Alexander Franklin Mayer's Physics

[dash]

I’d like to call people’s attention to AF Mayer’s theories, he claims to have developed a TOE combining general relativity and quantum mechanics.

http://www.jaypritzker.org/

Here is his page on quantum gravity:

http://www.jaypritzker.org/pages/PrincipleIdea.html

Mainstream scientists aren’t paying much attention to him either — a point I consider in his favor.

Any opinions?

-Dave

Attached files

[Breakable]

Does this teory have a name.
I am not able to find any good mention of it in wikipedia.
The Only thing that was found is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Ashley/Alexander_Franklin_Mayer

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: Does this teory have a name.
I am not able to find any good mention of it in wikipedia.
The Only thing that was found is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Ashley/Alexander_Franklin_Mayer

QGrav .

[Breakable]

If you mean quantum gravity there seems to be many different theories there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Gravity
As I understand basically quantum gravity is a name for the theory of everything. So is AF Mayer

[Brian H]

If you mean quantum gravity there seems to be many different theories there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Gravity
As I understand basically quantum gravity is a name for the theory of everything. So is AF Mayer

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
QGrav is what he calls it. What’s in Wiki is what the latest approved contributor happens to have included.

I would expect that Wikipedia is editable by anyone.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

QGrav is what he calls it. What’s in Wiki is what the latest approved contributor happens to have included.

I would expect that Wikipedia is editable by anyone.

Which is the problem; there are uber-editors who can remove or block what they dislike, tho’. There are lots of politically sensitive sites where one viewpoint is instantly attacked and removed by other / majority consensus “editing”, and sometimes it’s subtle alterations of material to make it look goofy. Wiki is a battleground.

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
Which is the problem; there are uber-editors who can remove or block what they dislike, tho’. There are lots of politically sensitive sites where one viewpoint is instantly attacked and removed by other / majority consensus “editing”, and sometimes it’s subtle alterations of material to make it look goofy. Wiki is a battleground.

While I agree with you that wiki is a battleground, I think the battles should be fought and won.There are a lot of editors that support only mainstream science, anyone can add content and fight for its preservation, if there is enough motivation for that.
An annotation that a specific article does not match scientific consensus might be offensive, if its true it should be carried proudly, until times change.
I would really love to see an article about QGrav in wikipedia. I would write one myself, but I am not a physicist, and even my understanding of fundamentals is mostly sketchy. This is why I usually rely on others Criticism, and I expect any Criticism to be correctly addressed.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

Which is the problem; there are uber-editors who can remove or block what they dislike, tho’. There are lots of politically sensitive sites where one viewpoint is instantly attacked and removed by other / majority consensus “editing”, and sometimes it’s subtle alterations of material to make it look goofy. Wiki is a battleground.

While I agree with you that wiki is a battleground, I think the battles should be fought and won.There are a lot of editors that support only mainstream science, anyone can add content and fight for its preservation, if there is enough motivation for that.
An annotation that a specific article does not match scientific consensus might be offensive, if its true it should be carried proudly, until times change.
I would really love to see an article about QGrav in wikipedia. I would write one myself, but I am not a physicist, and even my understanding of fundamentals is mostly sketchy. This is why I usually rely on others Criticism, and I expect any Criticism to be correctly addressed.

My experience to date is that Wiki is reliable only in non-controversial areas. If you are one of those prepared to fight the battles there, go for it. But the kaleidoscopic result of on-going battles is not going to inspire confidence, or be all that useful, IMO.

[Henning]

Actually Alexander Mayer refers to possible application in fusion research two pages later on “The strong force”:

The foregoing discussion is not simply academic. It suggests the possibility of a new approach to the technological problem of producing usable energy by the process of nuclear fusion. It would appear that a very particular impact velocity (i.e., p-wavelength) of nuclear interactions might be calculated that would increase the probability of a fusion event by many orders of magnitude. If this is correct, a machine might be constructed which somehow controls the impact velocity between nucleon projectiles and their designated targets within a very narrow tolerance of the calculated optimum interaction wavelength.

And also some stuff about room temperature fusion (but I don’t buy into that).

If dense plasma focus is sufficiently controllable (not with conventional design, but with Aaron Blake’s and Eric Lerner’s coil around the DPF), this would give an additional boost.

Additionally he is writing a book which might be quite similiar to “Big Bang Never Happened” with the tilte “The Many Directions of Time”, attacking the conventional Big Bang cosmological model. See: “New Cosmology”

[Warwick]

Hi all

I don’t know if you are familiar with the work of Mendel Sachs

http://www.compukol.com/mendel/publications/publications.html

I read through this old one

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9027722471/qid=926450603/sr=1-3/002-5908934-8425436

(from the library, not by paying $269 lol) and I have to say it is all theorems – totally sound stuff.

As a Bayesian, this makes me happy, because he completely explains away any apparent ontological randomness. In quantum gravity, randomness is epistemic.

Warwick

[Brian H]

Henning wrote: Actually Alexander Mayer refers to possible application in fusion research two pages later on “The strong force”:

The foregoing discussion is not simply academic. It suggests the possibility of a new approach to the technological problem of producing usable energy by the process of nuclear fusion. It would appear that a very particular impact velocity (i.e., p-wavelength) of nuclear interactions might be calculated that would increase the probability of a fusion event by many orders of magnitude. If this is correct, a machine might be constructed which somehow controls the impact velocity between nucleon projectiles and their designated targets within a very narrow tolerance of the calculated optimum interaction wavelength.

And also some stuff about room temperature fusion (but I don’t buy into that).

If dense plasma focus is sufficiently controllable (not with conventional design, but with Aaron Blake’s and Eric Lerner’s coil around the DPF), this would give an additional boost.

Additionally he is writing a book which might be quite similiar to “Big Bang Never Happened” with the tilte “The Many Directions of Time”, attacking the conventional Big Bang cosmological model. See: “New Cosmology”

Well, 2 things off the bat here:
1) Eric doesn’t have “a coil around the DPF”. The only place a coil is used is in the solenoid channel through which the alpha beam exits.
2) The magnetic fields and forces which Eric emphasizes in lieu of gravimetric explanations don’t have much to do, AFAIK, with parallel time tracks, alternate universes, or the like.

I see little overlap between Lerner and Blake.

[Author]

Posts