Re: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal

On 15 Dec "David Thomson" wrote:

>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> DT 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.

Why do I have to guess, will you tell me if I am right?

I guess none of them.

> As for the unification of the forces, the strong
>force has never been quantified in terms of dimensions before.

Which one is repulsive at very close range and appears to
become attractive at a little longer range?

>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.

At very short range maybe.

>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.

Isn't electrostatic called the Coulomb force?

Trying to just understand what you are saying
is a problem for anybody not in tune with your thoughts,
even before taking a stand on it's validity or possible merit.

If you are saying the strong force falls of as
a square function, I think that is easily proven wrong.

Joe Fischer

.