decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The trouble started with Quantum Theory... | 428 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I was thinking in terms of electrons/protons
Authored by: jesse on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 06:36 AM EDT
But you are right - a "vacuum" really never is. There are always
electromagnetic waves passing by - of whatever frequency.

And then there is always the quantum foam theories.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The trouble started with Quantum Theory...
Authored by: albert on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 01:59 PM EDT
which had developed some really crazy predictions that couldn't be explained by
the Standard Model.

For those who have the time, see:
Bill Zebuhrs commentary on Hotsons paper:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html
Read the commentary, then Part 1, Part 2, then Part 3 (which follows the
Commentary).

The following is quoted from another posting of mine:

"The true paradigm shift in physics occurred in 1928, with Paul Diracs
relativistic reworking of Schrodingers wave equation. Diracs equation is still
considered a remarkable achievement in physics, even today, but it was not
correctly understood then. It is correctly explained by Hotson.

Few have recognized the significance of Hotsons work because of their investment
in the Standard Model, failing to realize the absurdity of a theory that:
1. Changes every time new experimental evidence comes along.
2. Explains things with magic particles, fudge factors, and hand waving.
3. Has replaced 'we don't know' with unprovable postulates.

Hotson explains the details quite well, but note this: You must be willing to:

1. Temporarily reset your viewpoint to 1928.
2. Suspend belief in all Standard Model concepts.
3. Critically analyze with an open mind.

Perhaps because of my mental shortcomings, I have had to reread Hotsons papers
several times. It's hard to start with a clean slate in any endeavor, when one
has been bombarded with a lifetimes worth of 'scientific' propaganda.

Any honest effort you expend on this will be well worth it, and will open new
avenues for exploring physics."

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )