Re: Is It True What They Say About Tarski?

Tony Hollick (
Sun, 31 May 98 21:54 BST-1

Christian Whitaker wrote:

>I am not certain your example is physically correct; EACH individual
> That particles should have wavelengths is odd, but true, as far as we
> can tell.

It isn't at all odd! Classically, all particles can spin (and
counter-spin) and vibrate on three orthogonal axes. The complexity of
frequency-generating properties is awesome. Anything with a frequency
has an accompanying wavelength.

If particles of light are considered as rotating electric dipoles, they
have all the frequency characteristics exhibited by photons.

Similarly, if alpha-particles (helium nuclei) are considered as rotating
systems they will have an accompanying frequency, and will evidence
interference effects. Surely enough, they do.

I must insist that you not conflate Quantum Theory (initially, the study
of light as quanta or particles) with Quantum _Mechanics_, which is a
subset of approximation methods.

> The uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to precisely
> measure a particle's momentum and position simultaneously. If one is
> measured precisely, the other becomes unbounded.

Heisenberg's point is that 'observing' an object entails bouncing
light off it, so we can see where it is or what it's like. But the
impact of the 'observational' photons disturbs the object. Thus we
may only select a particular (!) attribute for 'observation.'

All this 'observationalist' stuff is positivist old hat and can be
demolished quite readily. We can _retrodictively correct_ the
observation results.

You then waffle on about the measurements of blue photons from the
sky. All his life, Leonardo da Vinci wanted to know:

"Why is the sky blue?"

We now know the answer. Rayleigh scattering by the oxygen
molecules. Evaluat this on Tarskian principles and you have a
reasonable clear truth.

> I will further translate E into mc^2 (which describes all aspects of
> momentum but the direction). x=h/mc^2.

Even in Classical times, 'e=mc^2' was perfectly well known, and
precededed Einstein by decades. It requires no 'relativistic' or
'quantum' hoo-ha.

> Planck's constant is constant

Wake up man -- it's a ratio!

> as is the speed of light.

Not according to Richard Feynman in Quantum Electrodynamics. Not
according to the ballistic theory of light. Not according to

> Unfortunately Newtonian physics had to be abandoned because it does
> not adequately explain the behavior of light (and other things, but
> light was the initial problem). Your explanation works slightly better
> because it is not Newtonian. Photons cannot have frequencies
> independent of other photons within Newtonian physics.

All of this is crap. Strictly, Newtonian physics is a subset of
Classical Mechanics -- the three Force Laws, plus
instantaneously-acting gravitational force. If you blend in the
ballistic theory of light you instantly explain _all_ optical
phenomena, starting with Michelson-Morley, where the light source is
simply stationary vis-a-vis the apparatus. A null result is
fully predictable. But people were trying to fit Michelson-Morley
into a 'waves-in-the-aether' paradigm. A ballistic theory was

Lorentz cooked up his electrodynamics to give a set of equations
explaining the M-M result as caused by contraction of the parts of the
apparatus, caused by aether-flow compressing the dimensions of the
apparatus. He misappropriated Voight's [1887] Doppler equations to
make the wrtched thing work.

All the equations of Lorentz's theory and Einstein's 'SR' theory are
_identical_ The theories are _identical_ (except that Lorentz
provides physical explanations). This allowed aether
theorists to coexist uneasily with no-aether theorists --

Einstein says 'Forget the physics -- just apply Lorentz's equations.
_Postulate_ the speeed of light as a constant in all frames of
reference ond the sums will add up. For this to work, you have to go
with a new mechanics. Go with that, and the speed of light will always
come out at a constant, because it's built into the structure of the
theory. The only problem is that the same object can have
indefinitely many sizes simultaneously, and physics is reduced to a

Neither Special nor General Relativity have given science or
technology anything it didn't have anyway. All the SR/GR
'predictions' were _prior discoveries_ -- knwn years previous to SR or
GR. We can do most Quantum Theory work without Quantum Mechanics.
We can build atom bombs. We can build thermonuclear bombs. We can
build microprocessors and lasers.

Who needs all the SR/GR/QM crap? >:-}

As Werner Heisenberg wrote:

"Classical Mechanics is everywhere exactly 'right', everywhere it's
concepts can be applied."

It's the measuring instrumentation that (temporarily) defines the
practical limits of accuracy. And they get better all the time.

For a full explanation of these issues in plain English:


/ /\ \

Tony Hollick, LightSmith (LA-Agora Conference) (Agora Home Page, Rainbow Bridge Foundation) (NorthWest Coalition Against Malicious Harrassment)

------------------- * * * * * ---------------

| * |
- <*> --------------------------* * * *-------------------------- <*> -
| Rainbow Bridge Foundation * * * Centre for Liberal Studies |
- <*> --------------------------* * * *-------------------------- <*> -
| 4 Grayling House, Canford Rd: * Bristol BS9 3NU Tel: 9098918 |

"America's Mission is to Lead the World to Paradise"


------------------- * * * * * ---------------