It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
You are using math that describes a wave structure of space, while interpreting it through classical particle physics.
You are using quantum math that describes a wave structure of space, while interpreting it as 'the probability wave of a particle'.
The mathematical descriptions are based on waves, as were the theoretical premises of the physicists who came up with them.
The physics community has, however, failed to implement the theoretical premises successfully
yet the math keeps becoming more and more abstract and built upon itself and it gives us all these crazy ideas about how complex nature is and paradigm anomalies etc.
Originally posted by Nefarious
forming various base mediums, energetic densities, and resonant interaction characteristics. Me thinks I'm forgetting a component or two...but it's boogie time.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
I just simply think you are wrong.
Enough evidence in support of that standpoint has been quite well established.
The argument in favor of this conclusion is significantly more clear and comprehensive than any counter-argument, ridicule, or doubting you have attempted.
Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.
I also think you are full of yourself and conflate the institution you are part of with your own Self. A symptom of this, is the implicit appeal to esoteric institutional authority that all of your arguments are based upon. Thus, you think your arguments are more sufficient than they actually are.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
...
I respect your opinion, but I will never accept that it has any validity on the real world that I experience and am familiar with.
I would also like to say that quantum physics does NOT disagree with light wave theory. it actually supports it in many ways and is somewhat found upon the idea itself. "particles" are quite literally a cloud of potential being .. . it is charge with energy, but is a non physical cloud of charge and probability
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
To me, and others, it is the simplest and most logical conclusion considering the circumstances.
This technique has enabled us to image the coherent electron scattering that takes place when the IR field is sufficiently strong to reverse the initial direction of the electron motion causing it to rescatter from its parent ion
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
Ok... so tell me then what is the electron, in your opinion?
What position are you arguing for?
Beebs, if you do want to know, the Wikipedia article would be a good start.