http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp

"Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
affects the water molecules structure"

Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...

--
Rich

On Jun 27, 11:51 pm, RichD > wrote:
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"

Physicists call it a microwave. Why would you want to heat up your
wine?

>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...

Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_
working technology.

>
> --
> Rich

"RichD" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"
>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...
>
> --
> Rich
>

LOL..

"It is composed of a combination of organic (epoxy) and non-organic
non-magnetic metals (copper and others) placed in a matrix with various
crystals (12) also known for their specific vibrational frequencies. "

Which begs the question .... Are there any organic magnetic metals? or is
this "organic" in the sense that pesticides _were_ used to grow the copper?

RichD wrote:
>
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"
>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/crap.htm

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

In article .com>,
RichD > wrote:

> wine-accessories-supplies-how.asp

BS, BS, BS, BS

"RichD" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"
>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...
>
> --
> Rich
>



It also proves that whoever wrote that web page has no idea about grammar,
spelling or punctuation.



Gareth.

> Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_ working
> technology.

LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers" diss real
science, but of course they have nothing of their own to show.

"Ethan Winer" wrote ...
>> Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_ working
>> technology.
>
> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers" diss real
> science, but of course they have nothing of their own to show.

On the other hand we have a rich history of "real science"
that seemed just as valid in its time, but in retrospect is
embarassing at best. And I wouldn't bet my life that 100%
of everything we think of as "real science" today will stand
the test of time and further research.

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> "Ethan Winer" wrote ...
>>> Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_
>>> working technology.
>>
>> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers" diss real
>> science, but of course they have nothing of their own to show.
>
> On the other hand we have a rich history of "real science"
> that seemed just as valid in its time, but in retrospect is
> embarassing at best. And I wouldn't bet my life that 100%
> of everything we think of as "real science" today will stand
> the test of time and further research.
>


Agreed, and I think the biggest mistake made is to think that Science deals
with "facts". It does not, it merely puts forward hypotheses that fit
certain observations. A particularly good hypothesis (theory) will also
predict certain outcomes that may later be observed to be as predicted.
These theories are only designed to be "true" until an observation
condtradicts it, or it is updated by a better version, they are absolutely
NOT describing things that are actually true or are known facts. There are
no known facts at all. (except perhaps in Mathematics, which precisely
defines the facts it is proving)



Gareth.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:05:54 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
> wrote:

>
>"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
>> "Ethan Winer" wrote ...
>>>> Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_
>>>> working technology.
>>>
>>> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers" diss real
>>> science, but of course they have nothing of their own to show.
>>
>> On the other hand we have a rich history of "real science"
>> that seemed just as valid in its time, but in retrospect is
>> embarassing at best. And I wouldn't bet my life that 100%
>> of everything we think of as "real science" today will stand
>> the test of time and further research.
>>
>
>
>Agreed, and I think the biggest mistake made is to think that Science deals
>with "facts". It does not, it merely puts forward hypotheses that fit
>certain observations. A particularly good hypothesis (theory) will also
>predict certain outcomes that may later be observed to be as predicted.
>These theories are only designed to be "true" until an observation
>condtradicts it, or it is updated by a better version, they are absolutely
>NOT describing things that are actually true or are known facts. There are
>no known facts at all. (except perhaps in Mathematics, which precisely
>defines the facts it is proving)
>

Even maths doesn't deal in facts. All proofs rest on axioms - which
are pretty good assumptions about how the world works, but they are
just assumptions. So a proof will really read "Such and such is
proven, assuming that...".

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Jun 28, 3:51 am, RichD > wrote:
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"
>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...
>
> --
> Rich

You're ****ed in the head. Get the hell out of here...

RichD wrote:
> http://www.wineexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxs-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"
>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...
>
> --
> Rich
>
Their trade secret describes a magnetron oven!!!???

On Jun 28, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
> > Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers,
> >and produce _zero_ working technology.
>
> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers"
> diss real science, but of course they have nothing of
> their own to show.

Dudes, it pains me to be the bearer of bad news,
but you are thick witted *******s.

No offense intended.

--
Rich

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:59:50 -0700, RichD >
wrote:

>On Jun 28, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
>> > Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers,
>> >and produce _zero_ working technology.
>>
>> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers"
>> diss real science, but of course they have nothing of
>> their own to show.
>
>Dudes, it pains me to be the bearer of bad news,
>but you are thick witted *******s.
>
>No offense intended.

Brilliant reasoning - I've never seen such an astute application of
logic. Can you tell me how long it took you to work through it and
arrive at this line of reasoning? Did you have help?

Sorry, - you don't possess sufficient wit to cause offence to anybody.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On 2007-06-28, CWatters > wrote:
>
> "RichD" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>>
>> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
>> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
>> affects the water molecules structure"
>>
>> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...
>>
>
> "It is composed of a combination of organic (epoxy) and non-organic
> non-magnetic metals (copper and others) placed in a matrix with various
> crystals (12) also known for their specific vibrational frequencies. "

sounds like a computer circuit, epoxy and copper PCB. abd quartz
crystals known to oscillate at certain frequencies (frequencies that are
typically printed on the case) only problem is I think the case is
zinc plated steel,

> Which begs the question .... Are there any organic magnetic metals? or is
> this "organic" in the sense that pesticides _were_ used to grow the copper?

copper is a funguicide...


--

Bye.
Jasen

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:05:54 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Ethan Winer" wrote ...
>>>>> Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_
>>>>> working technology.
>>>>
>>>> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers" diss real
>>>> science, but of course they have nothing of their own to show.
>>>
>>> On the other hand we have a rich history of "real science"
>>> that seemed just as valid in its time, but in retrospect is
>>> embarassing at best. And I wouldn't bet my life that 100%
>>> of everything we think of as "real science" today will stand
>>> the test of time and further research.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Agreed, and I think the biggest mistake made is to think that Science
>>deals
>>with "facts". It does not, it merely puts forward hypotheses that fit
>>certain observations. A particularly good hypothesis (theory) will also
>>predict certain outcomes that may later be observed to be as predicted.
>>These theories are only designed to be "true" until an observation
>>condtradicts it, or it is updated by a better version, they are absolutely
>>NOT describing things that are actually true or are known facts. There
>>are
>>no known facts at all. (except perhaps in Mathematics, which precisely
>>defines the facts it is proving)
>>
>
> Even maths doesn't deal in facts. All proofs rest on axioms - which
> are pretty good assumptions about how the world works, but they are
> just assumptions. So a proof will really read "Such and such is
> proven, assuming that...".
>



The bit about Maths I meant was that you can say that the statement "1 + 1 =
2" is true, it IS a fact because we have defined all the rules that make
this a fact. You cannot, with the same certainty, say that this chair I am
sitting on really exists, or exists in the way that I think it does. All
science is based on assumptions of what we think reality is.. Any of these
assumptions are subject to change or revision at some point, should they be
shown to be incorrect. (For instance, Quantum Physics can now show the same
particle to be in 2 different places at the same time). Our "knowledge" of
the world is not knowledge, but Opinion. It's a good game though.



Gareth.

Rich,

> Dudes, it pains me to be the bearer of bad news,
> but you are thick witted *******s.

This is typical. If you had something - anything! - of substance that
supports your position you'd have stated it. But since you don't, all that's
left is insults.

I'll humor you for the moment. That page claims the product can improve the
taste of wine basically via osmosis, right through the glass bottle without
contacting the wine itself. To wit, "The resonance occurs right through the
glass." I'd love to hear you explain how this can happen. Please be
specific! Extra points if you can explain what "resonance" has to do with
the process.

--Ethan

On 6/29/07 1:44 AM, in article , "Gareth
Magennis" > wrote:

>
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:05:54 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Ethan Winer" wrote ...
>>>>>> Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_
>>>>>> working technology.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers" diss real
>>>>> science, but of course they have nothing of their own to show.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand we have a rich history of "real science"
>>>> that seemed just as valid in its time, but in retrospect is
>>>> embarassing at best. And I wouldn't bet my life that 100%
>>>> of everything we think of as "real science" today will stand
>>>> the test of time and further research.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed, and I think the biggest mistake made is to think that Science
>>> deals
>>> with "facts". It does not, it merely puts forward hypotheses that fit
>>> certain observations. A particularly good hypothesis (theory) will also
>>> predict certain outcomes that may later be observed to be as predicted.
>>> These theories are only designed to be "true" until an observation
>>> condtradicts it, or it is updated by a better version, they are absolutely
>>> NOT describing things that are actually true or are known facts. There
>>> are
>>> no known facts at all. (except perhaps in Mathematics, which precisely
>>> defines the facts it is proving)
>>>
>>
>> Even maths doesn't deal in facts. All proofs rest on axioms - which
>> are pretty good assumptions about how the world works, but they are
>> just assumptions. So a proof will really read "Such and such is
>> proven, assuming that...".
>>
>
>
>
> The bit about Maths I meant was that you can say that the statement "1 + 1 =
> 2" is true, it IS a fact because we have defined all the rules that make
> this a fact. You cannot, with the same certainty, say that this chair I am
> sitting on really exists, or exists in the way that I think it does. All
> science is based on assumptions of what we think reality is.. Any of these
> assumptions are subject to change or revision at some point, should they be
> shown to be incorrect. (For instance, Quantum Physics can now show the same
> particle to be in 2 different places at the same time).

QP can NOT show that. It can only show that at least one model, of the
many, of the String *theories* shows that.

> Our "knowledge" of
> the world is not knowledge, but Opinion. It's a good game though.
>
>
>
> Gareth.
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 6/29/07 9:03 AM, in article
, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com> wrote:

> Rich,
>
>> Dudes, it pains me to be the bearer of bad news,
>> but you are thick witted *******s.
>
> This is typical. If you had something - anything! - of substance that
> supports your position you'd have stated it. But since you don't, all that's
> left is insults.
>
> I'll humor you for the moment. That page claims the product can improve the
> taste of wine basically via osmosis, right through the glass bottle without
> contacting the wine itself. To wit, "The resonance occurs right through the
> glass." I'd love to hear you explain how this can happen. Please be
> specific! Extra points if you can explain what "resonance" has to do with
> the process.
>
> --Ethan
>

Show a little sympathy. He is probably unemployed from the Consumer Sales
industry where he sold monster cables until they became totally debunked.

I enjoy good wines, the industry of which already has it's share of quacks,
and I think one more shouldn't hurt too much. It ranks with teaching that
the wine glass should be held by two fingers on the rim of the base and then
held up as though it were a dirty diaper.

Don

I. Care wrote:
>
> I think the OP needs to buy some shakti stones to enhance his audio
> system while he drinks his treated wine. Then he will feel physically
> lighter with an empty wallet.

You beat me to it! I was about to say that this sounds VERY much like
the nonsense audiophiles spend thousands on to (allegedly) hear every
last nuance out of their systems.

They need to make these wine treaters in larger models so you can sit
a speaker cabinet in it! I'm sure for a mere $20 grand a piece of so,
I'd be able to hear things in my favorite recordings I never heard
before! :-)

But it's all a little advanced for a person an my level. I'm still
trying to afford the special cables that have to always be installed
one way and come in different models according to the type of music
you play.

Benj wrote:

> < ...snip... >
>
> But it's all a little advanced for a person an my level. I'm still
> trying to afford the special cables that have to always be installed
> one way and come in different models according to the type of music
> you play.

Gee, I thought the really good cables could be retrained. ;-)


Later...

Ron Capik <<< cynic in training >>>
--

Don Bowey wrote:

> On 6/29/07 1:44 AM, in article , "Gareth
> Magennis" > wrote:
> < .....snip.. >
> >
>
> . Any of these
> > assumptions are subject to change or revision at some point, should they be
> > shown to be incorrect. (For instance, Quantum Physics can now show the same
> > particle to be in 2 different places at the same time).
>
> QP can NOT show that. It can only show that at least one model, of the
> many, of the String *theories* shows that.
>

....or, they may just be in the same place in their own little oddly folded
time space manifolds. ;-)


Later...

Ron Capik
--

On 6/29/07 1:22 PM, in article , "Ron
Capik" > wrote:

>
>
> Don Bowey wrote:
>
>> On 6/29/07 1:44 AM, in article , "Gareth
>> Magennis" > wrote:
>> < .....snip.. >
>>>
>>
>> . Any of these
>>> assumptions are subject to change or revision at some point, should they be
>>> shown to be incorrect. (For instance, Quantum Physics can now show the same
>>> particle to be in 2 different places at the same time).
>>
>> QP can NOT show that. It can only show that at least one model, of the
>> many, of the String *theories* shows that.
>>
>
> ...or, they may just be in the same place in their own little oddly folded
> time space manifolds. ;-)
>
>
> Later...
>
> Ron Capik
> --
>
>

Yes! ;-)

But seriously, I think they built in some faulty logic which allows, for
example, that a noise burst (local or galactic) that is detected in two
different places at the same instant, is proof that it actually "exists" at
each location, rather than each being an energy copy of the other. In my
example, I assume equal distance between the source and the two receiving
locations so there is no conflict with General Relativity.

Don

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:28:22 -0700, Benj wrote:

> I. Care wrote:
>>
>> I think the OP needs to buy some shakti stones to enhance his audio
>> system while he drinks his treated wine. Then he will feel physically
>> lighter with an empty wallet.
>
> You beat me to it! I was about to say that this sounds VERY much like
> the nonsense audiophiles spend thousands on to (allegedly) hear every
> last nuance out of their systems.
>
> They need to make these wine treaters in larger models so you can sit
> a speaker cabinet in it! I'm sure for a mere $20 grand a piece of so,
> I'd be able to hear things in my favorite recordings I never heard
> before! :-)
>
> But it's all a little advanced for a person an my level. I'm still
> trying to afford the special cables that have to always be installed
> one way and come in different models according to the type of music
> you play.

Don't forget the $295 hand-turned rosewood volume control knob and the
little stands that hold your speaker cables off the floor, so the signal
won't leak out. No kidding. Feed "audiophoolery" to your favorite search
engine for some laughs.

Don,

> Show a little sympathy.

LOL, he started it with, "you are thick witted *******s."

--Ethan

Stephen wrote on Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:00:17 -0500:

??>> I. Care wrote:
??>>>
??>>> I think the OP needs to buy some shakti stones to enhance
??>>> his audio system while he drinks his treated wine. Then
??>>> he will feel physically lighter with an empty wallet.
??>>
??>> But it's all a little advanced for a person an my level.
??>> I'm still trying to afford the special cables that have to
??>> always be installed one way and come in different models
??>> according to the type of music you play.

Cables do leak if you believe Comcast. A little while ago, I
came home to find some repairmen digging away in front of my
house. They said that the FAA had detected signal leakage from
their cable and they had to replace it!

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

> Cables do leak if you believe Comcast. A little while ago, I came home to find some repairmen digging away in front of my house. They said that the FAA had detected signal leakage from their cable and they had to replace it!

Yes, cables will leak RF if they are defective. RF is such a high
frequency that capacitance becomes important. Speaker cables only carry
audio.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Jun 29, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
> I'll humor you for the moment. That page
> claims the product can improve the taste of
> wine basically via osmosis, right through the glass
> bottle without contacting the wine itself.

oh then I guess light can't heat a bottle of liquid,
right through the glass!


> I'd love to hear you explain how this can happen.

You scientists, such skeptics!
Drink some grape, open your mind!

> Extra points if you can explain what "resonance" has to
> do with the process.

waves resonate...light, sound... do you
know what resonate means?

--
Rich

"RichD" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.wineenhancer.net/wine-acc...pplies-how.asp
>
> "Our trade secret, proprietary design creates a
> harmonically balanced resonate frequency that
> affects the water molecules structure"
>
> Proving, again, that science doesn't have all the answers...

Science answers utilitarian questions, not religious ones.

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 14:26:44 +0000, Jose wrote:

>> Cables do leak if you believe Comcast. A little while ago, I came home to find some repairmen digging away in front of my house. They said that the FAA had detected signal leakage from their cable and they had to replace it!
>
> Yes, cables will leak RF if they are defective. RF is such a high
> frequency that capacitance becomes important. Speaker cables only carry
> audio.

Even with broadband RF, I find it hard to believe that a *buried* coax
cable could radiate enough to interfere with aircraft communications. I
wonder if Comcast was looking for an illegal splitter?

BTW, that-high performance volume control knob I mentioned earlier was
beechwood, not rosewood, but the price was even higher than I remembered.
The vendor actually claims that you can *hear* the difference between his
lacquered beechwood knobs and the stock bakelite ones. These are the
people who hear differences in an A-A test. That is, they claim to hear
differences between two runs of the *same* setup with the same program.

There is a physical basis for this effect. Any room (unless it's an
anechoic chamber) will have resonances that produce a comb-filter effect.
At high audio frequencies, moving your head a few inches can, indeed, make
an audible difference. Ethan Winer measured this effect, and published
the Bode plots. At some frequencies, a sharp peak in one location turns
into a sharp dip at the same frequency half a foot away. This is probably
the reason for the alleged audible effects of knobs, power cables (has
any of these "high-end audio" enthusiasts considered the miles of plain
old wire between his expensive 1-meter power cable and the generating
plant?), and the color of the listener's shirt.

> Even with broadband RF, I find it hard to believe that a *buried* coax
> cable could radiate enough to interfere with aircraft communications.

Was that their claim? I would find it hard to believe too.

> I wonder if Comcast was looking for an illegal splitter?

Perhaps. Or they were just trying to save juice. It costs money to
leak signal into the dirt.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Was that their claim? I would find it hard to believe too.

>> They said that the FAA had detected signal leakage from their cable and they had to replace it!

I bet he meant FCC.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote on Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:52:30 GMT:

??>> Was that their claim? I would find it hard to believe
??>> too.

??>>> They said that the FAA had detected signal leakage from
??>>> their cable and they had to replace it!

J> I bet he meant FCC.

J> Jose

Whatever! I later saw the crew working their way along the whole
street using some sort of detector and doing a lot of digging
and cable work not just at my house. I can't say that I found
the explanation all that believable either but I did not notice
any change in the TV signal :-) I've since gone to a fiber
optics connection so I don't suppose I'll ever really know what
they were up to.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Rich,

> oh then I guess light can't heat a bottle of liquid,
> right through the glass!

Okay, so you're saying this device heats the wine through the bottle? I
suppose that's possible (though they don't claim that), but wouldn't heat
then ruin the wine?

>> I'd love to hear you explain how this can happen.
> You scientists, such skeptics!
> Drink some grape, open your mind!

I'm still waiting for your explanation. Not a side story about heat, but a
direct explanation of how this particular product works and what it does
specifically to the wine's chemical composition.

> waves resonate...light, sound... do you
> know what resonate means?

As an electronic engineer, musician, and acoustician, I most certainly do
know what resonance is. But obviously it's just a buzz word to you. Here's a
clue - waves don't resonate. :->)

--Ethan

Ethan Winer wrote:

> As an electronic engineer, musician, and acoustician, I most certainly
> do know what resonance is. But obviously it's just a buzz word to you.
> Here's a clue - waves don't resonate. :->)

Not to be too pedantic, Ethan, but -- given the wave-particle duality of
QM -- how else to characterize a phenomenon such as NMR?

Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:13:44 -0400, Mark Lipton >
wrote:

>Ethan Winer wrote:
>
>> As an electronic engineer, musician, and acoustician, I most certainly
>> do know what resonance is. But obviously it's just a buzz word to you.
>> Here's a clue - waves don't resonate. :->)
>
>Not to be too pedantic, Ethan, but -- given the wave-particle duality of
>QM -- how else to characterize a phenomenon such as NMR?
>
>Mark Lipton

All those things we call subatomic particles or photons are in fact
nothing more than mathematical descriptions of certain limited aspects
of the behaviour of the universe at a small scale. The concept of what
they "are" is entirely meaningless in any sort of terms we could try
to understand.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
> All those things we call subatomic particles or photons are in fact
> nothing more than mathematical descriptions of certain limited aspects
> of the behaviour of the universe at a small scale. The concept of what
> they "are" is entirely meaningless in any sort of terms we could try
> to understand.

So you are only a macro-visual existentialist? :-)

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 09:49:45 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote ...
>> All those things we call subatomic particles or photons are in fact
>> nothing more than mathematical descriptions of certain limited aspects
>> of the behaviour of the universe at a small scale. The concept of what
>> they "are" is entirely meaningless in any sort of terms we could try
>> to understand.
>
>So you are only a macro-visual existentialist? :-)
>

That would be my limit. Anyone who thinks he can visualize the small
stuff is fooling himself.

:-)

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
>
> All those things we call subatomic particles or photons are in fact
> nothing more than mathematical descriptions of certain limited aspects
> of the behaviour of the universe at a small scale. The concept of what
> they "are" is entirely meaningless in any sort of terms we could try
> to understand.

Huh? QM is a mathematical description; photons are an example of a
subatomic particle whose existence is clearly supported by such
empirical phenomena as the photoelectric effect and diffraction. Or are
you making an oblique reference to any of the various superstring
theories, for which there is as yet not a shred of empirical support?

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:04:30 -0400, Mark Lipton >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>> All those things we call subatomic particles or photons are in fact
>> nothing more than mathematical descriptions of certain limited aspects
>> of the behaviour of the universe at a small scale. The concept of what
>> they "are" is entirely meaningless in any sort of terms we could try
>> to understand.
>
>Huh? QM is a mathematical description; photons are an example of a
>subatomic particle whose existence is clearly supported by such
>empirical phenomena as the photoelectric effect and diffraction. Or are
>you making an oblique reference to any of the various superstring
>theories, for which there is as yet not a shred of empirical support?
>
>Mark Lipton

You are witnessing macro effects - that is all you can witness. You
can not make the leap from that to claiming there is a particle. The
very word is a macro-dimensioned conceit, and has no meaning in the
sub-atomic world. It is no more than a rather poor analogy in words we
can understand.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com