> >1) 3-space + time (Heisenberg assumption) or >2) 2-space + time (Mills assumption) there is (could be) >3) 2-space + 2-time (alternative QM time dimensional variable) > There is another view out there. A vort member has done a number of lectures on 2-space +0 time. I did get in on part of one and it was very interesting how it explained QM in a simple 2-space view. Maybe they (he) will comment on this?
-----Original Message----- >From: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Aug 8, 2007 12:36 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Vo]:The meaning of "in" > >One point not adequately expressed is that the Heisenberg POV is totally >grounded in three dimensions, whereas Mills OS (orbitsphere) is defined >as two dimensional only . Big difference. > >Even so, I am not sure that Mills got this exactly right, but to >understand that even more remote reservation, one would need to go >further out on the shaky limb of alternative fizzix and into the "extra" >time dimension(s). > >IOW instead of: > >1) 3-space + time (Heisenberg assumption) or >2) 2-space + time (Mills assumption) there is (could be) >3) 2-space + 2-time (alternative QM time dimensional variable) > >no "two-timing cheater" puns please.... 2-time does potentially explain >half-spin... anyway ... moving on. > > >>> A possible variation to the "Planck-stick", so to speak, would involve >>> a power law - which could reflects a dimensional change. This would be >>> inherent in the Fourier transform of the angular frequency, which >>> comes into play in Mills' math. I wish that I understood Fourier >>> transforms better, because now I am operating only in a metaphor mode. >>> However, from that perspective, many of the believers in CQM find >>> Mills ideas intuitive, even if they disagree with Heisenberg.[snip] > > >HH: >> In any case, Mills is pretty late in coming to market. He seems to be >> joining a long line of failures. Something better is needed, or at >> least more publicly available. > >On that point we agree, except that Mills may be closer to partial >success than failure. 'Huge success' is still within reach. > >His own reticence in sharing all experimental results (he freely shares >the good, but leaves out data which HAS TO BE THERE) is his worst enemy. > >That and not providing people like EarthTech with full and complete >cooperation and means of verification. His so-called "independent" >replications are laughing stock ... yet there has to be something there >which is very exciting - unless of course, he is a pathological liar of >the "wag-the-dog" variety. > >A full replication by a quality lab -- and Mills is on his way to >Stockholm, Heisenberg notwithstanding, no? > >Jones >
