Re: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal

Joe Fischer wrote:
> >If that is your criteria, you should be satisfied with my theory. That
> >is exactly what my theory is based upon, the known forces.
>
> All known forces are short range, so what needed to be
> changed or added to?

No, one of the forces is long range. I'll give you three guesses to
figure out which one. As for the unification of the forces, the strong
force has never been quantified in terms of dimensions before.
According to the SM, the strong force is mediated by pi mesons, or
pions. In other words, the strong force is believed to be a particle
in the SM. My model shows the strong force is actually mediated by a
different type of charge from electrostatic charge. The force constant
of the strong force law is equal to 16pi^2 times the electrostatic
force constant.

> >> 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.
>
> I assumed they matter to those who ask for them.

I don't ask for opinions. I ask for critical analysis of the math and
data. This is usually done by verifying the constants and data with
known quantities and making sure the math follows the established
rules.

> >The data are what the data
> >are, and the math is what the math is. If it works, it must be true.
>
> Data can be misinterpreted and math is only
> correct if it is applied properly to correct data.

I realize data can be misinterpreted. That is why I have corrected the
SM interpretation of the data. Math is correct as long as it follows
the rules of math. The data the math quantifies is completely
irrelevant to the rules of math.

> >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 will look up the definition of rudimentary.

It means basic, or elementary.

> >The math
> >clearly shows that the Aether is a quantum unit of rotating magnetic
> >field.
>
> Maybe I had the wrong idea of what quantum
> means, assumed it meant things like 0, 1, 2, 3......

That explains a lot.

> I doubt if I will be able to understand the math.

This is becoming apparent, even without your honest admission.

> >> 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,
>
> I did not say I have a BS, and I do not have a BS,
> I said I am BS.

LOL. That sounds like when I told someone on these newsgroups that I
have the kind of degree where I could put GED after my name they
thought I had a General Engineering Degree.

> Some very talented people have said my ideas are insane.

"Crackpot" is the normal term used for someone outside the box.

> I had a very good friend that was a Pentagon Colonel,
> and on a visit to me he said "there is no way a ship or aircraft
> can't be seen on radar".
> I was too sick to drive at that time, and he took me
> to my post office box where I picked up the D2 document
> of allowance for my patent which withheld issue until the
> secrecy order was removed.
> Lockheed did not get allowance on their F-117 "vehicle"
> patent until 6 years later.

How did you get a patent without having to work simple algebra
somewhere along the line? What did you do, stumble across something by
accident and write a story about it?

My father is a retired high ranking military official. I respect your
reasons for not talking further about your patent.

> >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.
>
> A BS means the rudimentary knowledge has been
> demonstrated, but there is a wide range of talent that
> will be needed to use that knowledge.

The rudimentary knowledge gained from a degree will be peer reviewed
knowledge, and in most cases, will be the best knowledge available for
that topic. But it is not a guarantee that the knowledge is correct
and not subject to refinement or replacement.

I just got lucky to find a huge gaping hole in quantum physics theory
that could be explained with basic algebra, trigonometry, and geometry.
These also happened to be the classes I aced in high school, along
with general science, chemistry, and biology.

> >> > The orthogonality of charge and mass works in the same way.
> I suppose, except it doesn't seem to say much
> relative to a spherical structure.

It is easier to understand if someone is in the room explaining it.
The orthogonality of charge and mass is not a concept that has been
used in Classical physics, so it does require extra attention to
understand it in the beginning. But once the concept is understood, it
becomes so obvious that you wonder why it wasn't taught before.

> >The strong force and gravity are both mainstream physics.
>
> The strong force is not even inter-molecular, as far as I know.

The strong force is intermolecular, but it is called the Van der Waals
force at that level of existence. Certainly, you didn't think the Van
der Waals force was an extra force beyond the elementary forces?

> >> There are no forces acting at a distance, that is
> >> the essence of General Relativity.
> >
> >That is a philosophy.
>
> No, it is an empirical measurement,

No, the words are philosophy. If you want to talk in terms of
empirical measurements, then present them.

> > Unfortunately, physics is not a philosophy, it
> >is a science.
>
> Wrong, physics is an art, math is the only science.

I haven't heard physics called an art. Do you have a reference for
this?

> >Notice that I quantify the Aether as quantum units of rotating magnetic
> >field?
>
> 0, 1 or 2?

A.u = 1.419 x 10^12 kg m^3 sec^-2 coul^-2

> >then there is a
> >scientific basis for what appears to us humans as force at a distance.
>
> I will believe it when I see it.

It's in the paper.

> >The Aether is not the static space-time of chalkboard coordinate
> >systems, it is a real and dynamic foundation of physical reality.
>
> So are ghosts, spirits and the tooth fairy,
> hasn't everybody found the quarter under their pillow?

Was that a scientific rebuttal?

> >You make it sound like physics is entirely a mental exercise devoid of
> >real existence.
>
> That pretty well describes the gravitational field.

Interesting coming from someone who said they only believe in
physically measured objects.

> >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.
>
> No, the laws are written by man.

See, you are clearly wrong. The laws of physics were working long
before humans discovered them and explained them with language.

> >Good, another open-minded thinker looking to nature, rather than
> >textbooks, for the correct explanation of physics. I admire that.
>
> And you don't admire Einstein, Hawking, Wheeler?

I admire them all.

> >The protons and electrons are precisely quantified
> >as continuous geometrical structures within a discrete but flexible
> >Aether unit.
>
> In what model?

The Aether Physics Model.

> >A quantum state refers to a quantum property of an object.
> >http://www.answers.com/topic/quantum-state
>
> [QUOTE]
> quantum state
> "A quantum state is any possible state in which a quantum mechanical
> system can be. A fully specified quantum state can be described by a
> state vector, a wavefunction, or a complete set of quantum numbers for
> a specific system. A partially known quantum state, such as a ensemble
> with some quantum numbers fixed, can be described by a density
> operator."
> [UNQUOTE]
>
> Should I look in your paper for all of those values?

Remember, my system of physics is discrete, unlike the SM. In my
system of physics you will find a quantum length, a quantum frequency,
a quantum mass, two distinct quantum charges for each of the different
types of charges, quantum spin (both spin direction and time direction)
and a quantum surface area.

> > 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.
>
> Or math.

If the math is wrong, the theory is wrong. Pretty simple.

> >This theory is based upon empirical data. How can you say it does not
> >apply to physical objects that can be observed and measured?
>
> On the jpg of a flourescent tube and two ball bearings?
>
> Was there a ballast, transformer or ignition coil
> connected to the other end of the coil?

Is your knowledge of Tesla coil operation as extensive as your math
background?

> Note that a flourescent tube will light with a high
> voltage coil secondary wound around it, even if it won't
> light in a fixture.
> The gas is conductive or inductive or something.

Interesting. I wondered why the tube was lighting up in my hand.

> >> >Not true. Gravity is due to spin direction of the subatomic particles
> >> >within the Aether unit.
>
> And you have an experiment that shows that?

No, this is an experiment that modern physicists are presently working
on. My theory predicts is, though.

> >> >Just as mass is orthogonal to charge,
>
> Please ask Tom Roberts to explain that to me,
> you are not being descriptive enough for my level of
> understanding.

Read the analogy of the road sign I gave earlier.

> >> >gravity
> >> >is orthogonal to electromagnetism, which is why gravity is such a weak
> >> >force.
>
> Which direction is electromagnetism?

Electromagnetism corresponds to the surface area of the subatomic
particle, looking at the broad surface. Gravity corresponds to the
edge view of the surface area.

> >> 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.
>
> Sunlight must be physical, it is really needed.

Sunlight is not energy. Sunlight is photons. Photons exhibit energy,
as do electrons and protons.

> >Correct me if I am wrong, but you nor anybody
> >else has ever measured an object of gravity or energy.
>
> Watt?

A watt is a unit of power, not energy. And the watt, too, is
non-physical.

> >Gravity is a
> >real force, energy is merely the unit of work. You can't bottle
> >gravity or a unit of work.
>
> I have lots of batteries. I don't like capacitors though,
> they bite. And I never connect too many batteries in
> series.

Batteries contain electrons and protons, not energy. The movement of
the electrons can do work, but the work is not stored in the battery,
it is a function of the velocity of the electron, which moves due to
force when the obstacles to movement are removed.

> >> 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.
>
> Maybe that is what I want to do, assign an attribute
> of matter that causes the effects called gravity.

Nature is what nature is. No amount of wishing can change it.

> Not the attribute I have in mind, but that is why
> some talented people think I have insane ideas. :-)

Just admit it, you are a crackpot like the rest of us. ;-)

> >> without external forces or
> >> fields, why would a medium be needed,
> >
> >The medium is where the force originates.
>
> In your mind, you have repeatedly stated.

....and I have quantified it in my paper and in my book.

> >> 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?
>
> I thought i stated that, the surface of Earh expands
> outward with a velocity near escape velocity, plus a small
> acceleration. Freefalling objects are in inertial motion.

Wow! Forgive me for doubting you. Maybe insane was the right word
after all.

> >How do you explain magnets that pull toward each
> >other before they contact?
>
> Much different than I explain gravity, and totally
> unrelated.

So the prospect of a unified force theory is very bleak with your
concept of gravity?

> >How do you explain magnets that repel each
> >other and never contact?
>
> The same as magetic attraction, only reversed.

Interesting.

> >If you divide velocity by
> >length you get frequency and nothing else.
>
> I am six feet long, and laying in bed, does that
> mean my frequency is zero?

Yes. If you are not moving, the length is not being repeated. There
is no velocity.

> >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.
>
> How long is the aether?

A quantum Aether unit has a distance between unbound Aether units of
one Compton wavelength. The Aether unit itself is a curved surface and
its area is always equal to one Compton wavelength squared.

> I have a cell phone base station, chances are
> nobody here even knows what that means.

I used to sell these on eBay when I was in the military surplus
business.

> I use an LCD monitor, a 24 inch plotter/cutter,
> a 24 inch printer, and multiple external Firewire enclosures,
> can your technology produce anything I might want?

I don't make technology. I am a theorist and experimenter. Technology
is a whole different field. Did you make the technology you use, or
did you buy it off the shelf like the rest of us?

> >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.
>
> Right, not if I have to run MS Word.

You bought all that fancy technology and it didn't come bundled with MS
Office?

> >I have a beautiful organic garden.
>
> How do you control the bugs? I have grown
> to hate bugs, the Box Elder and Lady bugs have turned
> me against them, not to mention the crickets, grasshoppers
> and misquitos that get in the house too.

The lady bugs eat the aphids and don't hurt anything. Crickets and
mosquitos don't harm the garden, either. Mosquitos can only breed
where there is standing water. Make sure you don't have any old tires
or other things that collect rain water lying around. If you do, empty
them after each rain. The grasshoppers generally come late in the
season. Most of my food is harvested by then. But I keep horseradish
in a tub in the herb garden to attract the grasshoppers. If they eat
the horseradish greens it is no loss. I pick them off when I have the
time. Last year the Japanese beetles were the big problem. This year
I'll buy the Walmart beetle traps and set them around the yard.

> >You have to follow the data and equations and accept the
> >simplest explanation of what is revealed.
>
> I will, but I may interpret it differently than others.

Living in a free society is what makes science so exciting. Have at
it.

> I may have to print out the pdf to study it properly,
> is that ok?

Absolutely it is okay.

Dave

.