|
SELF DRIVING RESONANCE |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12 |
| Author | |
nordjohn 
Newbie 
Joined: 26 May 2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1 |
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 26 May 2006 at 11:24pm |
 |
|
|
notohp
Newbie
Joined: 29 June 2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 June 2006 at 6:41pm |
|
Recently I read a book, or was it 2 books by Green about string theory etc..... He mentioned quantum mechanics theory / theories.....you have to, to talk about strings and the cosmos.... But he indicated a bit of a paradox.....he said quantum mechanics theory has the greatest number of experimental proofs of any theory.....but then he says part of quantum mechanics says the outcome of the experiment is controlled by the observer.... To me it seems wrong, if there is part of quantum mechanics that does not depend upon the observer, then we keep it.....but all those facts and logical conclusions depending upon the observer should be thrown out......but is the whole theory then thrown out? |
|
|
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Admin Group 
Owner Joined: 12 September 2005 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 7 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 June 2006 at 12:51pm |
|
If physics were a genuine subject: 5 physicists could supply the world needs. Green, Hawking et al. are interested in book ROYALTIES only. Answers and the truth kill book royalties. My engine findings are all SELF DRIVING RESONANCE. I gave them a QUANTUM title because always E = hf = Power torque drive. I deal only in engineering. Physics and physics theories are sick entertainment only. |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options