<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Probably 98$ of modern Physicists believe in the
Quantum Dynamics explanantion of "fields".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I happen to be on e of those remaining two
per c ent who believe in the earlier understnding, the Standard Model,
which is more centered on "particles" rather than "fields". I say thaat a
different way. I (still) believe in "physics explanations" rather than
pure mathematical explanations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I don't get alonng very well with many modern
Physicists, who ONLY use rather exotic math to explain everything. When
THEY tell me that "there is NO actual physical Universe", I rebel. I
understand their math, where they claim to "prove" that NOTHING actually exists,
but when I try to point out some seemingly weak speculated assumptions,
they just call me a dinosaur (which ALSO never actuallly existed).
By the way, my various Articles, like regarding <A
href="http://mb-soft.com/public9/dilation5.doc">http://mb-soft.com/public9/dilation5.doc</A>
and <A
href="http://mb-soft.com/public9//fouruniv4.doc">http://mb-soft.com/public9//fouruniv4.doc</A>
and <A
href="http://mb-soft.com/public9/dilatio4.doc">http://mb-soft.com/public9/dilatio4.doc</A>
<A
href="http://mb-soft.com/public9/gravmoonw.doc">http://mb-soft.com/public9/gravmoonw.doc</A>
and <A
href="http://mb-soft.com/public9/gravit87.doc">http://mb-soft.com/public9/gravit87.doc</A>
are ALL based on "actual physics" and ""actual logic" and NONE of my thoughts
are compatible with Quantum Dynamics and Field Theory.
(at least, I don''t think so).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>So my background is not sufficient for me to
inntelligently comment on most of your ideas. The ONLY one where I thought
a comment fromm me might be useful was my recent (Standard Model)
reasoning where (physical) electrons would need to create the vortices you
want. I grant that IF it really is all quantum, and "electrons" do not
actually exist but "vortex Fields" exist instead, then I am too ignorant to
comment. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>For many years, I have found that I do not
participate well in conversations where NOTHHING actually physically
exists. I still sort of likke the ""billiard balls that my Professors used
to explain a lot of Physics to me. Yes, I can certainly do the
Quantum math to confirm the mathematical things that my associates choose to
believe in. I just don't likke the MATHEMATICAL ASSUMPTIONS they make in
their math.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I guess I have nothing further to
contribute.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Carl Johnson</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>