Frank, First, pardon my lack of knowledge on your theory. My question may be naïve.
The Diosi-Penrose model of quantum collapse merges QM with gravitational force. See, for example - "Newton force from wave function collapse: speculation and test" http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6404 "Gravity-related wave function collapse: Is superfluid He exceptional?" http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5364 Is your theory similar in any way to the above? -- Lou Pagnucco Frank Z wrote: > > The same will be true for the many math based quantum mechanical versions > of reality. That is why LENR is so important. It can be used to select the > proper mathematical interpretation of reality. > > > > I agree. I noted a velocity in cold fusion and gravitational experiments. > 1,094,000 meters per second. I assumed it was the velocity of a > longitudinal mechanical wave in the nucleus. When I set this velocity > equal to the velocity of light in the electronic structure of the atom; > the quantum condition emerged. Planck's constant emerged from this > classical analysis. > > > To date no one cares but I am sure that someday they will. > > > Frank Z > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Dec 22, 2013 3:37 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: More on the Kalman paper > > > > > On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > > > Extra dimensions are a way to make the math work in string theory. But no > one is able or willing to make this math world match up with the real > world. Math guys do not have very active imaginations. > > > > It took some time of Einstein's general equations to be mapped onto a > valid view of the universe. For example, black holes are a projection of > the math onto a physical reality that turned out to be real. > > > > I would say this differently, Axil. Black holes are a logical and > necessary consequence of gravity interacting with mass-energy. The > equations are only another way to describe this necessary event. > > > > > The same will be true for the many math based quantum mechanical versions > of reality. That is why LENR is so important. It can be used to select the > proper mathematical interpretation of reality. > > > > I agree. > > > Ed Storms > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Yes, if 4 don't work, try 5. If 5 fail, try 50. As they say, with enough > variables, all data can be fit. It never occurs to these people that > their basic model may be wrong. They just keep adding variables and > complexity until all the points fall on a line. > > > Ed Storms > > > > > I always wanted to know what theoretical physicists have to say about that > argument. I just saw in the > swedish television a nice program that was a filosofical discussion about > science in general, and that question came out. The feeling of the expert > was that it was too much things that fell on place that they argue that > the theory should be pretty much correct and that the theory predicted > things that was shown correct. But then when I take my statistical and > mathematical hat on I just see to much opportunity to add variables that > are fitted in experiments and then the whole thing matches a theory of a > certain order, that should by some expansion fit to a more conventional > albeit perhaps a bit more nonlinear model. Then of cause the high > dimensional theory would predict the right things if what is probed is for > example the second order effects of the model. > > > > Another pet peeve of mine is the popular argument that because we live it > must be true argument, which is fine if one also supply alternative > arguments. As an example take the realization that if the physical > constants was just a little of, then the universe would not allow us to > live and because we live, the parameters are as they are assuming a > multiverse. Another argument is that the model of all things have really > fewer parameters and hence that the parameters really are dependant. But > you never hear that possibility in the TV shows, which shows a good piece > if overconfidence of what we have today. > > > > Cheers! > /Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > >
