I'm comfortable with paradoxes... In addition to what you've said, everyone clearly 'gets it' ... or is 'getting it'... in their own way. As I understand it, there is no "Got it" there is just "Getting it" more and more. To me, "Got it" is a moment, and once you have it, there's more to get. I...
Well what happens when we pick apart the language/ways of understanding things too much too quickly is the thread gets closed. I learned that with my first thread here. Thanks for any clarity you can provide on these 'matters'. :)
Thank you all. :)
I have had my questions completely answered...
but now I am having more... :D
"2. Particle or wave are different states of that which is being observed in relationship to the field."
once again, I did ask it but I didn't make any connection to the responses I got so I'll...
Thanks so much... (to you and the others)
"Waves" makes this make sense... but I didn't want to go there yet.
I've got lots of work to do! :D
I was stuck... but now I know exactly what to do!
"love love...love love love... *trails off*"
(heartbreak kid movie reference)
Yes... a LOT more sense! That's what I have come to know in -completely- different ways... :D
Wow... that is so not difficult to understand... what was difficult for me is the word elementary and fundamental. Doesn't feel like to me, we can ever really use those words accurately until we...
cool,
thanks for your answers... this is clearing a lot of things up believe it or not...
a few more things...
Are waves themselves considered PHYSICAL? (like I am assuming particles are considered)
Or would we classify them perhaps as non-physical properties of physical?
Or do we say...
Does anyone have more info about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X(3872 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z(4430 )
Are these not considered fundamental or what makes them so different?
----
Additional info requested posted 'seperately' so as not to contaminate the thread with...
so an electron isn't even a particle?
how can it be called a fundamental particle then?
are we talking about two different 'religions' (for lack of a better word) of physics here? two different ways to believe something, I mean... and that is why they are both simultaneously 'true' ?
In...
"THE evidence" that the science behind it is "correct"... I understand the logic believe it or not that you're trying to push on me here... but you're using inaccurate words like "Correct" ... and "the" evidence... when evidence is just evidence. To call it "The"evidence means that's entirely...
LONG POST, if you're not interested save yourself some time and turn away. :P
BTW--- I'd really much rather be discussing the logic behind physics itself, than the logic you're using to discuss physics... so maybe this post can get us over that hurdle :P
(can't believe I got to write...
My mistake. Clearly I have a lot on my mind. I've been repeatedly commenting and apologizing for my lack of ability to communicate what I'm asking.
I understand why I got the reaction I got... it's still amazing to me though. Just because I'm not surprised doesn't mean I'm not amazed...
This analogy/concept makes a lot more sense to me than wikipedia's explanation.
Do others here for the most part agree with this re-translation? I am open to all theories/ideas.
Although, linguistically, you are admitting to numbers sticking together to form a particle. What are these...
What am I proposing? I don't get it...
The following line of reasoning is -very- debatable, but we're not here to debate or even invest a decent amount of time exploring this idea, are we? I can live with it in either way. Let me know which is most preferable and conforms to the rules...
Thanks...
Can you link me to the science that shows this? Do you mean literally, creation and destruction? Maybe I need to look into the science's logic of the zero. Is that something that makes sense ? Or are we talking about conversion between energy types? (thus you say the 'end' of...