In article , Donna C
wrote:

Charles Cagle wrote in message

snip

A correct model of gravity is already known.
Charles Cagle


Charles - are you doing gravity stuff now too?

Shows what you know. I've always been doing gravity - a number of
years back I unified electromagnetism and gravity and found a
previously unsuspected property of gravity which is a charge separation
effect. A strong gravitational field will cause elementary charged
particles to overlap in momentum space.

Did you give up on your atomic model?

Of course not.

I remember asking you to show how
hydrogen exists in your atomic model and how you could
possibly calculate the experimentally observed spectrum of
hydrogen. I never saw your calculation. Did you ever bother
to do the calculation?

--Donna C

Nope.

Charles Cagle

Charles Cagle wrote:


Shows what you know. I've always been doing gravity - a number of
years back I unified electromagnetism and gravity and found a
previously unsuspected property of gravity which is a charge separation
effect. A strong gravitational field will cause elementary charged
particles to overlap in momentum space.


http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf

Charles Cagle wrote:


Shows what you know. I've always been doing gravity - a number of
years back I unified electromagnetism and gravity and found a
previously unsuspected property of gravity which is a charge separation
effect. A strong gravitational field will cause elementary charged
particles to overlap in momentum space.


http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf

In article , Gordon D. Pusch
wrote:

(Donna C) writes:

Charles Cagle wrote in message
...
In article , Donna C
wrote:
[...]
I remember asking you to show how
hydrogen exists in your atomic model and how you could
possibly calculate the experimentally observed spectrum of
hydrogen. I never saw your calculation. Did you ever bother
to do the calculation?

Nope.

I'm sure you are unable to provide such a calculation because your
model is not capable of showing that hydrogen is stable. That really
is a serious flaw you have.

Like most crackpots, Cagle doesn't believe in doing calculations or
making quantitative predictions --- he falsely believes his rambling verbose
qualitative "Just So Stories" trump any falsifiable quantitative prediction.
Basically, he's nothing but a shaman; too bad for him he has no tribe to
hoodwink...


-- Gordon D. Pusch

It seems to me that you always think that there's safety in numbers,
Pusch, and are ready to leap on the bandwagon. You really don't know
what I believe in, dimwit, so why do you make such false statements
indicating that you do? Oh, now I remember. You have a tendency to
prevaricate a lot.

I'm neither a shaman nor am I trying to hoodwink people. It is small
and trite of you to try and project your own characteristics onto
others. You try to give the false impression that quantitative
predictions are equivalent to an understanding of underlying physics.
One can make accurate quantitative predictions of the orbits of planets
and still not have an understanding of the nature of gravity. You can
make extremely accurate statistical based predictions dealing with
quanta because you're dealing with large numbers of processes, or
quanta but when it comes down to dealing with the discrete processes or
events and relationships between quanta you're in the dark. There's
more than one road to take and I've merely decided that I wanted one
that gave me more than accurate calculations. I wanted to understand
structure, dynamics, processes and relationships. You obviously are
satisfied with less. I don't think that is something that you should
put on a patrician air about but rather I find it amusing that you do
when in fact is should be a cause for shame to be satisfied living in
ignorance.

There are no rambling just so stories associated with my modeling. For
you to claim that there are is more of your dishonesty. Instead I have
a model that not only provides a meaningful analysis of the nature of
charge but using the model for charge it becomes trivial to achieve an
understanding of the nature of gravity. With all of your calculations
it turns out that you cannot even predict an aspect of gravity (the
charge separation effect) which I discovered by using simple axioms
related to motion, deductive logic and Maxwell's equations.

You believe in continuous structures and in the concept of a field that
is infinitely differentiable and I doubt that you can even tell me what
might be wrong with basing your physics on such a belief which is
really more of a religious conviction than a 'scientific' finding.

You may very well be a highly educated person, Pusch, but no amount of
education can make up for the lack of wisdom that you frequently
display.

Charles Cagle