relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

summa summarum, the obvious question
arise

has relativity any consistency to reality when
she is collapsing so easy ?

Dear dodecahedron:

"dodecahedron" wrote in message
ups.com...
relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

summa summarum, the obvious question
arise

has relativity any consistency to reality when
she is collapsing so easy ?

You have one of those "Ginzu" knives, that can slice through a
table top. It works great in the kitchen.

It sucks trying to perform surgery on an artery, or to defend
yourself against Godzilla. Maybe it isn't such a good knife
after all?

Maybe relativity is just a model?

David A. Smith

On Sep 1, 11:21 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear dodecahedron:

"dodecahedron" wrote in message

ups.com...

relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

summa summarum, the obvious question
arise

has relativity any consistency to reality when
she is collapsing so easy ?

You have one of those "Ginzu" knives, that can slice through a
table top. It works great in the kitchen.

It sucks trying to perform surgery on an artery, or to defend
yourself against Godzilla. Maybe it isn't such a good knife
after all?

Maybe relativity is just a model?

David A. Smith

you mean i have i too big a hammer?

Dear dodecahedron:

"dodecahedron" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 1, 11:21 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
Dear dodecahedron:

"dodecahedron" wrote in message

ups.com...

relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

summa summarum, the obvious question
arise

has relativity any consistency to reality when
she is collapsing so easy ?

You have one of those "Ginzu" knives, that can
slice through a table top. It works great in the
kitchen.

It sucks trying to perform surgery on an artery,
or to defend yourself against Godzilla. Maybe
it isn't such a good knife after all?

Maybe relativity is just a model?

you mean i have i too big a hammer?

;)
http://crosswordfiend.blogspot.com/2...1_archive.html
.... search the page down to tapir.

David A. Smith

"dodecahedron" wrote in message
ups.com...
relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

summa summarum, the obvious question
arise

has relativity any consistency to reality when
she is collapsing so easy ?

Hence GR .. which doesn't collapse. SR is a special case.

Jeckyl wrote:
"dodecahedron" wrote in message
ups.com...
relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

summa summarum, the obvious question
arise

has relativity any consistency to reality when
she is collapsing so easy ?

Hence GR .. which doesn't collapse.

which collapse even more, everywhere, even here,,

actually gr is a metaphor, inexistent

SR is a special case.

On Sep 1, 2:55 pm, dodecahedron wrote:
relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

Woah. Locality is not a presumption of relativity. The principle of
locality is a *separate* assumption. *If* you assume the principle of
locality, *then* relativity says that two particles can only
communicate if they lie inside each other's light cone. Einstein
believed in the principle of locality, quite apart from relativity,
and that was one of his big problems with quantum mechanics. But
quantum mechanics is not inconsistent with relativity. If it were,
then there could be no such thing as relativistic quantum mechanics --
and QED is quite a successful and fully consistent relativistic
quantum mechanical theory.


summa summarum, the obvious question
arise

has relativity any consistency to reality when
she is collapsing so easy ?

On Sep 8, 2:19 pm, hungus wrote:
On Sep 8, 9:09 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 1, 2:55 pm, dodecahedron wrote:

relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

Woah. Locality is not a presumption of relativity. The principle of
locality is a *separate* assumption. *If* you assume the principle of
locality, *then* relativity says that two particles can only
communicate if they lie inside each other's light cone. Einstein
believed in the principle of locality, quite apart from relativity,
and that was one of his big problems with quantum mechanics. But
quantum mechanics is not inconsistent with relativity. If it were,
then there could be no such thing as relativistic quantum mechanics --

is it?

or is been invented in order to write a paper about it


The paper would only be worth the paper it's written on (pardon the
pun) until it matches supremely well with experiment. Hundreds of
papers are published every month that have essentially zero value
until they are checked experimentally. QED is well known not because
someone wrote a paper about it, but because experimental measurements
made later showed that it was able to predict those results to an
accuracy of a tenth of a thousandth of a millionth of one percent.
That's a remarkable feat for a something just invented in order to
write a paper about it.

PD

On Sep 8, 9:53 pm, PD wrote:
On Sep 8, 2:19 pm, hungus wrote:



On Sep 8, 9:09 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 1, 2:55 pm, dodecahedron wrote:

relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

Woah. Locality is not a presumption of relativity. The principle of
locality is a *separate* assumption. *If* you assume the principle of
locality, *then* relativity says that two particles can only
communicate if they lie inside each other's light cone. Einstein
believed in the principle of locality, quite apart from relativity,
and that was one of his big problems with quantum mechanics. But
quantum mechanics is not inconsistent with relativity. If it were,
then there could be no such thing as relativistic quantum mechanics --

is it?

or is been invented in order to write a paper about it

The paper would only be worth the paper it's written on (pardon the
pun) until it matches supremely well with experiment. Hundreds of
papers are published every month that have essentially zero value
until they are checked experimentally. QED is well known not because
someone wrote a paper about it, but because experimental measurements
made later showed that it was able to predict those results to an
accuracy of a tenth of a thousandth of a millionth of one percent.
That's a remarkable feat for a something just invented in order to
write a paper about it.

PD

what a bunch of crap

give the links to all these papers you mentioned

at least tha once you read

On Sep 8, 4:29 pm, hungus wrote:
On Sep 8, 9:53 pm, PD wrote:





On Sep 8, 2:19 pm, hungus wrote:

On Sep 8, 9:09 pm, PD wrote:

On Sep 1, 2:55 pm, dodecahedron wrote:

relativity collapses at small scales, but wait
a minute, relativity also collapses at large
scales, thay call it non-locality

Woah. Locality is not a presumption of relativity. The principle of
locality is a *separate* assumption. *If* you assume the principle of
locality, *then* relativity says that two particles can only
communicate if they lie inside each other's light cone. Einstein
believed in the principle of locality, quite apart from relativity,
and that was one of his big problems with quantum mechanics. But
quantum mechanics is not inconsistent with relativity. If it were,
then there could be no such thing as relativistic quantum mechanics --

is it?

or is been invented in order to write a paper about it

The paper would only be worth the paper it's written on (pardon the
pun) until it matches supremely well with experiment. Hundreds of
papers are published every month that have essentially zero value
until they are checked experimentally. QED is well known not because
someone wrote a paper about it, but because experimental measurements
made later showed that it was able to predict those results to an
accuracy of a tenth of a thousandth of a millionth of one percent.
That's a remarkable feat for a something just invented in order to
write a paper about it.

PD

what a bunch of crap

give the links to all these papers you mentioned

at least tha once you read

Sure. Start he
http://www.amazon.com/Feynmans-Thesi...9287324&sr=8-1

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...a-lecture.html

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...r-lecture.html

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...n-lecture.html

When you're done digesting those, let me know, and I'll give you more.

PD