| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jay R. Yablon" |
| Date: |
08 Mar 2005 10:37:25 PM |
| Object: |
Web site update |
I have just updated my web site at
http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm.
At the request if several folks, I now have an "about the author" section
discussing my personal background.
In this section I have also included some comments about the paper on
Classical Electrodynamics.
I have also posted a copy of a precursor to this paper which I wrote in
1984, but never published because I could not at that time explain the
sources which were predicted.
As always, I welcome reasoned feedback.
Best,
Jay.
_____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Web site update |
09 Mar 2005 12:51:24 AM |
|
|
"Jay R. Yablon" <jyablon@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:94vXd.62906$vK5.1837@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
I have just updated my web site at
http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm.
At the request if several folks, I now have an "about the author" section
discussing my personal background.
In this section I have also included some comments about the paper on
Classical Electrodynamics.
I have also posted a copy of a precursor to this paper which I wrote in
1984, but never published because I could not at that time explain the
sources which were predicted.
As always, I welcome reasoned feedback.
Your web site is crap, as are the ideas it contains.
It has been submitted to www.crank.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Web site update |
09 Mar 2005 11:28:49 AM |
|
|
Michael Varney wrote:
"Jay R. Yablon" <jyablon@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:94vXd.62906$vK5.1837@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
I have just updated my web site at
http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm.
At the request if several folks, I now have an "about the author" section
discussing my personal background.
In this section I have also included some comments about the paper on
Classical Electrodynamics.
I have also posted a copy of a precursor to this paper which I wrote in
1984, but never published because I could not at that time explain the
sources which were predicted.
As always, I welcome reasoned feedback.
Your web site is crap, as are the ideas it contains.
It has been submitted to www.crank.net
Too quick at the draw. Yablon's proposal has long legs even if it is
still evolving. It has been discussed in sci.physics.research and has
been rather well received. Curiously, it demands a pervasive
influence of chiralty even in kinetic energy. Though his work is not
complete, it does not contradict observational physics.
Anything not forbidden...
Pull the crank.net nomination. He may be wrong but he isn't
untalented.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Web site update |
09 Mar 2005 04:15:55 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:422F3251.CD9DA609@hate.spam.net...
Michael Varney wrote:
"Jay R. Yablon" <jyablon@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:94vXd.62906$vK5.1837@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
I have just updated my web site at
http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm.
At the request if several folks, I now have an "about the author"
section
discussing my personal background.
In this section I have also included some comments about the paper on
Classical Electrodynamics.
I have also posted a copy of a precursor to this paper which I wrote in
1984, but never published because I could not at that time explain the
sources which were predicted.
As always, I welcome reasoned feedback.
Your web site is crap, as are the ideas it contains.
It has been submitted to www.crank.net
Too quick at the draw. Yablon's proposal has long legs even if it is
still evolving. It has been discussed in sci.physics.research and has
been rather well received.
Really?
Presentation counts.
His bio reads like a crackpot.
" I was an undergraduate at MIT (class of 1976) and double-majored in
computer science and political science, with a strong minor in physics. I
then went to law school and became a patent attorney. Professionally, I
write and prosecute patent applications for inventors in a wide range of
physical, mechanical, electrical, optical, and computer arts. But I have
always had a passionate interest in physics, from the standpoint of
understanding the intelligence and order which animates our universe."
Oh brother.
His papers are poorly written which leads one not want to wade through them.
Also:
"I will always recall a particular moment during high school chemistry
class, quite a few years ago, when the teacher told us that the proton mass
was about 1860 times as great as the electron mass. I naturally asked why
this was so, and was surprised to find out that nobody really knew the
answer. At that moment, I took up the challenge of trying to understand why
the elementary particles have the masses that they have. "
Physics is not about "why" it is about "how".
You said that, did you not Al?
In any event, I will withdraw the nomination to crank.net, however, my
***** meter is pegging just looking at his site.
I could be wrong in this case, and will apologize if I am even if my great
great grandchildren have to write the apology letter for me.
Curiously, it demands a pervasive
influence of chiralty even in kinetic energy. Though his work is not
complete, it does not contradict observational physics.
Anything not forbidden...
Pull the crank.net nomination. He may be wrong but he isn't
untalented.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Web site update |
09 Mar 2005 07:04:11 PM |
|
|
Michael Varney wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:422F3251.CD9DA609@hate.spam.net...
Michael Varney wrote:
"Jay R. Yablon" <jyablon@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:94vXd.62906$vK5.1837@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
I have just updated my web site at
http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm.
At the request if several folks, I now have an "about the author"
section
discussing my personal background.
In this section I have also included some comments about the paper on
Classical Electrodynamics.
I have also posted a copy of a precursor to this paper which I wrote in
1984, but never published because I could not at that time explain the
sources which were predicted.
As always, I welcome reasoned feedback.
Your web site is crap, as are the ideas it contains.
It has been submitted to www.crank.net
Too quick at the draw. Yablon's proposal has long legs even if it is
still evolving. It has been discussed in sci.physics.research and has
been rather well received.
Really?
Presentation counts.
His bio reads like a crackpot.
" I was an undergraduate at MIT (class of 1976) and double-majored in
computer science and political science, with a strong minor in physics. I
then went to law school and became a patent attorney. Professionally, I
write and prosecute patent applications for inventors in a wide range of
physical, mechanical, electrical, optical, and computer arts. But I have
always had a passionate interest in physics, from the standpoint of
understanding the intelligence and order which animates our universe."
Oh brother.
His papers are poorly written which leads one not want to wade through them.
Also:
"I will always recall a particular moment during high school chemistry
class, quite a few years ago, when the teacher told us that the proton mass
was about 1860 times as great as the electron mass. I naturally asked why
this was so, and was surprised to find out that nobody really knew the
answer. At that moment, I took up the challenge of trying to understand why
the elementary particles have the masses that they have. "
Physics is not about "why" it is about "how".
You said that, did you not Al?
In any event, I will withdraw the nomination to crank.net, however, my
***** meter is pegging just looking at his site.
I could be wrong in this case, and will apologize if I am even if my great
great grandchildren have to write the apology letter for me.
Curiously, it demands a pervasive
influence of chiralty even in kinetic energy. Though his work is not
complete, it does not contradict observational physics.
Anything not forbidden...
Pull the crank.net nomination. He may be wrong but he isn't
untalented.
Yeah, the presentations are deficient. The mathematical physics in
them is provocative, certainly as an evolving conjecture. Not
everybody who is inept is also incompetent. Yablon needs work, but he
hasn't been called out on the fundamentals by sci.physics.research.
Mark Hopkins finds him interesting, and Hopkins is an interesting
person in his own right with valid technical ability even if you don't
embrace his opinions. OTOH, Bernhard Haisch and stochastic
electrodynamics looked mighty fine at the onset. It hasn't gone
anywhere.
Benefit of the doubt here. Yablon, or anybody else, is not really
interesting until some concrete testable predictions arise that wander
outside the Standard Model.
Do left and right hands fall identically? The question has a
painfully obvious answer, except we don't know what it is. The
initial observation at full senstivity was not illuminating.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Web site update |
10 Mar 2005 01:50:07 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:422F9D0B.B3535850@hate.spam.net...
Michael Varney wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:422F3251.CD9DA609@hate.spam.net...
Michael Varney wrote:
"Jay R. Yablon" <jyablon@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:94vXd.62906$vK5.1837@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
I have just updated my web site at
http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm.
At the request if several folks, I now have an "about the author"
section
discussing my personal background.
In this section I have also included some comments about the paper
on
Classical Electrodynamics.
I have also posted a copy of a precursor to this paper which I wrote
in
1984, but never published because I could not at that time explain
the
sources which were predicted.
As always, I welcome reasoned feedback.
Your web site is crap, as are the ideas it contains.
It has been submitted to www.crank.net
Too quick at the draw. Yablon's proposal has long legs even if it is
still evolving. It has been discussed in sci.physics.research and has
been rather well received.
Really?
Presentation counts.
His bio reads like a crackpot.
" I was an undergraduate at MIT (class of 1976) and double-majored in
computer science and political science, with a strong minor in physics.
I
then went to law school and became a patent attorney. Professionally, I
write and prosecute patent applications for inventors in a wide range of
physical, mechanical, electrical, optical, and computer arts. But I have
always had a passionate interest in physics, from the standpoint of
understanding the intelligence and order which animates our universe."
Oh brother.
His papers are poorly written which leads one not want to wade through
them.
Also:
"I will always recall a particular moment during high school chemistry
class, quite a few years ago, when the teacher told us that the proton
mass
was about 1860 times as great as the electron mass. I naturally asked
why
this was so, and was surprised to find out that nobody really knew the
answer. At that moment, I took up the challenge of trying to understand
why
the elementary particles have the masses that they have. "
Physics is not about "why" it is about "how".
You said that, did you not Al?
In any event, I will withdraw the nomination to crank.net, however, my
***** meter is pegging just looking at his site.
I could be wrong in this case, and will apologize if I am even if my
great
great grandchildren have to write the apology letter for me.
Curiously, it demands a pervasive
influence of chiralty even in kinetic energy. Though his work is not
complete, it does not contradict observational physics.
Anything not forbidden...
Pull the crank.net nomination. He may be wrong but he isn't
untalented.
Yeah, the presentations are deficient. The mathematical physics in
them is provocative, certainly as an evolving conjecture.
Then I wish him best of luck.
Not
everybody who is inept is also incompetent. Yablon needs work, but he
hasn't been called out on the fundamentals by sci.physics.research.
sci.physics.research has gone downhill since Baez left, so I cannot be
impressed by that.
Mark Hopkins finds him interesting, and Hopkins is an interesting
person in his own right with valid technical ability even if you don't
embrace his opinions. OTOH, Bernhard Haisch and stochastic
electrodynamics looked mighty fine at the onset. It hasn't gone
anywhere.
Benefit of the doubt here. Yablon, or anybody else, is not really
interesting until some concrete testable predictions arise that wander
outside the Standard Model.
Having waded through some of his page, I can say I admire the fact that he
points out where his model fails, rather than insist that his model is
correct and that emperical physics is wrong.
Do left and right hands fall identically? The question has a
painfully obvious answer, except we don't know what it is. The
initial observation at full senstivity was not illuminating.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Web site update |
10 Mar 2005 03:43:53 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Yeah, the presentations are deficient.
It takes intelligence to see through it and a well-developed background
to be able to recognize on the spot something of potential significance
(regardless of how it's presented).
The idea of a quadratic expression in the charges underlying mass is
already well-motivated by the fact that the square charge term enters
the Hamiltonian in Yang-Mills theory and already gives you a (partial
or total) contribution to the rest energy. So, there mere suggestion
that there may be a mass formula involving the charges, particularly
the quadratic invariant (alpha) will trigger alarms.
It also leads to a more interesting idea that might supersede what
Yablon is doing: the idea that the mass shell in ordinary spacetime
could actually be the projection of the light cone from 5+ dimensions.
Null geodesics in the fibre bundle corresponding to the gauge theory
do, indeed, give you geodesics in the base space corresponding to
massive particles ... with the effective mass arising from the
Yang-Mills charge.
And it ties in with a second idea: positional dependence of the metric
associated with the gauge group (i.e. gauging the couplings,
themselves). It's a curious oversight that the fibre bundle
formulation (which entails the reduction of the scalar curvature
R_{total space} --> R_{base space} - 1/4 F^2 + constant), allows for
positional dependence on the fibres' metric, but nobody employs it.
Instead, it's kept constant and the field equations G_{ab} = 0 for the
extra dimensions are curiously never adopted. (G_{55} is not 0 for the
5-D solution corresponding to a classical point source).
That's also another question that's been bothering me: why is the 5-D
spherically symmetric NOT giving you the classical point charge, but
instead something more complex (and generally non-singular)? It's
because there's the extra structure corresponding to the variation of
the fibre metric which, in effect, gives you a non-trivial dielectric
structure to the point source involving the very kind of charge
screening you want in renormalization theory.
Allowing a variable fibre metric results in new interactions are
introduced which can alter the effective mass -- flavor changing
interactions, thus providing the possible foundation for explaining the
generational structure of the particle spectrum. In addition, you get
an extra term in the Lagrangian corresponding to what looks a lot like
quintessence (dark energy). And on top of that, you have an automatic
built-in regularization which may very well supersede the whole
renormalization edifice, resolving in the process a long-standing open
problem of fixing what's wrong (at the outset) that led to field
theoretic divergences in the first place.
And, finally, on top of all that, you get a natural interpretation of
the vacuum as a dielectric medium with the dielectric coefficient
coming straight out of the gauge group metric (with the U(1) gauge
metric k = epsilon_0 c). What Yablon is doing, in essence, is
identifying this dielectric with the Higgs vacuum, itself, which puts
its potential 248 GV in a new light (breakdown voltage).
Suddenly, the material in articles 50-85 of Maxwell's treatise come
back to roost. The infinity of "classical" field theory was never
present in the treatise. The question that's always been bothering me
is: why? What did he do? It turns out that the theory he laid out is,
when reexamined from a modern perspective, surprisingly contemporary
and even advanced. An entire theory for handling and avoiding the
classical infinities was explicitly set out there, which made use of
the notion that the vacuum had a non-trivial dielectric structure (i.e.
epsilon varies even in a vacuum, particularly around point sources).
The extra quintessence term in the Lagrangian then has a natural
interpretation as the energy associated with the vacuum dielectric
medium.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Web site update |
10 Mar 2005 04:40:14 AM |
|
|
<whopkins@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:1110447833.783492.181820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Al wrote:
Yeah, the presentations are deficient.
It takes intelligence to see through it and a well-developed background
to be able to recognize on the spot something of potential significance
(regardless of how it's presented).
A large part of science is communication.
Intelligence has nothing to do with not wanting to wade through the morass
of his presentation.
You can spend your time in hip boots if you want, but I will wait until I
see it in PRL or the like.
" I respectfully submit, in all humility, that this paper contains what Dr.
Einstein was looking for in his later years, but we just didn't have the
scientific data at the time that he would have needed to complete this work.
"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jay R. Yablon" |
|
| Title: Re: Web site update |
09 Mar 2005 12:37:16 PM |
|
|
Thanks Al.
Coming from someone like yourself who tends to be rather critical (and I
don't means that as a criticism), that is especially gratifying.
Jay.
--
_____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:422F3251.CD9DA609@hate.spam.net...
Michael Varney wrote:
"Jay R. Yablon" < > wrote in message
news:94vXd.62906$vK5.1837@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
I have just updated my web site at
http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm.
At the request if several folks, I now have an "about the author"
section
discussing my personal background.
In this section I have also included some comments about the paper on
Classical Electrodynamics.
I have also posted a copy of a precursor to this paper which I wrote in
1984, but never published because I could not at that time explain the
sources which were predicted.
As always, I welcome reasoned feedback.
Your web site is crap, as are the ideas it contains.
It has been submitted to www.crank.net
Too quick at the draw. Yablon's proposal has long legs even if it is
still evolving. It has been discussed in sci.physics.research and has
been rather well received. Curiously, it demands a pervasive
influence of chiralty even in kinetic energy. Though his work is not
complete, it does not contradict observational physics.
Anything not forbidden...
Pull the crank.net nomination. He may be wrong but he isn't
untalented.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Web site update |
10 Mar 2005 02:24:56 AM |
|
|
"Jay R. Yablon" <> wrote in message
news:wnHXd.63568$vK5.16043@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| Thanks Al.
|
| Coming from someone like yourself who tends to be rather critical (and
I
| don't means that as a criticism), that is especially gratifying.
|
| Jay.
Hi Jay,
Just ignore Varney. He is an over-educated troll on these groups and
rarely posts anything having to do with physics. Some people just have
no original ideas of their own or are too afraid to post them. Heck, if
you don't post them and get feedback on them, then it is hard to get'm
fixed up. ;-)
I have been following your posts and have been enjoying them. Good luck
again.
Regards,
FrediFizzx
| _____________________________
| Jay R. Yablon
| Email:
| "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
| news:422F3251.CD9DA609@hate.spam.net...
| > Michael Varney wrote:
| >>
| >> "Jay R. Yablon" <> wrote in message
| >> news:94vXd.62906$vK5.1837@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >> >I have just updated my web site at
| >> > http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm.
| >> >
| >> > At the request if several folks, I now have an "about the author"
| >> > section
| >> > discussing my personal background.
| >> >
| >> > In this section I have also included some comments about the
paper on
| >> > Classical Electrodynamics.
| >> >
| >> > I have also posted a copy of a precursor to this paper which I
wrote in
| >> > 1984, but never published because I could not at that time
explain the
| >> > sources which were predicted.
| >> >
| >> > As always, I welcome reasoned feedback.
| >>
| >> Your web site is crap, as are the ideas it contains.
| >>
| >> It has been submitted to www.crank.net
| >
| > Too quick at the draw. Yablon's proposal has long legs even if it
is
| > still evolving. It has been discussed in sci.physics.research and
has
| > been rather well received. Curiously, it demands a pervasive
| > influence of chiralty even in kinetic energy. Though his work is
not
| > complete, it does not contradict observational physics.
| >
| > Anything not forbidden...
| >
| > Pull the crank.net nomination. He may be wrong but he isn't
| > untalented.
| >
| > --
| > Uncle Al
| > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
| > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
| > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
|
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jay R. Yablon" |
|
| Title: Re: Web site update |
10 Mar 2005 12:28:44 PM |
|
|
Thanks Fredi, I appreciate your support.
I was very hesitant to put up my bio because it is not very "conventional"
for the type of work I am doing. But someone who was aware of my background
convinced me that it was time to be honest and not ashamed and put my
background on the table.
What I found most bothersome about the posts is exactly why I didn't put up
a bio in the first place. Instead of commenting on the merits of work, this
fellow picked apart my bio. If you can't (or are unwilling to invest the
time to) attack the ideas, then attack the person. We see this all the
time.
Sorry, fellow, but I don't have five postdoc degrees in physics, and spend
my professional time writing scientific patents rather than chasing research
grants. I hope this does not disqualify me from doing serious physics work.
As this fellow did say, however, "I could be wrong in this case, and will
apologize if I am even if my great great grandchildren have to write the
apology letter for me."
I intend for things to evolve a lot more quickly than that, so that I can
save his offspring the trouble.
Best,
Jay.
--
_____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39ae9gF5snmj5U1@individual.net...
"Jay R. Yablon" < > wrote in message
news:wnHXd.63568$vK5.16043@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| Thanks Al.
|
| Coming from someone like yourself who tends to be rather critical (and
I
| don't means that as a criticism), that is especially gratifying.
|
| Jay.
Hi Jay,
Just ignore Varney. He is an over-educated troll on these groups and
rarely posts anything having to do with physics. Some people just have
no original ideas of their own or are too afraid to post them. Heck, if
you don't post them and get feedback on them, then it is hard to get'm
fixed up. ;-)
I have been following your posts and have been enjoying them. Good luck
again.
Regards,
FrediFizzx
| _____________________________
| Jay R. Yablon
| Email:
| "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
| news:422F3251.CD9DA609@hate.spam.net...
| > Michael Varney wrote:
| >>
| >> "Jay R. Yablon" <> wrote in message
| >> news:94vXd.62906$vK5.1837@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| >> >I have just updated my web site at
| >> > http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm.
| >> >
| >> > At the request if several folks, I now have an "about the author"
| >> > section
| >> > discussing my personal background.
| >> >
| >> > In this section I have also included some comments about the
paper on
| >> > Classical Electrodynamics.
| >> >
| >> > I have also posted a copy of a precursor to this paper which I
wrote in
| >> > 1984, but never published because I could not at that time
explain the
| >> > sources which were predicted.
| >> >
| >> > As always, I welcome reasoned feedback.
| >>
| >> Your web site is crap, as are the ideas it contains.
| >>
| >> It has been submitted to www.crank.net
| >
| > Too quick at the draw. Yablon's proposal has long legs even if it
is
| > still evolving. It has been discussed in sci.physics.research and
has
| > been rather well received. Curiously, it demands a pervasive
| > influence of chiralty even in kinetic energy. Though his work is
not
| > complete, it does not contradict observational physics.
| >
| > Anything not forbidden...
| >
| > Pull the crank.net nomination. He may be wrong but he isn't
| > untalented.
| >
| > --
| > Uncle Al
| > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
| > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
| > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Web site update |
09 Mar 2005 12:43:32 PM |
|
|
Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Thanks Al.
Coming from someone like yourself who tends to be rather critical
(and I
don't means that as a criticism), that is especially gratifying.
Al has no tolerance for mediocrity. He also does not hesitate to
reveal errors.
Recognition from Al is therefore scarce and of great value.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
