Molina Martinez patent

[MinEth3r]

Ah hahaha I just might get convinced, no, seriously... what an awesome reply, Let's delete that last post.
Indeed I know physics enough not to condone BS. And there's so much BS out there it's staggering.

[martinzurix]

sound is waves in medium .. photons is medium it self  (waves of medium)



.............
-------------
\\--\\--\\---
-------------
.............


............
............
--..--..--..
............
............

. vacumm
- medium
\\ medium waves

[HopeForHumanity]

The interesting subject of quantum tunneling is a good way to show what happens when energy has a particle-wave duality. Such as when a packet is able to pass through a boundary with a higher energy requirement. Waves would not be able to do this alone.

[MinEth3r]

About the couple last posts:
    guys, just take a look at this succint, to the point one-page summary of the crux of the matter:
     http://www.unquantum.net/thephysicsparadox/insidecover.pdf
Eric's work is solid, there's really something that didn't add up about quantum science until his work came out.
Taking this and many other facts into account, we're in need of a complete overhaul of basic science books.
Wave-particle duality is a fallacy.

[retroworm]

Perhaps I should emphasize this: the theory of relativity, not the law of relativity. Make a distinction between the two statements. A theory is an unproven or unprovable statement which does not necessarily work in all applications, a law has been demonstrated to apply with continuance in consistency.

There's no real difference between law and theory. Law is really a legacy term for a theory that explains fairly narrow field of physics. Theory in common spoken language is an unproven or unprovable statement (and is called hypothesis in scientific terms), but theory in physics is an established explanation for set of phenomena. They explain observed facts and make testable predictions, it has to be demonstrated to apply with continuance and consistency to be called a scientific theory. If your theory doesn't work in all applications, there's just something wrong with it and it needs to be adjusted. No current theory will ever be promoted into a law.

Sorry for nitpicking, but you sounded like those creationist nuts I like to argue with, had to jump on this  .

There's a bit of a grey area in cosmology/astrophysics/particle physics where they use the word theory a bit too generously to my liking. A lot of that stuff is really hard to test so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they got a lot of things wrong.