questionposter

I don't really think you have the capability to disprove that a particle can be a wave, but at least your making progress by admitting what most of quantum mechanics works with which is that they do have oscillation patterns. Besides I don't mind if they aren't actually a wave, I had originally adjusted my description to say that an electron is an oscillation in a matter field, which isn't that difficult of a concept.

Most if not all of your definitions for "particle" that you found on the internet do not exclude an electron from being a wave or being able to oscillate. Magnetic orientation and angular momentum and energy and etc. are used in quantum wave mechanics and quantum harmonic oscillators.

Then that means logically there is no real reason for malaria or mosquitoes to actually wiped out because the only reason it is suggested is because of emotions which do not have a direct logical correlation to actions or reality.

How is it logical then?

Never said I knew, but based on current evidence it's a likely scenario.

Well who's to say every single religious person is an orthodox Christian? Most Christians aren't complete church-goers, they usually have some of their own interpretations of god. I think someone who believes someone is broken for believing in something would be broken in the same way. It's not illogical to think there could be an invisible rabbit, but if your in a small area, you can just feel around. God has an entire universe and possibly infinite dimensions to possibly occupy. Because god is an axiom in mono-theistic religion.

How so?

Ok, so regardless of whatever circumstance, a photon has finite 3-dimensional coordinates it will occupy be most probable to be found it. Does that mean I can measure a photon as a radio wave even though it's highest probability only expanded over a few nanometers (which means it was emitted as a gamma-ray from the source).

Which still isn't wrong according to multiple variations of quantum mechanics

There's still logical reasons for it happening though. I can tell when my IQ is increased because I can consciously and sub-consciously process, perceive and keep track of much more information than in a previous state, but I can tell right now I cannot do that so well. It's actually pretty weird to remember being in a conscious state where I was able to think much more efficiently but not actually being able to do it when I remember it, because its almost like I'm tricking myself into thinking faster. It's usually after I've been doing a variety of out-of-the-box thinking and maybe specific actions followed by good sleep and some optimism. Alternatively, being tired lowers this, and so does getting angry.

There isn't really as much of a "man-made" distinction in the industry as there is an "organic" distinction. Even though all carrots are organic because they all contain Carbon, some carrots are considered non-organic because they are grown specifically with altered genes and sprayed with pesticides.

Sorry for the vague descriptions, it's all I really have. Essentially my friend watched a documentary that he didn't remember the name of, and someone who is considered a psuedo-scientist who claims to have done reverse engineering an alien spaceship parts said that aliens traveled faster than light with an element not far from ours in the periodic table which could distort the fabric of space time in a special way as to allow the passage between points faster than light. Mathematically however, this has been confirmed to be theoretically possible, but this was before the "warp drive" or when Star Trek become popular or before it was even invented really. There's also recordings in the past of the Ark causing what appears to be symptoms of rapid radiation poisoning, which normal uranium couldn't do. Instead, it is suspected it could have been a nuclear reactor. To me the actual chances of alien interference in the past are slim, but there seems to be some rational evidence to support it but also to support it isn't true.

But there's not really an "us" or "them" situation ever, that is the situation living things assume for themselves, it's not really logical, they only act on it because they assume it's the only logic possibility or do nothing to create another possibility. If ethics isn't logical, then why consider it? And why not just do research to create immunity to malaria anyway? Besides, the human race has wiped out plenty of species that weren't actually a threat to it in really any way, so logically I don't see how one would deserve to live without the other deserving to live or one deserving to die without the other deserving to die. Objectively I don't see why something should logically deserve treatment positively or negatively just because the human race happens to be the one effected.

There's many psychological elements, such as the environment religious people tend to grow up in, but it's still not "illogical" to believe in a god, since you can't prove it doesn't exist, and I'm sure there's plenty of things atheists believe in that seem illogical in the same sense as god, like thought matter. Really, no one can be completely logical, so it's just a matter of what you use your logical capabilities up on first.

Well the probability over all space is one only because of infinite summation properties, like I could say 1/x=0 when x=infinity, but otherwise your saying there are infact properties of localization that aren't "relative" or that stay constant? Basically, I'm asking in there's different frames of reference, if a photon would 3-dimension-ally be more or less probable to be detected by various frames of reference. Like would the 3 dimensional coordinates for it's most probable location differ depending on the frame of reference? I don't know if it would since it isn't measured yet, and relativity is all about how you measure things.

I think you need to read my posts more carefully. Besides, my very original post was that electrons wave, not that they are waves. Actually I didn't even state it waves, I just stated it has probability fields, then I stated it waves, and then to explain why it waves I said i has wave-particle duality which isn't exactly disproved.

I suppose there could be multiple interpretations, but looking at the story itself, the part of the body that was the a**hole got to be boss.

I already considered all of that before I even posted this topic, I'm looking for concise logic in ethical responses to lead to probable answers, not just personal opinions, and dictionary.com has this to say about it http://dictionary.re...owse/ethics?s=t It doesn't say you "have" to balance out anything. My argument is about the ethics of it, or logically how something could or couldn't deserve to be killed off. And so far I see no logical correlation between "your body happens to release some chemical that causes fear" or "signals are sent to your brain that tell you your body is being damaged" and "species x deserves to be eradicated".

By localization I mean how it's probability density spreads out according to it's wavelength, but since nothing is measuring it before it's measured, is it's wavelength before it's measured constant? If we "could" in a way measure it without it counting as a real measurement, would all frames of reference see the same 3 dimensional probability coordinates that are generated by wavelength and the uncertainty principal? Let's say an electron jumps up 2 orbitals then back down, logically it would emit only a specific frequency of a photon, but you don't know that frequency until you actually measure it, yet that measurement somehow has information as to how localized the photon is before measurement, like wavelength. See the confusion?

A pool of water can have ripples. Does that mean water is a wave but not water? Water can be waving and have wave-like properties, just like a particle can.

Are there any official reports on how much CO2 wind farms release and how much energy they consume?

Maybe he is socialist, so what? At a time like this the US may need more socialism to balance out the capitalism.

Technically "nothing" existed before the universe was created, but otherwise no, because the vacuum of space contains both the fabric of space-time, light, cosmic background radiation and virtual pair particles as well as normal virtual force carrier particles.

You keep stating "that" it is ethically wrong, but I don't actually see many reasons why? Why not? The human race as killed off plenty of other species.

Ok, is how localized a photon is relative?