Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Comment on Dr. Steven Chu's Letter






Comment on Dr.
Steven Chu's Letter




Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Letter to Dr. Steven Chu":
You do understand that electrons and protons are completely different things, right? Electrons are fundamental particles, and protons are made of three quarks (two up quarks and one down quark) with gluons keeping the together.

Regardless, have you heard back from Dr. Chu yet?

If not, the point I mentioned above may be the reason, OR you mentioned "revise Science." I'm sure you meant well, but I think it comes across as too bold.
This comment was left by a well-meaning scientist...:)

He was way too kind. If I hadn't paid attention to the fact that seemingly a Proton and an Electron are different entities (different things), I would be arrogant.

That is a basic piece of knowledge mankind accumulated during its journey towards illumination...:)

He mentioned that by stating that my theory was an attempt to revise science, I had come across as too bold.

Hadn't I paid attention to the very relevant detail that an electron is different from a proton in the current understanding, I would be more than bold, I would be really stupid and arrogant.

Despite of the fact that I don't put my picture and name on each and every page of my blog, my name and information can be easily found in the pdfs. I believe that my theory is important, I am not. I am just the carrier. This means that everything I stated here, if wrong, would damage my projected image.

As the saying goes, Egg would be on my face. I think this is how science should be discussed.

There's got to be a penalty for overlooking a relevant piece of information in a scientific discussion.

I chose to have a public review of my theory and never shied away from criticism. In fact, I didn't have an option other than to post it here in this corner of the internet…:) . Well, it is also published in two books.

This lack of anonymity from my side is also the reason why I asked scientists to name themselves. That makes the discussion more interesting and intellectually more honest.

Don’t be shy, just remember that everything you say will live forever in the net..:)

The word revision comes from many things in my theory. A very salient new paradigm in my theory is the Fundamental Dilator shown below:


This is called the Balls Diagram because I used Balls to denote the orientation (by the lettering orientation) and tunneling phase of the 4D spatial metric deformation coherence with respect to our 3D Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe.




The spinning creates a stroboscopic effect (interaction only occurs when the deformations are flush with the 3D Hypersphere) which yields both Quantum Mechanics and the distinct character of the four fundamental particles (electron, proton, positron and antiproton).

On the other hand, one has to have Balls (in the figurative sense) to propose such a revolutionary model. Here Electrons, positrons, antiprotons and protons are really different phases of the same entity. I call this concept a revision of what we currently consider to be a particle.

If you had read a fraction of my theory, you would know that I proposed a paradigm where the four fundamental particles are just phases of the same metric deformation coherence.

A Horse is a Horse, of course, of course...:) and a Proton is different from an Electron, unless we are dealing with a revisionist theory (different view of the same reality) where they are the same...:)

Had you named yourself, it would be clear that you cast a comment without reading the basic tenets of my theory and egg would be on your face...:) It is just fair...:)

I would be delighted to discuss the theory with my critics - right here because this is the only place where a broad scope theory can be debated. If this were a review of my work, never in a million years could I point out that the reviewer didn't do a good job ..>:) In fact, the reviewer missed all the relevant points...:) (if you don't believe, read my other blog with the censorship events).

By the way, if I were wrong, I would love to hear a good argument. I hate wasting time and have other things to do...:)

I was asked if I received any reply from Dr. Steven Chu. I can tell that there has been a pick-up on the interest level of my theory.

Below you can see the Maploco displaying readers from several places:
Cambridge - Probably MIT's Dr Guth..>:)
Alamogordo - Most likely radioative scientists from White Sands...:) (I am guessing...:)
Berkeley - Probably some brilliant string theorist...:)
Stockholm, Sweden - Probably the Nobel Prize Committee...;)
Ithaca - Probably Dr. Paul Ginsparg..>:)
Many of my visitors do not leave comments, which is a shame...:) As you know, everyone is tempted to put down other people's ideas..>:) but very few have the courage to say something positive about someone else's controversial work..>:)

Dr Steven Chu, most likely asked our Luminaries to go and find out what this theory is about..>:)

I hope they do a better job than our well-meaning scientist. It would be inappropriate to conclude that the lack of a reply means that the theory is incorrect ...:)

The case in point is that most people have biases (e.g. an electron is a different 'particle' from a proton) and will simply discard the theory without even reading it as did the current critic. Of course, if the concept of particle were the only way to describe the immutable electron and if the electron were really immutable, then they would be right...:) I question the immutability and the concept that particle or particle-wave are the only way to describe an electron...:) Not only question, but provided an alternative description where there is no immutability and instead of a particle or particle/wave, the electron is modeled as a metric deformation coherence (thus highly mutable..:) and better described as a traveling wave-generator...

Of course, I also provided a new paradigm for interaction which yields quantum mechanics and relativity. I proposed that Relativity is in the eyes of the beholder in my posting The Image in the Mirror , that is, the hyperbolic nature of spacetime is due to the choice of equations of motion. I also solved a paradox there...:)

Using the Quantum Lagrangian Principle, the limiting velocity of light comes naturally...:)

Returning to the problem of biased critics. They might do with nice words like "well-meaning" but what is really important is that they read the theory before reaching a conclusion...:) or at least read the basic and very controversial paradigms and make a critique of them before concluding something..:)

Every so often, I repost my "The Silence of the Lambs" posting as a guide to controversy and to help critics to find their way without too much reading..>:)

I would like to make the discussion more fluent.

The Silence of the Lambs verses about the silence of the scientific community after being hit by a much simpler alternative explanation of the Universe. This would be the time that I would expect them to jump up and down and say Occam's Razor ..>:) as so many of them like to do...:) ( I hate that pompous line of speech). It contains many if not most of the controversial points of this theory in a bullet point form.

Thanks for the opportunity to point the why my theory revises science. It proposes a paradigm that provides an alternative view of particles, the cosmos etc....

Cheers,

MP





LocationTime
Astoria, NY, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 20:18:18 -0500
Atlanta, GA, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 19:38:49 -0500
Astoria, NY, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 19:32:29 -0500
Euless, TX, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 19:13:01 -0500
Pasadena, CA, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 18:49:54 -0500
Carrollton, TX, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 16:14:16 -0500
Wayne, NJ, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 15:59:58 -0500
Long Beach, CA, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 15:55:51 -0500
Seoul, Korea, Republic ofTue, 29 Sep 2009 15:42:11 -0500
New York, NY, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 15:21:50 -0500
New York, NY, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 15:02:56 -0500
Cambridge, MA, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 13:44:35 -0500
Hoboken, NJ, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 13:12:14 -0500
Joliet, IL, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 12:50:12 -0500
, United KingdomTue, 29 Sep 2009 12:28:26 -0500
Alamogordo, NM, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 11:54:06 -0500
New York, NY, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 10:30:39 -0500
Bridgeport, CT, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 08:04:48 -0500
Bangkok, ThailandTue, 29 Sep 2009 01:22:21 -0500
Berkeley, CA, United StatesTue, 29 Sep 2009 01:08:46 -0500
Warren, NJ, United StatesMon, 28 Sep 2009 22:50:25 -0500
Wayne, NJ, United StatesMon, 28 Sep 2009 20:49:52 -0500
Lawrenceville, GA, United StatesMon, 28 Sep 2009 20:39:34 -0500
Mamaroneck, NY, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 18:55:11 -0500
Stockholm, SwedenFri, 02 Oct 2009 17:44:47 -0500
, EuropeFri, 02 Oct 2009 13:55:55 -0500
Bayonne, NJ, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 12:22:00 -0500
North Dartmouth, MA, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 11:24:23 -0500
East Brunswick, NJ, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 11:04:22 -0500
Peoria, AZ, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 09:54:04 -0500
Cambridge, MA, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 09:07:55 -0500
Rosedale, NY, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 09:03:06 -0500
Washington, DC, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 08:50:34 -0500
Montgomery, AL, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 08:44:59 -0500
Edison, NJ, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 08:44:36 -0500
Brooklyn, NY, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 08:26:40 -0500
Ashburn, VA, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 08:23:34 -0500
Waddy, KY, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 08:20:14 -0500
Munich, GermanyFri, 02 Oct 2009 08:00:33 -0500
Berkeley, CA, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 07:23:44 -0500
Spokane, WA, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 04:08:22 -0500
, , United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 03:03:03 -0500
Warren, NJ, United StatesFri, 02 Oct 2009 02:03:54 -0500
Astoria, NY, United StatesThu, 01 Oct 2009 22:08:25 -0500
Columbus, OH, United StatesThu, 01 Oct 2009 21:56:47 -0500


Clifton, NJ, United States Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:02:56 -0500
Nottingham, United Kingdom Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:55:07 -0500
Gatineau, QC, Canada Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:35:35 -0500
Ithaca, NY, United States Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:33:32 -0500
Mount Kisco, NY, United States Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:27:27 -0500
Yucca Valley, CA, United States Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:11:30 -0500
Post a Comment