David Thomson wrote:
> Thanks for posting that fine list of comments from 16pi2. Too bad you
> didn't take the time to actually read what these excellent topics are about.
> Although, I would be delighted to expand on any of them should anybody with
> interest request me to.
No problem brother. I posted from the start of our discussion one method that
would catch my attention and most of the physics community.
David Thomson wrote:
[snip]
>> I took a peak at your website to discover one needs to *buy* your book to
> study your Aether theory. Also I could not help but notice your obvious
> *Donations* request on your homepage.
>
> Err, did you expect we would be giving the book away for free?
Yes, electronically. There are countless sites that freely and gladly allow
people place their research. I use Peswiki.com. IMHO here's a significant
difference between you and I -->
From the beginning of my research I have placed the following statement at the
top of my research web page:
"Note This project and research requires no funding or payments of any kind.
No payment is requested nor has any ever been accepted for this project and
research. This researcher has the necessary equipment and money to continue this
project and research."
You push your Aether theory, but when the poor scientist goes to your website
they discover you are selling a book.
> You might
> not be aware of this, but nearly every physics book has a price attached to
> it.
We're talking about your proposed theory. Read about Peer review -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
>> So it appears we agree that your APM cannot predict the double slit
> experiment.
>
> The APM doesn't explain why you are so obnoxious, but that is not within the
> scope of the theory, either.
Again, please stop the ad hominem. I can assure you are wasting your emotional
energy on such remarks, which have no negative effect on me. So please refrain
yourself.
>> May I ask what your APM can do that Quantum Physics cannot?
>
> Apparently you can. The real question, based upon your professed dislike
> for Aether theories, is will you listen to the answer? I have spoken
> several times in this thread and other threads on this list about the APM
> predicting the relative strengths of the fundamental forces, predicting the
> 1s orbital electron binding energies, and predicting the distributed and
> reciprocal natures of charges. And this is just a short list. Certainly, a
> mathematically quantified Unified Force Theory, electron binding energy
> equation, and proper quantification of charge structures is worthy of
> scientific acknowledgement?
After asking you far too many times, and you avoiding the question, one has to
presume you are not qualified at quantum physics.
Again, compare your tactics to mine. From the beginning of my research I have
placed the following statement at the top of my research web page -->
My quote:
"Note This project and research requires no funding or payments of any kind.
No payment is requested nor has any ever been accepted for this project and
research. This researcher has the necessary equipment and money to continue this
project and research."
>>> And I said anything remotely similar to this... where?
>
>> My claim is that energy is capturable form ambient temperature. The
> capacitor experiment demonstrates this. I'll ask you again, do you believe
> a capacitor connected to a resistor captures energy from ambient
> temperature?
>
> You are either dense, naïve, or both. I have merely been throwing back the
> same kind of mindless cynicism at your work as you threw at mine. You have
> gotten really worked up about this and put on quite a defensive display.
That's the usual response I get. For the umpteenth time I request people not
attach emotions to my statements. I could literally write a significant post of
just your "assumptions." You "assume" I got worked up.
Your APM makes broad claims. My requests are legit. Your so-called quote,
"throwing back the same kind of mindless cynicism" was obviously not legit. I
am not proposing a new theory or model.
So I conclude -->
1. You agree that a capacitor can capture some energy contained in ambient
temperature.
2. You are not qualified in the field Quantum physics.
3. Your APM cannot predict the double slit experiments or many other experiments
and effects that QM successfully predicts.
4. You want scientists to study your APM, but you charge real money for the
book. Furthermore you ask for donations.
> Only if you give my work the proper analysis it deserves would I even
> consider giving you the same courtesy.
>
I tried by asking you if your theory predicts what QM has successfully
predicted. I'll even take another step forward by asking what a scientist could
do with your model? Could one use your APM in a computer software simulation?
That may not interest the physics community as a whole, but it could catch my
interest since I write software simulations.
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
