virus: The Fall of Buddhism {W2: LONG}

Wright, James 7929 (
Sat, 15 Mar 97 23:37:00 EST

Corey A. Cook[] wrote:
>1) Particles can be split by prisms. Take a bucket of sand and
>pebbles. Throw it at a body of water at an angle to the surface of the
>water. The particles with the greater mass will have a lower x value
>than those with a smaller mass. (Where x is distance traveled from the
>original position.) This is essentially the same way that a prism can
>spread a light beam.

"Essentially" the same way? A macroscopic phenomena involving sand,
pebbles and water is essentially the same way that a prism splits a light
beam? Corey, I can't follow what you are proposing here; the refraction
of light radiation through a solid glass prism is related to the mass
separation of various size particulates by surface
tension/viscosity/momentum using a liquid medium? Please post your
source; I'm worried that you may have misunderstood something here.
Perhaps I have; it appears that one of us has.

>2) Light has properties of a wave and a particle. This doesn't mean
>that light is both a wave and a particle. This means that light is a
>wave-particle. (A thingy with properties of a wave and a particle.)

You have used the same argument that David has; because you cannot
conceive that it could be both wave and particle, there has to be some
other explanation involving both that no one has described yet. (Please,
if this is NOT what you meant, say it again, differently, and I will try
to follow it better). I would contend that your dualistic mind-set
requires this leap of faith, not the universe.

>3) So does matter. A good example of this is the mass laser, recently
>constructed in the US. (Perdue, I think.)

Please post details of this information. It must be a breakthrough
indeed, to create "coherent emission of matter"!

>4) Light does have discrete packets. They're called photons.

I am aware of photons. How do they bend around apertures? (Double-slit

>I don't have the subject matter on hand to give references, but I'll go
>find it and be back in a few days.


> You two might want to check on how the world actually works before
making your claims.

But Corey, I am neither atomic physicist nor politician, so how can "I"
make any claims? (Since "I" do not really exist, how can "I" make any
claims at all? <VBG!>)

Seriously, your last sentence is neither needed nor accurate; until you
post your sources and allow a few days for review, I must contend you
have just made several ASSERTIONS, and will agree with you only when I
see what you have researched. Yours in civil discussion,
James Wright

>* The One Universal Truth: *
>* Sometimes, you're wrong. *

I can agree with this.