Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!!!

[martillo]

Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!!!

---> "A New Light In Physics" (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics)


It worth.

[Epsilon=One]

Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!!!Not only is classical physics not "coming back"; but, pomo theoretical physics as described by the standard models will soon be passé.

Classical physics cannot explain observations that have been confirmed with modern technology; such as: the Pioneer anomaly; accelerating, galactic recession; and high energy background radiation; etc,

Pomo theoretical physics cannot reconcile any standard model, either internally or with any other standard model.

Soon there will be a Paradigm Shift! to a "new physics" that will explain current paradoxes and enigmas such that a thoughtful layperson can understand the environment in which we find ourselves.

The Cosmos, subatomic manifestations, and life will be reconciled; something that current physics finds impossible.

When this occurs: Science, Theology, and Philosophy will be united as one discipline.

[Albers]

I was ridiculed by Xerxes on Advanced Physics Forum for doing 'hundred year-old mathematics', then refused discussion for presenting 'new physics'. So you are giving me a wonderful laugh. When I complete my current effort to marry my inhomogeneous currents with general relativity, there will be excellent mirth. I am positing massless currents moving at 'c', which is a very simple source 4-vector structure.

[Epsilon=One]

I was ridiculed by Xerxes on Advanced Physics Forum for doing 'hundred year-old mathematics', then refused discussion for presenting 'new physics'.Xerxes appears to be a completely intolerant idiot when it comes to a free exchange of meaningful alternative concepts. Xerxes is so programmed that any thought that is "outside the box" is heretical to Xerxes' worldview and apparently dangerous. He/She and PhysicsForums.com appear to be little more than shills for academia and peer review.

It's people with views similar to Xerxes that kept Einstein from holding any position in American academia when he was fleeing the Nazis. (Possibly the lowest and most shameful point in American higher education. Little else more clearly demonstrates that intelligent inquiry is not the primary goal of our educational elite.)

Those narrow-minded PF moderators ban me every time I explain the Elliptical Constant; or when others begin to agree with some contentious position, opposed to the moderators and/or the irreconcilable Standard Models, that I may take.

What's even more unbelievable; they advertise their site on the search engines with many of my banned concepts and posts!!! I use many forum names and IP addresses to keep current with their shenanigans. I've discovered that I can post with different IP's faster than they can delete. I'm therefore able to store on my hard drives the deleted posts that they misrepresent faster than they can delete them. Some I've made available at: www.2-CQ.com/PT/TOC (http://www.2-CQ.com/PT/TOC); most I just save for when I can use a good laugh.

See: Brunardot's comment at PF (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=83886) the 5th hit from this Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=elliptical+constant&btnG=Google+Search) on July 7, 2006. (Note the Elliptical Constant has the first 5 hits of about 2,500,000 hits as of 7-7-06. Not bad for a banned topic at PF!!!)

There is much discontent with the moderators at PF; however, they delete anything that castigates their usurpation of "wisdom."

So you are giving me a wonderful laugh.Glad that my efforts are of some value . . .

You might enjoy posting to Xerxes attention a link to this post or Pulsoid Theory. (banned last year on all other forums where posted.)

[Albers]

Thank heavens for Google. I have had the same reservations about being presented through that site on Google. It was important to me that I have been on the first page of listings for 'fractional photons' amid QM establishment papers saying very different things, since New Years. Maybe I will choose not to announce future work there! I have had fun tweaking him, though, also. He laid out the line, "the prizes have been awarded", to which I promptly replied, "Therefore we know all there is and there is nothing further. Give up and admire our brilliance."

[Epsilon=One]

He laid out the line, "the prizes have been awarded", to which I promptly replied, "Therefore we know all there is and there is nothing further. Give up and admire our brilliance."Frank Wilczek was awarded a share of the 2004 Nobel in Physics. In his book written in 2006, he unequivacally, page after page, lays out that every concept of the Standard Models is subject to reinterpretation.

A careful reading seems to indicate that Wilczek has faith only in what can be seen in high-energy research and beautiful mathematics . . . and that is all subject to interpretation.

The bottom line is that never has there been so much doubt concerning the status quo of Standard Models; and, never has there been more opportunity for alternative views beyond the imaginations of the elite.

[Albers]

How nice you got to talk with him recently. Drop a mention of my nonquantum radiation field to him!

[Epsilon=One]

How nice you got to talk with him recently. Drop a mention of my nonquantum radiation field to him!I don't understand the fundamentals of a nonquantum radiation field.

I understand the radiation; I don't understand a "field" without a quantum???

[Albers]

Last autumn I was excitedly poised to demonstrate the mechanism of quantization, and showed myself exactly the opposite. What has to be accounted for in radiation is the localization; quantization of interaction is decided by the bound states. I show the mechanism and it is assumed to be infinitesimal and thus not fundamentally quantized on this scale, anyway. Any radiative disturbance generates a limiting 'waveguide' field. It is of course a major coincidence that atoms exchange only quantized amounts, and that is why we thought that is the only characterization of the field.

[Epsilon=One]

Last autumn I was excitedly poised to demonstrate the mechanism of quantization, and showed myself exactly the opposite. What has to be accounted for in radiation is the localization; quantization of interaction is decided by the bound states. I show the mechanism and it is assumed to be infinitesimal and thus not fundamentally quantized on this scale, anyway.Stay away from the mathematics. I don't believe that you have access to any that is not fundamentally flawed in its sybolization of the quantum and what is radiating.

I may be able to help you with a heuristic "visualization" that might help you develop the math. I can assure you that the mathematics that is powerful enough to dethrone what exists is extremely complex.

[Albers]

It has fallen to me to probe the construct which has held us enthralled for a hundred years. I would not for anything miss the opportunity to lift a mask whose illusion holds even such bright people as yourself! Penrose knew we must explain the electron as light chasing its tail. Given the elastic characteristics of the electrodynamic universe we see here the declaration of a scale, without which there can be no quantization. What do you say about why electrons are the magnitude they are?

[Epsilon=One]

It has fallen to me to probe the construct which has held us enthralled for a hundred years. I would not for anything miss the opportunity to lift a mask whose illusion holds even such bright people as yourself!Not sure that I consider it as an illusion within the narrow interpretation of the word.

Penrose knew we must explain the electron as light chasing its tail.Yes, in the sense that it's endlessly spinning . . . I prefer unwinding. But a better analogy would be that light is an electron chasing its tail. The double spin/"half-spin" phenomena is not as pronounced with the electron as with the heavy fermions; however, you can have little of value until you can unscramble what is dynamically going on with "half-spin" (a poor neologism). I think I can be of help here. I don't believe it is too difficult to visualize what fermion "half-spin" actually is. I don't know of any adequate explanation in any of the literature.

Given the elastic characteristics of the electrodynamic universeI consider the term "electrodynamic" as misleading and near useless. The Universe is much closer to being mechanical than anything else as metaphysical as "electrodynamic."

...we see here the declaration of a scale, without which there can be no quantization.Yes. However, I prefer "harmony" to "scale"; which is probably nitpicking.

[Albers]

Harmony or scale, how are we better off than Leon Lederman admitting his cluelessness about the twenty or so constants??? I guess if we have only a few we are more cool. . . . .There is nothing metaphysical in describing electric and magnetic effects in clean mathematics. It is the understanding of such which is our problem!

[Epsilon=One]

Harmony or scale, how are we better off than Leon Lederman admitting his cluelessness about the twenty or so constants???Other than the Conceptual Unit (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=322) that is heuristically described by the Elliptical Constant (http://www.2-CQ.com/PT/EC) and its corollary the universal Proof of One (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=165), there is no known origin for any of the constants including pi, "π."

The Conceptual Unit (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=322) is somewhat analogous to Planck's constant, "h," and its brethern such as: "h-bar," et cetera.

There is nothing metaphysical in describing electric and magnetic effects in clean mathematics.Until "electric" can be defined with "clean" definitions; and "unclean" mathematics can be proved, the results can only be considered as metaphysical. Which should be obvious because "electric" is based upon the irreconcilable, metaphysical Standard Models of physics and mathematics is subject to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

How else can there be any other conclusion when not a single force of the Standard Models is other than metaphysical . . . inexplicable in terms of observed Reality?

It is the understanding of such which is our problem!Yes . . . because we haven't started with the proper postulates.