Re: self-field theory
- From: "Ian Parker" <ianparker2@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Feb 2007 03:51:56 -0800
On 3 Feb, 10:58, "tony fleming" <tflemi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 3, 1:42 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"tony fleming" <tflemi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 31, 10:18 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There's only a few hours of January 31 left, Tony.
Did the nominations get in?
If not, I suppose Heisenberg's name will still be in the list of Nobel
Laureates next year and yours won't. But at least your friends here
will know that you deserved to win.
Only 365 days to go until nominations close for the 2008 Nobel Prizes.
Get cracking.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Projecthttp://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraudhttp://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Actually Pete, I've just been reading the good professor. "The
physical principles of the quantum theory" Dover 1949, an unabridged
and unaltered reproduction of the work first published in 1930 by the
UNiversity of Chicago.
But that was before Heisenberg won his Nobel Prize. As you have proved
him wrong and have now found evidence predating 1942 to that effect
you would have been a shoo-in not only for the 2007 Nobel but to have
Heisenberg's Nobel retracted.
It's a pity you missed the cut-off date.
In a chapter titled "Introduction: Theory
and
Experiment", he mentions special relativity in regard to the fact
that
experiment showed that signals did NOT propagate instantaneously.
Hence we come full circle. We are at a point in scientific hostory
when we are experimentally demonstrating that the mass of the photon
is not zero, but a finite measurable amount that is commensurate with
theory..
I'm thinking that this will make a good introduction for the paper
I'm
writing on the self-field theory's analytic expressions for the mass
of the photon that are very close to one another, and that agree with
PDG's experimental observations.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s000.pdf
363 days left to get in the race for the 2008 Nobel Prizes. Keep
working at it.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Projecthttp://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraudhttp://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Pete, you realise that the meeting in Paris about Climate change and
man's current technology means that we humans are facing a catastrophe
of our own making. If there is something that might enable man to
overcome his own induced fossil-fueled problems then there is no time
to lose, no time to be cynical, to be skeptical, to be hardheaded. We
need to ACT, to TRY, to perhaps OVERCOME our problems. There is no
time for vainglorious prizes. If there is something that can help man
overcome his energy production problems, we must give it a go, my
friend. Think about it, seriously.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes a Von Neumann machine and a sunshield. Remember Nelson - He
planted oaks in the Forest of Dean to use in the First World War. Pity
Jutland was fought with steel battleships.
History tells us that the politicians and the military are always
overtaken by technology. A government sponsored think tank talks about
"robot rights" assuming that we will have STRONG AI by 2050. How is it
possible to have strong AI and not have a VN machine based on WEAK AI?
I think we can do things but the most appropriate things to do are
based on the development of a robot with sophisticated motor skills,
rather than on simply cutting down on carbon use. Andrew Ng is working
on a flatpack assembler. He is also working on linguistics. I would
have a dedicated motor skills team.
Also get rid of NASA an organization with an infatuation for manned
spaceflight. NASA is to me an anti scientific organization based on
the assumption that human quality motor skills are impossible to
replicate, for if they can be replicated bang goes the justification
for all of manned space flight.
- Ian Parker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: self-field theory
- From: Edward Green
- Re: self-field theory
- Prev by Date: Re: In their rare lucid moments, relativists admit that black holes do not exist
- Next by Date: Re: electron energies in covalent bonds
- Previous by thread: Re: In their rare lucid moments, relativists admit that black holes do not exist
- Next by thread: Re: self-field theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
