Dear David:

I'm writing this above the quoted text, because it became too long to
manage. I have created a thread in alt.sci.physics.new-theories as
"new aether molecule idea", which I try to solve polarization problem.
We can continue this there, if you wish

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:LTOpc.17397$Md.15842@lakeread05...
Dear wespe:

"wespe" wrote in message
m...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:luvpc.41836$iy5.29808@okepread05...
...
ok, first, a correction: I falsely claimed a single photon cannot be
detected. Like an air molecule from a very faint and highly
directional sound could be detected, so can a photon, I guess. And,
as
sound is not wind, photon is not light, so there was some confusion
due to my naming. Call them virtual/real photons or whatever, doesn't
matter. The problem is how to prove or disprove.

Can't prove. Can only disprove. OK?

** prove something wrong and you disprove it, right? anyway english is
not my mother tounge. ok.

This is basic science. An hypothesis is formed, then experimentally
tested. If it survives the test(s) it becomes a theory. Theories can then
be disproved by experiment, but not "proved". They only survive another
day...


ok, I change my word "prove" to "provide supporting evidence".

for the rest, see the new thread. thanks.

Dear David:

I'm writing this above the quoted text, because it became too long to
manage. I have created a thread in alt.sci.physics.new-theories as
"new aether molecule idea", which I try to solve polarization problem.
We can continue this there, if you wish

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:LTOpc.17397$Md.15842@lakeread05...
Dear wespe:

"wespe" wrote in message
m...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:luvpc.41836$iy5.29808@okepread05...
...
ok, first, a correction: I falsely claimed a single photon cannot be
detected. Like an air molecule from a very faint and highly
directional sound could be detected, so can a photon, I guess. And,
as
sound is not wind, photon is not light, so there was some confusion
due to my naming. Call them virtual/real photons or whatever, doesn't
matter. The problem is how to prove or disprove.

Can't prove. Can only disprove. OK?

** prove something wrong and you disprove it, right? anyway english is
not my mother tounge. ok.

This is basic science. An hypothesis is formed, then experimentally
tested. If it survives the test(s) it becomes a theory. Theories can then
be disproved by experiment, but not "proved". They only survive another
day...


ok, I change my word "prove" to "provide supporting evidence".

for the rest, see the new thread. thanks.

Dear David,
I'm writing this above the quoted text because it became too big to
maintain. I've created a thread in alt.sci.physics.new-theories as
"new aether molecule idea", we can continue this there if you wish

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:LTOpc.17397$Md.15842@lakeread05...
Dear wespe:

"wespe" wrote in message
m...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:luvpc.41836$iy5.29808@okepread05...
...
ok, first, a correction: I falsely claimed a single photon cannot be
detected. Like an air molecule from a very faint and highly
directional sound could be detected, so can a photon, I guess. And,
as
sound is not wind, photon is not light, so there was some confusion
due to my naming. Call them virtual/real photons or whatever, doesn't
matter. The problem is how to prove or disprove.

Can't prove. Can only disprove. OK?

** prove something wrong and you disprove it, right? anyway english is
not my mother tounge. ok.

This is basic science. An hypothesis is formed, then experimentally
tested. If it survives the test(s) it becomes a theory. Theories can then
be disproved by experiment, but not "proved". They only survive another
day...


ok, I change "prove" to "support"
for the rest, see other thread please.