for the sake of, y'know, I would like to propose a new term for the concept of diameter, the obvious one of "a biperpendicular," which would extend to mappings of "lines to lines or circles, and vise-versa" and so forth; thanks.
thus: it is really no different from a breakwater with two breaks in it, giving you the "classical two-pinhole experiment of Young, but relegated to a plane (sik; it's spherical, of course)."
the other thing, beside of the atoms of water (or "free space") is the (atoms of the) edges of the slit/breakwater, known by "diffraction" effects.
> What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.
thus: there is no way to detect antimatter "by visual inspection;" so, meet your doppelganger at the event horizon.
> I love it! With ZERO astrophysical training you dismiss
thus: two-column proofs are simply shown, once in the textbook of projective geometry, after which you just "know" about the other proof, that you did not have to do, any more ... unless, you *want* to replace "lines" by "points" and vise-versa.
as for combustion, I use the eupemism of "423 -- they forgot the three biggest constituents of plant-smoke!..." I think it is also meant to be a "safe time, after which it is allright to smoke, or before which."
> forcing by the continued addition of CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere, > increased risk of ozone loss and associated increases in ultraviolet > > every quantum of CO2 "forcing" is accompanied > > by almost the same quantum (molarity) of water, > > already vaporized by creating it in combustion.
> > easy explanations, of why it is that > > FTL is akin to "travel" in time (that is to say, > > "travel in a single graphical 'dimension of time, > > just because I can draw *it* on a piece of paper, > > a la phase-spaces...." > > > but, all you really have to do, is get rid of a) > > newton's screw-up theory of light corpuscles, and b) > > the lightconeheads. > > > "the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave," > > only in a remotely realistic sense for the photoelectrical effect, > > which certainly does not have to be > > interpreted solely as a wave-effect, > > viz the "tuning" of the detector. however, > > one should not try to mix the two representations, unless > > you want to get totally bogged in an ersatz problem > > of mathematical duality, or "two-column proof."
thus: the instantiety is just as relavent to "non-relativistic," since the internal angular momenta are relativistic, that is to say, in atoms ... no matter what, goofy QM fundament one might abuse.... such as, spacetime is fundamentally a phase-space, nothing more than that & almost always used to obfuscate.... now, get off of my God-am hamster-wheel!
> invariant, directly related to the object's 4-acceleration,