Re: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal

Joe Fischer wrote:
> On 15 Dec "David Thomson" wrote:
> >Joe Fischer wrote:
> >> 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?

It was a joke, because there are only three forces.

> I guess none of them.

Wrong, gravity is a long range force. That is why the planets have
been orbiting the Sun for so long.

> >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.

Don't be silly. Force is not a particle. Force is a non-material
action of the Aether acting upon the dimensions of matter.

> >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?

Yes. The electrostatic force constant is Coulomb's constant.

> 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.

Actually, it is proven correct. If you will notice, the function of
the square of the distance is changed by the 16pi^2 constant. Stephen
Lamoreaux demonstrated this in his Casimir experiment. The force
between the plates accelerates at a greater rate than the electrostatic
force. Even Coulomb observed this in his experiments.

Dave

.

Loading