From: "@adelphia.com   
      
   David,   
   It looks as though one, perhaps all, of the following are taking place here.   
   You don't really understand modern science, aka quantum physics, but can   
   search the Internet for cool factoids and then pass them off as your own.   
   and/or   
   You read some cool pop culture physics books and think you understand   
   how the world works.   
   and/or   
   You know a little math, perhaps you are an Engineer of Chemist.  When I   
   said your view of the world was antiquated high school science, You   
   asked when I thought you had graduated high school, I think you may   
   still be in it.  Sad to say the classical view of the universe is still   
   taught today.  It is an easy to understand and a very comfortable view   
   of the world.  No need to think about the difficult issues brought up by   
   modern science.   
   and/or   
   you like feeling superior and holier then thou when you deride people on   
   this news group.   
      
   Sorry to burst your little bubble David, well no not really. I do take   
   offense at your attitude and the misunderstanding of the most basic   
   physics facts.  You said that light exists until the photon hits   
   something and is absorbed.  What photon?  I thought you said you   
   understood the duality of light.  Obviously you don't.  No David I'm not   
   going to explain it to you it is THE most basic and fundamental and   
   SIMPLEST concept of Quantum.  If you don't get it you don't get it.   
      
   How did the photon cross the prism????  ROFLMAO   
      
   You deride and belittle others for believing in a God that has no proof   
   and say you believe in science which has proof.  I give you proof and   
   either you don't understand it or you run from it trying to move the   
   argument into shallow water so you can form an argument you can debate.   
      
   If you fail to believe in the proof of your science then you have no   
   business claiming superiority of belief.  You cant have it both ways.   
   You can not say I am  correct because I believe in the proof of science   
   and yet fail to accept the very proof science offers.  I don't believe   
   in that....well ether you do accept science or you don't. You can not   
   pick and choose facts from a menu like you were at a Chinese restaurant   
   and still maintain credibility.   
      
   Try to focus on the argument and no go off somewhere else.   
   The universe is not objective.   
   I offer the following "proof"   
   As I said.   
      
   Bells theory proved that any deterministic theory which preserved   
   "locality" would have certain consequences for measurements preformed at   
   a distance from one another.  Thus the correlation between the sets of   
   events is much stronger then any "local" deterministic theory could   
   allow.  Whats more, this stronger correlation is PRECISELY that which is   
   predicted by quantum physics.   
      
   I know of no threat to Bell's work.   
   Therefor   
      
   You can not have the comfortable Newtonian world where everything that   
   happens is predictable and where one measurement site could not affect   
   another set of measurements being preformed light years away, at a   
   distance that a light-signal could not bridge.   
      
   Let me place this in simpler terms .......   
      
   In order to have an objective universe you must preserve "locality".   
   What locality means is that what you observe must remain separate and   
   distinct from what I observe far far away.  So far away that a beam of   
   light would take time to reach my observation point.  So it has been   
   proved, quite often because of the consequences thereof, that your   
   observation affects my observation at a distance.   
      
      
   So no objective universe exists.  You can look up the proof on Goggle if   
   you want. I have no interest of arguing basic facts that are quite well   
   documented and argued over many many years ago.  You come up with an   
   argument that is pertinent and that is your own I will debate otherwise   
   I have little interest.   
      
   Your views are sixty years out of date.   
      
   BTW I failed to mention that I took Quantum in Collage and was friends   
   with a particle physicist.  It was very difficult to get him to make any   
   statement about the universe.   
   So a electron is a standing wave?   
   Well that is one way to describe it.   
   How do you describe an electron?   
   That depends on what I'm trying to do at the time.   
   How many ways can an electron be described?   
   Quite a few.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)