Certainty or Uncertainty ?
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle did not accept the simultaneous accurate measurement of the location or position (L) and momentum (mv) of a particle, suggesting that a particle does not have position or momentum or that there is no law of cause & effect.
The Uncertainty Principle is based on a so-called formula
(L) x (mv) ≥ (h)
if the errors in these are (L) and (mv), so that
(L) ≥ (h) / (mv) .
What will happen if we will use correct (L) and correct (mv) ?
It will become an equation, with an accurate value.
Thus, to avoid certainty, the 2nd scientific revolutionary adherents used errorL and error mv and ≥.
2nd Scientific Revolution 3rd Scientific Revolution
(Uncerttained Formula) (Certained Equation)
error L ≥ correct h / error mv correct L = correct h / correct mv
[Principle of Uncertainty] [Law of Cause & Effect]
Applicable to human limitation Applicable to nature
Nature is ‘what happens’ and it does not have limitation on its own as long as it happens. It’s limitation is when it deals with not its own, e.g., nothingness. There’s no accident or accedence in absolute nature. It can identify positive from negative, south from north, and left from right; otherwise, there will be a chaos and no material will be formed. In fact, we can summarize the phenomenon as the selecting of negative by positive, of south by north, and external by internal. No phenomenon does happen without an absolute cause. However, man has a limitation to find out such a cause, some of which reasons are his instruments, senses, and formulations.Principle of Uncertainty suggests of a human limitation and, worst, man’s misapplication of a formula. On contrary, law of cause & effect tells us how nature operates, specifically if the formula is properly applied.
Nevertheless, in certained application, the correct (L) in the equation is but the lambda sign of the De Broglie’s equation
L = h / mv .
Waves of the 2nd Scientific Revolution were Chaotic
Physicists of the 2nd Scientific Revolution were first to attempt to work out a mathematical basis for the behavior or wave-but-particle entity of light, which is believed to be simultaneously a wave and a particle. Their work coerced to climb on the De Broglie’s formula made possible for the people to accept their contradicting notions (wave-that-is-not-particle and particle-which-is-wave) without loss of respectability, bringing themselves into turmoil and mental confusion and formulating layers of excuses to mask the many contradictory properties of the thesis.Neither the De Broglie’s equation proved that such a wave was not composed of tinier particles, nor particles cannot be shaped into wave. Scientists of the past made dilemmas for the light and at the same time want people to swallow those mental disorienting beliefs. They even reached to the point to accept the postulation that the “nothingness” is equivalent to “mass” or “energy”, making it impossible for an object to move when in a vacuum (if vacuum is but a mass) or giving the possibility that a vacuum or nothingness can accelerate, decelerate, stop, or influence the motion of an object or the possibility to convert the vacuum (nothingness) into energy or mass. But of course those non-natural notions was to relinquish any possibility of a notion about the powerful absolute Causer and to weaken the factuality of cause and effect.
If the aether notion of Aristotle was fought by some well known scientists of the pre- and 1st Scientific Revolution and, in fact, Augustin Louis Cauchy had enabled to formulate a mathematical basis for it, the same is true for the wave notion in this 3rd Scientific Revolution. Wave, an effect of particles, become a fundamental behavioral entity in the 2nd Scientific Revolution and many formulations and excuses were created for it. Nonetheless, Isaac Newton, Jean Baptiste Biot, David Brewster, Max K.E.L. Planck, and Albert Einstein had found out not a wave notion as a necessity to explaining the properties of light. In fact, the words “radiation”, “quantum”,& “photon” are pertaining to the particulate nature of light and not to the shape wave although in traditional physics they are misunderstood as “wave”. Photons can be constructed into various shapes, not only of the wave.Though some scientists think that light is a wave-which-is-not-wavy, it is still understandable with the term “wave” that the said light (or its contents) is wavy. Thus, based on this notion, light is a wave-which-is-wavy. How chaotic this notion!
The emergence of quantum electronomics will reconstruct our physics from contradictory properties of the nature-exceeding thesis into less mental confusion. It is clear in the quantum electronomics that if the absolute energy is an effect, then its source must be an absolute powerful Causer. Another clear phenomenon is that certain aggregating particles can form wave, so that wave is a wave of a particular aggregating (moving) tinier particles. Show us a wave which is not by an aggregating particles and we will show you aggregating particles forming waves.
Physicists of the 2nd Scientific Revolution were first to attempt to work out a mathematical basis for the behaviour or wave-but-particle entity of light, which is believed to be simultaneously a wave and a particle. Their work coerced to climb on the De Broglie's formula made possible for the people to accept their contradicting notions (wave-that-is-not-particle and particle-which-is-wave) without loss of respectability, bringing themselves into turmoil and mental confusion and formulating layers of excuses to mask the many contradictory properties of the thesis.Neither the De Broglie's equation proved that such a wave was not composed of tinier particles, nor particles cannot be shaped into wave. Scientists of the past made delemmas for the light and at the same time want people to swallow those mental disorienting beliefs. They even reached to the point to accept the postulation that the "nothingness" is equivalent to "mass" or "energy", making it impossible for an object to move when in a vacuum (if vacuum is but a mass) or giving the possibility that a vacuum or nothingness can accelerate, decelarate, stop, or influence the motion of an object or the possibility to convert the vacuum (nothingness) into energy or mass. But of course those non-natural notions was to relinquish any possibility of a notion about the powerful absolute Causer and to weaken the factuality of cause and effect.
If the aether notion of Aristotle was fought by some well known scientists of the pre- and 1st Scientific Revolution and, in fact, Augustin Louis Cauchy had enabled to formulate a mathematical basis for it, the same is true for the wave notion in this 3rd Scientific Revolution. Wave, an effect of particles, become a fundamental behavioural entity in the 2nd Scientific Revolution and many formulations and excuses were created for it. Nontheless, Isaac Newton, Jean Baptiste Biot, David Brewster, Max K.E.L. Planck, and Albert Einstein had found out not a wave notion as a necessity to explaining the properties of light. In fact, the words "radiation", "quantum",& "photon" are pertaining to the particulate nature of light and not to the shape wave although in traditional physics they are misunderstood as "wave". Photons can be constructed into various shapes, not only of the wave.Though some scientists think that light is a wave-which-is-not-wavy, it is still understandable with the term "wave" that the said light (or its contents) is wavy. Thus, based on this notion, light is a wave-which-is-wavy. How chaotic this notion!
The emergence of quantum electronomics will reconstruct our physics from contradictory properties of the nature-exceeding thesis into less mental confusion. It is clear in the quantum electronomics that if the absolute energy is an effect, then its source must be an absolute powerful Causer. Another clear phenomenon is that certain aggregating particles can form wave, so that wave is a wave of a particular aggregating (moving) tinier particles. Show us a wave which is not by an aggregating particles and we will show you aggregating particles forming waves.
Find Quasmospectrum
If the aether notion of Aristotle was fought by some well known scientists of the pre- and 1st Scientific Revolution and, in fact, Augustin Louis Cauchy had enabled to formulate a mathematical basis for it, the same is true for the wave notion in this 3rd Scientific Revolution. Wave, an effect of particles, become a fundamental behavioral entity in the 2nd Scientific Revolution and many formulations and excuses were created for it. Nonetheless, Isaac Newton, Jean Baptiste Biot, David Brewster, Max K.E.L. Planck, and Albert Einstein had found out not a wave notion as a necessity to explaining the properties of light. In fact, the words “radiation”, “quantum”,& “photon” are pertaining to the particulate nature of light and not to the shape wave although in traditional physics they are misunderstood as “wave”. Photons can be constructed into various shapes, not only of the wave.Though some scientists think that light is a wave-which-is-not-wavy, it is still understandable with the term “wave” that the said light (or its contents) is wavy. Thus, based on this notion, light is a wave-which-is-wavy. How chaotic this notion!
The emergence of quantum electronomics will reconstruct our physics from contradictory properties of the nature-exceeding thesis into less mental confusion. It is clear in the quantum electronomics that if the absolute energy is an effect, then its source must be an absolute powerful Causer. Another clear phenomenon is that certain aggregating particles can form wave, so that wave is a wave of a particular aggregating (moving) tinier particles. Show us a wave which is not by an aggregating particles and we will show you aggregating particles forming waves.
Physicists of the 2nd Scientific Revolution were first to attempt to work out a mathematical basis for the behaviour or wave-but-particle entity of light, which is believed to be simultaneously a wave and a particle. Their work coerced to climb on the De Broglie's formula made possible for the people to accept their contradicting notions (wave-that-is-not-particle and particle-which-is-wave) without loss of respectability, bringing themselves into turmoil and mental confusion and formulating layers of excuses to mask the many contradictory properties of the thesis.Neither the De Broglie's equation proved that such a wave was not composed of tinier particles, nor particles cannot be shaped into wave. Scientists of the past made delemmas for the light and at the same time want people to swallow those mental disorienting beliefs. They even reached to the point to accept the postulation that the "nothingness" is equivalent to "mass" or "energy", making it impossible for an object to move when in a vacuum (if vacuum is but a mass) or giving the possibility that a vacuum or nothingness can accelerate, decelarate, stop, or influence the motion of an object or the possibility to convert the vacuum (nothingness) into energy or mass. But of course those non-natural notions was to relinquish any possibility of a notion about the powerful absolute Causer and to weaken the factuality of cause and effect.
If the aether notion of Aristotle was fought by some well known scientists of the pre- and 1st Scientific Revolution and, in fact, Augustin Louis Cauchy had enabled to formulate a mathematical basis for it, the same is true for the wave notion in this 3rd Scientific Revolution. Wave, an effect of particles, become a fundamental behavioural entity in the 2nd Scientific Revolution and many formulations and excuses were created for it. Nontheless, Isaac Newton, Jean Baptiste Biot, David Brewster, Max K.E.L. Planck, and Albert Einstein had found out not a wave notion as a necessity to explaining the properties of light. In fact, the words "radiation", "quantum",& "photon" are pertaining to the particulate nature of light and not to the shape wave although in traditional physics they are misunderstood as "wave". Photons can be constructed into various shapes, not only of the wave.Though some scientists think that light is a wave-which-is-not-wavy, it is still understandable with the term "wave" that the said light (or its contents) is wavy. Thus, based on this notion, light is a wave-which-is-wavy. How chaotic this notion!
The emergence of quantum electronomics will reconstruct our physics from contradictory properties of the nature-exceeding thesis into less mental confusion. It is clear in the quantum electronomics that if the absolute energy is an effect, then its source must be an absolute powerful Causer. Another clear phenomenon is that certain aggregating particles can form wave, so that wave is a wave of a particular aggregating (moving) tinier particles. Show us a wave which is not by an aggregating particles and we will show you aggregating particles forming waves.
Find Quasmospectrum
No comments:
Post a Comment