On May 27, 9:53*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 26, 6:52*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
snip

Nope, what we can say is that waves and their associated particles are
dual manifestations of the same physical phenomena.

Now just hold on right there!
As I have stated before, wave is a descriptive word
and not a noun as described by a particle. Just as a
amount of moisture does not become equal to a cloud. You are using
existing positions and theories
without the required accompanying proof
The truth is that none of the existing theories stand up to
examination to explain the phenomina of radiation upto and including
the super string theory.
Thus they are all suspect in one way or another.
Right at the very beginning I used Gauss's definition to describe a
particle, no where is the term wave mentioned Now we come to Maxwells
equations he also does not mention waves because he is considering a
instant of time which includes every function required to perform the
function of displacement of a particle as refferred to by Gauss. He
also reinforced the idea of equilibrium per Newtons laws by assuring
that all components involved in the equation equalled zero.
Thus one can say using long existant rules that what is made dynamic
must also be resonant and where the sum is in equilibrium. Now all the
expressions you are using comes from discredited theories, where as
mine comes from the existance of the Newtons boundary rules, gaussian
postulate and and the combination of many inputs from the masters of
that time that provided Maxwells laws.
I am just using the existing classical rules of the day
nothing is new and there is no reinvention of any kind.
So I put it to you again that it unreasonable to quote
hypothesis that have been proved not up to the task
and to not provide supporting reason to discredit Maxwell,Gauss and
the other masters on whose shoulders we stand on today. Forget about
your beloved photons which you habitually use as a shell game to
confuse onlookers and review which is considered correct up to "this
particular point" instead of making giant hops up the ladder of
knowledge like jumping the Grand canyon in two jumps. If you have good
reason to diss the work of the masters then I am sure others will want
to hear about it.
Best regards, nothing personal intended
Art
snip
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com