Best Recent Content
Hi Robert,Have you seen videos of Norm Wildberger?(Related: -- "How to construct the (true) complex numbers I | Famous Math Problems 21a | N J Wildberger")His description:This channel aims to explain a lot of interesting mathematics to a broad audience, to introduce exciting new research directions for geometry, and to fix some of the logical weaknesses of modern pure mathematics. You'll find playlists on Rational Trigonometry (much simpler, more powerful), Linear Algebra, Algebraic Topology, History of Mathematics, Universal Hyperbolic Geometry (a complete new treatment of this subject, a YouTube first!), the Foundations of Mathematics (it needs fixing) and even an elementary introduction to K-6 mathematics. I (N J Wildberger) am a professional mathematician, BSc U. Toronto 1979, PhD Yale 1984 and currently Assoc Prof at UNSW, with over 40 papers, one book, and a love of teaching.(My emphasis)Two people: I watch videos one and him!My poor communication since of stroke in Nov 2020 -- Aphasia. My brain now independently [speech]--[written]--[hear]. Before, used "[speech/hear/written]". Like a foreign language. My brain not translated (many words) my voice to my written -- I use Google Translate for (my) voice-to- (my) text! Other voice to my ear - my brain not translated some words. !!Weird!!Sincerely,Ray Delaforce
Our Robert Distinti and everybody.I don't know who e-mail list, but you must interestingI'll put it here:
This evident discrepancy of the experimental data with respect to the theoretical data should make us doubt about the validity of Quantum electrodynamics (QED). However, it seems that no one is willing to question the validity of the QED and the scientific community prefers to propose new hypotheses to solve the discrepancy (new elementary particles, new fundamental forces, etc ...).
A year ago, we already anticipated this situation and published this paper:
"Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (g-factor). An examination of QED history reveals that this value was obtained using illegitimate mathematical traps, manipulations and tricks. These traps included the fraud of Kroll & Karplus, who acknowledged that they lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in QED history. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the Kroll & Karplus scandal was not a unique event. Instead, the scandal represented the fraudulent manner in which physics has been conducted from the creation of QED through today." (12 pag)
The paper is fun to read and is already in the Vixra Top 500. But if you think that vixra is an unreliable source and the tone of the paper is too rude for your taste, you can also read a more objective and polite version published in ARXIV: "The Unpublished Feynman Diagram IIc"
Here is paper:
I thought you might find this interesting or at least entertaining, so I decided to create an account and post this link. What he talks about should have overlaps with subjects you are interested in. He is basically an electrical engineer who branced off into fields like spirituality etc. I personally don't have enough knowledge or understanding to evaluate his theories compared to distintis though, I'm more of a skimmer when it comes to those subjects.
Crazy scientist and electrical engineer Dan Winter
We are going to start an Open-Source-Hardware project about Robert's Ethereal Mechanics Experiments! What we really need are exact drawings and 3D models of each experiment.
We are using Onshape as CAD and Collaboration tool to design Paradox Generators and the Railgun Experiments.
With a free account (www.onshape.com click "Create Account" and "I'm a hobbyist or maker") you can create public documents and invite other users work with you in real time. No need to install anything, just use a compatible browser (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera)!
I think this is the perfect tool to capture the complete information so everyone in the world can recreate the experiments.
You can also make copies of the complete designs and vary the size of the experiment. This could help generate more experimental data to verify the simulation models!
Here is a preview of the Paradox 1: https://cad.onshape.com/documents/87781 ... 10915ad05a
Robert Distinti -- 50 years old.
I have a Masters in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science -- specialty is Electromagnetic Physics
My day job is a Software Engineer so that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethereal Mechanics started 20 years ago (this summer) when I read that researchers discovered that the spring force in a spring is due to Coulomb forces. This stopped me in my tracks because the capacitor (which is also operated by coulomb forces ) is the electric analog for the spring. By symmetry I surmised that the inductor (which is the analog of a "mass") must be the mechanism of Inertia.
Finding a link between inertia and electricity was the missing link that Einstein was looking for.
It took me a while to realize that Faraday's "Law" was ridiculous -- A Model of electromagnetism that does not apply to point charges? Seriously?
There had to be a better model for inductance, that research let to the New Inductance Model and then to the New Magnetism model.
I kept pulling on the thread -- and now the emperor has no clothes.
Hope you enjoy this Blog. Many Thanks to Sebastian for this effort.
The drawing is misleading because in reality the tides are much higher further from the equator. Further, the drawing is obviously wrong as the acceleration of the water from earth's gravity would be much greater than the moon from the greater mass and proximity. Earth's gravitational pull is much greater than the moon but diminishes relative to the moon where the vector of the moon from the surface is perpendicular ie far north or far south. (Where the vector is at right angle to the center of the earth the acceleration of the water towards the moon is unaffected by the earth's gravity). At perpendicular the acceleration of the water towards the moon is greatest and the acceleration can be calculated by the gravitational formula. Perhaps after correcting the lies taught in school about tides then we can turn to your analysis. I agree the vortex supplies a better explanation for the tide on the far side of the earth.