- If you don't like my participation here, ignore me. But whatever

you do, don't tell me what to do. I have my reasons for ignoring

people who ignore me and my publicly available work.

Dave"

Picky picky! You seem willing enough to tell us what to do.

Sorry,

Ed > -----Original Message-----

...

> From: David Thomson [mailto:dwt@...]

> > You need to justify why I would chose your quantum measurements, or

result.

> > more precisely, how I might chose those to measure a physical

>

You do never seem to get exactly what I am asking so I will try again.

> The use of quantum measurements is justified because it is

> very useful in understanding quantum structure (as opposed to

> quantum mechanics). If you want to see *how* it is useful,

> you need to study the theory. I can't push knowledge into

> your head for you.

No, I do not need a course in theoretical physics from you. It is hard

enough for me to keep up with developments in well established theories.

Yes, I would like you to define how I would measure something of

interest

Position, velocity, acceleration, force, momentum, whatever,

With quantum measurements.

Meters, I have a meter stick, a tape measure and conversion table to get

from those icky inches to meters.

What I don't have is a quantum tape measure.

I am expecting you to tell me how this most fundamental of measures in

your system would be measured.

It would clear up a real issue regarding my understanding of your

formalism.

...> The quantum length is the Compton wavelength. We can deduce

I think you are running this backward. We measure wavelengths and

> the quantum length from Planck's constant.

establish the constant from that. As I recall it Planck's constant is

not derived from the math, as pi can be, but from the physical relations

we observe.

> When the mass of the electron and speed of light are factored from it,

the

> Compton wavelength is what is left. When the quantum length

You do notice that you are saying things in sloppy old english that are

> is factored from the speed of light (quantum velocity), the

> quantum frequency is what is left. By applying these quantum

> measurements to all other known constants, every constant

> factors out with quantum measurements to a very high degree

> of accuracy.

best said with equations and precise definitions?

Also, I have no idea what you think you said.

> > What is an electron strong charge? I know of only one electron

charge

> > and it has not nuclear strong force features I know of?

Well, I did read your short form and I still did not get it. So we still

>

> You are correct. The electric charge you are aware of is the

> quantum electrostatic charge. The strong charge is explained

> in detail in the paper. It, too, factors out perfectly from

> the quantum constants.

have the electron charge, but now we have a new kind of "strong charge"

as well? I know how I would measure an electron's charge. How would I

measure the "strong charge"?

...> See, you are still not listening or attempting to comprehend

You are mixing the idea of fact amd the idea of measurement. You take a

> anything I have said. I have told you that this theory is

> based upon the empirical data. The mass of the electron has

> already been measured to a high degree of accuracy, as has

> the Compton wavelength and the speed of light. There is no

> fiction here, it is all solid fact.

measurement and show how to get from the angle of deflection of an

electron to it's "strong charge". You describe it's characteristics.

Ions for example might obtain integrel steps in charge, what do they do

with strong charge? Without this your comment is just a baseless clame.

> When you factor out the

Nope. Not at all.

> quantum mass, length, and frequency from the constants your

> remainder is the quantum strong charge. The quantum strong

> charge, it turns out, is fully quantifiable by other means as

> well. This is all presented clearly in the paper.

> The quantum wavelength applies to the Aether, which is the

Simpler solution. Disregard it because it makes no sense and has no

> container of subatomic particles. ...

> Simple solution... study the theory.

demonstrable value.

...> I'm actually becoming more tolerant of your abuses toward me.

See, here is where it all breaks down. Either you are a "Super Genius"

> I'm presenting a foundation for my theory and you basically

> tell me to get lost if I don't explain some other thing that

> is not part of my theory. Then you surprise me with a

> comment like, "you need to build a foundation first and

> clearly explain your definitions."

and what is totally obscure to me is "obvious" to you, or your "proof"

and "explanation" suffer from some grevious weaknesses (and that is true

even if they are somehow valuable or partly valid or whatever). I do not

know you well enough to identify you as super genius, but you can take

it from this rather ordinary just barely genius, your explanations do

not make a solid step by step move from basics to understandable theory.

That you do not grasp that this is so, and attribute it to my refusal to

listen, bods ill for any attempt to read a much longer and more

extensive explanation as is supposedly found in your book.

Don't take that too hard though. Writing text books explaining complex

ideas requires a very special skill.