[MD] Quantum Physics

[Heather Perella]

     [Chin]
> I couldn’t speak for the professor, but I doubt qp
> is understood 
> satisfactorily by anyone other than the physicists
> and possibly many 
> or even a majority of professors who might accept
> quantum mechanics as 
> all there is to quantum physics.

     Your perspective seems to be 'what is dq and what
is sq' is based on if society has accepted it or not. 
So, would a society of qp professors notice qp as a
static pattern, maybe some it, or not a lot of it. 
Thus, does dq come down to who knows it and who
doesn't, therefore, perspective of a person states
whether 'something' is dq or not?  

     [Chin]
> If it were accepted by society, then it becomes SQ. 


     Here's the society perspective you mention.

     [Chin] 
> ...I feel I can safely say that which offers the
> potential to change the 
> way society looks at things, as you say
> “Perspective,” would be DQ.

     Your basing what dq is or not, on what societies
perspective is?

     [Chin]
> Under this view, Ham’s Essence would be considered
> DQ. It doesn’t do 
> anything for me, but obviously it has become an
> immortal principle to 
> him. Who’s to say who’s right? I personally like the
> Gravity Theory, 
> possibly due to my ignorance, or “Tenth Grade”
> mentality.


      So, your saying it has to do with 'preference',
as in "I personally like..."?


     [Chin]
> MOQ is still DQ.  Either one would still be
considered DQ, as you
> say, it has not 
> managed a SQ latch, or society as we know it has not
> accepted either 
> as fact or the latest theory. 

     Society perspective?  I'm not quite sure about
this basis for what dq is or not.  I just simply say
dq has no definition, and leave it at that.  I'm not
going to state whether something is more new or less
new and base that decision on whether 'something' has
more or less dq or any dq, etc...


     [Chin]
> I think you are saying our own personal SQ can
> override the society or 
> culture we happen to be in, and what might look like
> DQ when 
> considering the culture would be SQ to us. I agree. 

     What I'm saying if we follow the 'what is more or
less new' path, then yes it would lead to such
conclusions you've just stated here.  Yet, I simple
state dq is undefined, and leave it at that, not:
'what is more or less new'.  That is defining, that is
sq.

     [Chin]
> Maybe I am too simple, but I don’t have any
> difficulties (in my own 
> mind) understanding MOQ or quantum physics, or at
> least what it says 
> to me. So it might be said MOQ and qp are sq in my
> own personal little 
> world. 

     I don't want to veer you away from your true
self.

woods,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com