First : civil war. 2nd : civil war. 3rd : civil war... The pseudo "DrRocket"

[Jacques]

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Gravity

... by M B  van der Mark and G W ’t Hooft.

...
Crank

Reasoning by insults...


Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:59 pm    Post subject:

See Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy-Content? ...

Crank

...
You are a delusional nut job pretending to be sane.  No education in and no knowledge of real physics.  Just a self-published book of nonsense and a television appearance on a British conspiracy show. Crank.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Compton effect: Schrödinger's treatment

Interesting, regel...

...
Crank

Added to your record.


Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:15 pm    Post subject: Re: If I was wrong on that matter,

Can reasoning by insults replace scientific methods ?

...
...a troll.

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Breaching the trust of the students

... B.L. Van der Waerden in its "Sources of Quantum Mechanics" (1967 North-Holland, 1968 Dover).

...
...Crank.

...

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Breaching the trust of the students

A far more convenient method, to bend the History to your needs, is to use the Memory Hole, as used by  B.L. Van der Waerden in its "Sources of Quantum Mechanics" (1967 North-Holland, 1968 Dover).

The only one pushing distortions  here is you. Crank

Added to your record.


Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:48 pm    Post subject:

...

Please ignore Lavau. He is a troll with a (warped) personal agenda.

Are reasoning by insults and harassing the others, scientific methods ?

[Jacques]

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:05 pm    Post subject: The formalism is correct, though more obscure than necessary

Try the copy here: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf

Not better anyway.

But you are in a blind alley, there.
Any pretty picture MUST retrieve the same predictions, or even better predictions, than the actual formalism, using Pauli matrices, and Dirac matrices for instance.

The formalism is correct, though more obscure than necessary.
The semantics wraping it, is rubbish.

The formalism is strictly undulatory, and strictly determinist.

Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 12:14 am    Post subject: Re: Please return to the subject : waves of fermions.

.What we have here folks is a psychologist masquerading as a scientist, with an agenda of some imagined slight of de Broglie, and probably Dabid Bohm as well, regarding interpretations of quantum mechanics.

..underneath it all is the distasteful and counter-productive agenda which he has here clearly revealed.

deBroglie-Bohm theory is one interpretation of QM.  It is not "wrong".  But neither is it the only valid interpretation. It is not suppressed.  It is just not widely adopted, though it is widely known.   Real physics is not dogmatic, despite what Lavau imagines.

There are classes and legitimate internet sites available to those who are interested.  Nothing is being suppressed.

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Scientific/Courses/Introduction_to_the_de_Broglie-Bohm_Theory/

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Please return to the subject : waves of fermions.

... and probably Dabid Bohm as well...

Please do not hesitate to prove your statement.

There is nothing to prove.  The subject theory is widely known as the de Broglie-Bohm theory.

You have been outed and debunked.  End of discussion.

Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Please return to the subject : waves of fermions.

Now we have all the written proves that I was discussing with a mad.

For those who are not, nothing is more simple than to search the word "Bohm" on the site :
http://deonto-ethics.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&search=Bohm&go=Lire
The search finds five occurrences :
Four are in the expression "Aharanov-Bohm experiment" : "Dans une expérience type Aharonov-Bohm, où un électron interfère si ...".
And the fifth is under the signature of Didier Lauwaert, where he admits that David Bohm was a corpuscularist. It was in a discussion in August 2007, on the Usenet group fr.sci.physique.

This accuser is a delirious paranoic. He had rather to consult a specialist, in his town.

Psychologist, heal thyself.

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Scientific/Courses/Introduction_to_the_de_Broglie-Bohm_Theory/

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:52 am    Post subject: Re: Thank you for the perfidy...

de Broglie-Bohm theory is a perfectly respectable, albeit minority, interepretation of quantum mechanics.  Your "conspiracy" is pure fiction.

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 4:42 am    Post subject: Re: Breaching the trust of the students

You attempt to impose paradigms of classical behavior on the quantum world.

[Jacques]

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:17 pm    Post subject:

Rubbish.

This is just nuts.


Ignore Lavau's comments.  He doesn't know what he is talking about.

Where ?
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=31379

[Jacques]

Disparu, "thescienceforum.com", où l'on raisonnait par insultes, et je ne le regretterai pas.