Posted: Mar 09, 2020 8:05 pm
Your assertions are worth nothing to me. Show a source corroborating your claims. I am not interested in seeing pretty sentences you crafted with syntactical precision... I am interested in the content of those sentences, and the truth value of them. You have made so many assertions in the brief time you've been here, but you don't seem able to support them.
Nevets wrote:Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a wave. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects. As Albert Einstein wrote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%8 ... le_duality
The wave theories of lightClassical particle and wave theories of light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%8 ... le_duality
These are entry level links on Wikipedia which do not corroborate your claims.
It's exactly equivalent of me doing this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light,_Arkansas
Light is an unincorporated community in Greene County, Arkansas, United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
According to conductor Leon Botstein, Einstein began playing when he was 5. However, he did not enjoy it at that age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_ ... _the...%3F
The difference in prices from the first load to the later ones was so high that the original price which was paid for the tea in China was quite unimportant. So the "price of tea in China" was something that really didn't matter for the ship owners. They had to have the tea in England as fast as possible.
Nevets wrote:If you do not know the first thing about Quantum mechanics, and how it has theories of Light containing particles, and you are unable to see how this equates to them trying to establish how solid physical matter was formed, then that is not my fault
Your claims are nonsensical. I don't need to know much about Quantum Mechanics to know that. I think it's due to scientific illiteracy, like not knowing what a theory is in science, not understanding that theories aren't contained within other theories, similarly I don't think you know what you're talking about, and I believe this is evidenced by how you're unable to support any of your claims.
As you're unable to offer any support for your claims, then why am I supposed to trust those claims? Are you an authority I should just implicitly trust? Are your words gospel? If not, then how about you stop jabbering and do some leg-work to support your claims? Otherwise, yeah they're dismissed.