MigL

Here is the thing... In the currently accepted model, space, or the 'void', is filled with virtual particles, popping in and out of existence ( as you well put it ). These VP don't rise above the threshold ( a quanta of action, as Mordred has tried to explain ) of observation. Observation is another word for interaction. IE Virtual particles don't interact individually, but combined they can have measurable interactions. In YOUR model, the 'void' is filled with real particles, which must exist for a brief but measurable time, in order for their interactions ( annihilation with subsequent anti-particle ) to carry the information ( properties ) of the particle along its classical trajectory. This 'wave' is your proposal to explain quantum behavior. These being real particles, however, means they are above the quanta of action threshold for interactions ( observation ), and if still in particle form, there is nothing stopping them from interacting with other particles, or being observed. Even if they have annihilated, the resulting photons would still contribute to the energy of the 'void', which would need to be huge. Again, I ask... Why is there no observational confirmation that the 'void' is filled with observable particles, and has an extremely high energy density ? It would seem to me, that, if a model doesn't fit observational evidence, it is a non-starter.

Why this outcry about microwave ovens ??? A regular stove/oven, whether electric or gas, has graduated settings between Hi and Low heat, and a timer. You need an add-on meat thermometer to find out the internal temperature of meats you are cooking ( to your liking ). You need to taste your pastas to ensure the right 'firmness'. You need to 'flake' your fish with a fork to cook it properly. Vegetables should only be boiled less than a minute to ensure crispness. Etc. That's what cooking is about. Not setting and go.

Yes and No. It will be harder to breathe because of all the smoke and ash in the air.

The speed of an electron is difficult to measure, because sometimes it makes no sense. We usually measure speed by dividing a displacement by the time elapsed. A displacement is defined by two points, and that's where the trouble starts. Confining an electron to a point renders its momentum indeterminate ( Heisenberg Uncertainty ) And since momentum is the product of mass and velocity, you can see how trying to measure an electron's speed renders its speed indeterminate to varying degrees. In modern physics an electron is not considered to be orbiting the nucleus, rather it occupies a probability distribution 'cloud', about and including the nucleus.

What issues with Kyoto are you referring to, CharonY ? You realize that the previous Liberal Government of J Chretien ( whom I voted for ) merely paid lip service to the Accord, and increased Canadian greenhouse gas emissions by almost 200 MTonnes ? When S harper was elected in early 05, GHG emissions actually dropped a little, or at worst, held steady for nearly ten years. J Trudeau has adopted S Harper's GHG reduction targets, yet emissions are at best holding steady, or, slowly starting to creep up. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html So if you mean S Harper's problem with Kyoto was that he just didn't just talk, he actually tried to control GHG emissions ( while the Liberals talk a good game but fail to deliver ), then I guess he's guilty.

I'm good with a lot of things. You, on the other hand, seem to be one of those always angry people who stomps his feet when he doesn't get his way. Have a nice day.

Well he is the current Prime Minister. And being directly relevant to the preceding conversation, why wouldn't I ??? To which you replied "But what about S Harper". And so it started... Me ? I'm going back on topic. You do what you want.

What was that ? Sorry, I didn't hear you. Busy killing whales in my back yard. No point talking to Rangerx; he'll just accuse me of killing Canada geese. But the fact remains, CharonY, that BC is already serviced by a TransCanada pipeline. The consultation criteria for the EXPANSION of that pipeline were not met, and it was halted by the Supreme Court of Canada. Rangerx can stomp his feet all he wants, but if the Government decides to to its due diligence with consultations, the Supreme Court will approve it. The alternative is to buy foreign oil. And the fact that Rangerx thinks BC does neither, means he believes in magic. I didn't make this a Harper vs Trudeau contest. Rangerx did. And I've never claimed S Harper was a likeable person; he is rather stand-offish with the press, and other groups. I claimed he was a smart and sensible economist ( compare how Canada did following the 2008 collapse to the US and other countries ), and I claimed he had more international clout. Do you have an argument with that ?

Recently visited my aunt in Zurich, prior to my Italian vacation, and went into a little café by the Zurich Polytechnic. I was told that this café was frequented by A Einstein during breaks. I forget the name of the café, but maybe Eise can confirm ?

I didn't ask where BC DOESN'T get its oil from, Rangerx. I asked where DOES it get it from. And the fact that you won't answer speaks volumes. Stubborn ( and convinced you're always right ) authoritarianism. Shifting the conversation away and twisting it into something it's not. Fixed your statement so that it applies to you. And just so the rest of the membership knows which of us is actually hiding facts... "The Trans Mountain Pipeline delivers crude oil and refined petroleum products from Edmonton, Alberta to Kamloops, Burnaby, and the U.S. Trans Mountain has a current system capacity of 300 Mb/d." from https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/bc-eng.html It is the expansion to the pipeline that has hit a snag. Also, if anyone s interested, BC is the biggest supplier of goods and services to the Alberta "Tar Sands" oil reserves https://www.capp.ca/media/news-releases/british-columbia-top-supplier-to-oil-sands Sounds like BC wants all the benefits, but doesn't want to dirty its own hands.

Again... "Wouldn't these properties of the 'void' be measurable, and provide some observational evidence ?"

You still haven't explained where BC gets its oil from...

This 'distinction', where you see particles with classical trajectories not really moving, but their properties translating due to the interactions of a multitude of intermediate particles already present in the 'void', would require an extremely large particle density, and an equally large void energy. Wouldn't these properties of the 'void' be measurable, and provide some observational evidence ?

THIS was the original post by me... "THAT's what you don't like about J Trudeau, Rangerx ? The pipelines which would avoid buying from the Middle East ? Not the fact that he tries to influence the justice system to benefit those who donate to the Liberal party ? Not the fact that he shuts down inquiries into his abuses of power ? Not the fact that he promised Proportional Representation until he won a majority ? Not the bungled Air Force jet acquisition ( which we are part of the program due to a previous Liberal government ) but, to save face he is stalling until after his mandate, at which point, the same jet will be bought ? Not the fact that he champions women's rights, yet he groped a woman 18 yrs ago, and claims his recollection is different from hers ? Need I go on ? I'm no fan of A Sheer, the NDP are now trailing the Greens in public support, and J Trudeau may well get re-elected. But the 'knuckle dragger' S Harper had way more sense, international clout and intelligence than our current 'drama teacher' ( and father's coat-tail riding ) Prime Minister." After which you went on a rant about S Harper, and claimed he sold SNC-Lavelin to the Saudis. Totally unrelated 'whataboutism', intended to obfuscate.

"That's how you conservatives do things. By gaslight and bullshit." And still you don't address any of the points I've made. Just resort to labeling and name-calling. Throw a childish temper tantrum, why don't you.

I would think Mordred is trying to impress upon you the amount of mathematics involved in just the 'set-up' for any viable theory. Never mind the actual theory itself. A 'theory' is not something whipped up in a couple of paragraphs of written words.

And yet, none of what you posted makes the statement "Harper sold SNC-Lavelin to the Saudis" true, Rangerx. Meanwhile J Trudeau wants to defer their prosecution on the bribery scandal, and threw a native, woman Attorney General under the bus, all to spare a generous Liberal donor and protect seats in Quebec. Where does BC get their oil from, if it doesn't come by tanker or the unbuilt pipeline ? Does it magically appear in your storage tanks ? You know damn well, if it doesn't come from within Canada, it comes from the middle east. And I can write a list, just as long about J Trudeau's 4 yrs in office as you did about S Harper's nearly 10 yrs. Yet only S Harper is accused of being a 'Boogey Man" and evil incarnate. Bit of a double standard wouldn't you say ? ( actually YOU probably would not )

So, you can't control your impulses and you want the government to do it for you ?

"How about SNC Lavalin...oops Harper sold that to the Saudi's. right?" That's news to... just about everyone ! When did this happen ? How about making up some more stuff to slander S Harper ?

So, tankers at your ports are OK, along with the spills they may cause, but a pipeline regulated by Canadian laws is too risky ? And I don't recall mentioning O Khadr. Why not address the points I DID make ?

THAT's what you don't like about J Trudeau, Rangerx ? The pipelines which would avoid buying from the Middle East ? Not the fact that he tries to influence the justice system to benefit those who donate to the Liberal party ? Not the fact that he shuts down inquiries into his abuses of power ? Not the fact that he promised Proportional Representation until he won a majority ? Not the bungled Air Force jet acquisition ( which we are part of the program due to a previous Liberal government ) but, to save face he is stalling until after his mandate, at which point, the same jet will be bought ? Not the fact that he champions women's rights, yet he groped a woman 18 yrs ago, and claims his recollection is different from hers ? Need I go on ? I'm no fan of A Sheer, the NDP are now trailing the Greens in public support, and J Trudeau may well get re-elected. But the 'knuckle dragger' S Harper had way more sense, international clout and intelligence than our current 'drama teacher' ( and father's coat-tail riding ) Prime Minister. PS Its about time we discussed some Canadian politics. I'm getting tired of talking Trump.

JC and I shouldn't comment any further... Canada is technically at war with Denmark over Hans Island, which straddles the boundaries between Greenland and Canada. Hostilities are on-going. The Danes plant their flag on the island, and leave a bottle of Shnapps. The Canadians plant our flag and leave a bottle of Canadian Club ( rye whiskey ). No casualties yet.

Greenland has been moving towards independence . And both Russia and China have increased their Arctic 'presence'. This may just be a way to check their moves in the area. I wonder... If D Trump does buy Greenland, will the Danes pay for it ? ( like Mexico and the wall )

I assume you mean Bekenstein bound or limit, Mordred. Jacob Bekenstein, of Bekenstein-Hawking Black Hole entropy fame.

String theory is an attempt at modelling our reality as per the scientific method, and is subject to all the constraints of said method. In simulation, however, our reality IS the model in someone else's reality. IOW you could call simulation a theory in that other reality, but not in ours. We ( and our reality ) would simply be the model. IE not the same thing at all.