Hi Mike and all WSM Lovers

I agree totally at the same time with your diplomatic activism and with your desire to replace the discussion at its right level.

I want just to add: WSM is a new theory and so it challenges other previous ones. Nevertheless the confrontation must not stay in the debate "theory versus theory" at high level; but on the basic ground of physical facts:

-does WSM explain better this fact (inertia, gravity, entanglement, and many others.) than this firmly established theory, such as Relativity or Quantum Mechanics ?

-Does WSM need fewer hypotheses than other theories?

Etc..

There is the real, scientific and constructive debate.

Great thoughts for all of us.

Denys LĂ©pinard

http://www.ontostat.com/index.htm

Skype Adress : denyslepinard

----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Weber" <miweber2@...>

To: "'Brian Josephson'" <bdj10@...>; <martinkokus@...>; "'Jennifer Wolff'" <snowolffjen@...>; "'Wolfgang Fischer'" <global@...>

Cc: "'BreakForNews.com'" <fintan@...>; "'Denys LĂ©pinard'" <dlepinard@...>; "'Kregg Quarles'" <kquarles@...>; "'Milo Wolff'" <Milo.Wolff@...>; "'jack fogarty'" <jfogarty9@...>; "'Jan Frijters'" <gong9@...>; "'Tom Gehrels'" <tgehrels@...>; "'WSM - IU'" <WSM-IU@yahoogroups.com>; "'WSM Group'" <Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com>; "'Gwen Davies'" <Gwen.Davies@...>; "'Michael Harney'" <mharney1268@...>; "'Geoff Haselhurst'" <haselhurst.wsm@...>; "'NANCY KOLENDA KOLENDA'" <cfs@...>; "'Antonina Kolokolova'" <kol@...>; "'Ludmilla Kolokolova'" <ludmilla@...>; "'Jefferson Law'" <jeffersonlaw@...>; <lindaglord@...>; "'michelle'" <michellemc@...>; "'William Miller'" <cwfmd@...>; "'Megan Moffitt'" <mmoffitt@...>; "'David Mueller'" <dave@...>; "'nergis'" <nergis@...>; "'John Nugan'" <fjn6778@...>; "'Dale O'brien'" <dobpob@...>; <Paul.Johnsson@...>; "'aengebretson@... (Anitra Engebretson <aengebretson@...>)Gloria Petersen'" <Petersen.Gloria@...>; "'ram ramchum'" <cool-rr@...>; "'Doris Rhodes'" <oldladyrhodes@...>; "'brian sallur'" <waro@...>; "'Arlene Sanders'" <ArleneSanders@...>; "'Patricia Savadove'" <patssav@...>; <schafer@...>; "'Carolyn Seling'" <sweaters@...>; "'Ray Staines'" <raystaines@...>; "'Michael Studencki'" <sasq@...>; "'Victor Tang'" <victang@...>; "'Ian Tepoot'" <ian@...>; "'Kenneth Udut'" <simplify3@...>; "'Mark Watt'" <watt.mark@...>; "'Tertius Wehmeyer'" <tertiusw@...>; "'Cynthia Whitney'" <galilean_electrodynamics@...>; "'Doug Wolff'" <dougwolff@...>; "'Winston Wolff'" <winstonw@...>; "'Zeus'" <zeusrdx@...>

Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 12:18 AM

Subject: RE: Book: Schroedinger's--my 2 cents

Brian,

After reading your initial e-mail, I was very skeptical, but your

correspondence since then has shown an honest curiosity, masked by pessimism

from seeing too many theories that do not drive physics forward.

I do not know if you will ever feel satisfied that the WSM will be the next

logical step in physics, but in my opinion, it is worth a discussion so that

we can get feedback from you on what parts of it may still need work.

No one (that I am aware of) working on the WSM feels that physics theory

development will stop with the WSM, but it does tie together many branches

of physics with a single way of looking at everything, and in all of the

areas that I have had time to examine, it works at least as well as current

theories.

The fact that the WSM doesn't require different assumptions from

case-to-case means a lot to me.  We still have a lot of work to do to make

sure that the WSM can derive the majority of current physics results at

least as well as the currently accepted theories.

I appreciate your situation since there are thousands of personal "physics"

theories on the Internet and in books, (I may be vastly under-estimating the

number,) and there isn't enough time to disprove each one of them thoroughly

to find the few that truly benefit science.  The fact that you are going to

read Milo's other book proves to me that you are interested in finding a

more complete truth, and I encourage you to ask questions after you have

read his book.  I will answer with my take on the WSM and try to help you

see the value in this theory.

Mike Weber

-----Original Message-----

From: Brian Josephson [mailto:bdj10@...]

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 11:56 AM

To: martinkokus@...; Jennifer Wolff; Wolfgang Fischer

Cc: BreakForNews.com; Denys LĂ©pinard; Kregg Quarles; Milo Wolff; jack

fogarty; Jan Frijters; Tom Gehrels; WSM - IU; WSM Group; Gwen Davies;

Michael Harney; Geoff Haselhurst; NANCY KOLENDA KOLENDA; Antonina

Kolokolova; Ludmilla Kolokolova; Jefferson Law; lindaglord@...;

michelle; William Miller; Megan Moffitt; David Mueller; nergis; John Nugan;

Dale O'brien; Paul.Johnsson@...; aengebretson@... (Anitra

Engebretson <aengebretson@...>)Gloria Petersen; ram ramchum; Doris

Rhodes; brian sallur; Arlene Sanders; Patricia Savadove;

schafer@...; Carolyn Seling; Ray Staines; Michael Studencki; Victor

Tang; Ian Tepoot; Kenneth Udut; Mark Watt; Mike Weber; Tertius Wehmeyer;

Cynthia Whitney; Doug Wolff; Winston Wolff; Zeus

Subject: Re: Book: Schroedinger's--my 2 cents

I'd like to suggest that now we wait till I've received that book from

Amazon (which it appears may not be the case for a couple of weeks), and

had a chance to review it.

Brian

--On Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:16 -0700 martin kokus

<martinkokus@...> wrote:

     Milo Wolff sent me his first book in 1994 after I already had 7

courses in modern, quantum and particle physics.  It completely changed

my view of the micro world.  Anyone who thinks that Wolff is merely

rehashing traditional quantum physics doesn't understand what he is

trying to say.

* * * * * * *     Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@...

* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., J J Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.

* Unification *    voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356

*   Project   *        WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

* * * * * * *

-- 

Jâ??utilise la version gratuite de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privĂ©s.

Jusquâ??Ă  prĂ©sent SPAMfighter a bloquĂ© 6169 courriels spam.

Nous avons en ce moment 6 millions dâ??utilisateurs de par le monde entier. Les utlisateurs payants nâ??ont pas ce message. Vous pouvez tĂ©lĂ©charger la version gratuite: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr