<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hi Hodge,</div><div class=""> You wrote</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2594" class="">I would like KNOWLEDGABLE critiques about the STOE model. My current quest is about charge and the structure of the electron. I think before electron we need to figure out what charge is. We also must describe why an electron as a speed <<<i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2596">c.</i></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think I am not the one to be able to give you a knowledgeable critique about the STOE model. Perhaps John Macken can since he also has a theory of everything based on the idea that everything is spacetime.</div><div class="">John Williamson also has ideas about the nature of charge so you might read his papers on this.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m not sure what you meant by <i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2596" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">"</i><span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">We also must describe why an electron as a speed <<</span><i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2596" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">c."</i> I suppose you mean “has as speed <<c “ because electrons can travel very nearly at the speed of light, as found in high energy electron accelerators. My charged photon hypothesis of the electron at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength" class="">https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength</a> models the charged photon’s trajectory for an electron for speed zero to anything less than the speed of light. But it doesn’t explain the origin of the charge on the charged photon.</div><div class=""> Richard</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 2, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Hodge John <<a href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" class="">jchodge@frontier.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class=""><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" class=""><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2468" class=""><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2525" class="">Richard</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2527" class="">I think a scientific theory does not need consensus in the
modern socially driven scientific environment. RE: A. Unzicker “The Higgs fake:
How particle physics fooled the nobel committee” (especially the last two
chapters. J. Baggott “ Farewell to reality: How modern physics has betrayed the
search for scientific truth” , and H. Arp “Seeing red: redshifts, cosmology and
academic science”.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2529" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2531" class="">If you are saying a theory requires ONLY the socially
accepted aspect, then Dark matter, other universes, string, etc are Theories.
These have little to recommend them in the data department. John Williamson in
the NOL group has trouble getting his paper accepted BECAUSE it is not socially
acceptable. This is a problem for physics because it means the status quo and
nothing really new is accepted. Yet, mankind and science will progress despite
the foot dragging. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2533" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2535" class="">I suggest a theory (the most a model can be) needs data, a
test that rejects other models and does not reject (not NOT prove) the test
hypothesis, and should incorporate other successful tests (is more general).
Merely being able to describe existing data does not go beyond the hypothesis
stage and does not go beyond the speculation stage if other models also explain
the data (I have a problem with this if the “other models are ad hoc such as
the dark matter speculation).<span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2537" style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2539" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2523" class="">A small note of the Copernican vs Ptolemy’s epicycle theory.
In the time of Galileo, Ptolemic model was more accurate and conformed to data
whereas the Copernican model did not. Galileo looked for parallax and found
none - rejecting Copenican model. But this was a null result. The problem with
null result is that it may mean the answer in within experimental error. So it
was with Galileo. Instrument development eventually found parallax (1830s I
think) and therefore rejected Ptolemy. This may also apply to the
Michelson-Morley result.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2542" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2544" class="">I think the diffraction of light falls within QM. QM does a
terrible job in explaining it because there are conflicting data
interpretations such as Afshar’s experiment. You note the “10 or so…” of QH. I
thought it was over 25. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2546" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2548" class="">I think you are correct that a hypothesis is only a way to
develop tests. So the burden is upon the hypothesis to lead to tests. If a
Thought cannot lead to a test, I think it is a speculation (or meta physics)
not a hypothesis. God is a speculation (at best). Other universes are
speculation. I see in your papers you usually try to suggest concrete
experiments that may be performed. Good. But the hand waving of experiment is
terrible - they say it does fit without the numbers (data). </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2550" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2552" class="">Below is response to John Macken. His lack of knowledge
about diffraction theory and experiment is large. Therefore, I sent this to him
personally rather than over the group. But, since you ask”</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2554" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2556" class="">“I’m unsure of what you are trying to propose.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2558" class="">Let me start by going over some old ground. The Schrodinger
equation takes an energy relation and converts it to waves via a Fourier
transformation. The question of whether the transformed “waves” are real or
just a math convenience is long standing and still an unresolved issue.
Provided there is only one medium for the waves to wave in, any particle or
field energy relation can be modeled by the Fourier analysis. What more are you
saying other than the “waves” are real with a new name?</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2560" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2562" class="">This is why I suggest 2 constituents to the universe. If
waves and their medium are real and must have a speed greater than <i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2564">c</i>(quantum
entanglement and other observations), a particle like thing with a speed
limited to <i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2566">c</i> is needed. The quantum vacuum zero (discontinuity in a
medium) needs to have some means to limit the speed to <i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2568">c</i> and have a wave
speed many times <i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2570">c</i>.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2572" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2574" class="">The Fraunhofer, Fresnel, Kirchoff, or Sommerfeld calculation
all reduce to the Fraunhofer model in the far field and wide (many wavelengths)
slit (the experiment conditions). The advantage of the later models is solely a
better fit to data close to slit area. This was mentioned in the paper. I see
little reason to go through the other author’s derivations to occupy paper space.
You like Kirchoff, OK but note Kirchoff also used a obliquity factor
(cos(\theta) or (1+cos(\theta)) or your version) to prevent back waves. Your
model also uses the re-emission of wavelets that results in the spread of waves
(spherical ) across the diffraction screen (full diffraction pattern). The
experiment does not result in this pattern. Actually the Kirchoff model
requires knowledge about the complex amplitude and its derivative which is
generally not known in experiment. Therefore, the Fresnel model is better for
optical experiments and the Sommerfeld (phase consideration) even better for
close the slit observations. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2576" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2578" class="">What your model must show is the ½ diffraction pattern with
wave input. The experiment I conducted was limited to equipment available to a
retired researcher. Note the difference in the left side predictions of the
model. Some show a low intensity diffraction pattern, others no or little
pattern on the left side. My camera could not detect these much lower levels.
That is why I’d like to see the experiment done with better detection equipment
- to verify or reject the model by looking at the left side of the pattern. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2580" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2582" class="">What the experiment has to show is coherence of the
impinging light from the first mask. This was done. What the laser is or is not
becomes irrelevant once coherence is shown to be impinging on the second mask.
The source could be anything - from sun, from an incandescent bulb, etc. (light
from an incandescent bulb is not coherent but becomes coherent when passed through
a slit.) Likewise, the dimensions of the experiment produce the diffraction
pattern period. “</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2584" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2586" class="">My model goes beyond QM because it proposes a link to
Cosmology, because it explains the quantum entanglement it explains diffraction
with a test and prediction that QM cannot, why light has a top speed and other
matter does not, The unresolved issue of radiating charges that is socially
ignored, and there are a few more that I am close to writing a paper
summarizing the STOE.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2588" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2590" class="">The dark matter proposal is really rejected, The Rotation
curves of low luminous galaxies - read low mass- have rising rotation curves
which the dark matte hypothesis suggests means more dark matter that they don’t
have. Data rejects “dark matter” and “repulsive dark matter”, “G” variation
models, fifth force models, and MOND. That is the papers have a really sever
selection bias in them. I included all these galaxies in the STOE.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2592" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2594" class="">I would like KNOWLEDGABLE critiques about the STOE model. My
current quest is about charge and the structure of the electron. I think before
electron we need to figure out what charge is. We also must describe why an
electron as a speed <<<i class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2596">c.</i></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2598" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2600" class="">I think I have already seen your first paper reference. Was
the other in the academia site also? If so, I may have already seen it, But
I’ll check. As I said before, the comment about how does the electron have slow
speed seems an issue I think you should address - I see nothing in the model
that suggest a possible low speed. However, I think the electron must be some
kind of photon arrangement. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2602" class=""> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1449121736100_2604" class="">Hodge</div><div dir="ltr" class="">
</div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class=""><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">Click here to unsubscribe<br class=""></a><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>