More Unsung Heroes of Science

Dear Dr. Siepmann: 

If you look at the attached first, you will understand why I was going to introduce myself by stating: “You, Sir, stole my line!”

The Tesla article is one of many with the question in mind that, simply stated is:  WHAT DID MAKE AMERICA GREAT?  The snubbing of Robert Noyce will show up when we get to the Silicon Valley story.

The story of Henne and Midgely is more meaningful to me because I came to DuPont in 1941, an organic chemist out of Duke, and then the war changed everyone’s lives.  I’ve a lapel pin that says Manhattan District Project for the phase that was produced at our Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, NJ, although I was with the Corp of Engineers, not at the plant.

In 39 years with DuPont (I’ve been retired 20 yrs.), I used my organic chemistry every single day and continue to do so.  I do have a patent on a new composition of matter.  I sketched the chemistry on the blackboard for our Dir. of Research, told him what it should “do” to produce a coating for boxboard that was oil and water repellent, and would not break the coating when bent at corners. It worked…I did not make a million!!

Robert H. Moyer  <kentholden.duke@att.net>

[Editor’s Note:  Robert Moyer also enclosed an article on Albert Henne and Thomas Midgely who discovered Freon.  They gave us refrigeration, air conditioning, frozen foods, and more.  That’s quite a contribution to civilization…albeit unknown.]

On the State of Scientific Inquiry 

For a while now I have been "surfing the net" looking for some sort of concrete objectified statement or even diagram of a conclusive theory about space and an unified field. I suppose if someone had they would be the center of some sort of controversy. It's become harder and harder to find consistency about this new theory because everybody is trying to protect their "ass-ets". I am not trained in formal physics and everything I know, I have learnt through my own interest. In fact I am an Artist by trade who wishes to create a thesis and theory on the unified field aka space.

I have many questions to pose to any whom who can answer them, concerning space and the formation of substance or matter. My inevitable goal is to aid in the development of a new visual vocabulary, in order to render the concept of the unified field accessible to average commoner.

What I have realized about the development of such a theory goes beyond the what religion has done for humanity. Indeed many of us understand it will take some time and patience, but it is a task many all ready have taken upon themselves in order to achieve some misconstrued status.

There is no doubt in the minds of many individuals that this theory on space (once it is realized), will be the unveiling of the new era and a whole new consciousness.

It will almost be the answer to something large, but most importantly it will be answer that completes the nearing cycle of a current evolutionary process.

This is my statement to this site... 

In order to establish a visual conceptualization of space, several questions first needs to be asked. It is almost ironic but if asked in the "proper order" the answer to the questions should unveil process that binds matter to space.

At our present pace with our present knowledge, the big inquisition into space is how to predict the orbit of a moving projectile, but so much has yet to be clarified about the production of form, or has it ? Maybe it's GRAVITY that boggles the mind, or are scientists just asking the wrong questions. The knowledge we have is the key to solving the most confusing riddle since the question arose...

I BELIEVE IT IS TIME WE STARTED REARRANGING THE VARIABLES.

Sincerely,

A very frustrated individual.

Bernard Yankson  Relative@www.com

On the Speed of Light

I would like to respond to your editorial of Vol. 2, No. 4, Proof that the Speed of Light is not Constant!

1) when the photons 'make it through' the medium, they are traveling at 'c'.  While they are in the medium, they are at 'c' in the medium.

2) many photons are absorbed, or re-emitted elsewhere.  Visible wavelengths in glass are usually transmitted at 95% efficiency.

3) conservation of momentum, and conservation of 'angular momentum' of electrons in the path would tend to pass the photons through.  Birefringence even has light go through two different paths, and the two beams come out parallel.

4) the behavior of photons in a material is consistent with its behavior when tested with alternating electrical and magnetic fields separately.  'c' in the material is controlled by these behaviors.

You have not offered a theory as to why light speed is not constant. I like mine better: "Light speed is a function of the amount of mass in the Universe", and since stars consume mass and create energy the speed of light is a function of time.

David A. Smith  <DSmith@osmonics.com>

[Editor's Note:  David Smith's website was reviewed and is worth taking a look at.  The site http://hometown.aol.com/dlzc/lightspeed.html was added to our links page.] 

Re:  The Nature of Space

I wanted to say a few words about the nature of space.  This seems to be the area that most people are having problems with this theory.

Many people think that I am offhandedly putting space in space.  Basically trying to add dimensions to make the equations work out.  Actually it is much more profound than this.  And I take some humor at this as I see people adding strings to space across multiple dimensions without defining what the strings actually are.  Other people are playing with particles that can't get away from each other and particles that can't get near to each other.  Still others have particles of strangeness, directions, and colors without hue.  I can't see my theory as any stranger than theirs.

I know that space is the critical factor in any scientific experiment.  A particle in space effects other particles around it, either by gravity or by electromagnetic effects.  A moving particle has momentum in the direction of travel.  Energy in the form of light is always traveling.  But there are mysteries here.  How can a photon of light get locked into an electron's higher energy shell only to be emitted at a later period?  Are they related?  How can a charged particle under acceleration and deceleration produce light?  Is light a basic constructed to the nature of the particle?  Is light related to gravity?  I find these questions unanswered in most of the leading theory on the market today.

My theory is based upon subspace singularities, space that is the opposite of our common conception of the definition of space.  Regular space has the zero point of the X, Y, and Z axis's close to our center position and the infinite space is infinitely far away at the horizon.  Subspace is just the opposite.  Its infinite spot is at the center and the zero point is at the far ends.  In fact it can only float in space since zero point is such a distortion it can never exist.  Subspaces can only exists in space at the point where they match the actual physical space they consume. 

There is another concern about the infinite size of the subspace.  There are a lot of questions about the Universe being infinite or finite.  I really do not know.  Either way the Universe seems awfully big.  But I do see a paradox that I can not answer.  The infinite space of a subspace is contained within an infinitesimal point and we all know that a point has no dimensions.  I think that there is some sense to this, if we try hard enough we can reduce all of science down to paradoxes that we can't resolve. 

But there is a deeper issue here.  And this is one that you have to sit down for.  I don't know if you have ever been struck by a thought so powerful that it's left you stunned.  It's happened to me.  It left me numb for a week.  Afterward I thought about Sir Isaac Newton and what he must have gone through.  I imagine him walking at dusk down a dirt road and in the twilight he spots the old apple tree where the initial concept of gravity hit him literally.  And now time has passed, he has established his theories, published his findings, and feels like he understands the universe.  And as he looks up the stars are starting to come out.  And as he looks at them he thinks that these objects are also effected by gravity.  If they are lights like the sun they are probably far away.  And if they are like the sun then they probably have planets orbiting around them.  And if planets then they probably have people looking up at the sky at dusk.  And then suddenly he glimpsed at the enormity of the universe.  It was the very first thoughts of life on other planets.

This other thought hit me with as much force.  Space in space actually doesn't accomplish very much.  We need this other agent which I call infinite speed light (light with no frequency) to move across the infinite distance of the subspace to make the virtual light that is the basis of all of the other conclusions.  The virtual light is the definition of why the speed of light is a constant to all observers.  Its infinite speed over infinite distance for any observer.  It's the definition of time.  But what is infinite speed light?

This is where we sit down.

It is the word is.  It is the actual definition of what is over both space and time.  It is our original concept of pre-Einstein physics except instead of a flat universe we have a universe of singularities that causes energy to be defined across space.  So another definition for energy could be "captured is" or in simpler terms "awareness".  We tend to look at energy potentials and reactions in chemical equations.  I tend to think that we can go a lot deeper if we wanted to.

Butterworth D.  <Finimerlin@yahoo.com>