Re: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal

On 15 Dec "David Thomson" <google@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> On 12 Dec "David Thomson" 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.

You are really being infantile, algebra proves nothing
and is incapable of proving or disproving anything but certain
algebraic functions.

> Either that, or you already did it
>and cannot prove the theory wrong.

What is there to disprove? While I did download
about 10 doc files from your site, they would not load in
wordpad, and I don't want MS word on my online computer,
it takes over the wordpad doc files.

>After several years of my work
>being available to these newsgroups,

I was here before this newsgroup formed, and the first
I saw of your recent effort is the link to the SA article you
posted on Dec. 2. That wasn't long ago, but it seems
like a long time in words, so I must not be having fun.

> 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.

Perhaps.

>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.

It is not couth to tell a woman she is ugly, even if......

>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.

Well, I was able to fix the Adobe reader by reinstalling
a copy of the setup I got a couple of months ago, it is sad
the whole world has to use the problematic systems using
shared DLLs.

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

MS probably says the same thing, I do not have an
excuse for not liking spending about 5 hours week in system
configuration, housekeeping, repairs and reinstalls on my
three systems I run from one keyboard with a KVM switch.

>> 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?

Since I did get the PDF it work, I will.

>> > 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.

You have no idea what my physics is.

>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.

I am not aware of any quantum measurements you
have made, but I will look again.

>> 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.

Do you have a link to their charts other than the
unit equivalencies?

Joe Fischer

.

Loading