[Physics] Discussion ‘new beginning’ in physics necessary'.

[James Rose]

Gentlemen,
Where do biology, ecology, economics, information theory, etc  coordinate with each of your interesting proposals?
James Rose


      From: Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>
 To: Hans van Leunen <jleunen1941 at kpnmail.nl>; General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list <physics at tuks.nl> 
 Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 5:14 PM
 Subject: Re: [Physics] Discussion ‘new beginning’ in physics necessary'.
   
Hi Hans,

Thanks for the link. I'm going to study your book. Quickly took a
look, and I liked what I saw, especially:

"Some scientists start a research project that has as target to
develop a theory of everything. This is an implausible enterprise
because the target is far too complicated to be comprehended by a
human being. In fact, what these scientists pursue is the discovery of
a foundation, whose extension automatically leads to a theory that in
principle can cover all aspects of physical reality. I never had the
intention to develop a theory of everything. Instead I am interested
in the structure and the functioning of the lower levels of physical
reality. "


"what these scientists pursue is the discovery of a foundation, whose
extension automatically leads to a theory that in principle can cover
all aspects of physical reality. "

That's what I claim to have found. My equations, as I have now can be
found here:

Some very good criticism has been given by Zoltan, in the thread :

http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/2016-December/thread.html

Basically, all the comments in the thread should be read by all whom
are interested in discovering such a "theory of everything".

I think I found the principle. But that's IT!

You state: "This is an implausible enterprise because the target is
far too complicated to be comprehended by a human being."

What if it is actually much simpler than we had ever could have imagined?

So, contrary to what you claim to be impossible, I claim it_is_
possible, because we simply think waaay to complicated and illogical.
Now I have convinced myself I found a fundamental error in Maxwell's
equations.

So, the question I would like an answer to is: Am I right?

Could physics be so simple and elegant, yet capable of displaying such
incredible views, images, movies right in front of our own to eyes?

Please consider reading all the threads this month, and the previous
months as well. I will read up opon them one day, and reply.

I think Nanian's proposal is worth listening to. That's basically the
model we use as the basis for our aether theory.


Best regards,


Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
Goor, The Netherlands.
W: http://www.tuks.nl
T: +316 5425 6426


On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Hans van Leunen <jleunen1941 at kpnmail.nl> wrote:
> Nainan,
> Try TheHilbertBookTestModel by Hans van Leunen https://doc.co/WmxXCB
> Hans van Leunen
>
> ----Origineel Bericht----
> Van : matterdoc at gmail.com
> Datum : 11/12/2016 13:23
> Aan : physics at tuks.nl
> Onderwerp : [Physics] Discussion ‘new beginning’ in physics necessary'.
>
>
> Contemporary physics has far too many assumptions, virtual particles and
> imaginary forces. These lead to circular reasoning and often result in
> absurd theories.
>
> To be logical, in physics, there should be only one fundamental assumption
> and all physical theories should be based on this single assumption. In
> material world, existence of matter is nearest to absolute truth. Hence,
> existence of matter can be chosen as the fundamental assumption on which all
> physical theories should be based.
>
> ‘Action at a distance through empty space’ is the most illogical assumption
> used in physics. Various media were suggested / are used to overcome this.
> However, all alternatives are imaginary entities which are worse than the
> problem. Therefore, a ‘new beginning’ in physics is necessary.
>
> See: http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0048
>
> Nainan
>
>
> --
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * * * * * *
> All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by
> alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'.
> http://www.matterdoc.info
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>

_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161212/ead4881c/attachment.html>