usenet weirdness

Re "hybrid bonds",

Modern democracy doesn't have a lot in common with Greek democracy, mainly because we have much bigger political units than the Greeks did.

The enshrinement of individual and property rights is basic, but you also need a mechanism by which each individual can have some influence on the way they are governed.

First past the post elections in single member electorates leads to a two party system and majority government. That's what I grew up with in Australia, and lived under for 22 years in England. I then moved to the Netherlands for 19 years, where they have multi-member electorates with proportional representation, four or five political parties and coalition governments.

In Australia and the UK, the political reporting is all about factions within the two major parties, and the serious decisions get made within the party in power by horse-trading between the factions, behind closed doors. In the Netherlands the serious decisions get made by house-trading between coalition partners, but it happens in public.

A minority party that backs the wrong horse can get wiped out at the next election.

Quantisation is very specific. It's integral numbers versus natural numbers. It shows up in lots of different ways. Electric charge is quantised. Chemical elements are quantised into discrete atoms. Electromagnetic waves are quantised into discrete photons.

You present as a mathematician. You should have been able to comprehend that.

The "resonant" circuits involved would almost certainly be designed to be critical damped. Transmission lines tend to be terminated at a least one end by a resistor that matches their characteristic impedance. You don't want them to ring down slowly. In critical situations you can terminate them at both ends. You lose half your signal but you kill off any ringing much faster.

The ignorance is all yours. Quantised effects are described by wave functions, but the amplitude of the wave function can only have discrete values

In your less-than-expert opinion.

Yes, those are among the usual associations of the topic "the quantum".

One might view a mathematics about "the quantum" as about "continua and individua", or often in physics (mechanics) "the bulk and particulate", about usual notions of the statistical ensemble, and the measurement/observer/sampling effects, yet quite thoroughly about "continuum mechanics", and particularly "the individuation of individua in continua, or conversely, the aggregation of individua to continua", or "about points vis-a-vis lines".

So, here there's considered an approach to "the measurement problem", as that's the current word in the field about whatever "quantum mechanics" fails to accommodate, that it's about measure, thoroughly enough, in "measure theory", in mathematics, vis-a-vis the measurement, observer, and sampling: "effects", the measurement effect and the observer effect and the sampling effect.

Here there's a very "realist" and "anti-reductionist" sort of account to be thorough to attain toward the complete, vis-a-vis "instrumentalism and operationalism of nominalist reductionism".

If "quantum mechanics is never wrong", it's not right until it's a continuum mechanics.

These days mathematics considers "the measure problem" about things like "quasi-invariant measure theory", the "pseudo-differential", and accounts of things like Fritz London's accounts of "the superfluid", with regards to things like for spectroscopy, "supercontinuum".

The P-31 nucleus has a spin of 1/2, so it can only align with the field, or align in the opposite direction. P-31 is the only stable isotope of phosphorus.

You do have some very strange ideas about Einstein and Planck.

Far from being afraid of Einstein, Planck became a close friend of his. They even made music together. So did Werner Heisenberg.

About models of nuclei, the "nucleon theory" or "old nuclear theory" isn't at all the same as "hadron theory", with regards to "nuclear theory", the "nucleonics".

The hadron theory is just an account for a "unification energy" about "the electrical reduction" after "the mechanical reduction" about "the severe abstraction the mechanical reduction" which arrives at statistical mechanics, basically claiming to get statistical mechanics from statistical mechanics. The "Higgs field" is _not_ a field, neither "classical" nor "potential", and the "Higgs boson" is _not_ a particle, rather a doublet. (I.e., as a spike, there's a deep well in the middle of it.)

A perfect conductor a metal has a lot in common with a giant atom.

When I saw a recent account of field theory with the usual idea of there being four fields, and somehow they'd jettisoned the nuclear theories the "weak" and "electroweak" for "Higgs", that's garbage.

Or, "D'Espagnat was the chair of a physics & philosophy department for thirty years" and "Sedov was the head of the Soviet space program for pretty much all of it".

Not to dispute the great success of quantum mechanics since Rayleigh-Jeans after the account for spectroscopy, ....

Just that it's not complete and playing like it is so is a charade of completeness.

But you do seem to get a lot of stuff wrong. Maybe you should put some effort into finding out actual facts, rather than guessing

If you wanted a better grasp of physics, you would need to get your brain washed. There may not be enough of it let you grasp Einstein-level physics, but sweeping out the rubbish that you post here might make room for something better.

Of course an objective observer would note that Einstin's physics is widely accepted, and that the nut cases that are incapable of getting their heads around it don't do well.

The might suspect the existence of a misinformation agent who would look very like you.

Few people share your opinion that Einstein's papers were garbage, and none of them has offered a better alternative.

An even more demented fantasy.

There are other opinions.

But that doesn't seem to have stopped them from being close friends. Their shared interest in music may have helped.

What I posted was less specific than " The cause is the dragging of the tidal bulges on Earth" but it's not wrong. You can't have tidal bulges without a tide.

It strikes me that it you who is digging yourself into a hole, and every time you post another specious claim, you are looking even more like a crank.

Quantum computers aren't any kind of charade. They don't yet offer enough q-bits to do anything useful, and there's currently a lot of work going on on adding error-detecting and correcting codes to make the q-bits we've got last long enough to do anything useful, but that's development, rather than a charade.

At some point they are either going to get big enough and reliable enough to become useful, or the people paying for the development are going to find a more promising field of investment.

Several of the more conventional projects I've worked on have hit that particular barrier - only about 30% of development projects succeed - but the process of getting to that point isn't any kind of charade.

Just any post of yours, or at least any in the subject of alleged "Euclidean geometry doesn't fit the reality".

Nobody, unfortunately, cares, and anyone can check GPS, serious clocks applied in serious measurement system keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

While your superclocks may be good enough for your childish game "let's explain Great Mystical Essence" - they can't be relied on in serious measurements, anyone can check GPS.

Maybe Sweden was better at the time or maybe not, don't know much about it. Can't guess other candidates of yours.

Which, unfotunately, is no way supporting your ignorant nonsense.

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by the idiot improper clocks keep measuring improper t'= t in improper seconds; somehow, brainwashed by The S*it morons screaming "IMPROPER!!! IMPROPER!!!!" can't prevent that.