"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hqqhfu0.pminews at news1.sympatico.ca...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:31:00 GMT, k p Collins wrote:
>> >I understand the traditional perspective. It's
> >just that, in Tapered Harmony's approach, there
> >are no 'subatomic particles'. Everything exists as
> >continuous wave<->wave dynamics. So there
> >aren't any 'particles' with respect to which to
> >be "uncertain".
>> That's nice.
>> What experimental results do you have to back up your claims?
I discussed it rather-thoroughly [giving a Complete Maths
analysis] in comp.ai.philosophy, where you were 'in attendance',
last year.
The Maths was in a little "Compton Refraction" QBASIC program
that I posted in comp.ai.philosophy and elsewhere.
Basically, the analogous thing can be done with respect to =any=
replicable experimental result, which is what I'm usually doing
when I'm not online.
So, if you have an experimental result that's of particular interest
to you, post it, and I'll discuss the wave<->wave view from the
perspective of that experiment.
I got into this stuff because of necessities inherent in nervous
system function, BTW.
k. p. collins
