sci.physics.particle

On Apr 8, 6:03=A0am, PD wrote:
> > > 2. You've discounted photons as particles.
>
> > Absolutely, positively! This is a major wrong turn in physics so far
> > as I can see. Of the experimental data showing the photon as a
> > particle, I find none of it convincing.
>
> That is perhaps due to your vast ignorance of experimental data.
> Things that have spin, momentum, energy, interaction strengths, and
> other quantum numbers are particles. They behave like particles in

Maybe the plasm=F2n is a mote, but still not the fot=F2n which does but
has not those stuffs.
http://google.com/groups?q=3Dactional+sistional

> everything from the photoelectric effect to Geiger counters to liquid
> argon sampling calorimeters to Cerenkov detectors. They cause
> radiation damage in the same way as alphas, betas, and neutrons.

http://google.com/groups?q=3DAutymn+Timo

You're fucken retarded; they never behave as motes. A fot=F2n is /a/
wave. /One/ (1) wave. Gamma waves don't cause the same radiation
wreckship as the others. First of all, onely gamma is the radiation;
alfas, betas, and neutr=F2ns are convection-ablation. Their radiation,
gamma or X, is secondary. And should fot=F2ns worken locally, it's
sakely the charge which snatchd them.

> I have. And what I'm suggesting to you is to find out what is missing
> in your list of ingredients that says why the strong force is called
> the strong force and why it is just not another flavor of the
> electromagnetic force. This work has been DONE.

Strong is not a forse; it's the residvum of the coloral forse.

> > meson, but there is no peak like it in the graph and matches with my
> > initial predictions prior to me finding this data.
these data

-Aut