A New Foundation of Physics

[nova_explored]

<i>In the APM, the carrier of the strong force is quantified as a different type of charge from the carrier of the electrostatic force. When the two parts become separated by a specific distance, determined by their respective charges, the electrostatic force predominates and accelerates the two parts away from each other. </i><br /><br />how can you bring that up and discount previous works on the area? I mean, that is fenyman right there and his electrostatic force and e=mc2 (which he built from in order to achieve the quantified amount of energy needed to split the atom.) i just can't understand how you can dismiss it so readily. regardless of the theoritical invisible force particle. and i do concede that there are problems with our models, obviously, or they wouldn't be some numerous and radically different from one another. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[volantis]

Since I know the APM quite well, I have no idea where you think you can go with this. The APM, unlike String theory, is fully quantified and based entirely upon empirical data. The two types of charge are extremely solid in their quantification. If you have the skills to do so, do the actual equations in my white paper and see for yourself. Analyze the derived geometrical structures with a fine toothed comb. You'll see that everything is properly quantified and properly based upon real observations.<br /><br />And to all of you, please refrain from guilt by association arguments and character assaissination. Try to stay focused on the math and data. I really don't want to spoil the party here, but if you folks aren't mature enough to do real science, I'll gladly leave you to yourselves.

 

[volantis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>how can you bring that up and discount previous works on the area? I mean, that is fenyman right there and his electrostatic force and e=mc2 (which he built from in order to achieve the quantified amount of energy needed to split the atom.) i just can't understand how you can dismiss it so readily. regardless of the theoritical invisible force particle. and i do concede that there are problems with our models, obviously, or they wouldn't be some numerous and radically different from one another. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I have said from the beginning that the APM is based upon empirical data and Newtonian type math. This automatically means the APM and modern physics will agree more often than not.<br /><br />What you have not yet comprehended is that the unique contribution of the APM is it quantifies quantum *structure*. Most of modern physics is concerned with *mechanics*. The main differences between modern physics and the APM come about when modern physics attempts to describe quantum *structure*. The theories presented for quantum *structure* by modern physics includes the equivalence of mass and energy, wave/particle duality, probability functions as particles, and force particles, among others. The theorized quantum *structures* of the modern theories are the source of contention with the APM. However, we can agree upon most of the *mechanics*.<br /><br />It doesn't matter to me who came up with the weird quantum *structures* of modern physics. This is not a personality contest nor are any of those physicists gods. The physics that I have derived from the empirical data shows that modern interpretations of quantum *structure* are wrong, despite the fact that the *mechanics* are mostly correct.<br /><br />The reason why QM and GR can both produce correct results is because their underlying *mechanics* are correct. However, the perceptions of *structure* in the two models are the source of the incomp

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

<font color="yellow"> if it turns out that the reference(s) are, in fact, you yourself, that's "self-referential" evidence. </font><br /><br />--yes--no--??? self aggrandizement. ---shrugs--- <br />( why waste neural-charge yevaud?? ) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

no. listen, i respect your ideas and model. I am actually intrigued. But in reading the posts, and please don't think this meant to offend, but, the model, or your model, offers another explanation to the same phoenomena, but is impossible to quanitfy, or prove. It offers another explanation, like i said, but i'm trying to find a way to apply it to verification. No other model allows for that, and this APM is no different. i'm sorry, but empirical knowledge aside, it is at best a theory, no different than string. a theory nonetheless intriguing. and this is after looking through the paper. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

and the reason i bring up richard feynman, he kind of is the guy responsible for discovering the equivalence for energy between electrostatic force and QM and marriaging einstein's e=mc2 allowing to allow for the splitting of the atom. i mean, its not grandstanding. Credit given where credit is due. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[volantis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>your model, offers another explanation to the same phoenomena, but is impossible to quanitfy, or prove.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />How do you figure? I give the exact dimensions for strong charge, along with the geometrical differences between electrostatic charge and strong charge. It is quite easy to verify through experiment.<br /><br />I have presented an actual experiment for tapping energy from the sea of dark matter with a vacuum tube. I have given a slightly different value to the neutron g-factor and explained why the present value was miscalculated. These are testable hypotheses. And there are many more.<br /><br />Also, the modern theories have no monopoly on the experiments of the past. There is no reason why the APM cannot claim past experiments as proof of its accuracy. In fact, when we look at the explanations of wave/particle duality, probability functions, force particles, and other weird explanations, we can honestly doubt whether the modern theories have any claim to past experiments as evidence at all.

 

[nova_explored]

that right there. dark matter. a theoritical matter that as of yet has no properties. but you are including it in your model, actually the model is directly dependent on it, and there is yet no 'empirical data' to support dark matter.<br /><br />the APM should build off of past experiments, i don't see how any model could do otherwise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

if you present a model for dark matter, which would probably be in line with String Theory, you could probably marriage the two. There is a wealth of experience that string theory taps into, harmonizes, but is as of yet, incomplete. It seems like APM could benefit greatly from String. But you have to be able to present a model for dark matter. even theoritical, you know that, that can be quantified. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

<i>And to all of you, please refrain from guilt by association arguments and character assaissination. Try to stay focused on the math and data. I really don't want to spoil the party here, but if you folks aren't mature enough to do real science, I'll gladly leave you to yourselves.</i><br /><br />i'm sorry to have to do this but that is a cheap shot and seem to be suggesting that I cannot grasp the model presented. <br /><br />You clearly said that Einstein was wrong, that Feynman and others were wrong.<br /><br />But then go onto say you are using the empirical data to support your theory, improving upon these figure's works'.<br />But you dismissed QED that was absolutely tested and proved in a freakin atom bomb. sorry to seem immature but that is the corner i am put in. <br /><br />Just be consistent, or accept that your model is not complete, because it is taking empirical data and joining it with theoritical ideas that as of yet, like every single other qm theory, cannot be proven. regardless of how nice and neat it looks all wrapped up. String theory looked like that, and has since fallen do disarray with continual findings. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">¿Cómo figura usted? Doy las dimensiones exactas para la carga fuerte, junto con las diferencias geométricas entre la carga electrostática y la carga fuerte. Es bastante fácil de verificar por el experimento. <br /><br />He presentado un experimento verdadero para utilizar energía del mar de materia oscura con una válvula electrónica. He dado un valor levemente diferente al G-factor del neutrón y explicado por qué el valor actualizado fue calculado mal. Estos son las hipótesis de testable. Y hay muchos más. <br /><br />También, las teorías modernas no tienen monopolio en los experimentos del pasado. No hay ningún motivo para que el APM no puede reclamar los experimentos pasados como prueba de su certeza. De hecho, cuando miramos las explicaciones de la dualidad de la onda/partícula, de las funciones de la probabilidad, de las partículas de la fuerza, y de otras explicaciones raras, nosotros podemos dudar honestamente si las teorías modernas tienen cualquier reclamo a experimentos pasados evidencia como en todo.</font><br /><br />No bueno.

 

[volantis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>and there is yet no 'empirical data' to support dark matter. the APM should build off of past experiments, i don't see how any model could do otherwise.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />There is empirical data to support dark matter. It is called the neutrino and Hubble constant. My theory applies quantification to dark matter by quantifying the neutrino as encapsulated dark matter in an electron/proton binding. If my theory isn't allowed to quantify empirically measured dark matter, what theory should be allowed to do so?

 

[volantis]

I have not taken the time to thoroughly study String theory, but I have seen animations of what String theory predicts. I have also seen the basic form of the primary equations. At first glance, it does seem to me that the APM and String theory are related. The mathematical structures of String theory resemble the Aether unit to a great degree.

 

[volantis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>i'm sorry to have to do this but that is a cheap shot and seem to be suggesting that I cannot grasp the model presented. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />No, that comment wasn't intended for you at all. It was intended for the others who engaged in guilt by association and character assassination. I tagged it on to my message to you because their messages weren't worth the extra trouble of opening a new window.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You clearly said that Einstein was wrong, that Feynman and others were wrong. But then go onto say you are using the empirical data to support your theory, improving upon these figure's works'. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, I wouldn't be able to improve on their works if they were right, would I?<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But you dismissed QED that was absolutely tested and proved in a freakin atom bomb. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I must have missed that comment. Can you point it out?<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Just be consistent, or accept that your model is not complete, <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I'm the first person to admit my theory is not complete. It is merely A New Foundation for Physics that describes quantum structure. It is nothing more than that. I have been stressing this all along.<br />

 

[nova_explored]

i have to hesitate on this...<br /><br />so what is dark matter? much earlier your APM suggested that dark matter is infinite. Hubble constant has nothing to do with an infinite form. actually its not pinned down to anything just yet. <br /><br />this infinite property of dark matter greatly resembles string theory, because infinite form requires multi-dimensions, which is what string theory builds off of.<br /><br />how does quantifying the neutrino as encapsulated dark matter give it the properties to exist both in 3d space and multi-dimensional.<br /><br />well, when i have time i'm going to go read parts of your paper again. too many questions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ag30476]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />I have not taken the time to thoroughly study String theory, but I have seen animations of what String theory predicts. I have also seen the basic form of the primary equations. At first glance, it does seem to me that the APM and String theory are related. The mathematical structures of String theory resemble the Aether unit to a great degree. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />LOL

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

<font color="yellow">I'm the first person to admit my theory is not complete. It is merely A New Foundation for Physics that describes quantum structure.</font><br /><br />this topic was raised by someone else. it comes so timely that you showed up during the show. so tell me sir, you and someone here were seatmates at a *neo-physics class*??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[colesakick]

ULTM "this topic was raised by someone else. it comes so timely that you showed up during the show. so tell me sir, you and someone here were seatmates at a *neo-physics class*???" <br /><br />Trite, petty and childish comment. Care to talk about the physics under examination here, or are you satisfied to cast dispersions and accusations of a conspiracy? You impugned me (my credentials as a medical professional) in another thread recently. Are you really so lacking in social skills and professionalism that you cannot deal with dissident scientific view points without resorting to such insults? Either add to the scientific content of this discussion or hold your peace. Distract and attack, I guess its easier than addressing the math and concepts on the table. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[ag30476]

> Care to talk about the physics under examination here<br />Dude what's the point? You can't "talk" about physics. Without doing the math or the experiments the discussion here is of as much value as a pop physics book just not as coherent.

 

[kmarinas86]

www.blacklightpower.com > 1000 * APM <br /><br />http://www.blacklightpower.com/techpapers.shtml<br /><br />http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theorypapers/H2112805.pdf<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The Nature of the Chemical Bond Revisited and an Alternative Maxwellian Approach<br />Randell L. Mills, BlackLight Power, Inc., 493 Old Trenton Road, Cranbury, NJ 08512<br />(609)490-1090, rmills@blacklightpower.com, www.blacklightpower.com<br />Abstract<br />It is taught that the chemical bond exists due to a phenomenon that is unique to<br />quantum mechanics. Specifically, the nature of the chemical bond is based on a nonphysical<br />"exchange integral" that is a consequence of a postulated linear combination of product<br />wavefunctions wherein it is implicit that each point electron with infinite self-electric-andmagnetic-<br />field energies must exist as a "probability-wave cloud" and be in two places at the<br />same time (i.e. centered on two nuclei simultaneously!) A further nonphysical aspect is that<br />the molecular solution is obtained without considering the nuclei to move under the Born-<br />Oppenheimer approximation; yet, the molecule must have a further nonphysical perpetualmotion-<br />type property of "zero-point vibration". Additional internal inconsistencies arise. The<br />electron clouds mutually shield the nuclear charge to provide an adjustable parameter,<br />"effective nuclear charge"; yet, neither has any self shielding effect even though the clouds are<br />mutually indistinguishable and must classically result in a self interaction force equivalent to<br />1/2 the central attractive force. Furthermore, the hydrogen molecule</font>

 

[nova_explored]

ah yes, QED. but what in the world does this have to do with APM model being discussed? please, for the love, put something more than just a copy and paste. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

What does this discussion have to do with space.com <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />What is a forum like phenomena doing here anyway? <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />What do <b>you</b> have to do with space.com?

 

[volantis]

Who said anything about "infinite" dark matter? I don't have any such understanding. My understanding is that the Universe is made of about 90% to 98% dark matter and the rest is visible matter. <br /><br />Please do reread my paper and give particular attention to the quantification of the neutron. The encapsulated neutrino adds angular momentum to the bound proton/electron (neutron), which translates to an increase in mass and strong charge. It would also seem that beta decays can be initiated by kinetic neutrinos knocking the encapsulated dark dark matter out from the middle of a neutron, although this isn't the only expected mechanism for beta decay.

 

[nova_explored]

sorry, it was discussion from the original post that was relating it to APM. wherever the discussion about dark matter giving angular momentum was talking about an infinite form in the universe that it pulls from or something to that degree.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

ahhh....sighs. i've been re-reading from the beginning.<br />so many different parts of the discussion could go on into a thousand posts to get to the necessary 'proof' needed.<br /><br />binding forces, fission, fusion, question of missing energy, dark matter, portals to smurfland (sorry had to shake it all off with that last one there).<br /><br />this whole fission/fusion part threw me, looking back again. energy is apparent in the form of photons, gamma radiation, the supposed creation of particles upon release of the binding force, and the subatomic particles releasing, etc, etc. and fusion...yeah, mass is formed. fusion is the basic, or rudimentary foundation by which the new particle now has an energy curve, lambda, by which it can now attract to form heavier elements, of course this process, in the deep of stars, requires pressure and gravity to maintain stability and velocity, but it is feeding off that energy, (equivocally exchanging energy for more mass), heavier elements, higher energy, etc, etc.<br />i've just hacked the crap out of that little explanation so i guess i should supply those basic charts.<br /><br />of course this exchange, due to a variety of variables, when we look at it on the QM level contradicts itself. Science doesn't understand the inner most working of stars and QM, as yet can't explain it. These elements, under such extreme pressure produce their own Electrostatic fields that act as a repeller to the massive graviational forces trying to crush them. This is all fine fine for ordinary stars, pretty understood, then we move to neutron stars, and that QED isn't able, in the models, to withstand that gravitational pressure, and should by all intents collapse under its own weight. <br /><br />sigh, i guess through this mumbo jumbo...where does APM solve the problem? remember, a unified theory would solve it, because we could understand how the four forces work together. i mean, if you can give that answer, you will sell me on this mode <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>