[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19

[Hans van Leunen]

Dear Carl Johnson,

Physical reality has some built-in healing principles that cleans theories
about its structure and phenomena.

 

Physical reality has a rather simple foundation, which is easily
comprehensible. Extension of this foundation with trustworthy mathematical
methods must automatically result into a more complicated model of reality
that after some extension steps will show features and phenomena, which we
know from observing reality. This path does not allow fantasy theories. It
automatically guides you in the proper direction. The problem is that you
must first find that foundation. The foundation is simple, thus there exist
a big chance that the structure of this foundation was discovered long ago,
but it was not detected that this structure IS the foundation of reality. So
you must rediscover this structure. Quite probable it was stored as part of
mathematics. If you happen to rediscover it, then an important property is
that any extension of this foundation leads to a more complicated model that
is again a model of physical reality.

 

This is the idea behind the Hilbert Book Model project. A report about the
status of the projects is  <https://doc.co/WmxXCB> https://doc.co/WmxXCB

Sincerely yours,

Hans van Leunen

 

Van: Physics [mailto:physics-bounces at tuks.nl] Namens cj at mb-soft.com
Verzonden: dinsdag 27 december 2016 16:26
Aan: physics at tuks.nl
Onderwerp: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19

 

I fully concur with you gentlemen that many of the "mainstream" modern
Physicists use horrible assumptions and speculations in dreaming up many of
the ideas which all other mainstream physicists then immediately accept. 

 

However, I see a variation of that same problem in the discussions that you
gentlemen try to discuss in this Forum. As a Theoretical Physicist, I find
humor in some of your arguments. A recent example is your fascination with
"aether". IF you are going to refer to historical information, please make
an effort to get your facts straight. It is darkly hilarious that you
discuss incremental differences, and errors, in the orbital parameters of
the planets, where you then attempt to justify the "aether" regarding those
math issues. PLEASE check your history regarding such things. Kepler was a
smart guy, but he lived a hundred years (five generations) before the even
smarter Isaac Newton. Kepler very reasonably assumed that the mass of the
Sun established the orbital parameters of the planets, and it was very
impressive that he determined that the Sun is at one of the foci of each
planet's elliptical orbits.

 

It was a hundred years later that Newton realized that BOTH masses orbit
each other in such ellipses, where he corrected Kepler's earlier math
imprecision.

 

So your arguments today about trying to sleuth out some aether explanation
for that difference are in error. It was merely the way science advances
through history. 

 

I note that none of you seem to refer to another advance that Newton made,
due to his "Fluxions" (which we call Calculus). Even the "mainstream physics
community" have not gotten past Kepler here. Kepler's ideas that everything
in the Solar System are entirely dependent on the Sun's mass, is STILL
assumed to apply to the Milky Way Galaxy, and so people argue today that the
Spiral Arms fail to comply with Kepler's Laws in having any chance of being
stable. The mainstream physics community should also check their historical
records, to see that Newton had also resolved that a hundred years after
Kepler, by stating that Calculus must be used regarding the DISTRIBUTED MASS
of any entity like the Galaxy, where Kepler's assumption of a POINT MASS of
the Sun was relatively accurate for the Solar System.

 

It is really critically important to be extremely careful in checking all
facts and logic, if worthwhile physics might result. 

 

A few weeks ago, I had noticed a similar error of such sloppiness in your
discussions about Michelson-Morley and Lorentz and Fitzgerald and Maxwell (a
genration before the others, around 1860). As a Physics student at the
University of Chicago, we spent months in very carefully examining and
analyzing all of the thoughts of those brilliant men (and Faraday even
earlier). Comments by some of you gentlemen seem to have neglected a lot of
that important fact-checking, where you express "personal opinions" which
were often just speculations. Due to such logical errors, it seemed obvious
to me that your grasp of both Special Relativity and General Relativity,
cannot really become solid.

 

If you really want to advance the field of Physics, or even better, clean up
some of the areas of the speculations of the "mainstream physics community",
you really should rigidly check your facts and logic before building your
own conjectures. 

 

Carl Johnson

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161227/b14bf903/attachment.html>