In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 21 May 2006 07:27:19 -0700: Hi, [snip] >I take it from your past posts, Robin, that you also lean heavily >against Puthoff and ZPE...
No, I think that is a too negative representation. I'm looking for something that is both self consistent, and consistent with observed phenomena. I can't yet say that I have found it in anyone's theory (including my own). :( One of my main complaints about Hal's theory is, as I said to him years ago, that if the Universe is full of energetic photons up to 1E43 Hz, then why aren't at least half of all atoms constantly ionized? (Most of the energy resides in the high end photons, so the average is way higher than the energy required to ionize an atom). It's as though the "photons" don't act like normal photons. Which is what led me to ask him if they could be standing (stationary if you prefer) waves ( a la Beardon). He replied at the time that the equations would all be the same if they were. (Beardon talks about pairs of waves going in opposite directions, which IMO is the same thing as stationary waves). BTW Ross Tessien also seems to be into stationary waves (or was at one time anyway). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
