Subject: IJCNN2019 converstation : Your paper on a classical to theoretical
From: "Bill Howell. Hussar. Alberta. Canada" <>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 17:51:05 -0600
To: "Johan Suykens. KU Leuven" <>

Johan Suykens -   I was pleasantly surprised at IJCNN2019 when you mentioned that you had done some preliminary work on classical approaches to fundamental theoretical physics.  I now forget the exact focus of your work, but if I remember correctly it was an alternative to General Relativity or parts thereof.

You said that you would send a link or pdf of the work that you did some time ago, and mentioned that a graduate student of yours continued with the theme once he became a professor.  I would be very interested in following his work as well.

Bill Lucas's "Universal Force" is my "serious focus" in this area, but I have to say that it is routinely interrupted by other commitments.   My committee work for IJCNN2019, a van crash, and other commitments pretty well stopped all progress since last September.   But as of 1.5 weeks ago, I have finished most of my IJCNN2019 work, and I'm slowly catching up on other work.

All the best, 

Mr. Bill Howell
P.O. Box 299, Hussar, Alberta, T0J1S0
member - International Neural Network Society (INNS), IEEE Computational Intelligence Society (IEEE-CIS),
WCCI2020 Glasgow, Publicity Chair mass emails,
Retired: Science Research Manager (SE-REM-01) at Natural Resources Canada, CanmetMINING, Ottawa

[Random, scattered] references

There are a huge number of references, of course.   Those listed below come to mind as interesting, but the list is a [rare, random] sampling of what is out there.

None of the authors below is taken seriously by the mainstream.  Right or wrong, true or false, is not so important to me.  What matters to me is that they can understand the many failures of the mainstream theories, and have [creative, well-thought] alternative ideas.

Alternatives to General Relativity, gravity

Charles William Lucas 2013 "The universal force : Volume 1 - Derived from a more perfect union of the axiomatic and empirical scientific methods"  ISBN-13: 978-1482328943, ISBN-10: 1482328941
>> This is quite detailed and insightful.  It is the focus of my "current" (often shelved) efforts to check results by step-by-step re-derivations (via at least two paths, possibly more in the future but I may never find the time!).  Lucas has by far the most general claims of all, essentially unifying physics in a [classical, straightforward] manner, with issues like gravity falling out easily and with a solid phenomenological description.

Lucas is working on a book that focuses on the quantum mechanical aspects, although he has numerous [sections, notes, papers in "unconventional" magazines, etc] that do address that.   He's getting pretty old, and I wonder if he'll finish his work.
Oleg D. Jefimenko 2000 "Causality Electromagnetic induction and gravitation : a different approach to the theory of electromagnetic and gravitational fields",  2nd edition, Elecktret Scientific Company, Star City, 210pp ISBN 0-917406-23-0
>> This is a [fun, exciting] book, that formulates time-dependent equations (in contrast to Maxwell, Heaviside) to not only replace General Relativity (or aspects thereof) and goes well beyond that to more general equations.  I've read quickly through most of the book, but I'll have to wait until I finish my work on Bill Lucas's theory before I go through this step-by-step.
Edward Dowdye 2001 “Discourses & mathematical illustrations pertaining to the Extinction Shift Principle under the electrodynamics of Galilean transformations” copyright 1992, printed by Ed Dowdye, Second edition 2001, ISBN 0-9634471-5-7
>> Dowdye derives the effective mass from purely classical physics.  He also points out that General Relativity only predicts the bending of light of the sun at one altitude above the Sun's surface, and fails everywhere else where there "should be" a measurable bending of light by the Sun.

Alternatives to Quantum Mechanics, structure of [atom, nucleus]

Charles W. Lucas Jr, Joseph C. Lucas  2002 "A physical model for atoms and nuclei Part 1,2,3,4"  Foundations of Science:  vol5n1   pp1-7 (2002);  vol5n2 (2002); vol6n1 (2003); vol6n3 (2003)
>> Lucas has many notes on this...  He claims that the [strong, weak] nuclear forces vanish, just as gravity requires no additional explanation in the parts of his work that address General Relativity.
Randell L. Mills Dec2018  "The Grand Unified Theory Of Classical Quantum Mechanics"   Brilliant Light Power,  The first edition was published in ?2000? when his company was called BlackLight Power, Cranbury, NJ, USA

Brett Holverstott 2016 "Randell Mills and the search for hydrino energy" KRP History publisher, 437pp, ISBN: 978-0-692-76005-5
>> Actually, I have NOT yet started to go through step-by-step.  Instead, I read Holverstott's book in detail (comments to be posted to my website perhaps in a few months when I can get to it - I read the book a year ago!)  Randell Mills has his own theory of [gravity, anti-gravity], but I haven't looked closely, and won't until I finish with Lucas.

Many have called Randell Mills a fraud.  I guess that's always possible, and I cannot reproduce any of his [data, results] as that would require a big laboratory,  but I think Mills is probably OK, but that many of his critics really do look like frauds.
Edwin Kaal 20Aug2017 "The proton electron atom :  a proposal for a structured atomic model"  video of presentation,  Electric Universe EU2017 Future Science conference, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, Rebroadcast — only $29:
>>  This is a beautiful presentation, right or wrong, true of false.  Kaal uses Platonic solids as a basis for the structure of nucleus, and does far better at some predictions than quantum mechanics.  He also (if I remember correctly) predicts new undiscovered nuclei and their properties.  His concept may just fit well with Lucas's torus- based [electrons, protons] and Lucas's structures, but I haven't checked.  Perhaps it fits with Randell Mills as well, but that isn't as obvious.
Oliver K. Manuel 1204dd "Neutron Repulsion" Apeiron, Vol. 19, No. 2,
Oliver Manuel - neutron repulsion & isotopic stability.  Oliver Manuel sounded a bit like a crazy doomsayer, but his papers were always interesting and thought-provoking.  He also had great comments about history and the atomic bomb.

Astronomy -  [Electric, Plasma] universe
I have MANY references on this, of which I will mention two authors :
  • A. L. Peratt 1997 "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma" APSS 242, 1997 (3.3MB)
  • A L Peratt (1,2)  W F Yao (3,4) 05Dec2008 "Evidence for an intense solar outburst in prehistory" Phys. Scr. T131 (2008) 000000 (13pp)
  • Anthony Peratt, Dec03 "Characteristics for the Occurence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity" IEEE Trans on Plasma Science v31 n6 p1192-1214
This is a [fun, exciting] project!!  I have been following it since 2012 or so :
7th - 11th July 2018, Somerset, UK1.
  • 1. Montgomery Childs explores the idea of 'two worlds', the theoretical and the empirical, and how the SAFIRE PROJECT maintains a sharp eye on the line between.
  • He also offers an intriguing take on SAFIRE methodology – involving a cigar, sailing, and a bit of wind.
  • 2. Dr. Michael Clarage talks about his work with SAFIRE from a more philosophical perspective – what an empiricist might ponder outside the lab.
  • He offers some intriguing if not startling observations about the astronomical and the biological, the dead and the living universe.
  • 3. Montgomery Childs and Dr. Michael Clarage present a review of The SAFIRE PROJECT to date, which includes some new discoveries of the past year.
  • 2017 Electric Universe FUTURE SCIENCE Conference in Phoenix Arizona
  • 4. 90 minute SAFIRE PROJECT presentation, given at the 2017 Electric Universe FUTURE SCIENCE Conference in Phoenix Arizona.
>> Will SAFIRE find a low pressure, modest temperature (5,000 to 80,000 Celsius) route to commercial fusion energy, or lay the groundwork for something like that?  They are carefull not to claim fusion, but the do have anomalous elemnts at the end of their experiments.

Fractional quantum levels of electrons
Both Bill Lucas and Randell Mills use this concept.  Bill Lucas uses a soliton (torus) based geometry, Randell Mills uses electron distributions in a thin shell.

Fractional order calculus
Apparently, there is a lot of work on [magneto-hydrodynamics, hydraulics, etc] using fractional order calculus, but I find there is almost no awareness of this.  This really intrigues me.   Is ALL of fundamental theoretic physics "wrong" because experiments were designed and run to eliminate "noise and external influences" that were actually the real behaviour of charged particles?