Surprise! Dr. John Bell Liked the Ether!

Paul Stowe:

in the spectrum between the extremes. The problem with Bilge is,
as you mention, he apparently never tried to understand the overall
framework concepts upon which I view the system.

That's self-serving bull****. The reason I think your entire concept
of nature is ridiculous is precisely because I understand a lot more
of the overall framework than you seem to think exists. Your completely
naive and superficial view of a physical process is the problem. To
the best I can determine, you really have no idea what the strong and
weak interaction are or that it might be necessary to explain them.
Don't kid yourself about having some profound understanding of some deep
concept. You don't. So far, it hasn't been possible to explain the
more superficial ones like what a neutrino is and what it has to do
with anything.

The difference between a ``concept person'' and a physicist, is that
a physicist is a ``concept person'' who applies concepts to physical
things to explain them. If you just want to have ``concepts'', get a
job writing for star trek.

I've tried hard
many times to convey this but to no avail. Not only that, he keeps
coming back with comments which explicitly seem to indicate that
he ignored what was told him and trys to suggest opposite or silly
points that are totally out of the park. For example, how many times
have I told him that the vortex lattice can be treated as a pseudo
particluate medium.

Probably a zillion. However, the number of times you've actually
shown you can do that by using for something that could reproduce an
experimental number is zero. You can tell me a zillion more times
and your ``vortex lattice'' would still means the same thing as
``tooth fairy''.

When done in this manner the vortex entities
can be considered 'particles' but certainly contain caharacteristics
NOT found in simple hard sphere particles.

Excuse me if I consider the theory of the ``hard spheres'' themselves
to be the only theory which is relevant and that is what you seem to
think is satisfactory as an assumption. Anyone can make up a theory
by starting with some imaginary entity that acts as nothing but a
container for empirically determined properites.

Since these vortices
MUST be made of some underlying fluidic medium, then there also must
exist an sub-spacial medium (if we treat the vortices of the lattice
as a medium also obviously the same 'stuff') which will have basic
characteristics different THAN the vortex lattice pseudo particulate
media it constructs.

So far, you haven't managed to construct a particle that way.

Yet, in the end, his comments totally ignore this distinct duality.
I mention that I think that propagating light in free-space has a
non-zero attenuation coefficient, possibly losing energy (over vast
distances on the order of many billions of light years). This, as
we know from radiation transport through other materials does NOT,
of necessity, require light to be massive. Only that the medium
be attuative. Yet he comes back at me suggesting that I never said
or suggested any such thing. ... etc.

Oh. Did I say that? If so, then what I should have said was you're
explanation at least doubled the number of free parameters you have
available to describe the single parameter relevant to E&M. You should
be able to find a fit.

I honestly don't think we (he & I) can communicate as long as he refuses
to attempt to understand (at least) the conceptual foundational basis
upon which I am coming from. Now, like you, he certainly doesn't
have to buy or even agree with this but at least there is a common
frame from which to discuss such disagreements.

I understand your concepts better than you do, paul. That's why it's
so obvious that you are never going to explain anything even to the
extent of the explanations already in existence.

Conversely, it is also true that much of what he says to me makes no
sense. probably because of lack of context. Thus, the comment about
no common basis. It is true that my background is nuclear engineering
with a specialty in ionizing radiation transport.

Which makes it all the more odd that you seem to lack any basic
understanding of nuclear processes.

But fluid dynamics
was another area of keen interest in school (and the toughest courses
I even took). However, like yourself, theoretical physics is also a
keen interest, and, a serious 'hobby'.

It seems so simple to me. Quantum entities (I guess your ultra-mundane
particles) exist forever and form a "vacuum" equilibrium configuration.

Yes. These form patterns (such as the vortex lattice) which in turn
interact with each other (in a distinct quantized manner), which,
in turn, creates your definition.

That probably illustrates the difference in what you think constitutes
an explanation and what is acceptable. Physicists already have a theory
that does that if one just assumes all of the ingredients have always
existed.

The very reason 'I think' gravity
cannot be directly integrated with this quantum behavior is specifically
BECAUSE it springs forth from the sub-spacial particle intractions with
the vortices structures.

At the level you are talking about, quantum theory is not problematic.
Hawking used quantum field theory to derive hawking radiation. Textbooks
exist for quantum field theory in curved spacetime (``Quantum Field Theory
in Curved Spacetime'', Fulling, S.A., for example). The issues with gravity
and quantum theory are more fundamental than you seem to have considered
necessary as part of an explanation. For example, you simply assume space
and time exist and your medium is ``in it''. The idea of explaining space
and time and how your medium got there in the first place, doesn't seem
to have crossed your mind.

Matter is made from the same stuff; just a special configuration that
is the exception instead of the rule but still following some of the
rules. Extra compact dimensions may be involved.

There exists for me an adversion to the term 'extra-compacted dimensions'.
When I hear this it cries out 'we don't know enough yet' technobabble!
Oh well, I can however live with it for now

It might be technobabble or it might not. The main difference between
that ``technobabble'' and your ``technobabble'', is that I can ask someone
who studies the compactified dimension ``technobabble'' what it all means
and get an answer in terms of physical quantities that relate to the
real universe. Do you have some criteria on originality that renders
ideas unoriginal if the idea can be used to do calculations?

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:42:33 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:
|
| "Paul Stowe" wrote in message
| .. .
|
| [Snip...]
|
| | The Universe is mechanical.
| |
| | Sadly many simply won't accept that concept.
|
| Well, I was going to reply to Bilge's reply to this but since he
| has plonked me because of my vacuum charge idea I guess there is
| no point. I get the strong impression that he has painted a
| picture in his mind that you have been talking about something
| else entirely different from what we just said above. ???
|
| I get the impression that we (Bilge & I) have no common base. I
| understand that different people think differently. Some (like
| myself [Lefty]) think pictorially, this type use mental imagery to
| 'see' phenomenological processes. Once these type of people (Tesla
| was one of these) can 'see' the process then they set out to quantify
| it mathematically. Understanding how the process works is first.
| Others think mathematically, NOT pictorially, and examine equations
| and follow them, usually to the exclusion of any conceptual process
| that they might be tied to. The mathematics, not the concept of
| process dominates and comes first in their mind. Still others fall
| in the spectrum between the extremes. The problem with Bilge is,
| as you mention, he apparently never tried to understand the overall
| framework concepts upon which I view the system. I've tried hard
| many times to convey this but to no avail. Not only that, he keeps
| coming back with comments which explicitly seem to indicate that
| he ignored what was told him and trys to suggest opposite or silly
| points that are totally out of the park. For example, how many times
| have I told him that the vortex lattice can be treated as a pseudo
| particluate medium. When done in this manner the vortex entities
| can be considered 'particles' but certainly contain caharacteristics
| NOT found in simple hard sphere particles. Since these vortices
| MUST be made of some underlying fluidic medium, then there also must
| exist an sub-spacial medium (if we treat the vortices of the lattice
| as a medium also obviously the same 'stuff') which will have basic
| characteristics different THAN the vortex lattice pseudo particulate
| media it constructs.

Sounds good to me.

| Yet, in the end, his comments totally ignore this distinct duality.
| I mention that I think that propagating light in free-space has a
| non-zero attenuation coefficient, possibly losing energy (over vast
| distances on the order of many billions of light years). This, as
| we know from radiation transport through other materials does NOT,
| of necessity, require light to be massive. Only that the medium
| be attuative. Yet he comes back at me suggesting that I never said
| or suggested any such thing. ... etc.
|
| I honestly don't think we (he & I) can communicate as long as he refuses
| to attempt to understand (at least) the conceptual foundational basis
| upon which I am coming from. Now, like you, he certainly doesn't
| have to buy or even agree with this but at least there is a common
| frame from which to discuss such disagreements.

Well, enough of this for now. I am lucky that he plonked me so I don't have
to put up with him doing the same thing directly at me. He is big on
spacetime geometry but has no fundamental *mechanical* explanation for it
that I have seen yet.

| Conversely, it is also true that much of what he says to me makes no
| sense. probably because of lack of context. Thus, the comment about
| no common basis. It is true that my background is nuclear engineering
| with a specialty in ionizing radiation transport. But fluid dynamics
| was another area of keen interest in school (and the toughest courses
| I even took). However, like yourself, theoretical physics is also a
| keen interest, and, a serious 'hobby'.
|
| It seems so simple to me. Quantum entities (I guess your ultra-mundane
| particles) exist forever and form a "vacuum" equilibrium configuration.
|
| Yes. These form patterns (such as the vortex lattice) which in turn
| interact with each other (in a distinct quantized manner), which,
| in turn, creates your definition. The very reason 'I think' gravity
| cannot be directly integrated with this quantum behavior is specifically
| BECAUSE it springs forth from the sub-spacial particle intractions with
| the vortices structures. This isn't governed by the pseudo particulate
| medium rules upon which QM interaction apply. Thus gravity is by its
| very nature, the 'odd man out'.

Well, going back to when you first explained how charge (attraction and
repulsion) can be modeled in a medium made me wonder if gravity is simply
matter being "holes" in the vacuum equilibrium. Will these "holes" always
be attracted to each other by their mechanical behaviour in the medium? So
maybe gravity isn't necessarily the odd man out.

| Matter is made from the same stuff; just a special configuration that
| is the exception instead of the rule but still following some of the
| rules. Extra compact dimensions may be involved.
|
| There exists for me an adversion to the term 'extra-compacted
dimensions'.
| When I hear this it cries out 'we don't know enough yet' technobabble!
| Oh well, I can however live with it for now

I would be nice if it all could be explained easily in the 3D +1 spacetime.
But quantum theory seems to point to more than this though. Actually so do
regular systems of units; where we have quantities such as an E field being
sqrt(energy/vol). What is the sqrt(1/vol)? Or the sqrt(energy) for that
matter? I tried to do this in your units also with similar results. In
terms of charge, an energy density is charge^2/(4D volume) so then an E
field can be charge/area. My vacuum spin matrix only seems to make sense
with extra dimensions. Well, at least one extra dimension not counting time
as one either. So with the charge/area concept, it is like two intersecting
planes that give us what we need. And I really do like the "Dual Space"
idea. With out it, my vacuum spin matrix has real particles as being holes
in the equilibrium.

FrediFizzx

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:42:33 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:
|
| "Paul Stowe" wrote in message
| .. .
|
| [Snip...]
|
| | The Universe is mechanical.
| |
| | Sadly many simply won't accept that concept.
|
| Well, I was going to reply to Bilge's reply to this but since he
| has plonked me because of my vacuum charge idea I guess there is
| no point. I get the strong impression that he has painted a
| picture in his mind that you have been talking about something
| else entirely different from what we just said above. ???
|
| I get the impression that we (Bilge & I) have no common base. I
| understand that different people think differently. Some (like
| myself [Lefty]) think pictorially, this type use mental imagery to
| 'see' phenomenological processes. Once these type of people (Tesla
| was one of these) can 'see' the process then they set out to quantify
| it mathematically. Understanding how the process works is first.
| Others think mathematically, NOT pictorially, and examine equations
| and follow them, usually to the exclusion of any conceptual process
| that they might be tied to. The mathematics, not the concept of
| process dominates and comes first in their mind. Still others fall
| in the spectrum between the extremes. The problem with Bilge is,
| as you mention, he apparently never tried to understand the overall
| framework concepts upon which I view the system. I've tried hard
| many times to convey this but to no avail. Not only that, he keeps
| coming back with comments which explicitly seem to indicate that
| he ignored what was told him and trys to suggest opposite or silly
| points that are totally out of the park. For example, how many times
| have I told him that the vortex lattice can be treated as a pseudo
| particluate medium. When done in this manner the vortex entities
| can be considered 'particles' but certainly contain caharacteristics
| NOT found in simple hard sphere particles. Since these vortices
| MUST be made of some underlying fluidic medium, then there also must
| exist an sub-spacial medium (if we treat the vortices of the lattice
| as a medium also obviously the same 'stuff') which will have basic
| characteristics different THAN the vortex lattice pseudo particulate
| media it constructs.

Sounds good to me.

| Yet, in the end, his comments totally ignore this distinct duality.
| I mention that I think that propagating light in free-space has a
| non-zero attenuation coefficient, possibly losing energy (over vast
| distances on the order of many billions of light years). This, as
| we know from radiation transport through other materials does NOT,
| of necessity, require light to be massive. Only that the medium
| be attuative. Yet he comes back at me suggesting that I never said
| or suggested any such thing. ... etc.
|
| I honestly don't think we (he & I) can communicate as long as he refuses
| to attempt to understand (at least) the conceptual foundational basis
| upon which I am coming from. Now, like you, he certainly doesn't
| have to buy or even agree with this but at least there is a common
| frame from which to discuss such disagreements.

Well, enough of this for now. I am lucky that he plonked me so I don't have
to put up with him doing the same thing directly at me. He is big on
spacetime geometry but has no fundamental *mechanical* explanation for it
that I have seen yet.

| Conversely, it is also true that much of what he says to me makes no
| sense. probably because of lack of context. Thus, the comment about
| no common basis. It is true that my background is nuclear engineering
| with a specialty in ionizing radiation transport. But fluid dynamics
| was another area of keen interest in school (and the toughest courses
| I even took). However, like yourself, theoretical physics is also a
| keen interest, and, a serious 'hobby'.
|
| It seems so simple to me. Quantum entities (I guess your ultra-mundane
| particles) exist forever and form a "vacuum" equilibrium configuration.
|
| Yes. These form patterns (such as the vortex lattice) which in turn
| interact with each other (in a distinct quantized manner), which,
| in turn, creates your definition. The very reason 'I think' gravity
| cannot be directly integrated with this quantum behavior is specifically
| BECAUSE it springs forth from the sub-spacial particle intractions with
| the vortices structures. This isn't governed by the pseudo particulate
| medium rules upon which QM interaction apply. Thus gravity is by its
| very nature, the 'odd man out'.

Well, going back to when you first explained how charge (attraction and
repulsion) can be modeled in a medium made me wonder if gravity is simply
matter being "holes" in the vacuum equilibrium. Will these "holes" always
be attracted to each other by their mechanical behaviour in the medium? So
maybe gravity isn't necessarily the odd man out.

| Matter is made from the same stuff; just a special configuration that
| is the exception instead of the rule but still following some of the
| rules. Extra compact dimensions may be involved.
|
| There exists for me an adversion to the term 'extra-compacted
dimensions'.
| When I hear this it cries out 'we don't know enough yet' technobabble!
| Oh well, I can however live with it for now

I would be nice if it all could be explained easily in the 3D +1 spacetime.
But quantum theory seems to point to more than this though. Actually so do
regular systems of units; where we have quantities such as an E field being
sqrt(energy/vol). What is the sqrt(1/vol)? Or the sqrt(energy) for that
matter? I tried to do this in your units also with similar results. In
terms of charge, an energy density is charge^2/(4D volume) so then an E
field can be charge/area. My vacuum spin matrix only seems to make sense
with extra dimensions. Well, at least one extra dimension not counting time
as one either. So with the charge/area concept, it is like two intersecting
planes that give us what we need. And I really do like the "Dual Space"
idea. With out it, my vacuum spin matrix has real particles as being holes
in the equilibrium.

FrediFizzx

In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
: Well, enough of this for now. I am lucky that he plonked me so I don't have
: to put up with him doing the same thing directly at me. He is big on
: spacetime geometry but has no fundamental *mechanical* explanation for it
: that I have seen yet.

What is the mechanical explanation for your geometry? Are their
objects that have locations, and are their distances defined between
objects? If two objects are moving, what determines if their trajectories
will intersect or not?

Stephen

In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
: Well, enough of this for now. I am lucky that he plonked me so I don't have
: to put up with him doing the same thing directly at me. He is big on
: spacetime geometry but has no fundamental *mechanical* explanation for it
: that I have seen yet.

What is the mechanical explanation for your geometry? Are their
objects that have locations, and are their distances defined between
objects? If two objects are moving, what determines if their trajectories
will intersect or not?

Stephen

wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
| : Well, enough of this for now. I am lucky that he plonked me so I don't
have
| : to put up with him doing the same thing directly at me. He is big on
| : spacetime geometry but has no fundamental *mechanical* explanation for
it
| : that I have seen yet.
|
| What is the mechanical explanation for your geometry? Are their
| objects that have locations, and are their distances defined between
| objects? If two objects are moving, what determines if their trajectories
| will intersect or not?

Vacuum quantum objects. Or, I suppose, in the old terminology,
"ultra-mundane particles". It is like ordered chaos. They form an
equilibrium state that you could liken to a supersolid. The exact details
are still being worked on but I will tell you the main determining parameter
right now is vacuum fermionic charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in cgs units and is
all bound charge throughout the entire Universe. This is the value for a
"cell". There are over 100 million cells per hydrogen atom by a rough
estimate. It is the quantum vacuum equilibrium that determines what
"particles" can be what. There is no difference between a "bare" electron
and a "bare" quark. All fermions are a mix of all other fermions to some
extent.

FrediFizzx

wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
| : Well, enough of this for now. I am lucky that he plonked me so I don't
have
| : to put up with him doing the same thing directly at me. He is big on
| : spacetime geometry but has no fundamental *mechanical* explanation for
it
| : that I have seen yet.
|
| What is the mechanical explanation for your geometry? Are their
| objects that have locations, and are their distances defined between
| objects? If two objects are moving, what determines if their trajectories
| will intersect or not?

Vacuum quantum objects. Or, I suppose, in the old terminology,
"ultra-mundane particles". It is like ordered chaos. They form an
equilibrium state that you could liken to a supersolid. The exact details
are still being worked on but I will tell you the main determining parameter
right now is vacuum fermionic charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in cgs units and is
all bound charge throughout the entire Universe. This is the value for a
"cell". There are over 100 million cells per hydrogen atom by a rough
estimate. It is the quantum vacuum equilibrium that determines what
"particles" can be what. There is no difference between a "bare" electron
and a "bare" quark. All fermions are a mix of all other fermions to some
extent.

FrediFizzx

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:03:04 -0000, (Bilge)
wrote:

Paul Stowe:

in the spectrum between the extremes. The problem with Bilge is,
as you mention, he apparently never tried to understand the overall
framework concepts upon which I view the system.

That's self-serving bull****. The reason I think your entire concept
of nature is ridiculous is precisely because I understand a lot more
of the overall framework than you seem to think exists.

You ARE entitled to your opinion & views. If you insist upon talking
to others you are NOT entitled to act as if you never heard a word they
say. That's rude a.k.a. being an ass, thus don't be surprised if they
say so by calling you such. You have NO idea what I think no more than
I what you think from JUST the posting made in these newsgroups. This
forum and medium does NOT lend itself to highly complicated discussions.

Your completely naive and superficial view of a physical process is
the problem.

A problem that has lead to some unique emperical equations. Even if
I'm totally 'out to lunch' as Feynman once said, those equations still
stand.

To the best I can determine, you really have no idea what the strong
and weak interaction are ...

Good, enlighten little'ole me! Take it from the top, baby steps, and
describe in detail WHAT those processes are that give rise to the
weak & strong interaction. You can quantify this with equations but
be sure to explain the processes! I've said several time that I don't
HAVE a model of matter yet. Example,


http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=2...er.com&rnum=19

Yet you keep harping... One OF the main reasons I post is to get others
thinking. Science is suppose to be a cooperative effort. You'd never
know that lurking around here!

... or that it might be necessary to explain them. Don't kid yourself
about having some profound understanding of some deep concept. You
don't. So far, it hasn't been possible to explain the more superficial
ones like what a neutrino is and what it has to do with anything.

WHAT IS a neutrino Bilge? Why are there more than one type? How
is it that they can change flavors? Please, again, explain the
underlying process(es) that cause this! You arrogant sanctimonious
twit, show your stuff!!!

The difference between a ``concept person'' and a physicist, is that
a physicist is a ``concept person'' who applies concepts to physical
things to explain them. If you just want to have ``concepts'', get a
job writing for star trek.

Bilge...

I've tried hard
many times to convey this but to no avail. Not only that, he keeps
coming back with comments which explicitly seem to indicate that
he ignored what was told him and trys to suggest opposite or silly
points that are totally out of the park. For example, how many times
have I told him that the vortex lattice can be treated as a pseudo
particluate medium.

Probably a zillion. However, the number of times you've actually
shown you can do that by using for something that could reproduce an
experimental number is zero. You can tell me a zillion more times
and your ``vortex lattice'' would still means the same thing as
``tooth fairy''.

Nuff said!

When done in this manner the vortex entities
can be considered 'particles' but certainly contain caharacteristics
NOT found in simple hard sphere particles.

Excuse me if I consider the theory of the ``hard spheres'' themselves
to be the only theory which is relevant and that is what you seem to
think is satisfactory as an assumption. Anyone can make up a theory
by starting with some imaginary entity that acts as nothing but a
container for empirically determined properites.

If those emerically determined properties match the properties required
by the physical process model what's the problem?

Since these vortices
MUST be made of some underlying fluidic medium, then there also must
exist an sub-spacial medium (if we treat the vortices of the lattice
as a medium also obviously the same 'stuff') which will have basic
characteristics different THAN the vortex lattice pseudo particulate
media it constructs.

So far, you haven't managed to construct a particle that way.

See above...

Yet, in the end, his comments totally ignore this distinct duality.
I mention that I think that propagating light in free-space has a
non-zero attenuation coefficient, possibly losing energy (over vast
distances on the order of many billions of light years). This, as
we know from radiation transport through other materials does NOT,
of necessity, require light to be massive. Only that the medium
be attuative. Yet he comes back at me suggesting that I never said
or suggested any such thing. ... etc.

Oh. Did I say that? If so, then what I should have said was you're
explanation at least doubled the number of free parameters you have
available to describe the single parameter relevant to E&M. You should
be able to find a fit.

BTW, what's the difference between PSIG & PSIA? Isn't it that PSIG used
the Earth's atmoshpere as itsseline? The same is quite true for
so-called free space. We set our baseline to it. That does NOT remove
the properties, just allows use to normalize them to that equalibrium
state just like PSIG.

I honestly don't think we (he & I) can communicate as long as he refuses
to attempt to understand (at least) the conceptual foundational basis
upon which I am coming from. Now, like you, he certainly doesn't
have to buy or even agree with this but at least there is a common
frame from which to discuss such disagreements.

I understand your concepts better than you do, paul. That's why it's
so obvious that you are never going to explain anything even to the
extent of the explanations already in existence.

Then why are you bothering? I told you I would try to avoid responses yet
you INSIST on continuing? Is this a masochistic streak in you???

Conversely, it is also true that much of what he says to me makes no
sense. probably because of lack of context. Thus, the comment about
no common basis. It is true that my background is nuclear engineering
with a specialty in ionizing radiation transport.

Which makes it all the more odd that you seem to lack any basic
understanding of nuclear processes.

Oh, I got by & scored high on exams. But the "shut up & calculate" mentality
NEVER satisfied me.

But fluid dynamics
was another area of keen interest in school (and the toughest courses
I even took). However, like yourself, theoretical physics is also a
keen interest, and, a serious 'hobby'.

It seems so simple to me. Quantum entities (I guess your ultra-mundane
particles) exist forever and form a "vacuum" equilibrium configuration.

Yes. These form patterns (such as the vortex lattice) which in turn
interact with each other (in a distinct quantized manner), which,
in turn, creates your definition.

That probably illustrates the difference in what you think constitutes
an explanation and what is acceptable. Physicists already have a theory
that does that if one just assumes all of the ingredients have always
existed.

Again then, WHY are you bothering? Go peacefully into the future as a
child of Planck's admonition. I certainly don't care, why do you? If
I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Time will tell the tale.

The very reason 'I think' gravity
cannot be directly integrated with this quantum behavior is specifically
BECAUSE it springs forth from the sub-spacial particle intractions with
the vortices structures.

At the level you are talking about, quantum theory is not problematic.
Hawking used quantum field theory to derive hawking radiation. Textbooks
exist for quantum field theory in curved spacetime (``Quantum Field Theory
in Curved Spacetime'', Fulling, S.A., for example). The issues with gravity
and quantum theory are more fundamental than you seem to have considered
necessary as part of an explanation. For example, you simply assume space
and time exist and your medium is ``in it''. The idea of explaining space
and time and how your medium got there in the first place, doesn't seem
to have crossed your mind.

Matter is made from the same stuff; just a special configuration that
is the exception instead of the rule but still following some of the
rules. Extra compact dimensions may be involved.

There exists for me an adversion to the term 'extra-compacted dimensions'.
When I hear this it cries out 'we don't know enough yet' technobabble!
Oh well, I can however live with it for now

It might be technobabble or it might not. The main difference between
that ``technobabble'' and your ``technobabble'', is that I can ask someone
who studies the compactified dimension ``technobabble'' what it all means
and get an answer in terms of physical quantities that relate to the
real universe. Do you have some criteria on originality that renders
ideas unoriginal if the idea can be used to do calculations?

Of course not. All that is required to be original is,

adjective: being or productive of something fresh and unusual;
or being as first made or thought of
(Example: "A truly original approach")

Which of course mean that one must show that they are the first to think
of it. Like, for example, in the SI system,
_______
/ --
1 / / z
q = --- / h / --
2pi \/ \/ 3u

where q = Elemental Charge
h = Planck's Constant
z = Premitivitty
u = Permeability
m = electron's mass

(and because I don't use those stupid back-slashes) pi = 3.1415926...

this expression. And of course you know that the Magnetic Moment Anomalous
amount is already accounted for in this expession. Thus we don't need it,
we simply use,

_______
/ --
1 / 3 / z
------ / h / --
m8pi^2 \/ \/ 3u

To define the electron's magnetic moment!

Well you might think I'm full of **** but I do get rather unique expressions
from that **** that DO match observation. Don't think so, do the math and
tell us the value of the above!

Now show me some of your unique physical expressions...

Paul Stowe

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:03:04 -0000, (Bilge)
wrote:

Paul Stowe:

in the spectrum between the extremes. The problem with Bilge is,
as you mention, he apparently never tried to understand the overall
framework concepts upon which I view the system.

That's self-serving bull****. The reason I think your entire concept
of nature is ridiculous is precisely because I understand a lot more
of the overall framework than you seem to think exists.

You ARE entitled to your opinion & views. If you insist upon talking
to others you are NOT entitled to act as if you never heard a word they
say. That's rude a.k.a. being an ass, thus don't be surprised if they
say so by calling you such. You have NO idea what I think no more than
I what you think from JUST the posting made in these newsgroups. This
forum and medium does NOT lend itself to highly complicated discussions.

Your completely naive and superficial view of a physical process is
the problem.

A problem that has lead to some unique emperical equations. Even if
I'm totally 'out to lunch' as Feynman once said, those equations still
stand.

To the best I can determine, you really have no idea what the strong
and weak interaction are ...

Good, enlighten little'ole me! Take it from the top, baby steps, and
describe in detail WHAT those processes are that give rise to the
weak & strong interaction. You can quantify this with equations but
be sure to explain the processes! I've said several time that I don't
HAVE a model of matter yet. Example,


http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=2...er.com&rnum=19

Yet you keep harping... One OF the main reasons I post is to get others
thinking. Science is suppose to be a cooperative effort. You'd never
know that lurking around here!

... or that it might be necessary to explain them. Don't kid yourself
about having some profound understanding of some deep concept. You
don't. So far, it hasn't been possible to explain the more superficial
ones like what a neutrino is and what it has to do with anything.

WHAT IS a neutrino Bilge? Why are there more than one type? How
is it that they can change flavors? Please, again, explain the
underlying process(es) that cause this! You arrogant sanctimonious
twit, show your stuff!!!

The difference between a ``concept person'' and a physicist, is that
a physicist is a ``concept person'' who applies concepts to physical
things to explain them. If you just want to have ``concepts'', get a
job writing for star trek.

Bilge...

I've tried hard
many times to convey this but to no avail. Not only that, he keeps
coming back with comments which explicitly seem to indicate that
he ignored what was told him and trys to suggest opposite or silly
points that are totally out of the park. For example, how many times
have I told him that the vortex lattice can be treated as a pseudo
particluate medium.

Probably a zillion. However, the number of times you've actually
shown you can do that by using for something that could reproduce an
experimental number is zero. You can tell me a zillion more times
and your ``vortex lattice'' would still means the same thing as
``tooth fairy''.

Nuff said!

When done in this manner the vortex entities
can be considered 'particles' but certainly contain caharacteristics
NOT found in simple hard sphere particles.

Excuse me if I consider the theory of the ``hard spheres'' themselves
to be the only theory which is relevant and that is what you seem to
think is satisfactory as an assumption. Anyone can make up a theory
by starting with some imaginary entity that acts as nothing but a
container for empirically determined properites.

If those emerically determined properties match the properties required
by the physical process model what's the problem?

Since these vortices
MUST be made of some underlying fluidic medium, then there also must
exist an sub-spacial medium (if we treat the vortices of the lattice
as a medium also obviously the same 'stuff') which will have basic
characteristics different THAN the vortex lattice pseudo particulate
media it constructs.

So far, you haven't managed to construct a particle that way.

See above...

Yet, in the end, his comments totally ignore this distinct duality.
I mention that I think that propagating light in free-space has a
non-zero attenuation coefficient, possibly losing energy (over vast
distances on the order of many billions of light years). This, as
we know from radiation transport through other materials does NOT,
of necessity, require light to be massive. Only that the medium
be attuative. Yet he comes back at me suggesting that I never said
or suggested any such thing. ... etc.

Oh. Did I say that? If so, then what I should have said was you're
explanation at least doubled the number of free parameters you have
available to describe the single parameter relevant to E&M. You should
be able to find a fit.

BTW, what's the difference between PSIG & PSIA? Isn't it that PSIG used
the Earth's atmoshpere as itsseline? The same is quite true for
so-called free space. We set our baseline to it. That does NOT remove
the properties, just allows use to normalize them to that equalibrium
state just like PSIG.

I honestly don't think we (he & I) can communicate as long as he refuses
to attempt to understand (at least) the conceptual foundational basis
upon which I am coming from. Now, like you, he certainly doesn't
have to buy or even agree with this but at least there is a common
frame from which to discuss such disagreements.

I understand your concepts better than you do, paul. That's why it's
so obvious that you are never going to explain anything even to the
extent of the explanations already in existence.

Then why are you bothering? I told you I would try to avoid responses yet
you INSIST on continuing? Is this a masochistic streak in you???

Conversely, it is also true that much of what he says to me makes no
sense. probably because of lack of context. Thus, the comment about
no common basis. It is true that my background is nuclear engineering
with a specialty in ionizing radiation transport.

Which makes it all the more odd that you seem to lack any basic
understanding of nuclear processes.

Oh, I got by & scored high on exams. But the "shut up & calculate" mentality
NEVER satisfied me.

But fluid dynamics
was another area of keen interest in school (and the toughest courses
I even took). However, like yourself, theoretical physics is also a
keen interest, and, a serious 'hobby'.

It seems so simple to me. Quantum entities (I guess your ultra-mundane
particles) exist forever and form a "vacuum" equilibrium configuration.

Yes. These form patterns (such as the vortex lattice) which in turn
interact with each other (in a distinct quantized manner), which,
in turn, creates your definition.

That probably illustrates the difference in what you think constitutes
an explanation and what is acceptable. Physicists already have a theory
that does that if one just assumes all of the ingredients have always
existed.

Again then, WHY are you bothering? Go peacefully into the future as a
child of Planck's admonition. I certainly don't care, why do you? If
I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Time will tell the tale.

The very reason 'I think' gravity
cannot be directly integrated with this quantum behavior is specifically
BECAUSE it springs forth from the sub-spacial particle intractions with
the vortices structures.

At the level you are talking about, quantum theory is not problematic.
Hawking used quantum field theory to derive hawking radiation. Textbooks
exist for quantum field theory in curved spacetime (``Quantum Field Theory
in Curved Spacetime'', Fulling, S.A., for example). The issues with gravity
and quantum theory are more fundamental than you seem to have considered
necessary as part of an explanation. For example, you simply assume space
and time exist and your medium is ``in it''. The idea of explaining space
and time and how your medium got there in the first place, doesn't seem
to have crossed your mind.

Matter is made from the same stuff; just a special configuration that
is the exception instead of the rule but still following some of the
rules. Extra compact dimensions may be involved.

There exists for me an adversion to the term 'extra-compacted dimensions'.
When I hear this it cries out 'we don't know enough yet' technobabble!
Oh well, I can however live with it for now

It might be technobabble or it might not. The main difference between
that ``technobabble'' and your ``technobabble'', is that I can ask someone
who studies the compactified dimension ``technobabble'' what it all means
and get an answer in terms of physical quantities that relate to the
real universe. Do you have some criteria on originality that renders
ideas unoriginal if the idea can be used to do calculations?

Of course not. All that is required to be original is,

adjective: being or productive of something fresh and unusual;
or being as first made or thought of
(Example: "A truly original approach")

Which of course mean that one must show that they are the first to think
of it. Like, for example, in the SI system,
_______
/ --
1 / / z
q = --- / h / --
2pi \/ \/ 3u

where q = Elemental Charge
h = Planck's Constant
z = Premitivitty
u = Permeability
m = electron's mass

(and because I don't use those stupid back-slashes) pi = 3.1415926...

this expression. And of course you know that the Magnetic Moment Anomalous
amount is already accounted for in this expession. Thus we don't need it,
we simply use,

_______
/ --
1 / 3 / z
------ / h / --
m8pi^2 \/ \/ 3u

To define the electron's magnetic moment!

Well you might think I'm full of **** but I do get rather unique expressions
from that **** that DO match observation. Don't think so, do the math and
tell us the value of the above!

Now show me some of your unique physical expressions...

Paul Stowe

In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
: wrote in message
: ...
: | In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
: | : Well, enough of this for now. I am lucky that he plonked me so I don't
: have
: | : to put up with him doing the same thing directly at me. He is big on
: | : spacetime geometry but has no fundamental *mechanical* explanation for
: it
: | : that I have seen yet.
: |
: | What is the mechanical explanation for your geometry? Are their
: | objects that have locations, and are their distances defined between
: | objects? If two objects are moving, what determines if their trajectories
: | will intersect or not?

: Vacuum quantum objects. Or, I suppose, in the old terminology,
: "ultra-mundane particles". It is like ordered chaos. They form an
: equilibrium state that you could liken to a supersolid. The exact details
: are still being worked on but I will tell you the main determining parameter
: right now is vacuum fermionic charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in cgs units and is
: all bound charge throughout the entire Universe. This is the value for a
: "cell". There are over 100 million cells per hydrogen atom by a rough
: estimate. It is the quantum vacuum equilibrium that determines what
: "particles" can be what. There is no difference between a "bare" electron
: and a "bare" quark. All fermions are a mix of all other fermions to some
: extent.

: FrediFizzx

You did not answer the question. Do these "ultra-mundane particles"
have locations, and are there distances between these particles?
Do these particles move?

Stephen