mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Measuring light is by a collective average.
> Measuring round is not accurate beyond a few decimal places. There is no
> way to verify a PI round formula in accuracy.

it's because it's another world, as such, the logic of the macro scale
isn't driving the quantum scale. Good question, in principle you can
NEVER "unite" relativity with quantum.

Le 11/02/2022 à 03:21, Scot Dino a écrit :
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Measuring light is by a collective average.
>> Measuring round is not accurate beyond a few decimal places. There is no
>> way to verify a PI round formula in accuracy.
>
> it's because it's another world, as such, the logic of the macro scale
> isn't driving the quantum scale. Good question, in principle you can
> NEVER "unite" relativity with quantum.

There are not two universes, one of which would be quantum and the other
would be relativistic; as there are not two universes of which one would
be Newtonian and the other would be relativistic.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 11/02/2022 à 03:21, Scot Dino a écrit :
>> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Measuring light is by a collective average.
>>> Measuring round is not accurate beyond a few decimal places. There is no
>>> way to verify a PI round formula in accuracy.
>>
>> it's because it's another world, as such, the logic of the macro scale
>> isn't driving the quantum scale. Good question, in principle you can
>> NEVER "unite" relativity with quantum.
>
> There are not two universes, one of which would be quantum and the other
> would be relativistic; as there are not two universes of which one would
> be Newtonian and the other would be relativistic.
>
> R.H.
>

That’s correct, and every indication we have now is that the universe is
wholly relativistic and wholly quantum, though in some cases classical
approximations serve sufficient purpose.

There are a number of old diehards, however, who say that since classical
served sufficient purpose for them throughout their personal lives, then
this is what nature should in fact be.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, 11 February 2022 at 15:04:11 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 11/02/2022 à 03:21, Scot Dino a écrit :
> >> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Measuring light is by a collective average.
> >>> Measuring round is not accurate beyond a few decimal places. There is no
> >>> way to verify a PI round formula in accuracy.
> >>
> >> it's because it's another world, as such, the logic of the macro scale
> >> isn't driving the quantum scale. Good question, in principle you can
> >> NEVER "unite" relativity with quantum.
> >
> > There are not two universes, one of which would be quantum and the other
> > would be relativistic; as there are not two universes of which one would
> > be Newtonian and the other would be relativistic.
> >
> > R.H.
> >
> That’s correct, and every indication we have now is that the universe is
> wholly relativistic

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your insane Shit TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.
There are a number of old diehards, however, who say
"NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!"

Richard Hachel wrote:

>> it's because it's another world, as such, the logic of the macro scale
>> isn't driving the quantum scale. Good question, in principle you can
>> NEVER "unite" relativity with quantum.
>
> There are not two universes, one of which would be quantum and the other
> would be relativistic; as there are not two universes of which one would
> be Newtonian and the other would be relativistic.

you don't get it. Once different logic, those are different universes.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 6:22:01 PM UTC-8, Scot Dino wrote:
>> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Measuring light is by a collective average.
>> > Measuring round is not accurate beyond a few decimal places. There is
>> > no way to verify a PI round formula in accuracy.
>
> Einstein knew better. Probability is not order.

you are an anglo-saxon, in need for a war in europe. The mass
depopulation by injection likely failed, now you need a war.

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 3:26:38 PM UTC-8, Scot Dino wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 6:22:01 PM UTC-8, Scot Dino wrote:
> >> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > Measuring light is by a collective average.
> >> > Measuring round is not accurate beyond a few decimal places. There is
> >> > no way to verify a PI round formula in accuracy.
> >
> > Einstein knew better. Probability is not order.
> you are an anglo-saxon, in need for a war in europe. The mass
> depopulation by injection likely failed, now you need a war.

Einstein knew better. He won Bohr on QM science in history.

Mitchell Raemsch

Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>> it's because it's another world, as such, the logic of the macro scale
>>> isn't driving the quantum scale. Good question, in principle you can
>>> NEVER "unite" relativity with quantum.
>>
>> There are not two universes, one of which would be quantum and the
>> other would be relativistic; as there are not two universes of which
>> one would be Newtonian and the other would be relativistic. R.H.
>
> That’s correct, and every indication we have now is that the universe is
> wholly relativistic and wholly quantum, though in some cases classical
> approximations serve sufficient purpose.
> There are a number of old diehards, however, who say that since
> classical served sufficient purpose for them throughout their personal
> lives, then this is what nature should in fact be.

this uneducated troll isn't knowing what the absence, or say, different
*logic* implies to a world. Those are diffetent domains, fucking stupid,
not even *adjacent* and do not even *intersects*. Means 100% different
universes, idiot.