sequitur.
(Refer LCDM - Lambda Cold Dark Matter - another desperate 'adjustment' by Standard Theorists. Another tin of worms.)

The point is, that the giddy apparition of 'particle' hasn't been abandoned.

What evidence do you allude to - in what objective fortification are you sequestered, while subjectively projecting your wordy, ham, eggs 'n oatmeal - in saying that particles do exist?

The documentary (non website acquired) data and experimentation that particles don't exist, is recorded on my forum.
You know, that URL location axe that's regularly grounded on this website.

Where is the data and experimentation that supports your view that they do?

Could this be just another dleviwing gaffe, obliquely inquiring when Truly Yours may quit beating his grandmother?

(Truly Yours predicted that the expanding universe is accelerating, in a a series of published, distributed, sold out documents <in three languages> in 1959: sans websites. <I wasn't on line until '02>)

The improved inquiry is, what website, or other punchy influence, are you tilting under - this time?
Authenticate and ground your allegations and argument.

You needn't be sorry, Dave.
Never mind the cynical facade.
Substantiate your hackneyed, ad hoc vignette.

Be specific.
Be scientific.

Best regards,
- RP