Share MM Findings with CNPS?

The Natural Philosophy Society seems to be getting better organized. They're working on a Wiki for alternative science and they have a forum for it. They have some science categories listed and EM Aether is one of them. So I started a thread there for Miles' ideas at:
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=110

They're working on making a more efficient method for scientific discussion and collecting the best sci info, so I want to get involved with that and maybe some of you guys may like to as well.

They also have conferences every year in July at a college in Baltimore, MD. Maybe someone would like to present Miles' model there, although you'd have to submit it before the deadline.

.
Lloyd, your link above gets you to a Welcome guest, please log-in or register redirect. They also said something about changing over to a new system.

(Everybody, Lloyd gave me one that works),
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site

I haven't looked at the forums yet, and am not ready to commit. Miles could probably benefit. Who knows.
.

After some deliberation, I registered and replied to a question about the Twins Paradox. I might have stirred up some trouble for myself, but we shall see how it goes.

Bruce explained now the reason for not allowing guests. He said they were concerned about keeping bots out, except for Google and Yahoo. But bots aren't a problem if they can read only; am I right? If any of you have suggestions for Bruce regarding guests, let me know. I'll mention a couple of things to him that I can think of.

I'm also going to ask Bruce if they would like to have a few volunteers to help them experiment with the discussion and wiki processes they're trying to put in place on their site. Would any of you guys like to volunteer?

Below I'm posting a copy of their process for contributing to their wiki. I think it may be productive for us to contribute to that asap such as by copying Miles' arguments against flaws in mainstream claims there. I don't think they're quite ready for volunteers to start contributing directly to the wiki, but they seem almost ready and it may be okay to start collecting arguments etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------

CNPS Critical “Wiki”
STANDARD FORMAT and STRUCTURE
January 29, 2017

The CNPS Critical “Wiki” Encyclopedia (CCWE) is a series of articles that challenge some of the conclusions of “mainstream” Wikipedia articles. The challenges have been proposed by CNPS members or other critical thinkers over a long period of time. They are collected in the CCWE series so they can be reviewed as a collected “whole” for further use and discussion. This document attempts to capture the details of formatting and structuring a CCWE article (CCWEa).
The elements of this document are summarized in a CNPS Critical Wiki Writer’s Guide, which can be found at http://bit.ly/CNPS-Critical-Wiki-Writers-Guide . Both the writer’s guide and this “format and structure” document (http://bit.ly/CNPS-Critical-Wiki-Format-and-Structure) are subject to change, more so during early development. Reopening the documents will retrieve that latest version, which is indicated by it’s date stamp.

1. General
1.1 CNPS
CNPS is the acronym for the John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society. CNPS will support the development of a Critical Wiki Encyclopedia.
1.2 Purposes of the CNPS Critical Wiki Encyclopedia (CCWE)
The initial purpose of launching a CCWE was to provide CNPS members a system to organize critiques of mainstream Wikipedia science pages. The Critical “Wiki” effort, however, will go far beyond just challenging the mainstream views posted in the Wikipedia scientific pages. Some key goals for the CCWE effort are:
a. Capture a FULL RANGE of criticism from CNPS membership
b. Provide an organizing tool to encourage and organize critical discussions of scientific topics
c. Provide a window for the public to easily view a full range of CNPS critical thinking
d. To use as a reference of CNPS member thinking to encourage additional people to join the society
1.3 Standard Format
Each CCWEa is organized using a standard format. The format was established to look similar to a Wikipedia science page. This approach was taken for the primary purpose of making it easier to compare a CCWEa with the Wikipedia article it is criticizing. There are sufficient differences in page graphics, menus and logos, however, so the CNPS version and Wikipedia versions will be difficult to confuse. The standard format includes:
1. A four panel layout. One panel appears as a simple dividing line, so the page actually appears to have three panels.
2. Title. The CCWEa title is identical to the Wikipedia article it is criticizing.
3. A short introduction. The introduction has two parts. The first part is typically a verbatim copy of the first paragraph of the mainstream Wikipedia page. This is included for reference. Part two is a summary of the critiques that are being made of the Wikipedia article.
4. Table of contents of the article.
5. A series of sections that contain the critiques.
6. References
7. Author acknowledgement. Unlike a Wikipedia article, which is essentially a collection of excerpts, made by editors, of referenced works of other people, a CCWEa is a collection of original concepts of CNPS members critiquing the ideas of others. Since each of those critiques is the OPINION of a CNPS member, their authorship is clearly identified.
1.4 What is the composition process?
The writing effort is anticipated as a multi-step process:
a. The overall format has been established as described in this document. The format has been captured in a Template.
b. A writers guide is available at http://bit.ly/CNPS-Critical-Wiki-Writers-Guide
c. Most likely, a project will be started at CNPS and members asked to contribute to a focused effort related to specific subjects.
d. Members will join this effort primarily through the new Forum. As the forum makes progress, new scientific discoveries will be made that challenge mainstream concepts. CCWE articles (CCWEa) will be needed to challenge existing Wikipedia articles.
e. Members can create their own CCWE articles, or develop those articles with a CCWE editor doing the original set up.
f. The content of the sections of the article will be submitted by individual members.
g. All content will be entered into the CCWEa by CCWE editors.
1.5 Comment creation
CCWEa CONTENT will be generated using standard Microsoft Office Tools or other word processor software that can be converted into MS Word readable form. This was the major consideration that led to abandoning the use of conventional wiki software, which was primarily an HTML editor. The HTML burden of writing in HTML format is too burdensome to allow broad support from society members.
Most of the material created by other programs, like ShareLa Tex, can be cut and pasted into the WORD documents. The best way to manage equations still needs to be refined. Since CNPS has such a strong focus on ShareLa Tex, this compatibility should give everyone an easy road to contribute.
To maintain the intellectual freedom intent of CNPS in producing these pages, it can’t be an “open” effort. That’s what got the mainstream into the fix it’s in. Anyone can edit regular Wikipedia articles. So, to gain broad public approval, writers push for “political correctness”. Most of a CNPS Wiki comment will contain views that disagree with existing Wiki articles. To prevent these disagreements from being lost, the final editing will be moderated by members who respect diverse viewpoints.
1.6 Maintaining author fidelity
The key goals for the CCWE effort were listed in the Purpose section. Here is a short discussion of the tradeoffs and processes the structured method has included to achieve these key goals while maintaining author fidelity:
a. Capture the FULL RANGE of criticism from the membership

This would appear to be a simple issue at first. All that would be needed is to include ALL member submissions. As was discussed in Bruce Nappi’s 2016 conference presentation, human’s have very complex communication styles. The style each person brings out during expression of controversial issues doesn’t always stay true to the hard science. Many styles get directed toward interpersonal concerns more than scientific statements. For the many reasons discussed in the paper, a large and diverse membership will never naturally respond with consistent communication quality. So a process a lot more complex than “accepting ALL” is needed. This will be expanded below in the discussion of MODERATION STYLES.
b. Strike a balance of tolerance in views in the presence of hostile behavior by members

Some members, when under severe peer pressure, are not able to maintain high levels of professionalism. The goal may best be stated as, proving support for those members to communicate their scientific concepts, while isolating the general membership from the hostility. This is where the Structured Forum brings in the solution of “open dialog” with moderated “insight” capture. This is explained further below in the discussion of MODERATION STYLES.
2. Article Component Formatting
2.1 General Layout and Appearance
To capture a reader’s attention that they are viewing an encyclopedia type page, a CCWEa should be formatted to match that of a standard Wikipedia page. This is already set up in the CCWEa TEMPLATE which is available at http://bit.ly/CNPS-Critical-Wiki-template-zz https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbKe3OFhtdv1-bu90_9cHCtttjuG7lhdn_fbBhRkDF0/edit?usp=sharing
To achieve this goal, a CCWE article is:
a. formatted as three vertical panels.
b. has the TITLE at top left of the center panel underlined across the screen.
c. has clickable video objects in the right panel.
d. The “article, talk, read, edit, view history, and search box” have been left out. The top right Wiki buttons have also been left out. Login indicators, Talk, Contributions etc. have been left out. We may decide, at a later time, to include some of these buttons.
e. The first text section is the INTRODUCTION.
f. The next section is a TABLE OF CONTENTS.
g. The next text area has multiple sections, each holding a separate CRITIQUE. Each of these critiques will have a level 1 Heading with a horizontal line below it crossing the page. Outline numbering is NOT used in the sections.
h. At the end of the critique sections, there is a REFERENCES section.
i. After the References, there is an AUTHOR section.
2.2 Left panel
The left panel is essentially a wide grey boarder. It has a CNPS logo at top. We may decide later to include general hyperlinks there.
2.3 Second panel
The second panel contains the bulk of the content. More detail on each of these items is included here.
2.3.1 Article Header
The top of the center panel has the Heading: “CNPS Critical Wiki”.
2.3.2 Title
The title of the CCWEa should be identical to the mainstream Wikipedia article that it is critiquing. For example, if the Wikipedia article is titled “Time”, the CCWEa should be titled, “Time”. The reason for this is a parallel in the URLs for the articles. The URL for the Wikipedia article on “Time” will be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time. The CCWEa URL will be http://bit.ly/CNPS-wiki-Time.
2.3.3 Introduction
The first text entry will be a short summary of the “mainstream” Wikipedia article. This is typically the first paragraph of the mainstream Wikipedia article copied verbatim.
The second text entry in the introduction starts with the following statement:
“This Critical Wiki raises multiple concerns with this definition or the comments made throughout the Wikipedia article. Some of these concerns are:”
(The preceding phrase is already in the template.)
This statement should then be followed by a brief summary of how the views of CNPS members differ from the stated Wikipedia definition.
2.3.4 Table of Contents
The Table of Contents is an automatically generated page. The editors will regenerate this after each revision of the document.
2.3.5 Sections
The main text of the article is a series of sections that discuss the challenges members have raised. It is important in writing and editing these sections that they always be viewed as scientific statements. This implies:
a. Readers will expect certain “protocols” if we are claiming to be “scientists” following “scientific” principles. If members are not willing to put in the effort to do this, but instead expect presenting raw views will gain them acceptance, then they have not yet developed the professional maturity to understand or gain the respect they are looking for.
b. Structuring these sections using a common approach will thereby become a good road map for reading and writing, as well as a teaching tool for members.

The first element of each section is the section HEADING. This is a simple identifier for the comment. An example would be, “Spacetime”. Some of the section headings should be chosen to match headings in the Wikipedia article that are being critiqued.
The second element of the section is the author identification. It should use the form, “By ” where is the name of one or more people who created the comment.
The remaining elements create the overall flow of each section. They should follow the same general flow used by Wikipedia and include:

a. What is the issue?
b. General history leading to the issue – who, what, where, why, when.
c. The experimental history and primary references about it.
d. Any follow-on work done after the well known experiments and secondary references.
e. What former researchers got wrong?
f. The mathematical, physics and social explanations for the false results.
g. Member papers on the issue.

2.3.6 References
Citations are included in the CCWEa in two forms: 1. a short form in the text of the comments; 2. A long form in the References list. These two forms are:
Citation in the text: (Author, Short Title, Date) The author name format is: Last, First. The date format is: year, month. Each of these can be reduced to the minimum needed to find specific entries in the reference list. For example, a citation in the text for Special Relativity could be as short as (Einstein 1905) as long as there is a full citation with the same heading in the references.
Citation in the Reference list: Author, Full Title, Date, Source. The author name format is: Last, First, Middle initial. The date format is: year, month. Each of these can be shortened as appropriate. If an person is not identified as an author, the author may be an organization (The Royal Society, for example). If no reference author can be identified, the title should be used as the lead term.
The foundation of scientific claims is building on the immense history of scientific studies. The key to any good comment is establishing a solid foundation on past work. The references section should be used to list all the relevant references needed to support each comment.
The CCWE approach to references, however, is different from that used by Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses a numbered reference system. That is, references listed in a Wikipedia article are ordered, generally, by their order of first mention in the text. This is important for Wikipedia because a fundamental rule for Wikipedia is that author comments are primarily summaries of references created by other people. With references being the “substance” of Wikipedia, this is a major space saver for them. But getting that space savings comes with the large overhead cost of juggling the reference numbers.
CCWE does not use the Wikipedia model. The major substance of CCWE articles is member opinion. References are a needed foundation, but are needed in much smaller quantity. An alphabetically based citation format is used to provide multiple advantages: 1. The citation list is ordered alphabetically by author. It is self sorting and logical to use. 2. It gives the reader a cue directly in the text about the reference content.

2.3.7 Authors
This section is used as an index to authors commenting in the article. It is listed in alphabetical order with the following format: Author name; applicable section headings.
2.4 Third panel
The right-hand panel is used primarily for graphics and side notes. It is an open cell that you can use in a number of ways. It is designed for flexibility, so you can paste in graphics, links, or notations there. It is recommended that you use the “Text Box” to contain your “paste” (text and/or images).
2.4.1 For Text
Select the “Text Box” icon and draw a box in the right-hand column. Type or paste in your text (text size Cambria (Body) 10 is recommended). You can increase or decrease the size of the box to fit your text, as well as move the box up and down to place it on the page near your comment.
2.4.2 For Images
Select the “Text Box” icon, just like you were going to add text. Draw a box in the right-hand column. Then paste an image in the text box. WARNING!! Your image is likely to completely mess up the appearance of the article. Don’t panic. With the image still selected, right-click and select “Format Picture” from the menu. Then click on the icon “In Front of Text.” This should snap the picture to the text box outline.

With the text or image boxes, you can eliminate the outline by highlighting the box with a right click. Choose Borders and Shading and select “no line.”

3. CCWE file management
3.1 File structure
The file structure has the following elements. This can be viewed as a site MAP at http://a3ri.org/CNPS/Site MAP for the CNPS Forum.doc
1. All CCWE articles are stored as Google Docs files. This was done because when a Google Docs file is created, it can be assigned a STATIC universal URL. That means, even when the file is modified, the static URL does NOT change. This means, that file can perpetually be accessed using only that initial URL. The downside to this model is that all editors must be able to log in to Google Docs, and ALL EDITING must be done on the original file IN Google Docs.
2. Support documents (like this that you are reading) are stored on multiple servers for direct read-only access. These storage locations are currently: 1. a3ri.org in the subfolder a3ri.org/CNPS; 2. franc2.mit … for the CNPS Discussion MAP; 3. Medium.com as published articles; 4. A3society.org/Documents for background articles and powerpoint presentations; 5. Facebook.com/chappellnatural… for videos; 6.
3. To shorten, organize, and give logical meaning to URLs, http://bit.ly has been used. For example, the approach to naming CNPS Wiki articles is http://bit.ly/CNPS-Wiki-XYZ where “XYZ” is the title of the article (see next section).
3.2 URL naming
Standard Wikipedia articles use the following convention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYZ where “XYZ” is the title of the article. The CCWEa will follow this convention using the following convention: http://bit.ly/CNPS-Wiki-XYZ where “XYZ” is the title of the CNPS critique article. It should also be identical to the Wikipedia article.
3.3 Article content location
When the original CCWEa is constructed, or changed, it will be submitted to a CCWE editor. The editor will post the article in a CNPS Google DOCS account. Google will then be the main repository of the CCWE. The CCWE articles are temporarily being saved in the Google account of Bruce Nappi.
3.4 Content Backup
When the original page is created, and every time an update is made, a backup copy will be saved to the CNPS server (TBD).
4. Moderation goals
For entry into a CCWEa, the following guidelines must be addressed:
a. Articles will address ONLY disputes in scientific theory or scientific protocol.
b. Article content will stay focused on the subject matter of the Title. Content submissions that drift from the topic will be moved by a coordinator to a more appropriate topic. If none has been started, the article will be tabled for future use. Notice will be provided to the author and the reason for the action described.
c. All comments will show the highest “professional” respect for other members, other scientists and scientific systems. That means, a comment by any member that uses language which criticizes another’s professional abilities, will not be considered for inclusion in the structured material, regardless of scientific quality.
d. No comment will attack another member’s character. That means, a comment by any member that denigrates another member’s character, will not be considered for inclusion, regardless of scientific quality.

5. Coordination
While generation of new articles will be the work of many members, special projects will be the main driving motivation. Each special project will ask the membership for support and give those volunteering to help a roadmap of specific articles that are needed. Individual initiative is always welcome.

.
Lloyd, You have a response to your Photonic Aether post at CNPS
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=110

Ray Fleming wrote. I have two or three questions to start.

1. How do his aether photons exist without exceeding the Planck oscillator energy?

2. How do his photons produce rotating electric and magnetic fields? In other words where is the rotating charge dipole?

The first question seems particularly suspicious, maybe he thinks he can separate true scholars from amateurs? I'd have answered myself but I have no idea what he's talking about.

Let's come up with a suitable answer for this skeptic!
.

Hi Airman. Thanks for the notification. You can hardly know less than I do about what the person said.

A Planck osillator is said to be: An oscillator which can absorb or emit energy only in amounts which are integral multiples of Planck's constant times the frequency of the oscillator. Also known as radiation oscillator.

I guess I'll ask Miles if he wants to answer about the energy or if one of his papers already answers it.

Regarding the rotating charge dipole, I don't see a need for that. Do you?

I got en email from CNPS last night saying that I have to use my full name and provide a picture. I don't think I will bother.

I wouldn't involve Miles in this. He would be dipping into the baby pool.

Planck energy quantization sounds right to me. The photon is quantized by radius doublings. The dipole charge is a main staple of the electric universe that I've never accepted. Why do we need QM for a discussion of a charge field?

I would say his questions presuppose we need to know quantum mechanics, that QM must somehow be satisfied. That's unfortunate. We need to put a positive spin on our differences. If we can't do this nicely, we shouldn't do it at all.

Nevyn wrote:I got en email from CNPS last night saying that I have to use my full name and provide a picture. I don't think I will bother.

I'm pretty sure they'll accept a pseudonym for your "first name" with Nevyn as your last name, or whatever. I received an email today too, asking for a photo, but I don't think they insist on it.

I mentioned Miles site was down earlier today.

Nevyn, They do seem to be a farm organization for developing QM physicists theorists.

If they demand complience, my name was enough. I won't include my picture.

Lloyd, Will you give them your picture?

Our honest effort may be wasted here.

I'm not planning to give my photo.

It looks like Miles' site is down again.

Okay, I replied to Ray now. Let me know if I messed up.
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=110

PS, What I'm interested in at CNPS is not the Forum, but the Wiki and the improved Forum that they want to provide before long. I don't know if we could accomplish much to speak of on their present Forum, but I plan to keep an eye on it and especially to keep in touch with Bruce, who's doing most of the work to improve things there, I think.

.
Lloyd, you answered perfectly well.

Members
Posts: 18
Threads: 14
Joined: Mar 2017, 15 minutes ago

Lloyd Kinder wrote. Sorry, I overlooked your post, Ray.

Mathis says there's a lot wrong with Quantum Mechanics, because it's based on the assumption that electrons are point charges and photons are considered to be virtual particles, instead of physical. At least that's my limited understanding of what his papers say.

His papers include a section on QM (and another on Relativity). His site is http://MilesMathis.com , although it's not accessible right now for some reason. He discussed the Planck constant and free space oscillators in this paper: http://milesmathis.com/casimir.html

He considers all charge to be repulsive and to be photon pressure, although there is surely high and low pressure, so low pressure must act like an attractive force. Photon collisions comprise the electric field and the CW or CCW spin on photons comprise the orthogonal magnetic field.

Electrons, protons and other particles are claimed to be composed of photons. The particles spin and have polar openings. Photons enter the poles and exit some equatorially and some polarly. Electrons don't orbit the nucleus, but orbit the poles of protons. Electrons seem to orbit, because atoms spin and electrons are attached to the protons. So atoms have to be balanced, or they break apart.

.