Earth shattering article unifying the four forces has been updated!!!
tdp...@gmail.com
that an earth shattering article (200K PDF file)
that defines ALL of the physical properties,
and ALL of the forces,
in terms of time periods and time intervals,
and explains why the various constants such as C, G, e, pi, etc. come
about,
has been updated and expanded,
and is now available for viewing and downloading on my web page at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/unifying%20the%20forces.pdf
I might also point out, that the article features
a unique Physical Properties Chart
that shows the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between the
elements.
The gals (And the pedagogues) will also be interested to know that
I changed the background picture of me on the main page
to one showing me teaching physics.
--
Tom Potter
http://no-turtles.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
donsto...@hotmail.com
A unified concept known as FIRSTFOUR.
Unification uber Alice!
"I can valk, mein Fuhrer, I can valk!!!!!!!!"
Sam Wormley
> I would like to inform all folks interested in physics,
> that an earth shattering article (200K PDF file)
> that defines ALL of the physical properties,
> and ALL of the forces,
> in terms of time periods and time intervals,
>
Christ Potter--Your are a registered crank and you don't
know shit about physics. Go away!
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tom+Potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
tdp...@gmail.com
It is interesting to see that Sam Wormley,
whose web site is dedicated to attacking the folks
who have exposed his ignorance of GPS, GTR, and physics,
and a guy who pretends to have an EDU web site
so he can con folks into buying his junk,
a guy who uses the web page of an unemployed computer,
who took some data processing classes
at a third rate California college, as his reference,
says: "you don't know shit about physics."
I suggest that Sam quit trying to con folks,
and quit trying to massage his ego,
by attacking folks, and read up on GPS and
physics, so he will be able to comprehend my articles.
I suggest that Sam does not have the equipment and knowledge
to make a judgement about anyone's knowledge of physics,
buy will give him the benefit of doubt, and CHALLENGE him
to read the article and debate ANY points he thinks <sic>
is inaccurate.
I have taken the liberty of posting
the resume of Sam Wormley's primary reference,
in order to give some indication of Sam's motives, integrity, and
intellect.
Excerpts from Sam's primary reference source's resume follows.
===================================================
Erik Max Francis
San Jose, CA, USA
Formats: HTML, text, PostScript, PDF.
EMAIL max-r...@alcyone.com
WEB http://www.alcyone.com/max/
UPDATED 2004 Jun 19
OBJECTIVE
To obtain gainful employment in a challenging position at a
forward-looking company, utilizing my particular skills and talents
under a Unix, Unix-like, or platform-agnostic environment.
SKILLS
Operating systems: Linux, Solaris and other Unix-like operating systems
(System V and BSD); IRIX, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.
WORK EXPERIENCE
Voluntary time off work. (2002-)
Pursued recreational programming projects and released numerous open
source contributions; familiarized self with basics of new languages
such as APL/J, Io, Scheme, Tcl; strengthened Python programming skills;
increased Python programming community involvement (see Relevant
Activities below).
EDUCATION
Attended De Anza College (Cupertino, CA), with particular emphasis on
computer science courses.
==================
End of quote.
If anyone can use an unemployed, maladjusted programmer,
get in contact with Sam's primary reference.
On the other hand, if you need a stable cleaned,
or some manure spread,
get in touch with Sam.
He knows far more about spreading manure
than he knows about GPS and physics.
And if you want to read an article that
defines the physical properties and the four forces
in terms of time periods and time intervals,
and explains why the constants such as C, G, Z, etc.
come about, and to view a unique Physical Properties Chart
that shows the relationships between the physical properties
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationship between the elements,
visit my web site.
tdp...@gmail.com
Don, we know that you know a lot about movies,
Visit my web site,
download the article "Unifying the four forces",
read it,
and learn something about physics.
And if you are interested in number systems,
read my article "A better number system".
And when you are through,
come back and let's have
a rational, logical, intelligent, mature, civilized
discussion about physics and numbers.
The Ghost In The Machine
<tdp...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 25 Feb 2006 22:29:40 -0800
<1140935380.6...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
> I would like to inform all folks interested in physics,
> that an earth shattering article (200K PDF file)
> that defines ALL of the physical properties,
> and ALL of the forces,
> in terms of time periods and time intervals,
>
> and explains why the various constants such as C, G, e, pi, etc. come
> about,
> has been updated and expanded,
> and is now available for viewing and downloading on my web page at:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/unifying%20the%20forces.pdf
I am compelled to point out that c, G, etc. can be created
using *Physical* theory, but e and pi -- unless you're referring
to the charge on an electron -- are created using *Mathematical*
theory, a fundamentally different beast (despite the intertwining
of the two in conventional QM).
In other words, pi will pop up anywhere there's a
mathematical circle, (and even such problems as dropping
toothpicks on a wooden floor!), and e pops up in a
few weird places, mostly having to do with exponents,
differential equations, and logs. For example the solution
to the equation
y' = y
is y = K * exp(x), where K is an arbitrary complex constant.
The solution of Tsiokovski's equation, which can be rendered
M dv = -v_e dM
turns out to be v = v(0) + v_e * log(M_i/M_f); the base of the
log, of course, is e. Note that this is a theoretical equation,
but I would surmise it has been fairly well tested in the
physical realm, at least up to orbital speeds (about 8 km/s).
>
> I might also point out, that the article features
> a unique Physical Properties Chart
> that shows the relationships between the physical properties,
> much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between the
> elements.
>
> The gals (And the pedagogues) will also be interested to know that
> I changed the background picture of me on the main page
> to one showing me teaching physics.
I see a Roy G. Biv on the first page of the offered PDF.
No doubt you're referring to
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
which shows one of the more unusual page styles I've seen lately,
though it does have the virtue of simplicity. However, I'm
not entirely certain 'gb2312' is a defined charset.
As for the actual theory ... the gaps are a little odd. The cube
on page 2, for instance, has the top face
[blank] [blank] [blank] [volume flow] [volume]
[blank] [viscos] [blank] [diffuse] [area]
[snap] [jerk] [accel] [velocity] [d^1]
[t^-4] [t^-3] [t^-2] [t^-1] [1]
Page 3 contains a graph with 36 yellow cells, but only 6 of them
are filled in. Subsequent pages have similar charts, with
only one addition, which is a copyright declaration.
The chart on page 6 tries to fill in the upper left quadrant
(t^ negative, d^ positive) but even there, d^3/t^-2 is missing.
The other quadrants are completely blank.
Would there be much point in filling in the blanks?
I'm also not seeing much in the way of Compton scattering and
the photoelectric effect.
That's about the limit of my competence, admittedly, though I
doubt the Standard model can be stuffed into 12 pages either. :-)
>
> --
> Tom Potter
> http://no-turtles.com
> http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
> http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
> http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
tdp...@gmail.com
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In sci.physics, tdp...@gmail.com
> <tdp...@gmail.com>
> wrote
> on 25 Feb 2006 22:29:40 -0800
> <1140935380.6...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
> > I would like to inform all folks interested in physics,
> > that an earth shattering article (200K PDF file)
> > that defines ALL of the physical properties,
> > and ALL of the forces,
> > in terms of time periods and time intervals,
> >
> > and explains why the various constants such as C, G, e, pi, etc. come
> > about,
> > has been updated and expanded,
> > and is now available for viewing and downloading on my web page at:
> >
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/unifying%20the%20forces.pdf
>
> I am compelled to point out that c, G, etc. can be created
> using *Physical* theory, but e and pi -- unless you're referring
> to the charge on an electron -- are created using *Mathematical*
> theory, a fundamentally different beast (despite the intertwining
> of the two in conventional QM).
1. My article
"explains why the various constants such as C, G, e, pi, etc. come
about,"
It does not create these constants.
2. I did not discuss "e" in the article
as this would tend to shift the focus of the article.
I have a nice treatment of this that I plan to use
in a more comprehensive treatment of the concept,
but as I mentioned in another post,
I just wanted to establish a WAYPOINT on the concept
and I plan to market the overall concept commercially.
Basically, the constant "e" arises when the rate of change
of a population is a function of the population, so a PURE "e"
would exist only IF the birth and death rate of a population
in a steady state environment was a constant.
There are divers populations in the universe,
and contiguious populations constitute an environment.
Events come about when populations interact.
This modifies the populations and thus the environment,
and the show goes on....
Sam Wormley
>>>
>>>http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/unifying%20the%20forces.pdf
>>
>>My article
> "explains why the various constants such as C, G, e, pi, etc. come
> about," It does not create these constants.
>
Pure Rubbish, Potter.
tdp...@gmail.com
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
I neglected to comment on the points mentioned.
The PDF writer that I used does not convert my Word file
accurately. I am experimenting with a few PDF writers,
and will try to find one that translates the characters,
tables, and character combinations, accurately.
Also, I hadn't updated my web page for a long time,
and when I edited INDEX.HTML to add the new article,
I messed it up. I think I have correct this.
Take a look and let me know if it looks okay.
If you go through the article step by step,
you will see that I make ONE small change per page,
and this change is an important one.
Regarding cells with no entries,
I try to put only enough information in the cells
sufficient to convey the point being made on that page.
If you read and understand the point on each page,
you will be able to fill in the cells I left blank for yourself.
If I filled all of the cells in,
it would introduce too much redundant data,
and readers would be denied the opportunity of discovery.
Sam Wormley
> Regarding cells with no entries,
> I try to put only enough information in the cells
> sufficient to convey the point being made on that page.
> If you read and understand the point on each page,
> you will be able to fill in the cells I left blank for yourself.
>
Plus, you would have logical inconsistencies, that even you
would notice, Potter. Perhaps you should notice the inconsistencies
of your other entries! Come on, Potter, you are not fooling
anyone!
tdp...@gmail.com
What a Maroon!!!!
Read the article Sambo.
(And point out ONE (I say ONE) of these inconsistencies.)
tdp...@gmail.com
news:MitMf.799565$_o.315953@attbi_s71...
Although I am disappointed to see that Sam Wormley
did not comprehend my article,
I am pleased to hear that he read it.
If Sam will post the parts he did not comprehend,
I will be more than happy to explain the details to him.
For those who have not yet read the article,
it defines the physical properties and the four forces
in terms of time periods and time intervals,
and explains why constants such as C, G, Z, etc. arise.
It also features a unique Physical Properties Chart
that shows how the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Charts shows how the relationships between the
elements.
You can download your own free copy of the article at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/unifying%20the%20forces.pdf
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>tdp...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Regarding cells with no entries,
>>>I try to put only enough information in the cells
>>>sufficient to convey the point being made on that page.
>>>If you read and understand the point on each page,
>>>you will be able to fill in the cells I left blank for yourself.
>>>
>>
>> Plus, you would have logical inconsistencies, that even you
>> would notice, Potter. Perhaps you should notice the inconsistencies
>> of your other entries! Come on, Potter, you are not fooling
>> anyone!
>
>
> What a Maroon!!!!
>
> Read the article Sambo.
>
> (And point out ONE (I say ONE) of these inconsistencies.)
>
Even in the first sentence, Potter, you don't know what a physical
constant is!
Sam Wormley
> You can download your own free copy of the article at:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/unifying%20the%20forces.pdf
>
> --
The very first sentence is rubbish!
The Ghost In The Machine
> tdp...@gmail.com wrote:
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> Even in the first sentence, Potter, you don't know what a physical
> constant is!
I for one am not sure *I* know what a physical constant is, beyond the
rather empirical definition that someone's bothered to measure it. AFAIK,
the Standard Theory does not predict the physical constants such as
electron mass -- a deficiency in the theory. (Not that Potter's 12-Page
PDF does much in that area either.)
c, however, is illustrative; it's constant because someone defined it that
way, and then only after many many attempts to measure lightspeed (and,
of course, many attempts to define the second and the meter), some with
more success than others -- Fizeau's toothed wheel arrangement versus
Galileo's shutterlanterns, for example.
And of course both c and G are highly dependent on units. I for one would
not mind at all if c were defined as 1 nil per nanosecond -- where a nil
is of course about 29.9792458 cm in length.
How constant are c and G, really? And yet, they're constant enough, given
the right units. :-)
Sam Wormley
Is The Speed of Light Constant?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Most precise single redshift bound to the variability of the fine-structure constant
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512287
Well, it really boils down to the theories and the empirical data.
Theory says it should be, data confirms it is... and that leaves little
wiggle room.
And there is an elegance... in the theories, their mathematics and
self consistency, which is admittedly subjective... but elegance and
simplicity have proved to be good guides in the past for sniffing out
the laws of nature.
tdp...@gmail.com
I am assuming that Sam Wormley takes exception to me
lumping "e" and "pi" in with the other "physical constants",
and if this is what he is nit picking about, he has missed
the point that when "e" and "pi" are used in equations
that involve physical properties, they become ""physical constants".
As I have pointed out,
the value of the "physical constant" "e" converges on the
value of the "mathematically constant" "e" IF a population has
constant birth and death rates and the population
is in a steady state environment.
For example,
the exponential function occurs when the rate of change in a
population is a function of the population, and the "mathematically
constant" "e"
is not the best fit to describe populations in changing environments.
Also the value of the "physical constant" "pi" converges on the
value of the "mathematically constant" "pi" IF one of a pair
of interacting bodies has infinite mass, and the other has zero mass.
The variation of the "physical constant" "pi" from the
"mathematically constant" "pi" forces an adjustment to be made
to one of the masses in a two body system.
The adjusted mass is called the "reduced mass".
I am disappointed that I did not make this clear to all readers.
Perhaps I targeted a more informed readership.
I will try to satisfy the dense, the dumb, the Zombies and the
sharpshooters with my next release.
Gregory L. Hansen
<tdp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I would like to inform all folks interested in physics,
>that an earth shattering article (200K PDF file)
>that defines ALL of the physical properties,
>and ALL of the forces,
>in terms of time periods and time intervals,
>
>and explains why the various constants such as C, G, e, pi, etc. come
>about,
>has been updated and expanded,
>and is now available for viewing and downloading on my web page at:
>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/unifying%20the%20forces.pdf
e and pi are physical constants?
This is at least the third time I've seen the unification of the four
forces claimed on sci.physics. It's different each time.
As far as I can tell, your unification of the four forces pretty much
amounts to declaring that they can all be given in the same units. Which
is not an astonishing result since force has units of force, e.g. the
newton. But that is not what scientists mean when they try to unify the
forces.
--
"Awareness means not just a vague, comfortable, fuzzy feeling. It means
explicit knowledge of current conditions." -- NBSR Radiation Safety
Training
Sam Wormley
>
> I am assuming that Sam Wormley takes exception to me
> lumping "e" and "pi" in with the other "physical constants",
> and if this is what he is nit picking about, he has missed
> the point that when "e" and "pi" are used in equations
> that involve physical properties, they become ""physical constants".
>
No--They don't "become physical constants". Potter has a very
poor understanding of physical constants.
Richard Herring
tdp...@gmail.com writes
>It also features a unique Physical Properties Chart
True. You won't find anything like it in any physics text or
peer-reviewed literature.
--
Richard Herring