[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Physics of Wireless Transmission - last

Original poster: Vardan <vardan01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi,

At 05:48 AM 4/25/2006, you wrote:

Hi Terry and Bert,

> >Do they concur with your interpretations?
>
> I certainly did "not" concur with Dave's interpretations as
> to the root cause!
...
> The spark thing is rather odd on first inspection, but with a
> little testing and thought, it makes perfect sense with
> conventional physics.

My theory merely states that electrostatic charge and
electromagnetic charge have different geometries.  This only
implies that the charges will have different physical appearances
and behaviors.  How the different appearances and behaviors are
manifested in a given physical experiment is completely
irrelevant.
What!!! You claimed that the two arcs in the test had two different appearances because they were caused by "two distinct manifestations of charge" (electrostatic and electromagnetic). Now that it has been shown that the appearance of the arcs was perfectly explainable with conventional physics, suddenly that test is "COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT"!! If the test had shown that there really "were" two distinct manifestations of charge, I don't think you would call it irrelevant then... You seem to like to use it as an example of how "Terry, Antonio, and a couple others" could "repeat" the test in "support" of your theory, even though it did "NOT" support your theory in the least. 


In fact, there should be dozens of different methods
for producing the effect.  In this case, my theory predicts the
effect, not its cause.


Lets hear that again... "my theory predicts the effect, not its cause."



The fact that we witnessed two distinctly different appearances
to charges is evidence in favor of my theory.
NO, not at all! It directly showed that the differences in the two sparks were perfectly explainable "without" any help from your theory at all... 


This is what I've
been trying to convey all along.  My theory does not replace
modern physics, it provides a replacement only for certain sub
theories such as wave/particle duality, force particles, and
probability functions.  My theory follows the same rules of
dimensional analysis as does Classical physics.  There are a few
new and useful additions (Unified Force Theory, subatomic and
space-time geometry, and strong force law, for example), but
otherwise the physics are essentially the same.
I have listened to these "my theory" posts for years now... I have gone to great lengths to "entertain" it. But over the years, I have never seen any evidence at all that any of it is true... I have now, finally, heard enough... 

I am killing the subject permanently!
Oh! And by the way, I think there is a problem with the dimensional units in the last equation on THIS page.... 

http://www.16pi2.com/apm_physics_examples.htm



        Terry




Dave