there then are two particles...

Le 14/08/2023 à 18:09, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> there then are two particles...

Logical.

R.H.

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 9:11:27 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 14/08/2023 à 18:09, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> > there then are two particles...
> Logical.
>
> R.H.

What does logic have to do with it?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/giant-molecules-exist-in-two-places-at-once-in-unprecedented-quantum-experiment/#:~:text=So%20any%20chunk%20of%20matter,demonstrated%20it%20using%20small%20particles.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> there then are two particles...

it is simply not possible for a particle to be in two places at the
same time.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > there then are two particles...
> it is simply not possible for a particle to be in two places at the
> same time.

The evidence says otherwise, even if it seems illogical and impossible..

Can you supply evidence to the contrary?

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > there then are two particles...
>
> it is simply not possible for a particle to be in two places at the
> same time.

This assumes what it wants to prove (you assume the word
"particle" describes an entity that cannot be at two places
at the same time and conclude from it that it cannot be at
two places at the same time).

Particles in quantum theory are not like mini-billiard balls in other words..
Perhaps a different word than "particle" should be used to avoid
confusing people.

--
Jan

Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > there then are two particles...
> > it is simply not possible for a particle to be in two places at the
> > same time.
>
> The evidence says otherwise, even if it seems illogical and impossible..
>
> Can you supply evidence to the contrary?

If it cannot be both measured at the sametime it means they are not at
the same place at the same time.

Can you supply evidence to the contrary?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:13 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > there then are two particles...

> > > it is simply not possible for a particle to be in two places at the
> > > same time.
> >
> > The evidence says otherwise, even if it seems illogical and impossible...
> >
> > Can you supply evidence to the contrary?

> If it cannot be both measured at the sametime it means they are not at
> the same place at the same time.

That is not evidence. That is just you blathering.

> Can you supply evidence to the contrary?

This is mainstream modeling and the evidence is in research journals/papers and textbooks worldwide. You should read one of them, like I have.

On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 21:08:20 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > there then are two particles...
> > it is simply not possible for a particle to be in two places at the
> > same time.
> The evidence says otherwise, even if it seems illogical and impossible..

No, Al, sorry. Evidence is silent. And it was your bunch
of idiots asserting it's a particle.

On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 19:08:56 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 9:11:27 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 14/08/2023 à 18:09, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> > > there then are two particles...
> > Logical.
> >
> > R.H.
> What does logic have to do with it?
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/giant-molecules-exist-in-two-places-at-once-in-unprecedented-quantum-experiment/#:~:text=So%20any%20chunk%20of%20matter,demonstrated%20it%20using%20small%20particles.

What does logic have to do with some mumble of some
brainwashed halfbrains... Nothing, sure.

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:45:29 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 21:08:20 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:

> > The evidence says otherwise, even if it seems illogical and impossible...

> No, Al, sorry.

Yes, Woz, you certainly are one sorry guy...

Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:13 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > there then are two particles...
>
> > > > it is simply not possible for a particle to be in two places at the
> > > > same time.
> > >
> > > The evidence says otherwise, even if it seems illogical and impossible..
> > >
> > > Can you supply evidence to the contrary?
>
> > If it cannot be both measured at the sametime it means they are not at
> > the same place at the same time.
>
> That is not evidence. That is just you blathering.
>
> > Can you supply evidence to the contrary?
>
> This is mainstream modeling and the evidence is in research journals/papers and textbooks worldwide. You should read one of them, like I have.

There is no evidence that you read one of them.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 2:56:12 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:13 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > there then are two particles...
> >
> > > > > it is simply not possible for a particle to be in two places at the
> > > > > same time.
> > > >
> > > > The evidence says otherwise, even if it seems illogical and impossible..
> > > >
> > > > Can you supply evidence to the contrary?
> >
> > > If it cannot be both measured at the sametime it means they are not at
> > > the same place at the same time.
> >
> > That is not evidence. That is just you blathering.
> >
> > > Can you supply evidence to the contrary?
> >
> > This is mainstream modeling and the evidence is in research journals/papers and textbooks worldwide. You should read one of them, like I have.

> There is no evidence that you read one of them.

Doesn't matter what you think. There is plenty of evidence that tens of thousands of them exist.
There is no evidence whatsoever that you can provide in support of your claim.

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:37:52 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 2:56:12 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:13 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > there then are two particles...
> > >
> > > > > > it is simply not possible for a particle to be in two places at the
> > > > > > same time.
> > > > >
> > > > > The evidence says otherwise, even if it seems illogical and impossible..

What is the evidence? If particles are fundamental of themselves
they would look the same without having to be.
Could you not have two look a like electrons?

> > > > >
> > > > > Can you supply evidence to the contrary?
> > >
> > > > If it cannot be both measured at the sametime it means they are not at
> > > > the same place at the same time.
> > >
> > > That is not evidence. That is just you blathering.
> > >
> > > > Can you supply evidence to the contrary?
> > >
> > > This is mainstream modeling and the evidence is in research journals/papers and textbooks worldwide. You should read one of them, like I have.
>
> > There is no evidence that you read one of them.
> Doesn't matter what you think. There is plenty of evidence that tens of thousands of them exist.
> There is no evidence whatsoever that you can provide in support of your claim.

How does your science see a particle? What about it causes it to be observed paul?

On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 23:05:23 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:45:29 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 21:08:20 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> > > The evidence says otherwise, even if it seems illogical and impossible..
>
> > No, Al, sorry.
> Yes, Woz, you certainly are one sorry guy...

No, Al, sorry. You say that, your fellow idiots say that,
no logic in that, and you're even stupid enough to
admit.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:37:52 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 2:56:12 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:13 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > there then are two particles...
> > > >
> > > > > > > it is simply not possible for a particle to be in two places at the
> > > > > > > same time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The evidence says otherwise, even if it seems illogical and impossible..
>
> What is the evidence? If particles are fundamental of themselves
> they would look the same without having to be.
> Could you not have two look a like electrons?
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you supply evidence to the contrary?
> > > >
> > > > > If it cannot be both measured at the sametime it means they are not at
> > > > > the same place at the same time.
> > > >
> > > > That is not evidence. That is just you blathering.
> > > >
> > > > > Can you supply evidence to the contrary?
> > > >
> > > > This is mainstream modeling and the evidence is in research journals/papers and textbooks worldwide. You should read one of them, like I have.
> >
> > > There is no evidence that you read one of them.
> > Doesn't matter what you think. There is plenty of evidence that tens of thousands of them exist.
> > There is no evidence whatsoever that you can provide in support of your claim.
>
> How does your science see a particle? What about it causes it to be observed paul?

I tink wat Paul Alsing is tryin to tink of is
spliting a paticle into two and
throwing each one
through his
venetian blinds

LOOK! A WAVE OF THEM!!!!

Paul Alsing has been reading too many science fiction books since
childhood.

He is still waiting for the martians to attack us any day...

Is "Paul" short for ...Pauline???

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.