faster-than-light.us

ou do

e

Sure it does. You've misremembered the Lorentz vector product

for the force acting on a moving charged particle, and are are hoping that nobody knows enough to realise that it doesn't have a lot to do with quantum theory.

You really are an incompetent fraud.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

AKA bozons

Never thought I'd get to use that ;-)

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

ote:

n, you do

e the

t.

Who knows, or cares ...

Whoever said he was? You are the fraud, as further evidenced by the nonsensical claim you make here.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

We're all bozons on this bus. --Firesign Theater

te:

Only in your personal version of reality, which the rest of the world can't access.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Einstein is perfect safe. You don't qualify for a rating.

Einstein has been dead since 1955, and he didn't do anything all that interesting after 1925. I somehow doubt that I'm behind him. You are out of your mind and your opinions are of interest only to students of mental illness.

Somehow I doubt that this insight will ever earn you a Nobel Prize - it may be unique, but it certainly isn't correct.

Only if they fried their brain into a state where they could learn to believe six impossible things before breakfast.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ld

papers/0511/0511050.pdf

Jay R. Yablon does seem to be a patent lawyer who likes tensor calculus, in which he does resemble Einstein, but he hasn't got his Nobel Prize yet, which does suggest that his physical insights are of a lower order.

As I've said, you *are* insane.

There's this distinction between being able to manipulate symbols, and being able to understand what they mean in a useful way, which you do seem ill-equipped to perceive.

If it did. The physics forums are crawling with loonies who think that Einstein was wrong. You are a loony who think that he was more right than he thought, which is original, but not an insight shared by the academic physics community, who seem to be pursuing other ways of reconciling general realtivity and quantum theory.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Ken S. Tucker wrote: : Electronics (engineering) is becoming more and more : linked with Quantum Theory (QT) and hence to GR, : as the superliminal neutrino measurement controversy : highlights., (this threads subject). : I think a serious electronics fella would enjoy how GR : forms the foundation of QT.

That would indeed be cool and worth investing some effort. Could you explain contents of your article in more layman terms? There are people that can do it, for instance I think math.ucr.edu.home/baez/gr is superb. Feynmann was very good at it, too. I have not taken a formal GR course (as I assume the majority in your chosen forum SED) and hence I am a complete amateur. I'm sure you are way more fluent in the GR formalism.

To me it looks you somehow make a difference between the distance S, as measured by gedanken radar ranging, and the distance X as obtained - how? Integrating along a geodesic in your solution of the metric? Why would that be different from the radar result? I do recognize your approximation (1) of the Einstein equation, but then I get lost about where you get the solution, and cannot continue.

This was a point to figure out whether I want to invest more effort to this. I followed your advice to consult people more clever than myself:

That usually means peer-reviewed journals. Google Scholar "ken s tucker":

1 hit (and guess what it is?). Why don't you publish such revolutionary theory? Or do you publish under some other name?

More urgent material usually circulates in discussion groups before getting published. Searching some physics groups shows that if GR_Charge_Couple.pdf were a book, it seems the back cover would read such 'praise as:

Tom Roberts: Perhaps you should first STUDY what these words and concepts MEAN. ... You CLEARLY don't have a clue and ascribe your own failures to others. (tinyurl.com/6ae4py3)

Eric Gisse: And just as remarkably, the 'solution' is simply postulated and not shown to be a solution. You don't even know how to write the coupled Einstein-Maxwell equations, much less find a solution to them. (tinyurl.com/3kvskst)

: On Oct 31, 6:48 am, Bill Sloman wrote: : > Einstein is perfect safe. You don't qualify for a rating. : Hey check out the accredition I received here, :

: just by trying to be helpful.

ArXiv is not peer-reviewed, anybody can submit there if (s)he finds an endorser. You accreditor seems to be Jay R Yablon. Google Scholar "J R Yablon": 5 hits, none in reviewed journals but only in ArXiv. Yablons ArXiv papers seem to have been cited primarily by H. Torres-Silva, publishing in "Revista chilena de ingeneria".

This was just a very quick search, and may have missed something. I'm sorry if I did misjudice to J R Yablon (or to K S Tucker).

Well, maybe your critics may have not understood your point, regardless of their skills in GR - Planck, for instance made a completely nonsensical ansatz in his derivation of the blackbody radiation law, which later turned out to be genious. Penrose and others have been suggesting that quantum collapse might be due to the GR non-linearity. But I have to make a choice what to invest time on in this life, and your credentials don't make an impression.

: (Yes, I've contributed to text books too, written by Nobel : prize winners, again being helpful). : > On Oct 31, 2:12 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote: : > > Einstein and I are quite safe thank you.

Wow, do those Nobel prize winners really know your writings? It looks obvious that you know theirs. Here tinyurl.com/6ghpcjw you referred to the great Wheeler (he would have deserved a Nobel) - is it his work you've contributed to? Einstein probably died too long ago?

Regards, Mikko

Oh damn, I did not mean to sound as sarcastic as the text looks now that I read it on the screen. I first idly speculated that you could not have interacted with Einstein, because he died so long ago. But then I realized I don't know your age, and 1955 was not *that* long ago. Anyway, the wording was bad, sorry.

Regards, Mikko