On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:24:24 GMT, k p Collins wrote:
>I discussed it rather-thoroughly [giving a Complete Maths
>analysis] in comp.ai.philosophy, where you were 'in attendance',
No, I just followed up on posts to multiple NGs - I don't monitor all the
NG's listed in any one post.
>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.
Oh, for the sake of argument, I'll accept your word for it that you have a
consistent mathematical treatment of your p.o.v. So what? Mathematical
consistency doesn't prove anything.
Do you have any predictions, supported by experimental results, that
distinguish between your model and the standard model?
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."