View this page "Possible Script for VigierVIITalk"

[ESKI]

Am posting a possible script as a "page" on this site. Want to know
what the people of this Group think about this version.

I'm finding it more difficult than I thought it would be to condense
the last three years of discoveries, even the most basic, into a
thirty-minute, oral presentation.

I haven't done an oral presentation to a group in almost 30
years,;and, in those days, I always extemporized.

This is my first try with a reading script and I have never done
anything by remote before. I'll need a lot of "fingers crossed." to
pull this one off without making a mess of it. ESKI

Click on http://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance-theory/web/possible-script-for-vigierviitalk
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.

[hoek]

Hello Dr. Sinclair,

Well, it's the middle of the month of June and so far no one, but,
me has responded to your call for assistance in working out a speech
for the upcoming Vigier VII Symposium in July. I want to thank you
for mentioning me and my website in your upcoming speech, but,
mentioning me isn't necessary. My motives are not personal fame or
recognition, but, purely and simply to tell the truth about nature, as
I perceived it. The objective of Vigier VII Symposium is "The Search
For Fundamental Theory". Talking about anything other than a
description of that fundamental theory or where one could be located,
would be off topic. It's interesting how you described your quest
that began in 2004 or 2005, when it seems, you had an epiphany and
realized that there were things relative to Planck's formula that had
been overlooked. My own quest began in 1978. After viewing a science
film, which made me realize that there was valuable data being
overlooked, that didn't agree with the prevailing quark theory, but,
would describe the inner workings of the proton. These are both
interesting stories, but, both are off topic and not what the people
at the Vigier VII symposium want to hear. In my point of view. You
try to oversimplify the universe. It seems you twist substitute and
rearrange Planck's formula trying to get things out of it that just
aren't there, most notably, a mechanism. If your model has no viable
sustaining mechanism, than it is no better than the Quantum Chromo-
Dynamics of "Quark Theory. These people are looking for a FUNDAMENTAL
THEORY! Not the story of a self acclaimed "pretend genius" or day
worker or janitor or old man, who wants to make his mark in the world
before he dies or about the other semi-famous people who are also
named Dean Sinclair. Focus on the topic that they've invited you to
speak about, a FUNDAMENTAL THEORY.
You've got me by about 14 years Eski. I am the survivor of a liver
transplant, back in 2003. I could also die any time, as any of us
can. I don't complain about it or look for people's sympathy, but, I
thank God the Creator for every extra day that I am allowed to live in
this beautiful realm of existence where everything seems to make
sense, at least in nature. This pretend genius you speak of, who
wants those at the Vigier Symposium to throw out all that they've
learned in science from Rutherford's discovery of the nucleus to our
present concept of atomic structure. A century of knowledge
discovered, not by pretend geniuses, but many real certifiable ones.
You ask a lot!!! In her last posting, our group secretary, ka-sala
said, " We can go over and over Planck's Theory, and anyone else's.
The difference is we are here... now. Today's Theory." I think she's
saying you're beating a dead horse, Eski. I noticed in your speech,
you mentioned twice about reality, disappearing down the 10 dimension
hole of string theory. WHY? Your own hypothesis has nothing to do
with other dimensions. It works quite fine in just the three of
space, and one of time that we can naturally perceive, as does my
own. QCD needs at least one and possibly three, extra dimensions for
their mathematical model to work, depending upon which quantum
physicist you ask. I've always thought of assumption of extra
dimensions as a "fudge factor". A generous assumption factor, a place
to hide the sloppy bits that don't quite fit in. When neutrons
undergo beta-decay, by emitting an electron and an anti-neutrino and
turn into proton's the mathematics of quark theory fails. It seems
there's some missing charge energy and mass that needs to be there and
isn't. Well, where is it? Oh, I see, it resides in an alternate
dimension and pops over just when it's needed. Who would've thought?
More dimensions are just more fudge factors and I recommend to you,
not to use or acknowledge their existence, that is, unless they are
pertinent to your hypothesis. I tell you all this, Eski, not in a
mean-spirited or condescending fashion, but, to try and help you and
our group make a good impression. I've edited the beginning of your
speech in a way that mentions my website twice. It's more important
to me that my hypothesis be analyzed, then my name being mentioned.
If you mention my website, as well as that of the O/S group, a third
time at the end, it's been proven that more people are likely to
remember it. You'll notice they do this in almost every TV
commercial. Remember to try and focus on the topic, Eski, a
fundamental theory and how it works, in describing reality as we know
it, at the nuclear and possibly cosmological level as well. By the
way, my full name is Robert Kardien Vanderhoek, that's CAR-DEAN VAN
DER HOOK. If you do mention it, tell them to google it. It will take
them to my Fundamental Mechanics page.
I've taken the liberty to rewrite the intro to your speech. I
think it more clearly defines the objectives of all the members of the
O/S group. I hope you like it and it helps you, let me know what you
think. Thanks again for including me and I wish you and all of us best
of luck.
hoek


It is my pleasure to welcome the Vigier VII Symposium to the Aberdeen
American News here in Aberdeen, South Dakota, USA and to be able to
thank the News and Dr. Amoroso for this opportunity to introduce to
the wider scientific community a framework for a Comprehensive Theory
which seems to be applicable at any scale from sub-atomic to cosmic.

I also wish to thank my friends from two Internet Groups who have
contributed information and support over the last three years since
the first version of this model was published on Helium.com as "Motion
in a Matrix..." The current version has a working title of the
Oscillator/Substance Model, as it has become clear that the motions
that are involved are in part primarily, if not totally, oscillatory
in nature, and a liquid substance at its triple point where it can
also act as a solid or a gas makes a much better model than does a
rigid matrix.

One of the groups which I need to thank is the Condensed Matter
Nuclear Science Group, cmns, which has furnished much information
including the fact that this Symposium existed. Thank you, Jean Pierre

The other group of which I, Dean LeRoy Sinclair, am founder and
director of is the Oscillator/Substance Theory Group. At
http://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance-theory

Members, of our group all seek the truth about the nature of the
realm in which we find ourselves existing. We all believe that the
basic mechanics that govern the universe and the workings of the sub-
atomic, quantum, world are oscillatory in nature and mirror each other
at the largest and smallest of scales. We come from different
backgrounds, with various approaches and models to try to explain this
phenomenon. One member of the group, who has a somewhat different
version from my own, of which I'll return to in a moment, is at
protoncosmology.com. His model agrees with the current Rutherford-
Bohr atomic model, but, not the currently accepted quark nucleon
hypothesis. His model takes an electro-magnetic like, field dynamics
approach based on neglected and recently verified electron-proton
scattering data. The model poses the proton as an internally driven
spherical oscillator, an electro-dynamic like perpetual motion
machine. It is driven by the conversion of charge energy into mass and
back again by the function M=E/C2, which is a simple transposition of
E=MC2 and the fact that no particle with mass can attain the velocity
of light. The full version, which is too lengthy to describe now, can
be found on line at " http://www.protoncosmology.com”, or on links at:
http://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance-theory

I'll now use my remaining minutes in trying to convince an inquiring
audience that we have come up with a unifying framework for the
physical sciences.

Probably the difference is that this speaker is working on a model
with no particular set of preconceptions, but, is simply following a
line of logic examining commonly accepted ideas for hidden or
overlooked significances. This is a totally different approach from
trying to fit together already accepted viewpoints. This is an open
ended journey rather than one focused on some desired destination.

You take it from here Doc

On Jun 10, 4:15 pm, ESKI <deanlsincl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am posting a possible script as a "page"  on this site. Want to know
> what the people of this Group think about this version.
>
>  I'm finding it more difficult than I thought it would be to condense
> the last three years of discoveries, even the most basic, into a
> thirty-minute,  oral presentation.
>
>  I haven't done an oral presentation to a group in almost 30
> years,;and, in those days, I always extemporized.
>
> This is my first try with a reading script and I have never done
> anything by remote before.  I'll need a lot of "fingers crossed." to
> pull this one off without making a mess of it.  ESKI
>

> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance-theory/web/possibl...

[dean sinclair]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:42 PM, hoek <bhoo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Dr. Sinclair,

  Well, it's the middle of the month of June and so far no one, but,
me has responded to your call for assistance in working out a speech
for the upcoming Vigier VII Symposium in July.  I want to thank you
for mentioning me and my website in your upcoming speech, but,
mentioning me isn't necessary.  My motives are not personal fame or
recognition, but, purely and simply to tell the truth about nature, as
I perceived it.  The objective of Vigier VII Symposium is "The Search
For Fundamental Theory".  Talking about anything other than a
description of that fundamental theory or where one could be located,
would be off topic.  It's interesting how you described your quest
that began in 2004 or 2005, when it seems, you had an epiphany and
realized that there were things relative to Planck's formula that had
been overlooked.

Actually, the biggie, was realizing that there was a tremendous amount to be learned by "Looking for the Overlooked Obvious," The second biggie was that The Speed of Light is an AVERAGE. Planck's Constant got only into the act because of logical follow-up on what needed to be happening in a  sensible situation where the Speed of Light was an average motion of some sort of information carrier which had to be ubiquitous, it information transfer followed the same principles no matter when or where.  

 

 My own quest began in 1978.  After viewing a science
film, which made me realize that there was valuable data being
overlooked, that didn't agree with the prevailing quark theory, but,
would describe the inner workings of the proton. These are both
interesting stories, but, both are off topic and not what the people
at the Vigier VII symposium want to hear.  In my point of view.  You
try to oversimplify the universe.  It seems you twist substitute and
rearrange Planck's formula trying to get things out of it that just
aren't there, most notably, a mechanism.

\ 

Nope, the "mechanism" is inherent to the assumption of a basic substrate in which there is motion, The "Mechanism"  is the Law of Forces, or Action, "For each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."...W hat needs only to be added to this to get "my version of your perpetual motion machine" is to note that since there is always sequence, this reaction is itself an action and the process of generating motion goes on and on....I only use Planck's Constant and the Speed of Light to give us usable basic information about this Reality in which we exist....I'm not extracting a bit more out than do the QM people and others.  The difference is actually that I focus on the Torque, rotation aspects, where as they analyze the same equations from the view of  "momentum." 

If your model has no viable

sustaining mechanism, than it is no better than the Quantum Chromo-
Dynamics of "Quark Theory.  These people are looking for a FUNDAMENTAL
THEORY!  Not the story of a self acclaimed "pretend genius" or day
worker or janitor or old man, who wants to make his mark in the world
before he dies or about the other semi-famous people who are also
named Dean Sinclair.

These  things were inserted because of the felt need to minimize the "Crack Pot Factor." of screaming too loudly, "Gee, look how brilliant I am. For the same reason, I've made no comment about my science background.  If the ideas won't stand on their own from  a simple old man, detailing that he actually had a first rate science education won't help a bitl.

 Focus on the topic that they've invited you to
speak about, a FUNDAMENTAL THEORY.  

Interesting point. The problem, always, in giving a talk is to balance the situation of some degree of "entertainment" with the information. What you say about the Group and your material is very correct. As the write up to be published later can be much "dryer" and fact filled, it will be very appropriate there.  Will think about using it "here."  

  You've got me by about 14 years Eski.  I am the survivor of a liver
transplant, back in 2003.  I could also die any time, as any of us
can.  I don't complain about it or look for people's sympathy, but, I
thank God the Creator for every extra day that I am allowed to live in
this beautiful realm of existence where everything seems to make
sense, at least in nature.  This pretend genius you speak of, who
wants those at the Vigier Symposium to throw out all that they've
learned in science from Rutherford's discovery of the nucleus to our
present concept of atomic structure.  A century of knowledge
discovered, not by pretend geniuses, but many real certifiable ones.
You ask a lot!!!  In her last posting, our group secretary, ka-sala
said, " We can go over and over Planck's Theory, and anyone else's.
The difference is we are here... now. Today's Theory."

The point, however, is that our "geniuses," by overlooking what was under their noses, have grossly over complicated scientific theory.  The Universe and Fundamental Theory, have to be simple!!! 

 I think she's
saying you're beating a dead horse, Eski.  I noticed in your speech,
you mentioned twice about reality, disappearing down the 10 dimension
hole of string theory.  WHY?

You've never seen my explanation of the ten dimensions thing.  That is a mathematical trick,  You can triangulate any point from three others, each of which you assign three arbitrary dimensional axes, hence you end up with nine dimensions to define your locus, then you give the locus a dimension of motion, ergo, ten dimensions.   The disappearance into a ten-dimensional hole is simply because at that  size,   the mathematics, based essentially on the two observations of "constants of nature" which I consider fundamental, i.e.. Speed of Light and Planck's Constant,  shows that the mass and radius scales, (or any other two dimensions based on these two "Constants" ) have the same "Absolute Values." We enter into a "reversed"    dimension, if you wish, of unimaginable smallness and fantastic mass.....The mathematics used in QM and String Theory, simply fails at this inversion size and mass. 

 Your own hypothesis has nothing to do
with other dimensions.  It works quite fine in just the three of
space, and one of time that we can naturally perceive, as does my
own.

Not quite true  as to my own hypothesis. It is simply a matter of what one considers a "Dimension," the term actually simply defines the name of a unit that we decide to measure by..... In the cgs system, our three dimensions are centimeters, grams and seconds... The volume below 4.7 x 10^-19 cm. in radius, could be considered an "internal dimension" with respect to our "outer dimension" larger than that radius. 

 QCD needs at least one and possibly three, extra dimensions for
their mathematical model to work, depending upon which quantum
physicist you ask.  I've always thought of assumption of extra
dimensions as a "fudge factor".

Of course, it is a fudge factor, one can introduce as many dimensions as one pleases.  The Standard Model does this, in a sense, if  a Quark doesn't, explain it. add a Graviton, if a Graviton doesn't toggle things up add a Gluon, and so on and on....

 A generous assumption factor, a place
to hide the sloppy bits that don't quite fit in.  When neutrons
undergo beta-decay, by emitting an electron and an anti-neutrino and
turn into proton's the mathematics of quark theory fails.  It seems
there's some missing charge energy and mass that needs to be there and
isn't.  Well, where is it?  Oh, I see, it resides in an alternate
dimension and pops over just when it's needed.  Who would've thought?

This kind of bull is the reason why I try to carefully define "Mass" and "Energy" in most of my work, unfortunately, there really isn't time in a short talk to go into the misconceptions that pervade scientific theory by the loose use of these terms and the fact that scientists seem to go really no farther in defining these terms than the old meaning less and misleading circular definition, "Energy is what moves Mass, and Mass is what is moved by Energy."   Lots of hidden mess ups in that bit.  Mass as an entity? Or mass as an attribute of an Entity?"  Mass as a Constant or Mass as a variable?   Energy  within or outside a surface?  Energy as determined by some balancing process?  In any case, what do the words REA:LLY   mean.    (I finally define mass as a measure of the tension/pressure at the surface of an entity which is a measure of the point centered motions within that entity.  I consider "Energy" as a general term for a "package of motion."  A term which need in every usage to be much more explicitly defined in context.  Both terms,  as used in physics, describe variable amounts of motion.

 

More dimensions are just more fudge factors and I recommend to you,
not to use or acknowledge their existence, that is, unless they are
pertinent to your hypothesis.

Actually, I wasn't acknowledging their existence; but, rather,  pointing out that the calculations showed a reason for the failure of the older models. 

 

 I tell you all this, Eski, not in a
mean-spirited or condescending fashion, but, to try and help you and
our group make a good impression.  I've edited the beginning of your
speech in a way that mentions my website twice.  It's more important
to me that my hypothesis be analyzed, then my name being mentioned.
If you mention my website, as well as that of the O/S group, a third
time at the end, it's been proven that more people are likely to
remember it.  You'll notice they do this in almost every TV
commercial.  Remember to try and focus on the topic, Eski, a
fundamental theory and how it works, in describing reality as we know
it, at the nuclear and possibly cosmological level as well.  By the
way, my full name is Robert Kardien Vanderhoek, that's CAR-DEAN   VAN
DER HOOK.

Thanks for the exact spelling and pronunciation.  I'm going to also have to learn the exact pronunciation for "Vigier."  I'm guessing that is the French, Vee zhee aye, but, I don't know for sure.  

\ 

If you do mention it, tell them to google it.  It will take
them to my Fundamental Mechanics page.
  I've taken the liberty to rewrite the intro to your speech.  I
think it more clearly defines the objectives of all the members of the
O/S group.

Having read the rewrite, I understand what you are saying about the group members, I have thought of simply introducing myself as a group representative, In which case that approach would be very valid. I may use it.  

I'd have to cut some of the description of your work rather drastically from the same reasons that you say I shouldn't mention extra dimensions.  A number of the things you mention would tend to make it look that they are considered pertinent to the rest of the talk,

In politics it's called, don't give free publicity to your enemy... Scatting data is used to justify the Quarks.... (The two/thirds one thirds quarks  situation is probably related to the fact that any oscillator, considered as if it were a "sphere,"  has three "pause points"  in a ratio of two to one, i.e. the "poles" and the "equator." The bouncing of the relatively slowly vibrating electron off the much faster vibrating proton would detect these "pause points." 

This I will probably find some way to use in the "write up" for publication, its too technical  a coverage for here, I think that it is better to note that you have a different version which may possibly be preferable, give your name and the references.} 

 I'll now use my remaining minutes in trying to convince an inquiring
audience that we have come up with a unifying framework for the
physical sciences.

   Probably the difference is that this speaker is working on a model
with no particular set of preconceptions, but, is simply following a
line of logic examining commonly accepted ideas for hidden or
overlooked significances. This is a totally different approach from
trying to fit together already accepted viewpoints.  This is an open
ended journey rather than one focused on some desired destination.

You take it from here Doc

Thanks, Hoek, input is always appreciated. 

On Jun 10, 4:15 pm, ESKI <deanlsincl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am posting a possible script as a "page"  on this site. Want to know
> what the people of this Group think about this version.
>
>  I'm finding it more difficult than I thought it would be to condense
> the last three years of discoveries, even the most basic, into a
> thirty-minute,  oral presentation.
>
>  I haven't done an oral presentation to a group in almost 30
> years,;and, in those days, I always extemporized.
>
> This is my first try with a reading script and I have never done
> anything by remote before.  I'll need a lot of "fingers crossed." to
> pull this one off without making a mess of it.  ESKI
>

> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance-theory/web/possibl...

> - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
> work.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Oscillator/Substance Theory" group.
To post to this group, send email to oscillatorsub...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to oscillatorsubstance...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance-theory?hl=en.