🚀 go-pugleaf

Sarfatti writes:
>No Ramsay your comment is dead wrong in what follows as I show below.

OK, Sarfatti, a fair cop. I was in error. Post in haste, repent at
leisure. I usually spend a much longer time writing posts, and check
them more carefully. I thought that this time I could save time by
cutting straight to the point, and I slipped up.

I would feel a bit more contrite about this if I thought you generally
used equal care in producing your postings and replies. You agreed
before that your previous "FTL in standard QM" derivations had been in
error. They were in fact-- ALL of them. But it took *weeks* for us to
get you to admit to the possibility. In the meantime, you often
concluded, based on your errors, that criticisms were obviously
incorrect. This was arrogant and emotionally biased, the thing which
you criticize me for.

In article <Bz7Mn7.Exw@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us 
(Jack Sarfatti) writes: 
>OK the real reason why the interference terms must vanish when summed over
>all places where transmitter photon can be absorbed is conservation of
>energy.

I did tell you this before, pointing out the analogy with classical
electromagnetism (although I don't know if I would call it "the" real
reason, but rather "a" real reason). I am relieved you see it now.

Keith Ramsay
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca