Re: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal

Joe Fischer wrote:
> On 12 Dec "David Thomson" <google@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >There is a .doc format at:
> >www.16pi2.com/files/A_New_Foundation_of_Physics.doc
> >
> >If the link doesn't work, remove the underscores in the filename.
>
> Right, I knew that

> >> In think it would be a favor to you if I don't comment,
> >> I am extremely predjudiced toward a particular physical model.
> >
> >That doesn't matter, I am not. I don't let the prejudices of others
> >get in the way from speaking my mind and staying focused on the topic.
>
> What I meant was, I can't be both honest and kind.

All you really mean is that you can't or don't want to do the simple
algebra to prove the theory wrong. Either that, or you already did it
and cannot prove the theory wrong. After several years of my work
being available to these newsgroups, it seems unlikely that at least a
few of the more savvy members haven't already gone over the theory with
a fine toothed comb. Not being able to find anything wrong with the
math or the data it was derived from, they have no ammunition for
discrediting the theory except snide remarks. Regardless of whether
you have or have not read the theory, you clearly choose to join the
group, which doles out snide remarks instead of address the theory.

Your lame excuse of not being able to be kind is hard to swallow.

> My definition of "speaking in tongue" where physics
> is concerned is "putting words that are not related in the
> same sentence, and those words should not even be on
> the same page".

That is a good philosophy. Can you point to a specific example?

> > I would love to bury this idea if it is no good.
>
> If you have to completely rewrite physics, it _is_
> no good.

The corollary is that if the physics you promote are good, they would
not have to be completely rewritten. Unfortunately, your physics are
not good in the sense of providing a single, unified physics.

As for my theory, it does not completely rewrite physics. It rewrites
certain parts, such as the nonsensical wave/particle duality theory,
probability functions theory, and force particle theory. It does this
by presenting a solid, Newtonian style structure of the quantum realm,
based entirely upon actual quantum measurements and established
constants.

> From what little I saw, you propose changing
> everything, even down to basic units and measurements.

You apparently saw very little, as you suspected. Just as you
presently have three major systems of units, I have produced a fourth
system of units based upon quantum measurements. I did this without
changing the measurements themselves. The measurements used for this
new system of units are actual quantum measurements provided by NIST.

> Fine, but in my opinion, it is an error to even think
> that there is any field or force other than what is well
> studied in physics and chemistry.

If that is your criteria, you should be satisfied with my theory. That
is exactly what my theory is based upon, the known forces.

> The idea of an aether is the problem, if you were
> to use the word "empirical" in your book, it would almost
> certainly be a falsehood in my opinion.

Fortunately, your opinions do not matter. The data are what the data
are, and the math is what the math is. If it works, it must be true.

> There are a million physicists that would give anything
> to be able to make a major discovery.
> But they would need experimental results that would
> support their contentions.

Those physicists who take the time to study the APM, particularly in
the beginning, will have plenty of opportunities to make major
discoveries. I have already made dozens, and I have a rudimentary
understanding of physics.

> >> >I have completely quantified the Aether as a fabric of quantum rotating
> >> >magnetic fields, which fully explains exactly what electric and
> >> >magnetic fields are.
>
> That is what I mean by words that are not related.

I see your words, but I don't understand your complaint. The math
clearly shows that the Aether is a quantum unit of rotating magnetic
field. The quantum rotating magnetic field is shown to have sub
properties of magnetic and electric fields. This is easy to understand
and born out through the simple mathematics. Since I have presented
the math and even extended the math to its geometrical equivalent, all
that is necessary on your part is the willingness to understand it.

> >When I look at the communications skills of
> >the so-called professionals and experts on these newsgroups, I actually
> >feel quite good about myself.
>
> What do you mean, there are only a couple of regulars here that even have a BS.

Are you admitting that the opinions of the so-called experts are
meaningless?

> The rest are BS, including me.

Many of my conversations on these newsgroups have been with nuclear and
lab engineers. I don't doubt that you may only have a BS, but some of
these guys have flashed their credentials a few times over the years.
But in the end, what does a degree mean? It's the math and the data
that determines the science, not the credentials of the person
presenting it.

> >Yes, orthogonal means from a different direction, but the direction
> >need not be limited to just the length dimensions. Imagine a stop sign
> >has being strictly two dimensional. The surface of the sign has
> >dimensions of length squared, but if you turn the sign 90 degrees, the
> >same sign appears to have a single dimension of length and appears as a
> >line. The orthogonality of charge and mass works in the same way.
>
> More words that don't fit in the same sentence?

If you can't understand orthogonality, that is a limitation of your own
intellect.

> Sorry, I am not even going to load MS Word to look at
> your papers, and Wordpad would not load any of them.

What kind of educated person doesn't have access to a Microsoft
document reader?
http://www.winfield.demon.nl/

> >It is a different concept in content, but similar in form. You do see
> >a relationship between the strong force and gravity, and that
> >relationship is quantified in the Aether Physics Model.
>
> I really haven't studied it that close, it may be the
> weak or em, or even van de Waals.
> But I don't believe in any forces or fields other than
> what is in mainstream physics with gravity omitted.

The strong force and gravity are both mainstream physics.

> There are no forces acting at a distance, that is
> the essence of General Relativity.

That is a philosophy. Unfortunately, physics is not a philosophy, it
is a science. If the math, particularly when it is dimensionally
based, shows that forces act from between similar dimensions of mass
and charge, then that is what happens. No amount of wishing can change
that fact.

Notice that I quantify the Aether as quantum units of rotating magnetic
field? Notice that I show the origins of these quantum rotating
magnetic fields? If the Aether is a fabric of quantum rotating
magnetic fields, as it is easily quantified to be, then there is a
scientific basis for what appears to us humans as force at a distance.
The Aether is not the static space-time of chalkboard coordinate
systems, it is a real and dynamic foundation of physical reality.

> I think the field ideas have diminished, and
> now it is geometry with no force acting for gravity
> unless there is contact.

You make it sound like physics is entirely a mental exercise devoid of
real existence. The laws of physics are discovered, not invented. We
must follow the data and the equations to find the truth, not pick and
choose philosophies.

> I have a different view of this than formally
> educated people because I devised my own Principle
> of Equivalence of surface gravity and acceleration
> years before I ever heard GR was a gravity theory.

Good, another open-minded thinker looking to nature, rather than
textbooks, for the correct explanation of physics. I admire that.

> >> But geometry can likely only be a continuous entity.
> >
> > At the quantum level, this is true.
>
> At the level is where everything is, there are no
> extend fields except the electromagnetic spectrum,
> and it is not a force spectrum, it is a heat energy
> spectrum.

Heat is nothing more than distributed velocity between objects. In
other words, heat is the distance and rate of vibration between
objects. The objects, ultimately, are protons and electrons. In order
for protons and electrons to experience heat, they must have a discrete
geometry, which sets the boundaries between them and determines their
physical behavior. The protons and electrons are precisely quantified
as continuous geometrical structures within a discrete but flexible
Aether unit. They are continuous in the sense that as toroids and
spheres, they have no sharp boundaries other than their surfaces. That
continuous geometry ceases to exist outside of each quantum proton and
electron. Due to the quantum structure of the Aether, the distance
between each subatomic particle is governed by a quantum distance,
which is then discrete and not continuous.

> Maybe Ken Seto would be a better person to discuss
> this with, I don't know what a quantum state is.

A quantum state refers to a quantum property of an object.
http://www.answers.com/topic/quantum-state

> I can do simple algebra, but I have never done anything
> where I needed it or where it was useful.

Where is the logic in your statement? Either you know algebra or you
don't. The theory I presented is an instance when you need to use
algebra to prove the theory right or wrong. You can't prove the theory
wrong by using ignorance.

> Sorry, I will not be able to, blame it on a complete
> lack of interest in any theory where entities other than
> physical objects can be observed and measured.

This theory is based upon empirical data. How can you say it does not
apply to physical objects that can be observed and measured?

> >Not true. Gravity is due to spin direction of the subatomic particles
> >within the Aether unit. Just as mass is orthogonal to charge, gravity
> >is orthogonal to electromagnetism, which is why gravity is such a weak
> >force. We will learn a lot about gravity by examining this quality of
> >the Aether and understanding the mechanics.
>
> Gravity squeezes energy out of matter in stars,

You just said you don't believe in anything other than physical objects
that can be measured. Correct me if I am wrong, but you nor anybody
else has ever measured an object of gravity or energy. Gravity is a
real force, energy is merely the unit of work. You can't bottle
gravity or a unit of work.

> gravity and inertia are essentially two aspects of the
> same attribute of matter,

Attributes of matter include length, frequency, mass, charge, and
curvature. Not among the attributes of matter are gravity. Mass *is*
the measurement of inertia, so it goes without saying that inertia is a
property of matter.

Even if you could quantify gravity as an attribute of matter, you would
still have to explain how gravity interacts with other matter at a
distance. Inventing non-existent and non-observed particles such as
gravitons would go against your principle of acknowledging only those
physical things that are measurable.

> without external forces or
> fields, why would a medium be needed,

The medium is where the force originates.

> there are no forces without contact, that is mechanics

Then how do you explain objects that fall from the sky before they
contact the Earth? How do you explain magnets that pull toward each
other before they contact? How do you explain magnets that repel each
other and never contact? You are ignoring the facts of nature in order
to create a non-existent fantasy.

> Math is precise if applied properly, else it can
> give any results wanted.

Math without dimensions can give any result wanted, but math with
dimensions can only give a specific result. If you divide velocity by
length you get frequency and nothing else. That is why I only use
dimensional math in my work. Like you, I don't accept anything that
cannot be derived from physical measurements.

> >It would have to in order to be the proper explanation for how the
> >Universe works, wouldn't it?
>
> No, most of current accepted theory is just fine,

LOL. You are a riot.

> >You are correct in that a tremendous amount of effort has been
> >expended in keeping the Aether out of physics by the Relativists.
>
> Nonsense, the smallest success in any experiment
> would allow any supported premise to be big news.

Obviously you are wrong. My experiment showing that there are two
distinct manifestations of charge resulted in mathematical structure of
the Aether, subatomic particles and the force laws. You won't even
take the time to read it. Your small minded comments have absolutely
no substance.

> >You are a prime example of the fruits of their efforts. You are
> >a part of their system and speak as though you cannot break
> >away from it or you will fail.
>
> Now you are hallucinating, even the physics hobbiest
> hobba calls me idiot, and Tom calls me insane, and you
> think I am a stalwart of current thought?

Your blind support of physics, which you have never questioned, is what
puts you in the category of being part of the system, not your
reputation among the eCowboys.

> >We should build into our system of science a
> >process where anybody can present a new idea, regardless of how
> >ridiculous it is, and have the full privilege of failing under a fair
> >and truly scientific review.
>
> Do the experiment, nothing else will help.

I have, and others have replicated it. There truly are two distinct
manifestations of charges.

> >The truth is, I have the experiment, the math, and the data. I have it
> >all.
>
> Do you have a video of the experiment, the specifications
> and the goal met, and is it repeatable? If so, you don't need
> me or anybody else.

Here is a photo taken by a physicist in South America, who replicated
the experiment.
http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq/tesla/2sparks1.jpg

Here is the actual experiment I did:
http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/images/chiron01twosparks.jpg

No, I haven't made a video. But you are right, I should put together a
formal presentation o the experiment.

> Convert the video to mpeg or wmv, and make it available
> to document your work.

Sorry, but I wouldn't take the time to make the file easily available
just for you. You asked me to produce the PDF file in a format you can
read, and then when I present the DOC format, you arrogantly said you
weren't going to try to read it.

> If that doesn't work, take up gardening as a hobby.

I have a beautiful organic garden.

> And all I am looking for is a mechanism for gravity,
> a mechanical one.

Unfortunately, nature wasn't designed for humans to determine how it
works. You have to follow the data and equations and accept the
simplest explanation of what is revealed.

Dave

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dayton Millers Data have no Real Signal
    ... >> studied in physics and chemistry. ... and the math is what the math is. ... >clearly shows that the Aether is a quantum unit of rotating magnetic ... >> what is in mainstream physics with gravity omitted. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: On the Incompleteness of Relativization
    ... There is no such thing as quantum gravity and there never will be any ... No, the question of completeness is a question of logic, not physics; ... The question of Quantization is not a vague open issue as you've made ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Falwell and Osama are totally mistaken, God is not a person
    ... This is a review of the new information-theoretic Process Physics. ... The fundamental assumption is that reality is to be modelled as ... neural networks are foundational to known quantum field theories. ... nature of matter amounts to the discovery of quantum gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dayton Millers Data have no Real Signal
    ... known quantities and making sure the math follows the established ... I just got lucky to find a huge gaping hole in quantum physics theory ... >>The strong force and gravity are both mainstream physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: publishing problems (physics)
    ... but the papers had already passed through the preliminary ... "Classical and Quantum Gravity welcomes articles on experimental ... branches of gravitational physics and the theory of spacetime. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)