Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
caltechdude
http://www.16pi2.com/chapter_4_secrets_of_the_aether.htm
(Colorful sketch of an Aether Unit)
The following is a text of the summary of each chapter in his
book as shown in his web site. Let's debunk them point by point.
If we lose, then David Thomson and Jim Bourassa are candidates
for a Nobel prize. His theory is different from dozens of others
because of extensive mathematics. For anyone who can debunk his
theory convincingly. There is a reward of $1000. I need to know
the validity of his theories ASAP because I plan to use it as a
school project and don't want to get flanked if it is all
founded to be based on false premises. Check out his link above
for colorful diagram and sketch for each chapter. The following
is shared for reply quote purposes only.
Chapter 1: Introduction (summary)
As an alternative to the mathematical Standard Model of physics,
this book is a foundational introduction to the Aether Physics
Model. This model already provides key solutions to physics not
presently solved by the Standard Model (a Unified Force Theory,
for example.) We present a coherent, mathematically derived, and
empirically based theory of reality. Key equations can be
followed with a basic understanding of algebra. The Standard
Model is replaced by a single theory of angular momentum and
Aether unit s. The ontology of the APM begins with the proper
understanding of dimensions and measurements, and the
understanding that the Aether (space-time) is equally as
important as the matter that resides within it. The theory
implies more qualities to the Aether than merely the dimensions
of length and time, and also includes the dimensions of mass and
charge. Aether also has spherical geometry. "Particles" are a
stable form of primary angular momentum we will call "onn" (onta
when plural). The Aether maintains the onn spin, and the form of
physical matter actually comes from Aether. The MKS system of
measurements will be used throughout this book unless otherwise
stated. All the measurements we use are based upon quantum
length, quantum frequency, quantum masses, quantum charges, and
the spherical constant. "Tshankha" was chosen to ceremoniously
represent energy in the Aether Physics Model, as the energy of
stable onta has a sacred nature to it. It is a Tibetan word that
means "energy with force and power". In the Aether Physics
Model, constants are used in place of variables. One important
new constant from the Aether Physics Model is the conductance of
the Aether, which is essential for calculating and understanding
the nature of strong charge.
(illustration)
http://www.16pi2.com/chapter_2_secrets_of_the_aether.htm
Chapter 2: Oncology (Summary)
Some early theories of the Aether supposed a particulate medium.
It was assumed that light traveled as a wave in the Aether
medium much like water ripples travel on the surface of water.
When Michelson and Morley conducted an experiment to identify
the particulate medium, they found no overwhelming evidence for
its existence. Many touted this as the death knell for the
Aether theory. But with the Aether Physics Model, the Aether
once again ascends as an explanation for the phenomena of the
Universe. Now tha t we have exact measurements of certain
constants, we can deduce that the Aether is not made from some
kind of physically detectable particle, but from non-physical
Aether units of 2 spin rotating magnetic field. Aether units
have a precise value equal to Coulomb's constant times 16p2. The
Aether is non-physical in nature and is revealed by Coulomb's
constant, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the
permeability constant, and the permittivity constant. A new and
important conductance constant of the Aether has also been
identified, which relates directly to the electromagnetism of
onta. Aether gives form to matter, but matter also manipulates
Aether. Space is united to time such that the two are
inseparable, producing a single unit called double cardioid. We
need a coordinate system that includes both space and time. The
time dimensions of Aether are actually frequency dimensions and
there are two of them. They produce the spherical unit of
resonance. The quantum Universe has the qualities of
space-resonance. Aether contains mass and charge. Think of
Aether as being a quantum hole in which subatomic matter is able
to reside. Onta get their physical geometry from these quantum
holes, but the quantum holes also impart the spin nature to
onta. The toroidal constant represents the surface geometry of «
spin onta. The electron and proton are examples of « spin onta.
Half of the double loxodrome has the geometrical constant of
8p2, and is either the loxodrome around a single sphere or half
a loxodrome around two spheres. A full loxodrome represents 1
spin, such as the photon possesses. The full loxodrome around
both spheres represents 2 spin, such as the Aether unit and
supposed "graviton" possess. 16p2 is the square of 4p, which is
the spherical constant. The 4p geometrical constant is also
related to the c2 (speed of light squared) constant and
describes the c2 geometrical qualities. All physical existence
ultimately derives its geometry from the Aether. The geometry,
as shown in the images , represents the available paths for the
angular momentum as it passes through the Aether unit. The
surface area of each half-spin loxodrome is always equal to the
Compton wavelength squared. The Aether, being a 2 spin rotating
magnetic field, is flexible in this regard. The Aether is thus a
"field" in which subatomic particles can exist. It is because of
this geometry of Aether that it is possible to discretely model
electrons, photons, protons, and neutrons and their
interactions. At the core of the Aether Physics Model is a
mathematically correct Unified Force Theory, the first such
theory to exist in modern science. Using the gravitational law,
Coulomb's law, and the strong force law, the fo rces are
precisely unified and explained. The mystery of wave-particle
duality is solved as all matter and light interactions are
explained as primary angular momentum. Primary angular momentum
is a form of existence. The photoelectric effect, pair
production, and Compton effect are all explained in units that
directly relate to electron and photon primary angular momentum.
New equations are suggested that predict the nuclear binding
forces and electron binding energies of all isotopes. Also, the
way is paved for the discovery of an atomic spectral equation
that predicts the spectra of all isotopes and their ions. The
electron and nuclear binding energy equations and atomic spectra
equations will be the new "holy grail" of physics. From these
three equations will likely develop molecular equations that can
predic t the properties of any substance before it is made or
discovered . Strong charge is related to elementary charge, but
has a different geometry, spin and magnitude. The weak
interaction is the proportion of the elementary charge to the
strong charge. The weak interaction is equal to 8p times the
fine structure of the onn. Onta are the smallest stable form of
physical existence, it is proper to view the onta as primary
angular momentum.
http://www.16pi2.com/chapter_3_secrets_of_the_aether.htm
Chapter 3: Gforce (summary)
Exploring the Gforce
The only manifestation of force is either a push or a pull,
relative to mass or charge. The Gforce is equal to 1.21 x 1044
newton. That is written out as:
121,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
newton or 121 million, billion, billion, billion, billion
newton. That is one enormous force! And it is the force behind
the primary angular momentum and charge of each onn. Strong
charge is the result of primary angular momentum moving through
the Aether. Essentially primary angular momentum and strong
charge describe the same onn, but from orthogonal perspectives.
An all-powerful, all-pervading force, creating, binding, and
maintaining the existence of the entire Universe is an
extraordinary quality. The enormous unit of Gforce is derived
from both Coulomb's constant and Newton's gravitational
constant. The Aether unit is like an individual piece of real
estate in the quantum Universe and represents a specific space
that oscillates at a specific rate between forward and reverse
time. The structure of the Aether unit is not a cube, however,
but it has the same effect as a cube for mathematical purposes.
As any onn moves through a single Aether unit, it moves one
quantum distance (Compton wavelength) in the direction it is
going. The speed of light is one quantum distance times the
quantum frequency. Almost all units in the Aether Physics Model
are expressed in terms of frequency, rather than time. Measured
time is merely a perception of just one of the two time
dimensions. In each quantum moment, an Aether unit is actually
moving in the forward time direction and then in the reverse
time direction, oscillating a full cycle at the quantum
frequency. For whatever reason, onta only exist in the forward
time direction. The rever se time direction is not experienced
by onta, and therefore the larger structures made from onta
(planets, animal bodies, plants, etc.) also do not experience
the reverse time direction. It is the lack of experiencing the
reverse time direction that onta appear to have a property
called « spin. The Gforce acts on mass with distributed reach to
produce the Newton gravitational constant. The precise symmetry
of Coulomb's constant and Newton's gravitational constant is
astonishing. Both seem to be based on the same, exact quantum
length dimension and Gforce. That Gforce exists in not only the
two previously known "constants of proportionality", but also a
third "constant of proportionality" which is proposed in this
treatise to govern the strong force law, is substantial evidence
in favor of a higher universal order. Gforce is shown through
Coulomb's electrostatic constant, Newton's gravitational
constant, and the rotating magnetic field constant.
Chapter 4: Aether (summary)
The Aether unit is ultimately responsible for all physical form
Aether is a dynamic fabric of space-resonance composed of
independent quantum units. The Aether unit itself exists within
a greater and more primary space-time continuum. Because each
quantum unit of Aether is independent, the Aether unit can be
manipulated just like gaseous matter. Every subatomic action
manipulates physical space-resonance to some degree. This
manipulation occurs through Aether unit folding. Just as length
has two directions, time has two directions. Time is really a
frequency that oscillates one quantum moment toward the future
and one quantum moment toward the past. For whatever reason,
physical matter only moves forward in time. The effect is that
physical matter acts like a time diode and presents a version of
time similar to rectified AC current. What we see is half-spin
onta from the perspective of half-spin onta, and thus the
illusion of f orward, linear time. In reality, time is pulsed a
nd causes existence to take on the nature of frames, like frames
of a movie. The four colored tubes are in the shape of a
loxodrome and represent the four possible spin positions
available to onta. Aether units are polar aligned (negative is
attracted to positive). It appears that the most stable forms of
onta (electron and proton) depend on a specific spin direction
of space-resonance. Relying on millennia old teachings from the
East that this spin is clockwise relative to a person standing
and looking toward the ground, the electron and proton assume a
clockwise spin of the Aether. A preferred spin direction is
called "space parity" in the Standard Model. Neutrons would have
nearly the same properties of the proton, being wide and narrow
in their free state, and tight and thick (nearly spherical) in
their bound state. Thus the instability of the neutron would
seem to be caused when the neutron is in its free state, but not
in its bound state. Physical space is toroidal, but the effect
of physical space, being orthogonally connected to time and
frequency, is that it appears to exist as a cube when plotted in
spherical coordinates. The Aether is not a fluid, although it
behaves like one. Massive objects require more Aether units than
low-density space. If the mass is in motion, a certain amount of
Aether will follow it. This is possible due to the independent
nature of Aether units. The independent and fluid nature of
Aether un its must be true in order for space-time to bend
around massive bodies and allow for the observed lensing of
light. The electron and proton spin positions, which determine
the structure of the physical world, have a Phi and phi
component. The Aether Physics Model is consistent with the work
of Pythagoras and merits a re-evaluation of the Pythagorean
philosophy in light of this. The world comprising human
experience has many variations in form. But within these forms
we see patterns. The world of seemingly infinite form is really
a symphony of shape, repeating at various octaves, sometimes in
harmony, and sometimes not. T hese forms have their origin in
the independent nature of Aether units. Aether numbers, the
ratio of musical tones, and atomic structure show a few of the
ways in which the Aether unit influences the structure of the
physical world. There are no doubt many other manifestations of
Aether units such as the patterns of seed development in
flowers, the growth of plant structures, population growth
patterns, skeletal and extra-skeletal structures, and in general
all dynamic and livi ng processes.
Chapter 5: Dimensions (Summary)
There are four commonly known, fundamental dimensions; mass,
charge, length, and frequency. Quantum matter has only two
dimensions of length, that is, it only has surface
characteristic. There is no quantum matter that is solid. It is
the distance between surfaces that provide the third dimension
of length producing "solid matter" as we perceive it at the
macro level of existence. We perceive time as normal and
frequency as the reciprocal because subatomic onta move only in
the forward dimension of time. In reality, the onta are acting
like "time diodes". What we really see is a pulsed forward
motion of time, not unlike a rectified AC current produces
pulsed DC current. Since all subatomic matter beats to the same
pulse in forward time, time appears as linear to our perception.
Visualizing the forward and reverse time, it is possible to see
how time and space are curved such that distributed time appears
as spherical and space appears as a loxodrome. But once again,
this geometry can only be seen from beyond the material world
(such as being visualized in our mind through meditation.) When
the material world is viewed from within the material world,
i.e. from the body's senses, then we are viewing from half-spin
pers pective and see only three dimensions of space and one
dimension of pulsed, linear time (normally called 4D reality.)
We live in a half-spin Universe. The presentation of time and
space in terms of curvature implies that curved geometry is
inherent to Aether. In the Aether Physics Model the curved
geometry of Aether is presented as a function of frequency
squared, along with the four dimensions of length, frequency,
mass, and charge. In this sense, curved geometry could be
considered a "fifth dimension". When expressed in cgs units,
permeability, permittivity, conductance, and rotating magnetic
field (Aether unit) are expressed solely in terms of the 4p
spherical constant and the speed of light. So it is shown that
Aether is a function of motion, much like the ancient
philosophers taught. Not only can it be seen that the Aether is
a function of spherical geometry and the speed of light, but the
fact that charge can be expressed entirely in terms of the other
three dimensions shows that charge is indeed a derived
dimension. Strong charge is equal to angular momentum times
Aether conductance. The strong charge has half-spin, as the
angular momentum that produces strong charge can only move in
forward moving time. In order to convert strong charge steradian
geometry to electrostatic spherical geometry, the strong charge
must be multiplied by 4p. And since the elementary charge comes
from a 1-spin Aether sphere, 2 must multiply the half-spin
strong charge in order to be equal in spin to the elementary
charge. The fine structure constant is the proportion by which
the strong charge must be multiplied in order to bring the
elementary charge sphere and equivalent strong charge sphere
into unity. So it can be seen that there is another conservation
law of physics, it is the conservation of charge geometry. The
rotating magnetic field is not just a single magnetic field
spinning in one direction. It is a bi-directional spin composed
of two toroidal shaped electromagnetic charges spinning adjacent
to each other, but in opposite directions. There are two
manifestations of the rotating magnetic field. There is the
two-spin manifestation, which is the full Aether unit and has
the geometrical constant of 16p2. Then there is the one-spin
manifestation of rotating magnetic field, which applies when two
onn bind together. One spin rotating magnetic field has a
geometrical constant equal to the toroidal onn (4p2) times 2,
because there are two oppositely spinning onta in a binding. The
bi-directional spinning toroids component of the equation are
equal to the quantum dimension unit of double cardioid. The mass
to strong charge ratio of the onn is the source of
electromagnetism. The rotating magnetic field unit is therefore
described as an electromagnetic double cardioidal spin, or
rotating magnetic field.
Chapter 6: Units (summary)
The photon is equal to primary angular momentum of the electron
times the speed of light. Thus there is a discrete relationship
between the activity of electrons and the production of photons.
Since almost all controllable physical processes occur through
interactions of the electron and photon, the quantum
measurements of the electron usually define the quantum units.
The strong charge is polar and behaves, in fact, as a tiny
magnet. The strong nuclear force, permanent magnetism,
electromagnetism, the Casimir effect, Van der Waals forces. all
of these are the work of the strong charge. Instead of seeing
magnetic fields in terms of energy, the Aether Physics Model
sees them in terms of rotating magnetic field. The Aether unit
is itself the magnetic field. All charge is distributed,
including the elementary cha rge. Magnetic moment is physically
caused by the interaction of the electrostatic and
electromagnetic charges within each onn. It is further evident
that the electron plays a key role in causing magnetic moment
for each of the onta. Thus the photon has the angular momentum
of an electron but is expanding outward at the speed of light.
Instead of seeing magnetic fields in terms of energy, the Aether
Physics Model sees them in terms of rotating magnetic field. The
Aether unit is itself the magnetic field
Chapter 7: Constants (Summary)
Constants
The Whole of the Quantum Realm is Constant Quantum measurements
will show that all true quantum constants have a definite
structure, imparted by the Aether. The precision and symmetry of
the quantum measurements is stunning, leaving no doubt about the
Aether Physics Model's reality or accuracy. All the functions
within the Aether Physics Model are clean, mathematically and
geometrically correct, and can be precisely modeled. The Aether
Physics Model yields the world's first and simplest Unified
Force Theory. A question is often asked, "What is it that makes
the speed of light constant?" In the Aether Physics Model the
answer is, "the quantum measurements". The speed of light is not
the speed it takes to get from one Aether unit to the next; it
is the speed it takes for an onn to pass through one Aether
unit. There is also another scenario that could give faster than
light spe ed. Since light speed is determined by an on passing
through an Aether unit, what if we bypassed the onn altogether
and modulated the Aether unit instead? Permeability is a quality
of Aether unit that refers to the degree it can be penetrated or
permeated. Permeability is the quality of Aether that "grabs"
onto strong charge as it passes through. Think of water
permeating or penetrating a piece of cloth. The water can pass
through the cloth, but there is a certain amount of drag imposed
on its movement. This is the exact effect Aether permeability
has on strong charge. A photon is electron angular momentum that
is exploding outward at the speed of light. Electromagnetism and
mass are reciprocal to each other. Mass is linear in the
gravitational constant, but curled in the Coulomb electrostatic
constant and rotating magnetic field electromagnetic constant.
Electromagnetism and gravity are two aspects of the same thing.
The Fine Structure constant is the proportion of the spherical
electrostatic charge to the equivalent spherical electromagnetic
charge .
Chapter 8: Primary Matter (summary)
Primary Angular Momentum
It's not a particle. It's not a wave. It's primary angular
momentum. Primary angular momentum draws from a huge sea of
primary angular momentum that coexists with Aether units. The
Big Bang appears to be nothing more than the sudden appearance
of a huge quantity of Aether units, into which an enormous
quantity of angular momentum flowed. The cause of the Aether
units themselves appears to have a divine origin. The Aether
units can be thought of as measuring cups, and angular momentum
can be thought of as water. The dynamic Aether units hold a
specific measure of an gular mome ntum and then pass that
measure on to the next Aether unit. Why are masses what they
are? Already a potential clue exists, the onta gap number, which
quantifies the value of the spread of mass between the electron
and proton. This chapter includes an explanation of the onta gap
number. Primary angular momentum describes as a circle of mass
moving a velocity, and thus scanning an area. This circle of
mass can be thought of as torque. Some yet unknown process is
causing a twisting force to apply to the mass dimension of
Aether. This twist of mass, wrapped in a circle, is moving
through the Aether at the speed of light. As this primary
angular momentum moves through the Aether unit, the conductance
of the Aether produces strong charge. In addition, as the
primary angular momentum moves through the Aether it picks up
elementary charge from the Aether. These three characteristics,
primary angular momentum, elementary charge, and strong charge
make up the structure of the onn. The ratio of the spherical
elementary charge to the equivalent spherical strong charge
produces the fine structure of the onn. The fine structure times
8p is the point of balance where the elementary charge and
strong charge interact with each other. This interaction for the
electron appears in the atomic spectra of isotopes, and for
atomic nuclei, the interaction determines the length of time a
proton can keep its captured electron before a neutron decays.
In the Aether Physics Model, the neutron is a composite of a
proton and electron. The neutron involves two separate Aether
units, folded over onto each other. In one Aether unit, an
electron is occupying the electron spin position and in the
other unit, a proton is occupying the proton spin position. When
the proton captures an electron, extra angular momentum captures
along with the electron. This extra angular momentum may come
from photons or it may come from neutrinos existing in between
Aether units. T he proton with captured electron and
anti-neutrino angular momentum manifests as a neutron. As long
as the neutron remains part of a nucleus through strong charge
binding, the neutron will not normally decay. A neutrino is
trapped angular momentum due to folded Aether units; there is a
huge sea of angular momentum coexisting with Aether units in
some kind of primary space-time. The angular momentum that draws
into the Aether via the Casimir effect becomes electrons,
protons, and photons. The angular momentum that does not make it
into the Aether, but traps between Aether folds tends to be
called neutrinos. In the Aether Physics Model, the photon is an
expanding elect ron. For a given atom, angular momentum is arr
iving from all directions at varying rates. The portion of
angular momentum that arrives at the atom is captured. The
valence electron stores the angular momentum in the positron
spin position of the Aether unit. As the quantity of angular
momentum in the valence electron increases, it eventually
reaches a point where the positron spin position is full and
angular momentum stored in the Aether unit is equal to twice the
angular momentum of one e lectron. According to modern physics,
the graviton is the quantum of the gravitational field. The
language is different from the Aether Physics Model concerning
the quantum of gravity, but the graviton closely resembles the
Aether unit. Both the Aether unit and the graviton have a spin
of 2 and zero physical mass. However, unlike the Standard Model,
the Aether unit is not only the quantum of the gravitational
field; it is the quantum of all the fields. In fact, in the
Aether Physic s Model, the Aether unit is the onl y quantum that
can produce a field of any kind since it also is the source of
space-resonance.
Chapter 9: Unified Force Theory (summary)
Unified Force Theory
Simple and Symmetrical
For over 100 years, physicists have been searching for a Unified
Force Theory to unify what the Standard Model calls the
electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces. Even
more important is the Theory of Everything, which not only
unifies the three previously mentioned forces, but also includes
the gravitational force. The Aether Physics Model does provide a
mathematically correct Theory of Everything that unifies all
four forces. In addition, since the four "forces" unify in the
Aether Physics M odel, anti-gravity effects will soon be
engineered and the preferred mode of human travel will take a
giant leap forward. The Aether Physics Model sees all stable
quantum matter (onta) as primary angular momentum, as already
explained. Primary angular momentum passing through Aether
produces charge effects. There are two types of charge, the
electrostatic charge, and the strong charge. There is a precise
proportion between the spherical electrostatic charge and the
toroidal strong charge. The proportion of these charges is the
"weak interaction," or "charge proportion" of the onn. The
electrostatic charge is the "carrier" of the electrostatic force
and the strong charge is the "carrier" of the electromagnetic or
strong force. The strong charge is also directly proportional to
the mass of the onn (via its angular momentum) and provides the
link between the gravitational force and strong force. The
elementary charge has spherical geometry and arises because of
frequency (reciprocal time). Aether has two spheres, which arise
as the oscillation of forward and reverse time. Only one onn can
pass through any given Aether unit at a given moment. In
addition, each onn has a very specific spin position it must
take depending on its mass and direction of spin. An onn passes
through its particular Aether spin position; the angular
momentum activates th e elementary charge for that particular
spin position. Unlike elementary charge, each onn has a strong
charge value proportional to its mass. This is because the
strong charge is dependent on the angular momentum of the onn.
The proportion of electrostatic charge to strong charge is equal
to 8p times the fine structure of the onn. The significance of
this proportion is that it represents the "weak interaction" of
the onn. The gravitational force is proportional to the strong
force by way of the mass to strong charge ratio. The boundary
between the electrostatic charge being dominant and the
electromagnetic charge being dominant is gradual. The balance in
the middle of these two forces results in the weak interaction.
The strong charge has been shown to be equal to the angular
momentum of the onn times the conductance of the Aether.
Moreover, since the binding force causes the proton and neutrons
to have a large "sma ll radius " and small "large radius," the
onta appear spherical. The total nuclear binding force is the
sum of all force acting upon onta in an atomic nucleus. As long
as the total surface area of the onn remains exactly one quantum
length squared, the onn can change shape without violating
conservation of angular momentum, mass, energy or any other
perceived conservation law. When electrons are exactly one
quantum distance apart and in their "free" state, the charge is
in its natural toroidal shape and interacts with the Aether via
the rotating magnetic field constant. There is a popular myth
that the strong force does not reach beyond a very short
distance. It only appears that the strong force does not reach
beyond a very short distance. The strong force is so strong,
that after a certain distance, an onn must contend with the
strong force carried b y all other onta at the same distance.
The effect is a type of magnetic suspension in space.
Chapter 10: Atomic Mechanics (summary)
Atomic Mechanics
How Atoms Release Energy
The only time Aether space overlaps is when two onta bind
together through the strong force causing the Aether to fold
over onto itself. Two Aether units without angular momentum
passing through it cannot overlap because their charges would
repel each other. When two onta come close to each other, the
Aether causes the strong force that magnetically attracts the
strong charges. This is just like two magnets getting too close
to each other, which suddenly gain energy, align their poles,
and accelerate until they contact. In the Aether Physics Model,
the onta model as loxodromes through space-resonance. When
looking down the time axis we can see what a particle would look
like in the world as perceived through human eyes (from within
the forward time direction of half-spin onta). Light is
essentially, then, accelerating angular momentum. When light
strikes an atom, angular momentum from the light is absorbed and
transferred to the valence electron. The absorption is a pro
cess of decelerating angular momentum. In one quantum moment,
there are a given number of photon fronts arriving at an atom.
The photon front has a certain amount of angular momentum
available to transfer to the atom. In order for that angular
momentum to be absorbed, the frequency of the arriving light
must time to the frequency of the atom or molecule receiving the
light, otherwise it reflects. If the frequency of the atom or
molecule is a frequency of the arriving light (even a harmonic
frequency), the light will instantly decelerat e and rele ase
the angular momentum, thus being absorbed into the atom or
molecule. As angular momentum is absorbed into the atom or
molecule, it is stored with the valence electron. The storage
capability exists due to the valence electron having an "empty"
positron spin position adjacent to it in the Aether unit (as all
electrons do). The positron spin position and electron spin
position have opposite direction of spin (and charge) but they
both hold the same amount of angular momentum. The accumulating
angular momentum will continue to be s tored in the positron
position until the positr on position is full. Since the two
spin positions couple, the resulting onn is a double-sized
electron. Since the electron/positron pair are coupled at the
poles and have opposite spin, their north poles (or south poles)
are adjoining within the Aether unit. Depending how fast the
positron spin position is filled (frequency of the atom or
molecule), the complete double sized onn is kicked out of its
valence orbit to a higher shell. This likely occurs because the
combined electron/positron pair has no net negative charge, and
is no longer attracted to the positive charge of the proton, or
its strong charge neutralizes by the combination of the electron
and positron, or both. The above process of photon emission
described the Compton Effect. Pair production occurs when the
frequency of photons reaching an absorber is very high, such as
in the bombardment with gamma rays. Instead of the double-sized
onn jumping orbit to produce a photon, the entire double-sized
onn knocks out of the atom or molecule. The like magnetic poles
of the electron and positron then repel each other into opposite
directions. The mechanics of pair production does not differ
much from the Standard Model mechanics of pair production,
except that photons view as the transfer of angular momentum
instead of the transfer of energy. In the Aether Physics Model,
the Aether unit mediates the strong force by acting on the
strong charge. In cases where the strong charges keep a small
distance apart, the Aether unit of Rotating Magnetic Field
mediates the force manifesting between the strong charges. The
same phenomenon that produces force between any two
electromagnetic charges is also the phenomenon of photons per
area. In a different manner of expression, the opposite
spinning, double cardioid nature of photons caused by the
angular momentum within the electron and positron spin positions
is the same mechanics of an Aether unit acting on strong
charges. If there is truly a conservation of energy and mass,
then it should cost almost twice the fusion binding energy to
separate the helium nucleus in a fission process. This is true
since some of the subatomic mass was already lost during the
fusion process (the mass lost during fusion must be replaced to
conserve angular momentum, mass, and energy in the subatomic
particles). However, the data shows that there is net energy
radiating out of both fission and fusion processes; and the
Standard Model the ory clear ly claims the "binding energy" is
positive for both. In the Aether Physics Model, onta bind to
each other when Aether folds. Each independent Aether unit has a
spin position available for a proton and anti-proton. When the
proton spin position is full, the anti-proton spin position is
not. The anti-proton spin position is equivalent to a proton
spin position in another Aether unit at 180 degrees. When two
protons come close enough, their Aether units fold over each
other such that each proton fills the anti-proton spin position
o f the other proton. The same m echanism holds true for the
neutron. Since the neutron is essentially a proton, except with
a captured electron, it too shares the same mechanics. The
proton and neutron have slightly different angular momenta. This
tends to cause protons to join only with protons through folded
Aether units, and neutrons to join only with neutrons through
folded Aether units. Thus, both protons and neutrons will
generate the same "magic number" patterns independently of each
other in various isotope configurations. In addition, a proton
and neutron can bind via electromagnetic charge (strong force)
by adjoining their magnetic orientations. The neutron having a
neutralized electrostatic charge assists the process of
adjoining. The pattern of binding takes the exact form
identified by Linus Pauling in his Spheron Model of atomic
structure. In either the fusion or the fission reactions, the
dynamic Aether units move and thus the force between the atoms
moves. The Gforce within the Aether units is the source of the
"binding energy" when atomic nuclei change structure. Thus, all
nuclear reactions give up more energy than what goes into the
reaction. In the Aether Physics Model, photons are onta with an
inherent velocity. Photons can convert to electrons through the
photoelectric effect. Thus if a device is properly constructed
to produce photons, and a circuit that converts photons to
electrons is incorporated, then a steady flow of electric
current can be put into motion without the need for a battery or
dynamo. As a direct result of strong charges continually coming
in proximity to each other in atoms and molecules, and photons
manifest between strong charges, there is a constant stream of
new primary angular momentum introduced into the visible
Universe. Atoms continually absorb these new photons, converting
them to electrons, positrons, and photons via the photoelectric
effect, Compton Effect, and pair production. The same process
occurs between protons and neutrons to produce gamma rays.
Morituri-|-Max
Bilge
>
>http://www.16pi2.com/chapter_4_secrets_of_the_aether.htm
>
>(Colorful sketch of an Aether Unit)
>
>The following is a text of the summary of each chapter in his
>book as shown in his web site. Let's debunk them point by point.
>If we lose, then David Thomson and Jim Bourassa are candidates
>for a Nobel prize. His theory is different from dozens of others
>because of extensive mathematics. For anyone who can debunk his
>theory convincingly. There is a reward of $1000. I need to know
>the validity of his theories ASAP because I plan to use it as a
>school project and don't want to get flanked if it is all
unless your topic is crackpots and their delusions of grandeur.
jmfb...@aol.com
Why didn't you encourage the kid to construct a setup that
would test the <ahem>theory? The kid thinks that science
is all about everything being correct, not about trial and
error, carefully documented. The user-id implies CalTech;
has the school gone downhill and PCified itself?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
tadchem
Perhaps the following would be interested in this material:
http://www.sfsite.com/depts/awd01.htm
http://www.worldfantasy.org/awards/
http://www.britishfantasysociety.org.uk/
http://www.mythsoc.org/awards.html
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Sam Wormley
caltechdude
What gives matter and energy their identities? Physics just
describes them without explaining the origin. Mr. Thomson is
just giving a theory that attempts to explain them. Notice his
Aether is not the same as the old aether concept where it was
alleged medium for electromagnetic wave. Thomson Aether is
different in that it has mechanism that *can* give matter and
energy their identities. I'm looking for a Theory of Everything
too myself. It's not a bad idea to hear some points of views.
We will eventually test them to prove if they are based on
truth or not. I know many of you have been encountering crank
all your life and get so used to it. But what if amidst the
trash there is one that stand out. Let's give Thomson Aether
that chance. Rather than trashing him thru character. Why don't
you point out theories he stated in his text which doesn't ring
true. Is the reason no one points something negative is because
one can't find any flaw. I'm still analyzing them and will
present it to class come January.
Kind regards,
caltechdude
Bilge
> dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>> caltechdude:
>> >http://www.16pi2.com/
>> >
>> >http://www.16pi2.com/chapter_4_secrets_of_the_aether.htm
>> >
>> >(Colorful sketch of an Aether Unit)
>> >
>> >The following is a text of the summary of each chapter in his
>> >book as shown in his web site. Let's debunk them point by point.
>> >If we lose, then David Thomson and Jim Bourassa are candidates
>> >for a Nobel prize. His theory is different from dozens of others
>> >because of extensive mathematics. For anyone who can debunk his
>> >theory convincingly. There is a reward of $1000. I need to know
>> >the validity of his theories ASAP because I plan to use it as a
>> >school project and don't want to get flanked if it is all
>>
>> I strongly suggest finding some real physics for a topic
>>unless your topic is crackpots and their delusions of grandeur.
>
>Why didn't you encourage the kid to construct a setup that
>would test the <ahem>theory?
so I figured I might as troll the troll.
Bilge
>What gives matter and energy their identities? Physics just
>describes them without explaining the origin. Mr. Thomson is
>just giving a theory that attempts to explain them.
>Notice his Aether is not the same as the old aether concept where it
>was alleged medium for electromagnetic wave. Thomson Aether is
>different in that it has mechanism that *can* give matter and
>energy their identities.
Say, that is good news. Right now, it would be very useful to have
such a theory so that we would know what the masses of three neutrinos
are, \nu_e, \nu_mu, and \nu_tau. Can you tell me what he predicts
those masses to be?
>I'm looking for a Theory of Everything too myself.
Then it would probably be best to study physics and math so that
you understand the questions and know everything that needs to be
explained.
>It's not a bad idea to hear some points of views.
It's also not a bad idea to know some physics in order to distinguish
between a ``point of view,'' and merely disguising old phenomenology which
never was adequate with new jargon.
>We will eventually test them to prove if they are based on truth or not. I
>know many of you have been encountering crank all your life and get so
>used to it.
Once I started reading this newgroup, I realized that I only thought
I had encountered cranks.
>But what if amidst the trash there is one that stand out. Let's give
>Thomson Aether that chance.
OK, I have any number of questions regarding unresolved physics for
which a correct calculation would be a real plus. I've already mentioned
one of those. Another would be to prove that three quarks are guaranteed
to form a bound a state (the exitence of quarks is beyond dispute, as
there exists hundreds, if not thousands of experiments that see the quark
structure in hadrons).
>Rather than trashing him thru character. Why don't you point out
>theories he stated in his text which doesn't ring true.
Mainly because doing that hasn't been successful in the past.
>Is the reason no one points something negative is because one can't
>find any flaw. I'm still analyzing them and will present it to class
>come January.
On the contrary, it's easy to find flaws, the most prominent of which
is that it doesn't say anything. What he calls a theory of everything
doesn't even adequately cover electromagnetism. For example, what in
his tells me how to calculate the 2s -> 1s transition in hydrogen?
Also, try posting to fewer newgroups. I set followups to
sci.physics.relativity, but only because I read that newsgroup. Surely you
can target your audience and post to the newsgroups for which your post is
of interest.
Uncle Al
>
> http://www.16pi2.com/
>
> http://www.16pi2.com/chapter_4_secrets_of_the_aether.htm
>
> (Colorful sketch of an Aether Unit)
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Baez Crackpot Index
> David Thomson (author of "Secrets of the Aether") wrote:
[snip hopeless bullshit]
> The neutron is a bound electron and proton.
Told ya - hopeless bullshit. The idiot didn't even include an
anti-neutrino that isn't in there either. Hey idiot - three quarks,
udd, comprise a neutron.
<http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/particles/parts/Image15.gif>
(pictures, because you obviously cannot make sense of print)
<http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/npe.html>
(pictures, because you obviously cannot make sense of print)
http://www.iucf.indiana.edu/Experiments/WEAK/life.html
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/jag8/partable.html
[snip more hopeless bullshit]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Morituri-|-Max
> They do not award Nobel Prizes in the category of Fantasy.
Yet... heh
Morituri-|-Max
> What gives matter and energy their identities? Physics just
> describes them without explaining the origin. Mr. Thomson is
> just giving a theory that attempts to explain them. Notice his
How long have you been at college (assumption based on post name)? Have you
been there long enough to know the difference between the scientific "theory"
and the laymans "theory?"
At this point, your targeted idol does not have a theory, at best he has an
hypothesis.
nightbat
Post Transferred to alt.astronomy newsgroup for oc, Bert's, and
respective member inspection. Thomson and Bourassa are close but not
close enough. They try to address push pull nature of gravity, spin,
mass, and charge. Bert's prementioned spin is in theory and oc's aether
are examined as quantum sub vacuum units. Nightbat's space alien
attracting profound " Black Comet " stands forefront alone the proposed
premier cosmology model.
the nightbat
Uncle Al
Not true! Nobel Peace Prize (e.g., Carter and Arafat - bubba and
terrorist - for bringing peace to the Middle East), Nobel Prize in
Literature (sustainedly too awful for words), and sometimes the Nobel
Prize in Economics.
Art Deco
Androcles
"tadchem" <tadche...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:16ednbwIQOY...@comcast.com...
> They do not award Nobel Prizes in the category of Fantasy.
Yes they do.
Androcles.
Bill Hobba
"Morituri-|-Max" <new...@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:wgjzd.22628$yv2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
I think at this point he is using a lot of typical crank tactics eg he says
'The Aether is non-physical in nature'. Both you and I have read a lot of
crank spew and many standard tactics stand out. One common one is to call
something in your theory a metaphysical construct or 'non physical or
something like that. That way if you are actually pinned down on anything
it gives you wiggle room.
Thanks
Bill
Paul Stowe
Oh, like 'Dark Matter', 'Dark Energy', virtual particles. So-called
mainstream physics has no high ground here...!
Paul Stowe
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:j0srs0hvj4sunakvc...@4ax.com...
Paul, first of all, those things you cite are only there because
observation provides evidence of effects that are anomalous without them.
Aether is so pervasive that it CANNOT be detected, or there is no aether.
Nature isn't going to spill the beans and tell us which.
Second of all, and more importantly, Merry Christmas to you!
David A. Smith
xx...@bellsouth.net
But you have a flat tire.
Paul Stowe
They are 'metaphysical constructs' concocted just for that 'ad hoc'
purpose, yes. That IS the point, & counter to Bill spew of rubbish
above.
> Aether is so pervasive that it CANNOT be detected, or there is no
> aether.
No matter how many times this is said it remains as untrue as always.
The aether is 'detected' every time a child plays with a magnet,
falls down, or gets zapped from static buildup. Just because others
have invented ways not to call this spade a spade does NO remove the
observational evidence or detection.
> Nature isn't going to spill the beans and tell us which.
It already has, since the aether is easily 'detected'. The problem
is one of denial, and calling it other things like fields instead.
> Second of all, and more importantly, Merry Christmas to you!
And the Merriest of Christmases to you too David. And a happy & healthy
New Year & beyond...
Paul Stowe
Uncle Al
Indeed. However, your cited examples do not contradict common
observation. On the contrary - they are exact curve fittings. David
Thompson is an empirical idiot for being deep-sixed by an overwhelming
number of falsifying observations (a mere single contradiction would
do it, of course), the whole of which are trivially and freely
available in the open literature, the Web, arXiv, etc.
The quintessential hallmark of the crank/crackpot/spewing psychotic is
a vigorously maintained ignorance of catalogued observations. That is
usually decorated with the inability to do basic math past (or to)
algebra and an equally vigorously maintained ignorance of that. They
revel in their ignorance, untainted by manefest reality. Mystics are
baffled by the obvious yet possess a complete understanding of the
nonexistent.
A carpenter, plumber, electrician, mason... any tradesman need not
have knowledge of the scentific and engineering bases of his craft.
He can do it by rote, following plans made by others. However, you
won't find any journeyman anywhere so stupid as to make the same
dysfunctional mistake twice. That is weeded out in apprentices.
Uncle Al
Provide a citation, jackass.
Uncle Al
>
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:14:55 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1
> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Dear Paul Stowe:
> >
> >"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> >news:j0srs0hvj4sunakvc...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:56:21 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Morituri-|-Max" <new...@sendarico.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:wgjzd.22628$yv2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >>>> caltechdude wrote:
> > Aether is so pervasive that it CANNOT be detected, or there is no
> > aether.
>
> No matter how many times this is said it remains as untrue as always.
> The aether is 'detected' every time a child plays with a magnet,
> falls down, or gets zapped from static buildup. Just because others
> have invented ways not to call this spade a spade does NO remove the
> observational evidence or detection.
[snip]
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
No "observational evidence or detection," idiot.
DavidBowman
You're wasting you time trying to convince closed-minded Relativists.
Their minds are already made up, and they have a financial stake in the
Orthodoxy.
Instead, take what is obviously a revolutionary insight to the people
who matter: the people themselves. Stand on a milk crate in the street
and teach everyone.
Do it as loudly as possible. Not only will more people hear our
Message, but it's harder for the space people to suppress the truth by
kidnapping you.
Yours In Christ,
=[ d
Paul Stowe
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:14:55 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1
>> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Paul Stowe:
>>>
>>> "Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
>>> news:j0srs0hvj4sunakvc...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:56:21 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Morituri-|-Max" <new...@sendarico.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:wgjzd.22628$yv2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>>>>>> caltechdude wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Aether is so pervasive that it CANNOT be detected, or there is no
>>> aether.
>>
>> No matter how many times this is said it remains as untrue as always.
>> The aether is 'detected' every time a child plays with a magnet,
>> falls down, or gets zapped from static buildup. Just because others
>> have invented ways not to call this spade a spade does NO remove the
>> observational evidence or detection.
>
> [snip]
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
I don't have an account. I can't comment, but I guess its nothing new.
http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/
The very foundation for Maxwell's Equations Dickhead!
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
>
> No Lorentz violation
Never heard of LET Dickhead???
> No "observational evidence or detection," idiot.
Only up your ass Foghorn-Leghorn!
Paul Stowe
FrediFizzx
news:41CE0847...@hate.spam.net...
"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st
century." --Volovik, "The Universe in a Helium Droplet".
Get with the program; the Standard Model says there is and it is Lorentz
invariant over a very wide range of energies.
| http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
| http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
| No Lorentz violation
We are inside observers. There is not much doubt that there is probably
Lorentz violation at very low energies and very high energies. Your
education is lacking; read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet".
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
FrediFizzx
| > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
| > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
| > No aether
|
| I don't have an account. I can't comment, but I guess its nothing new.
"Lorentz Invariance on Trial"
"Precision experiments and astrophysical observations provide complementary
tests of Lorentz invariance and may soon open a window onto new physics.
They have already constrained models of quantum gravity and cosmology."
--Maxim Pospelov and Michael Romalis
I have a copy. Let me know if you are interested in reading it.
FrediFizzx
Androcles
> Androcles wrote:
>>
>> "tadchem" <tadche...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:16ednbwIQOY...@comcast.com...
>> > They do not award Nobel Prizes in the category of Fantasy.
>>
>> Yes they do.
>>
>> Androcles.
>
> Provide a citation, jackass.
Fuck you, you stinking coward.
You are hiding behind Poe who is still confused by x' = x-vt, poor guy,
let alone Einstein's
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
that you've said isn't worth a rat's ass even now.
You are the little boy that runs away shouting names, hiding behind
mommy
and hasn't the balls for a real fight. Stinking cowardly troll
Schwartzfification.
Androcles.
Morituri-|-Max
>>> Oh, like 'Dark Matter', 'Dark Energy', virtual particles. So-called
>>> mainstream physics has no high ground here...!
Yeah Paul.. don't like, hurt yourself or anything trying to figure out which are
cranky and which aren't... god forbid you develop your brain to actually think
objectively.
Morituri-|-Max
>> Provide a citation, jackass.
>
> Fuck you, you stinking coward.
wow.. getting to be as bad as tj or mitchell.
Bilge
On the contrary. Mainstream physics has not accepted dark matter or dark
energy as an explanation for anything yet, despite being a hell of a lot
more quantitative and more plausible than anything you've suggested. The
most outrageous propositions made by mainstream physicists are based on
more solid physics than anything you've suggested. As for virtual
particles, the proof is in the calculations in which virtual particles
appear. Weinberg and salam _predicted_ the W/Z to mass ratio based upon
the data in which the W and Z are virtual. Even the prediction of the
existence of the Z was based upon the need for a neutral (virtual)
particle exchange.
Bill Hobba
Yes Paul - none of which are called 'non physical' or a 'metaphysical
construct'. They are actually parts of real theories in accord actual
experiments - you know like QED is the most exactly verified physical theory
of all time.
Bill
Franz Heymann
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the driving motor of physics
is the provision of hypotheses for interpreting unexpected results
from observations.
In the rare chance that I may be underestimating your intelligence,
please provide alternative interpretations for those observations
which led to postulating dark matter and dark energy.
Finally, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that the concept of
virtual particles followed quite automatically as a by-product from
perturbation theory. But then, it is probably preposterous of me to
harbour the thought that you might actually ever have studied a
quantum perturbation calculation.
Franz
Franz Heymann
Well, what do you expect? It is only the ultimate corner of the
cornered one.
Franz
Richard Schultz
: Not true! Nobel Peace Prize (e.g., Carter and Arafat - bubba and
: terrorist - for bringing peace to the Middle East). . .
Have Israel and Egypt fought any wars since the Camp David Accords were signed?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Richard Schultz
: The quintessential hallmark of the crank/crackpot/spewing psychotic is
: a vigorously maintained ignorance of catalogued observations.
You mean like someone who would claim that a well-documented cryptosporidium
outbreak was due to EPA regulations limiting chlorination of water?
jmfb...@aol.com
sch...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>In sci.physics.particle Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>: Not true! Nobel Peace Prize (e.g., Carter and Arafat - bubba and
>: terrorist - for bringing peace to the Middle East). . .
>
>Have Israel and Egypt fought any wars since the Camp David Accords were
signed?
Last time I heard, there's still a village war
being waged....or doesn't this count?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Androcles
"Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:cqmeor$7kj$2...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> In sci.physics.particle Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : The quintessential hallmark of the crank/crackpot/spewing psychotic
> is
> : a vigorously maintained ignorance of catalogued observations.
>
> You mean like someone who would claim that a well-documented
> cryptosporidium
> outbreak was due to EPA regulations limiting chlorination of water?
That, claiming winter is at apogee, and stating Einstein's equation
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
isn't worth a rat's ass displays the brilliant intellect of the spewing
psychotic that goes under the pseudonym "Uncle Al".
Androcles.
Paul Stowe
> experiments...
Experiments, what experiments???
OK, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to test
Dark Matter and show us how it was detected in the lab!
Then please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to test
Dark Energy and show us how it was detected in the lab!
Finally, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to test
virtual particles and show us how they were actuallydetected and
measured in the lab!
I'm sure everybody is interested in how the Hobbit is going to
provide us with these...
> - you know like QED is the most exactly verified physical theory
> of all time.
You might as well call virtual particles little blue faries... You
ain't gonna' detect'em.
This is a perfect example of your duplicity...
Paul Stowe
robert j. kolker
Paul Stowe wrote:
> Experiments, what experiments???
>
> OK, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to test
> Dark Matter and show us how it was detected in the lab!
Not in a lab. You don't find dark matter in a lab any more than you find
light bending in a gravity field in a lab or the anomalous preecession
of the apihellion of a planet in the lab. You find it where it is, or
might be, which is Way Out There.
Bob Kolker
Morituri-|-Max
> You might as well call virtual particles little blue faries... You
> ain't gonna' detect'em.
Well if they are coming at you maybe.. the ones moving away would be little red
fairies...
> This is a perfect example of your duplicity...
Heh... one of many...
Franz Heymann
You are, as might be expected, not very well read on this subject.
There are a number of lab experiments at present in progress in a
number of places in the world. None of them have to date given any
serious positive data in support of the hypothesis of the existence
oif dark matter.
Google on ^ "dark matter" experiment^ if you are actually interested
in the topic. You will be regaled with 137,000 entries. THe vast
majoriy of them refer to laboratory experiments.
Does this satisfy your request?
>
> Finally, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to
test
> virtual particles and show us how they were actuallydetected and
> measured in the lab!
You are a congenital ignoramus.
Every elementary particle scattering experiment involves at least one
virtual particle. Even the elastic scattering of electrons on
electrons can be analysed correctly by allowing for the exchange of a
virtual photon.
Franz
Creighton Hogg
> Finally, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to test
> virtual particles and show us how they were actuallydetected and
> measured in the lab!
>
> I'm sure everybody is interested in how the Hobbit is going to
> provide us with these...
>
>
> > - you know like QED is the most exactly verified physical theory
> > of all time.
>
> You might as well call virtual particles little blue faries... You
> ain't gonna' detect'em.
Actually we call them Green's functions. As I said, it's a perturbative
expansion of the fully interacting quantum field theory. They don't
appear in non-perturbative treatments. Virtual particles are an
interpretation. What's the objection to that?
Franz Heymann
"robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:33859oF...@individual.net...
I am afraid you are wrong. There are a substantial number of lab
based experiments under way to investigate precisely what you are
denying.
Google on
"Dark matter" experiment
for a surprise packet of 137,000 references
Read one or two at your leisure.
Franz
Franz Heymann
That's fine. As long as you endow them with the properties of virtual
particles. If you don't, you will be unable to give quantitative
interpretations of any elementary particle scattering experiment.
> You
> ain't gonna' detect'em.
>
> This is a perfect example of your duplicity...
You are wrong. They are detected in every elementary particle
scattering experiment.
It would behoove you to realise that no sinfgle electron has ever been
seen yet either.
The best you can do is to become aware of ionization produced by its
interactions with matter. I presume you believe in electrons?
Well, the virtual photons involved in the interpretation of
electron-electron scattering are as firmly established as the
electrons themselves.
Franz
Franz
Paul Stowe
Bullshit!
> There are a number of lab experiments at present in progress in a
> number of places in the world. None of them have to date given any
> serious positive data in support of the hypothesis of the existence
> of dark matter.
IOW, the are no experiments that have been independently verified
to show the existence of Dark MATTER!
And, here you're reference a request for Dark Energy. Dyslexic are
you???
> Google on ^ "dark matter" experiment^ if you are actually interested
> in the topic. You will be regaled with 137,000 entries. THe vast
> majoriy of them refer to laboratory experiments. Does this satisfy
> your request?
Only if you can point to ONE that has been indepentently replicated
& verified as positive!
>> Finally, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to
>> test virtual particles and show us how they were actually detected
>> and measured in the lab!
>
> You are a congenital ignoramus. Every elementary particle scattering
> experiment involves at least one virtual particle.
Show us the particle, track, measurement, ... etc. Look Dickhead,
the virtual paricle is an 'ad hoc' metaphical interpretation. You're
the "congenital ignoramus" unless you can demonstrate how to observe
and measure A (as in ANY) virtual particle.
> Even the elastic scattering of electrons on electrons can be analysed
> correctly by allowing for the exchange of a virtual photon.
Or aether, or blue faries, ... etc!
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
<notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> "Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> news:5okts0pvn5nd44udf...@4ax.com...
[Snip...]
>> You might as well call virtual particles little blue faries...
>
> That's fine. As long as you endow them with the properties of virtual
> particles. If you don't, you will be unable to give quantitative
> interpretations of any elementary particle scattering experiment.
>
>> You ain't gonna' detect'em.
>>
>> This is a perfect example of your duplicity...
>
> You are wrong. They are detected in every elementary particle
> scattering experiment. It would behoove you to realise that no
> single electron has ever been seen yet either.
I know, but hey, I made my point, and there was no need to belay
it... :)
> The best you can do is to become aware of ionization produced by its
> interactions with matter. I presume you believe in electrons?
> Well, the virtual photons involved in the interpretation of
> electron-electron scattering are as firmly established as the
> electrons themselves.
Paul Stowe
David Thomson
You won't find gravity bending light ANYWHERE in the Universe. The
gravitational law is based on the force between two masses, and since
photons have zero mass, the gravitational force is zero. Now if you really
wanted to know how light bends around massive objects, you might ask me for
the answer, because I have it.
As for dark matter, it exists mainly near massive objects. There is more
dark matter near Earth than there is in the emptiness of space. But it
can't be detected because dark matter exists outside of the Aether. The
Aether is what gives structure to the angular momentum of dark matter by
imparting the qualities of charges to it.
Dave
David Thomson
news:cqmv5k$54r$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
>> > Dark Matter and show us how it was detected in the lab!
>>
>> Not in a lab. You don't find dark matter in a lab
> I am afraid you are wrong. There are a substantial number of lab
> based experiments under way to investigate precisely what you are
> denying.
Those experiments are revealing EFFECTS of neutrinos on other substances.
They are not measuring or detecting the neutrinos themselves.
Dave
Paul Stowe
Tell that to the Bozo the Hobbit. I'm not the one bemoaning ad hoc
'metaphysical constructs' to explain observation. As for your
comment, sure they do it all the time. Just throw another epicycle
on it to match observation... But we all know the result of
epicycles, don't we...
> In the rare chance that I may be underestimating your intelligence,
> please provide alternative interpretations for those observations
> which led to postulating dark matter and dark energy.
Dark Energy does not exist, instead,
-HD
Nu = Nu e
o
Instead of,
Nu = Nu (1 - HD)
o
And likewise luminosity intensity ż goes as,
S -HD
ż = ------ e
4piD^2
Want to guess at what happens to the Red-shift distance estimate
verses the the standard luminosity relationships S/4piD^2 as HD
approaches unity if one just assumes a linear Hubble distance
relationship.
Dark Matter, See "Pushing Gravity", Matt Edwards, Aperion 2002
> Finally, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that the concept of
> virtual particles followed quite automatically as a by-product from
> perturbation theory. But then, it is probably preposterous of me to
> harbour the thought that you might actually ever have studied a
> quantum perturbation calculation.
Yes VPs are one ad hoc metaphysical concoction to the math...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:26:43 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
><notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> "Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
>> news:5okts0pvn5nd44udf...@4ax.com...
>
> [Snip...]
>
>>> You might as well call virtual particles little blue faries...
>>
>> That's fine. As long as you endow them with the properties of virtual
>> particles. If you don't, you will be unable to give quantitative
>> interpretations of any elementary particle scattering experiment.
>>
>>> You ain't gonna' detect'em.
>>>
>>> This is a perfect example of your duplicity...
>>
>> You are wrong. They are detected in every elementary particle
>> scattering experiment. It would behoove you to realise that no
>> single electron has ever been seen yet either.
>
> I know, but hey, I made my point, and there was no need to belay
^belabor
(... and yes, I am a little lexdexic)
David Thomson
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.041226...@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
>> You might as well call virtual particles little blue faries... You
>> ain't gonna' detect'em.
>
> Actually we call them Green's functions. As I said, it's a perturbative
> expansion of the fully interacting quantum field theory. They don't
> appear in non-perturbative treatments. Virtual particles are an
> interpretation. What's the objection to that?
My theory is far more discrete. I show how dark matter can be absorbed into
the Aether via the strong force law, which is a correction of the Casimir
equation. There is no violation of conservation laws once it is realized
that the system goes beyond the observable world and includes dark matter.
Dave
Paul Stowe
>"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
>news:um2ss0t0q4oupcsci...@4ax.com...
>| On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:39:35 -0800, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
>wrote:
>[...]
>
>|> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
>|> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
>|> No aether
>|
>| I don't have an account. I can't comment, but I guess its nothing new.
>
> "Lorentz Invariance on Trial"
>
> "Precision experiments and astrophysical observations provide complementary
> tests of Lorentz invariance and may soon open a window onto new physics.
> They have already constrained models of quantum gravity and cosmology."
>
> --Maxim Pospelov and Michael Romalis
>
> I have a copy. Let me know if you are interested in reading it.
Yes, please do, thanks...
Paul Stowe
David Thomson
news:1103958266....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
http://www.16pi2.com/
> http://www.16pi2.com/chapter_4_secrets_of_the_aether.htm
> (Colorful sketch of an Aether Unit)
> The following is a text of the summary of each chapter in his
book as shown in his web site. Let's debunk them point by point.
As you can see, nobody on these newsgroups is interested in actually looking
at an alternative theory. All they want to do is insult anybody who would
try to buck the present model.
> I need to know
the validity of his theories ASAP because I plan to use it as a
school project and don't want to get flanked if it is all
founded to be based on false premises.
Have someone you trust evaluate the theory. Have a college physics
professor look at it with you. The guys here are just a bunch of cowboys
with lots of time on their hands, and no desire to put it to real science.
They seem to forget that science isn't about toeing the line, or preventing
the over throw of old ideas, it's about quantification through real
measurements and valid equations. This is exactly what our theory presents.
Dave
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"David Thomson" <ne...@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:tRDzd.12$KT4...@news.uswest.net...
A distinction without a difference. For some, neutrinos are Dark Matter,
and the effects that Dark Matter is proposed to produce, neutrinos could
produce.
I'd think there might be anomalous effects on rim stars, with a large flux
of available neutrinos of *all* flavors...
David A. Smith
Ken S. Tucker
like fish looking for water????
Ken
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"David Thomson" <ne...@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:tPDzd.11$KT4...@news.uswest.net...
> "robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:33859oF...@individual.net...
>>
>>
>> Paul Stowe wrote:
>>> Experiments, what experiments???
>>>
>>> OK, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to test Dark
>>> Matter and show us how it was detected in the lab!
>>
>> Not in a lab. You don't find dark matter in a lab any more than you find
>> light bending in a gravity field in a lab or the anomalous preecession
>> of the apihellion of a planet in the lab. You find it where it is, or
>> might be, which is Way Out There.
>
> You won't find gravity bending light ANYWHERE in the Universe.
It is found in our solar system, in signalling to/from Venus. It is found
in sightings of stars during a solar eclipse.
> The gravitational law is based on the force between two masses,
Newton predicts no such effect on light.
> and since photons have zero mass, the gravitational force is zero.
Gravitational force is zero in GR anyway.
> Now if you really wanted to know how light bends around massive objects,
> you might ask me for the answer, because I have it.
No wonder people accuse science of being religion. David Thomson, the
mystic.
> As for dark matter, it exists mainly near massive objects.
Most of it is in the intergalactic void. The balance is inside the visible
rim of spiral galaxies.
> There is more dark matter near Earth than there is in the emptiness of
> space.
Citation?
> But it can't be detected because dark matter exists outside of the
> Aether.
I hope so.
> The Aether is what gives structure to the angular momentum of dark
> matter by imparting the qualities of charges to it.
DM has no charge. It interacts with both itself and normal matter via
gravitation... not charge.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1104094663.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone else have the impression we are
> like fish looking for water????
It clearly isn't water, which we can understand. Water has currents.
Water carries momentum separate from the bodies passing through it. Water
has variable properties. Water goes well with scotch.
The aether that agrees with experiment, only goes well with scotch.
David A. Smith
Morituri-|-Max
> You won't find gravity bending light ANYWHERE in the Universe. The
> gravitational law is based on the force between two masses, and since
> photons have zero mass, the gravitational force is zero. Now if you really
> wanted to know how light bends around massive objects, you might ask me for
> the answer, because I have it.
As Dave opens his mouth, time itself takes a giant leap several hundred years
back... what a man! No, what a Renneisance man! He's just so much smarter than
everyone else.
Morituri-|-Max
> My theory is far more discrete. I show how dark matter can be absorbed into
> the Aether via the strong force law, which is a correction of the Casimir
> equation. There is no violation of conservation laws once it is realized
> that the system goes beyond the observable world and includes dark matter.
Ah, of course.. a correction... little crank alarm stage one goes off... the
system goes beyond... alarm stage two going off..
Morituri-|-Max
> As you can see, nobody on these newsgroups is interested in actually looking
> at an alternative theory. All they want to do is insult anybody who would
> try to buck the present model.
We do see that you don't know what a theory is, nor do you know what
requirements exist before it can be called a theory at all, much less an
alternate one... there are many different theories for something like the big
bang though, but real scientists are always attacking all theories.. if the
theory can't hack it, real scientists accept that.. they don't do like you do,
scream and cry and whine till someone humours you to shut you up, pats you on
the head and sends you off to play with your d...theory.
Morituri-|-Max
> Does anyone else have the impression we are
> like fish looking for water????
If we were fish and we were looking for water, then yes.
tadchem
<snip>
> As you can see, nobody on these newsgroups is interested in actually
looking
> at an alternative theory. All they want to do is insult anybody who would
> try to buck the present model.
Aether theories have been around for hundreds of years. All have been shown
to either A) have consequences that are inconsistent with repeatable
observations, or B) make no difference at all in the operation of the
universe, depending on the properties attributed to the aether by the
proponents.
In the first case they have been discarded as being wrong. In the second
case, they have been discarded as superfluous, according to the principle of
Ockham's Razor.
If you truly have a theory that makes *testable* predictions that are
different from those of current theory (and thus *could* make a difference),
you do yourself a disservice by adopting terminology (specifically the word
'aether') that identifies you with a host of cranks, crackpots, and
hypothesists with more imagination than education.
We have little enough time in our own professional lives to try to make a
difference on our own. We certainly haven't got the time to thoroughly
disprove every Flat-Earther, Hollow-Earther, Geocentrist, Paranormalist,
Dowser, Creationist, Qi manipulator, and anyone else who thinks they can
overturn centuries of accumulated data and theories consistent with that
data with a single pipe-dream.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them.
Bottom Line:
Lose the word 'aether' and maybe someone here will read your stuff. Keep on
using it and you are just trying to spend Confederate money.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
"tadchem" <tadche...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PNCdncsHkNy...@comcast.com...
>
> "David Thomson" <ne...@volantis.org> wrote in message
> news:7nEzd.14$KT4...@news.uswest.net...
>
<snip>
> We have little enough time in our own professional lives to try to
make a
> difference on our own. We certainly haven't got the time to
thoroughly
> disprove every Flat-Earther, Hollow-Earther, Geocentrist,
Paranormalist,
> Dowser, Creationist, Qi manipulator, and anyone else who thinks they
can
> overturn centuries of accumulated data and theories consistent with
that
> data with a single pipe-dream.
>
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them.
<snip>
>
You could have included Chiropractic.
Uncle Al
>
> "Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
> news:cqmeor$7kj$2...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> > In sci.physics.particle Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> > : The quintessential hallmark of the crank/crackpot/spewing psychotic
> > is
> > : a vigorously maintained ignorance of catalogued observations.
> >
> > You mean like someone who would claim that a well-documented
> > cryptosporidium
> > outbreak was due to EPA regulations limiting chlorination of water?
>
> That, claiming winter is at apogee, and stating Einstein's equation
> 稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> isn't worth a rat's ass displays the brilliant intellect of the spewing
> psychotic that goes under the pseudonym "Uncle Al".
>
> Androcles.
Hey idiot Androcles, reposting the same idiot drool that has been so
thoroughly, utterly publicly discredited by those who can do math
(e.g., Randy Poe, in disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely
demonstrates what an intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Uncle Al
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:41CDFF62...@hate.spam.net...> >> news:16ednbwIQOY...@comcast.com...
> >> > They do not award Nobel Prizes in the category of Fantasy.
> >>
> >> Yes they do.
> >>
> >> Androcles.
> >
> > Provide a citation, jackass.
>
> Fuck you, you stinking coward.
> You are hiding behind Poe who is still confused by x' = x-vt, poor guy,
> let alone Einstein's
> 稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> You are the little boy that runs away shouting names, hiding behind
> mommy
> and hasn't the balls for a real fight. Stinking cowardly troll
> Schwartzfification.
Franz Heymann
All of them are curently in progress. You seem to have missed the
point that I have put you in touch with the actual current position.
>
> >> Finally, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to
> >> test virtual particles and show us how they were actually
detected
> >> and measured in the lab!
> >
> > You are a congenital ignoramus. Every elementary particle
scattering
> > experiment involves at least one virtual particle.
>
> Show us the particle, track,
What makes you think that seeing the track of a particle is "seeing
the particle" You are simply seeing the effects of a vast number of
sequential interactions strung together.
Have you ever seen a track of a neutron?
> measurement, ... etc. Look Dickhead,
> the virtual paricle is an 'ad hoc' metaphical interpretation.
You don't understand the meaning of the word "metaphysical".
Virtual particles are phenomena which actually participate in
interactions.
If you can produce a theory for the Compton scattering differential
cross section without involving any virtual particles, please feel
free to acquaint us with it
> You're
> the "congenital ignoramus" unless you can demonstrate how to
observe
> and measure A (as in ANY) virtual particle.
It is easy to measure the momentum and energy carried by such a
particle.
>
> > Even the elastic scattering of electrons on electrons can be
analysed
> > correctly by allowing for the exchange of a virtual photon.
>
> Or aether, or blue faries, ... etc!
IOW you have nothing to say.
Franz
Franz Heymann
> "Creighton Hogg" <wch...@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.041226...@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
> >> You might as well call virtual particles little blue faries...
You
> >> ain't gonna' detect'em.
> >
> > Actually we call them Green's functions. As I said, it's a
perturbative
> > expansion of the fully interacting quantum field theory. They
don't
> > appear in non-perturbative treatments. Virtual particles are an
> > interpretation. What's the objection to that?
>
> My theory is far more discrete. I show how dark matter can be
absorbed into
> the Aether via the strong force law, which is a correction of the
Casimir
> equation.
Balls.
David, you appear to have lost the song sheet. The point you seem to
be answering is not about dark matter, but about virtual particles and
Green's functions.
Have you heard about the latter?
> There is no violation of conservation laws once it is realized
> that the system goes beyond the observable world and includes dark
matter.
Oh, dear, the horse is supposed to be put on the other side of the
cart.
Franz
Franz Heymann
> "robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:33859oF...@individual.net...
> >
> >
> > Paul Stowe wrote:
> >> Experiments, what experiments???
> >>
> >> OK, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to test
Dark
> >> Matter and show us how it was detected in the lab!
> >
> > Not in a lab. You don't find dark matter in a lab any more than
you find
> > light bending in a gravity field in a lab or the anomalous
preecession of
> > the apihellion of a planet in the lab. You find it where it is, or
might
> > be, which is Way Out There.
>
> You won't find gravity bending light ANYWHERE in the Universe. The
> gravitational law is based on the force between two masses, and
since
> photons have zero mass, the gravitational force is zero.
Your understanding of gravitation is at least as flawed as your
understanding of the rest of physics.
Guess what! The gravitational force acts on energy.
> Now if you really
> wanted to know how light bends around massive objects, you might ask
me for
> the answer, because I have it.
Too late. I already know that light travels along a geodesic.
> As for dark matter, it exists mainly near massive objects. There is
more
> dark matter near Earth than there is in the emptiness of space. But
it
> can't be detected because dark matter exists outside of the Aether.
The
> Aether is what gives structure to the angular momentum of dark
matter by
> imparting the qualities of charges to it.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Franz
Franz Heymann
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:26:43 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
> <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> > "Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> > news:5okts0pvn5nd44udf...@4ax.com...
>
> [Snip...]
>
> >> You might as well call virtual particles little blue faries...
> >
> > That's fine. As long as you endow them with the properties of
virtual
> > particles. If you don't, you will be unable to give quantitative
> > interpretations of any elementary particle scattering experiment.
> >
> >> You ain't gonna' detect'em.
> >>
> >> This is a perfect example of your duplicity...
> >
> > You are wrong. They are detected in every elementary particle
> > scattering experiment. It would behoove you to realise that no
> > single electron has ever been seen yet either.
>
> I know, but hey, I made my point, and there was no need to belay
> it... :)
On the contrary. We can determine all the quantum numbers of a
virtual particle, as well as its energy and momentum in every
interaction in which it participates, wiith as much certainty as we
can determine the properties of an electron.
> > The best you can do is to become aware of ionization produced by
its
> > interactions with matter. I presume you believe in electrons?
> > Well, the virtual photons involved in the interpretation of
> > electron-electron scattering are as firmly established as the
> > electrons themselves.
Franz
Franz Heymann
Your analogy is singularly inept and indicative of the paucity of your
knowledge and understanding of physics.
>
> > In the rare chance that I may be underestimating your
intelligence,
> > please provide alternative interpretations for those observations
> > which led to postulating dark matter and dark energy.
>
> Dark Energy does not exist, instead,
>
> -HD
> Nu = Nu e
> o
I have not even the foggiestof notions as to what this puzzle might be
trying to tease me with
> Instead of,
>
> Nu = Nu (1 - HD)
> o
Ditto
> And likewise luminosity intensity ż goes as,
>
> S -HD
> ż = ------ e
> 4piD^2
Ditto
>
> Want to guess at what happens to the Red-shift distance estimate
> verses the the standard luminosity relationships S/4piD^2 as HD
> approaches unity if one just assumes a linear Hubble distance
> relationship.
>
> Dark Matter, See "Pushing Gravity", Matt Edwards, Aperion 2002
>
> > Finally, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that the concept of
> > virtual particles followed quite automatically as a by-product
from
> > perturbation theory. But then, it is probably preposterous of me
to
> > harbour the thought that you might actually ever have studied a
> > quantum perturbation calculation.
>
> Yes VPs are one ad hoc metaphysical concoction to the math...
They are essential for the interpretation of interactions.
Stowe, as so often in the past, I get bored by your boloney..
So, please have the last word if you find it essential for your peace
of mind.
Franz
>
> Paul Stowe
Bill Hobba
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 06:27:14 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> >news:j0srs0hvj4sunakvc...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:56:21 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Morituri-|-Max" <new...@sendarico.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:wgjzd.22628$yv2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >>>> caltechdude wrote:
> >>>>> What gives matter and energy their identities? Physics just
> >>>>> describes them without explaining the origin. Mr. Thomson is
> >>>>> just giving a theory that attempts to explain them. Notice his
> >>>>
> >>>> How long have you been at college (assumption based on post name)?
> >>>> Have you been there long enough to know the difference between the
> >>>> scientific "theory" and the laymans "theory?"
> >>>>
> >>>> At this point, your targeted idol does not have a theory, at best he
> >>>> has an hypothesis.
> >>>
> >>> I think at this point he is using a lot of typical crank tactics eg
> >>> he says 'The Aether is non-physical in nature'. Both you and I have
> >>> read a lot of crank spew and many standard tactics stand out. One
> >>> common one is to call something in your theory a metaphysical
> >>> construct or 'non physical or something like that. That way if you
> >>> are actually pinned down on anything it gives you wiggle room.
> >>
> >> Oh, like 'Dark Matter', 'Dark Energy', virtual particles. So-called
> >> mainstream physics has no high ground here...!
> >
> > construct'. They are actually parts of real theories in accord actual
> > experiments...
Fist I notice Paul rhas been given other replies so I will ocnfne my comment
sto what I ocnsdwer a few relevant points. It may already ohve been
duscussed.
>
> Experiments, what experiments???
>
> OK, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to test
> Dark Matter and show us how it was detected in the lab!
It is obvious experiments are more than things conduced in a lab eg
telescope observations. Second I did not claim we had direct evidence for
Dark matter - what I claimed is that what has been hypothesized is
considered actual matter not qualified by adjectives like 'non physical' and
'metaphysical construct's whose sole purpose is obfuscation rather then
illumination. As for the evidence see
http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html
Bill
>
> Then please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to test
> Dark Energy and show us how it was detected in the lab!
>
> Finally, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to test
> virtual particles and show us how they were actuallydetected and
> measured in the lab!
>
> I'm sure everybody is interested in how the Hobbit is going to
> provide us with these...
>
>
> > - you know like QED is the most exactly verified physical theory
> > of all time.
>
> You might as well call virtual particles little blue faries... You
> ain't gonna' detect'em.
>
> This is a perfect example of your duplicity...
>
> Paul Stowe
Bill Hobba
> news:33859oF...@individual.net...
> >
> >
> > Paul Stowe wrote:
> >> Experiments, what experiments???
> >>
> >> OK, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to test Dark
> >> Matter and show us how it was detected in the lab!
> >
> > Not in a lab. You don't find dark matter in a lab any more than you find
> > light bending in a gravity field in a lab or the anomalous preecession
of
> > the apihellion of a planet in the lab. You find it where it is, or might
> > be, which is Way Out There.
>
> You won't find gravity bending light ANYWHERE in the Universe.
I suppose Wheeler and all those people that believe in GR and it
implications confirmed by experiment are idiots then - see
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/sample_chapters/ciufolini/chapter3.pdf.
In particular see page 32 'There are two known tests of the existence of
space curvature generated by a central mass based on trajectories of
photons: the deflection of electromagnetic waves and the time delay of radio
waves. Both measurements may be interpreted as tests of the existence and of
the amount of space curvature generated by a mass M and in part (see below)
of the equivalence principle.'
Bill
Ken S. Tucker
Ok so does spacetime, IMO, relativity is a not a theory of
mediums - spacetime, aether or others - but only of motion,
uniform in SR and nonuniform in GR, in short it is a theory
advocating - correctly so far - that absolute motion is a mathematical
impossiblity. I doubt our current version of Classical Relativity can
rule
one way or the other on force exchange mediums, as by particles
or fields.
I try to explain how we might extend relativity to EM and Lorentz
force,
and I'm called a ranting crank, for considering a tensor like Lorentz's
force
f_u =0,
as that would need (IMO) an absolute force/acceleration.
You among other's, will somehow use relativity as a physical
weapon to attack considerations of the medium, without good
jurisdiction, but then when I use that same theory applied to
EM, you and your friends will resort to *absolute force* citing
Coulomb/Lorentz as proof GR is wrong.
Do you have a clue??
Ken S. TUcker
robert j. kolker
. wrote:
>
> You could have included Chiropractic.
Chiropractic works. It is just Newtonian mechanics applied to the spine.
Bob Kolker
>
>
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1104102457.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Mr. Smith
> Ok so does spacetime, IMO, relativity is a not a theory of
> mediums - spacetime, aether or others - but only of motion,
> uniform in SR and nonuniform in GR, in short it is a theory
> advocating - correctly so far - that absolute motion is a mathematical
> impossiblity. I doubt our current version of Classical Relativity can
> rule
> one way or the other on force exchange mediums, as by particles
> or fields.
Relativity wouldn't really invoke particles, rather bodies. And where
there are fields, it does spacetime.
> I try to explain how we might extend relativity to EM and Lorentz
> force,
> and I'm called a ranting crank, for considering a tensor like Lorentz's
> force
>
> f_u =0,
>
> as that would need (IMO) an absolute force/acceleration.
Absolutes are not available to those of us in the "crib", as relativity has
shown. So how would you differentiate between an absolute acceleration,
and a relative acceleration?
> You among other's, will somehow use relativity as a physical
> weapon to attack considerations of the medium,
I don't attack what I can't see. LET is perfectly viable, and Ilja has
extended even that.
> without good
> jurisdiction,
This is your opinion.
> but then when I use that same theory applied to
> EM, you and your friends will resort to *absolute force* citing
> Coulomb/Lorentz as proof GR is wrong.
> Do you have a clue??
Yes. I got one for Christmas several years ago.
David A. Smith
Ken S. Tucker
With all due respect I'll do a line by line reply...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear Ken S. Tucker:
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1104102457.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Mr. Smith
> > Ok so does spacetime, IMO, relativity is a not a theory of
> > mediums - spacetime, aether or others - but only of motion,
> > uniform in SR and nonuniform in GR, in short it is a theory
> > advocating - correctly so far - that absolute motion is a
mathematical
> > impossiblity. I doubt our current version of Classical Relativity
can
> > rule
> > one way or the other on force exchange mediums, as by particles
> > or fields.
>
> Relativity wouldn't really invoke particles, rather bodies. And
where
> there are fields, it does spacetime.
The only way of detecting matter is by spacetime field
variations that we call gravitation.
The existance of matter at that location is coincident,
defined by another class of interactions known as EM.
> > I try to explain how we might extend relativity to EM and Lorentz
> > force,
> > and I'm called a ranting crank, for considering a tensor like
Lorentz's
> > force
> >
> > f_u =0,
> >
> > as that would need (IMO) an absolute force/acceleration.
>
> Absolutes are not available to those of us in the "crib", as
relativity has
> shown. So how would you differentiate between an absolute
acceleration,
> and a relative acceleration?
Easily, once it's done. One set's the definition of relativity
to the vanishing of absolute motion, defined by the 3-velocity,
U_i = 0 (SR) {i=1,2,3}
is always true. The Absolute derivative of that is,
DU_i = 0 (GR)
and in relativity is always true.
This last Eq.(GR) appears to be further generalized by association
to enable
DU^u = D(g^ui U_i) =0 (more GR), {u =0,i}
assuming D(g^ui)=0 as GR assumes.
[...]
> David A. Smith
ok
Ken S. Tucker
Uncle Al
>
> "David Thomson" <ne...@volantis.org> wrote in message
> news:tPDzd.11$KT4...@news.uswest.net...
> > "robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> > news:33859oF...@individual.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul Stowe wrote:
> > >> Experiments, what experiments???
> > >>
> > >> OK, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to test
> Dark
> > >> Matter and show us how it was detected in the lab!
> > >
> > > Not in a lab. You don't find dark matter in a lab any more than
> you find
> > > light bending in a gravity field in a lab or the anomalous
> preecession of
> > > the apihellion of a planet in the lab. You find it where it is, or
> might
> > > be, which is Way Out There.
> >
> > You won't find gravity bending light ANYWHERE in the Universe. The
> > gravitational law is based on the force between two masses, and
> since
> > photons have zero mass, the gravitational force is zero.
>
> Your understanding of gravitation is at least as flawed as your
> understanding of the rest of physics.
> Guess what! The gravitational force acts on energy.
Example: Einstein rings.
> > Now if you really
> > wanted to know how light bends around massive objects, you might ask
> me for
> > the answer, because I have it.
>
> Too late. I already know that light travels along a geodesic.
>
> > As for dark matter, it exists mainly near massive objects. There is
> more
> > dark matter near Earth than there is in the emptiness of space. But
> it
> > can't be detected because dark matter exists outside of the Aether.
> The
> > Aether is what gives structure to the angular momentum of dark
> matter by
> > imparting the qualities of charges to it.
>
> You don't know what you are talking about.
>
> Franz
Paul Stowe
<notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Oh, I get by... :)
>>> In the rare chance that I may be underestimating your intelligence,
>>> please provide alternative interpretations for those observations
>>> which led to postulating dark matter and dark energy.
>>
>> Dark Energy does not exist, instead,
>>
>> -HD
>> Nu = Nu e
>> o
>
> I have not even the foggiest of notions as to what this puzzle might be
> trying to tease me with
It is your ineptness that showing then Franz old boy... I doubt
you know what Dark Energy was proposed to solve...
>> Instead of,
>>
>> Nu = Nu (1 - HD)
>> o
>
> Ditto
>
>> And likewise luminosity intensity ż goes as,
>>
>> S -HD
>> ż = ------ e
>> 4piD^2
>
> Ditto
>> Want to guess at what happens to the Red-shift distance estimate
>> verses the the standard luminosity relationships S/4piD^2 as HD
>> approaches unity if one just assumes a linear Hubble distance
>> relationship.
>>
>> Dark Matter, See "Pushing Gravity", Matt Edwards, Aperion 2002
>>
>>> Finally, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that the concept of
>>> virtual particles followed quite automatically as a by-product
>>> from perturbation theory. But then, it is probably preposterous
>>> of me to harbour the thought that you might actually ever have
>>> studied a quantum perturbation calculation.
>>
>> Yes VPs are one ad hoc metaphysical concoction to the math...
>
> They are essential for the interpretation of interactions.
> Stowe, as so often in the past, I get bored by your boloney..
> So, please have the last word if you find it essential for your peace
> of mind.
Go back to your old folks home Franz. You're not going to contribute
anything helpful to physics, and never have...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
Exceptionally poor gramma, even by your low standards...
>> Experiments, what experiments???
>>
>> OK, please provide a reference to an 'experiment' setup to test
>> Dark Matter and show us how it was detected in the lab!
>
> It is obvious experiments are more than things conduced in a lab eg
> telescope observations.
Sorry, observations are NOT experiments by any definition I could
find. Perhaps you can provide the reference...
> Second I did not claim we had direct evidence for Dark matter
Really? You blantantly lie and then leave the incriminating
evidence in the post. Sloppy, exceptionally sloppy, even for
Bozo the Hobbit. Let's me quote you (see above, or you own post),
"Yes Paul - none of which are called 'non physical' or a
'metaphysical construct'. They are actually parts of
real theories in accord actual EXPERIMENTS..."
Gee, I guess that's not the word experiment in there... Where,
BTW, is the word observation, or phrase telescopic observation
anywhere in your posting here before now?
I guess my dyslexia is showing, perhaps you can point me back in
the thread to these...
> - what I claimed is that what has been hypothesized is considered
> actual matter
Really? Where?
Here's what I find...
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Dark+matter
Yup, sounds like actual ordinary matter to me :)
> ... not qualified by adjectives like 'non physical' and 'metaphysical construct's
> whose sole purpose is obfuscation rather then illumination. As for the evidence
> see http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html
Translation into plain English, by direct observations GR is DOA
unless we propose this unseen & undetectable stuff.
Paul Stowe
David Thomson
message news:oBFzd.8185$8e5.1249@fed1read07...
>> Those experiments are revealing EFFECTS of neutrinos on other substances.
>> They are not measuring or detecting the neutrinos themselves.
>
> A distinction without a difference. For some, neutrinos are Dark Matter,
> and the effects that Dark Matter is proposed to produce, neutrinos could
> produce.
It is a big difference. Seeing the a broken window tells you something
broke it. It doesn't necessarily tell you much about the object that caused
the damage. Regardless of how much data we collect on the effects of
neutrinos and dark matter, we're only going to have an interpretation of the
data, not a direct description of the object.
> I'd think there might be anomalous effects on rim stars, with a large flux
> of available neutrinos of *all* flavors...
Neutrinos are no more substantial than cup fulls of water. The water will
take the shape and volume of any cup. Neutrinos are merely quantities of
angular momentum caught between Aether units when subatomic particles bind.
When they unbind, the neutrino angular momentum gets shot out.
I show data that suggests the reason neutrinos disappear within the Earth is
because unstable isotopes can easily have captured dark matter (neutrinos)
knocked loose, thus causing radioactivity. The new, more stable isotopes
resulting from the decay process captures the extra dark matter or sends it
off in a different direction. So if the Earth were bombarded with an
increase in radiation (such as the building of nuclear power plants,
increased solar activity, or passing through a galactic cloud), then the
radiation within the Earth would also increase. This would increase the
temperature of the magma in locations where magma contains concentrations of
radioactive material, and thus increase the seismic and volcanic activity of
the Earth.
Right now we do have many nuclear power plants around the planet, we just
came out of a third consecutive highly energetic solar max, and five years
ago our solar system entered a galactic cloud. So naturally, I would
suggest we will see an increase in seismic and volcanic activity as a
result.
Dave
David Thomson
>> You won't find gravity bending light ANYWHERE in the Universe.
>
> It is found in our solar system, in signalling to/from Venus. It is found
> in sightings of stars during a solar eclipse.
The light is bending, but it is not due to gravity. It is due to the
density of the body. As subatomic particles bind, they fold the Aether (and
capture dark matter.) As the Aether folds, it pulls in surround quantum
Aether units, just like a bowling ball on a flat rubber sheet, except that
it is 3D.
This causes the path of light to follow a lensed Aether. It just turns out
that the nuclear binding force and the gravitational force are directly
proportional to each other.
>> The gravitational law is based on the force between two masses,
>
> Newton predicts no such effect on light.
That's exactly right, because the photon is massless.
>> and since photons have zero mass, the gravitational force is zero.
>
> Gravitational force is zero in GR anyway.
Then why are you saying that gravity bends light? The gravitational force
IS gravity. If the gravitational force is zero, then gravity does not bend
light.
>> Now if you really wanted to know how light bends around massive objects,
>> you might ask me for the answer, because I have it.
>
> No wonder people accuse science of being religion. David Thomson, the
> mystic.
I'm actually the one presenting the science here. I have fully quantified
the Aether, quantified how Aether folds to capture dark matter as neutrinos,
and provided a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory that properly
shows the relationship between the strong force and the gravitational force.
What do you call a science that does not have a Unified Force Theory, cannot
quantify the neutrino, ignores the existence of Aether, and says gravity can
bend light with a zero force?
>> As for dark matter, it exists mainly near massive objects.
>
> Most of it is in the intergalactic void. The balance is inside the
> visible rim of spiral galaxies.
No, actually, most of dark matter exists in the center of galaxies and near
massive objects. What looks like a void from our tiny human perception is
actually a densely packed group of stars.
>> There is more dark matter near Earth than there is in the emptiness of
>> space.
>
> Citation?
Neutrinos are dark matter. Neutrinos are released from beta decay.
Neutrinos get absorbed within the Earth and Sun, but not in the space in
between. I could provide citations for these observations, but I don't have
the time.
>> The Aether is what gives structure to the angular momentum of dark
>> matter by imparting the qualities of charges to it.
>
> DM has no charge. It interacts with both itself and normal matter via
> gravitation... not charge.
Dark matter has no charge, but the Aether does. When dark matter is
absorbed into the Aether, it picks up both electrostatic and electromagnetic
charge and becomes a subatomic particle. Charge is the basis for all stable
matter in the physical Universe.
Dave
David Thomson
news:cqnen0$t5$3...@titan.btinternet.com...
> Your understanding of gravitation is at least as flawed as your
> understanding of the rest of physics.
> Guess what! The gravitational force acts on energy.
Your understanding of energy is at least as flawed as your understanding of
the rest of physics. Guess what! Energy is merely a unit of work. There
is nothing for gravitational force to act on. You might as well say that
force acts on velocity and resistance.
The gravitational force can act only on mass. Now, even according to your
understanding of physics, the photon has zero mass. If the photon has zero
mass, then it has zero energy, because energy is equal to mass times the
speed of light squared, as you see it.
>> Now if you really
>> wanted to know how light bends around massive objects, you might ask
>> me for the answer, because I have it.
>
> Too late. I already know that light travels along a geodesic.
No you don't. Your physics has denied the existence of Aether. There is
nothing for you to call a geodesic. But if you are going to accept the
geodesic, then you have to accept the full quantification of the Aether and
the laws of physics that results from it. In that case, I have the correct
explanation for how the geodesic forms.
>> As for dark matter, it exists mainly near massive objects. There is
> more
>> dark matter near Earth than there is in the emptiness of space. But
> it
>> can't be detected because dark matter exists outside of the Aether.
> The
>> Aether is what gives structure to the angular momentum of dark
> matter by
>> imparting the qualities of charges to it.
>
> You don't know what you are talking about.
You just enjoy knocking people. How many times have you told someone that
they didn't have a theory until they could quantify it? Now that I have
presented a fully quantified Aether Physics Model, why don't you take the
time to read it?
Dave
robert j. kolker
David Thomson wrote:
> capture dark matter.) As the Aether folds, it pulls in surround quantum
What aether? Where aether? Has anyone ever observed aether? Has any
phenomenon ever -required- aether to explain it? No and No. Any
explanation which uses aether can be matched with an explanation that
does not. The case for aether is not convincing.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
>
> The gravitational force can act only on mass.
Light bends and photons have zero mass. This has been proven accurately
by Irwin Shapiro of MIT.
Bob Kolker
David Thomson
>> Your understanding of gravitation is at least as flawed as your
>> understanding of the rest of physics.
>> Guess what! The gravitational force acts on energy.
>
> Example: Einstein rings.
Einstein rings are an example of Aether being folded by the strong force and
stretching the Aether in toward the massive object. Once again, gravity
does not act on photons. Photons have no mass. Energy is just a unit of
work and not something that equals mass. Gravity just happens to be directly
proportional to the strong force, which is why it is possible to cook up
nonsense that would make it look like gravity attracts photons.
Dave
David Thomson
news:1gHzd.89234$K7.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> You won't find gravity bending light ANYWHERE in the Universe.
>
> I suppose Wheeler and all those people that believe in GR and it
> implications confirmed by experiment are idiots then - see
> http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/sample_chapters/ciufolini/chapter3.pdf.
I don't think that just because someone is confused that they are
necessarily an idiot.
> In particular see page 32 'There are two known tests of the existence of
> space curvature generated by a central mass based on trajectories of
> photons: the deflection of electromagnetic waves and the time delay of
> radio
> waves. Both measurements may be interpreted as tests of the existence and
> of
> the amount of space curvature generated by a mass M and in part (see
> below)
> of the equivalence principle.'
The key word in your statement above, Bill, is "interpreted." The data is
correct, however, the interpretation is wrong. The nuclear binding force
that holds together the matter of the stars is responsible for the curvature
of the space. Gravity is 10^42 times weaker than the nuclear binding force.
There is no way that gravity could cause such a warp of space.
Besides, in order for gravity to be the explanation, there has to be some
kind of substance to space such that it would have mass. You can't have a
gravitational force pulling in a vacuum. Also, Einstein purposefully
created his Relativity theories to bypass any kind of Aether.
Since subatomic matter must exist within the Aether in order to pick up
charge, any binding of the subatomic particles entails a folding of the
Aether. This is understood by examining the mathematically derived
geometrical structure of the Aether. When Aether folds, it is like pinching
a rubber sheet. Other Aether units move in to fill the gap, creating a
stretch in the fabric of space-time. The strong force does not act on the
Aether itself, but upon the strong force carrier of the subatomic particle.
It just happens that the strong force and gravitational force are directly
proportional to each other. This can create an opportunity for someone to
mistakenly think that gravity is the cause for the observed curvature of
space, especially if they haven't quantified the strong force correctly in
the first place. It can also create an opportunity for someone to develop a
completely incorrect physics that gives the correct answer.
Dave
robert j. kolker
David Thomson wrote:
> geometrical structure of the Aether. When Aether folds, it is like pinching
> a rubber sheet.
What aether units? Produce a vetted reproduced experiment which reveals
aether units.
Bob Kolker
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"David Thomson" <ne...@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:TKJzd.30$rx4....@news.uswest.net...
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
> message news:OHFzd.8231$8e5.5697@fed1read07...
>>> You won't find gravity bending light ANYWHERE in the Universe.
>>
>> It is found in our solar system, in signalling to/from Venus. It is
>> found in sightings of stars during a solar eclipse.
>
> The light is bending, but it is not due to gravity. It is due to the
> density of the body. As subatomic particles bind, they fold the Aether
> (and capture dark matter.) As the Aether folds, it pulls in surround
> quantum Aether units, just like a bowling ball on a flat rubber sheet,
> except that it is 3D.
There is no "density" in the vicinity that light is passing through.
>>> and since photons have zero mass, the gravitational force is zero.
>>
>> Gravitational force is zero in GR anyway.
>
> Then why are you saying that gravity bends light? The gravitational
> force IS gravity. If the gravitational force is zero, then gravity does
> not bend light.
Why does the press insist on E=mc^2? Same as with "gravity bends light".
And I have not said it... you have. Once they get something not quite
wrong, they assume this is close enough to right.
>>> Now if you really wanted to know how light bends around massive
>>> objects, you might ask me for the answer, because I have it.
>>
>> No wonder people accuse science of being religion. David Thomson, the
>> mystic.
>
> I'm actually the one presenting the science here. I have fully
> quantified the Aether, quantified how Aether folds to capture dark matter
> as neutrinos, and provided a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory
> that properly shows the relationship between the strong force and the
> gravitational force. What do you call a science that does not have a
> Unified Force Theory, cannot quantify the neutrino, ignores the existence
> of Aether, and says gravity can bend light with a zero force?
Your "science" is mysticism. GR has spacetime as the product of
mass/energy... the playground produced by the toys. No force is required.
>>> As for dark matter, it exists mainly near massive objects.
>>
>> Most of it is in the intergalactic void. The balance is inside the
>> visible rim of spiral galaxies.
>
> No, actually, most of dark matter exists in the center of galaxies and
> near massive objects. What looks like a void from our tiny human
> perception is actually a densely packed group of stars.
You really need to check your "facts" more carefully. Dark Matter has been
carefully mapped. It is NOT where your imagination places it. It is NOT
"at the center of galaxies", but at (and beyond) the rims of spiral
galaxies. This is known, since spiral galaxies seem to have been intact
with their "amazing" velocity profile. If the DM were located at the
center, then this profile would be much different than what is seen.
>>> There is more dark matter near Earth than there is in the emptiness of
>>> space.
>>
>> Citation?
>
> Neutrinos are dark matter. Neutrinos are released from beta decay.
> Neutrinos get absorbed within the Earth and Sun, but not in the space in
> between. I could provide citations for these observations, but I don't
> have the time.
You don't have a clue.
Goodbye.
<plonk>
David A. Smith
David Thomson
>> > Actually we call them Green's functions. As I said, it's a
>> > perturbative
>> > expansion of the fully interacting quantum field theory. They don't
>> > appear in non-perturbative treatments. Virtual particles are an
>> > interpretation. What's the objection to that?
>>
>> My theory is far more discrete. I show how dark matter can be absorbed
>> into
>> the Aether via the strong force law, which is a correction of the Casimir
>> equation.
> be answering is not about dark matter, but about virtual particles and
> Green's functions.
> Have you heard about the latter?
I've heard of Green's functions. They are a purely mathematical calculus
intuitively applied to real world observations.
I'm talking about discrete equations which are dimensional from beginning to
end and represent specific laws of physics. And I'm also saying that dark
matter is directly related to the production of what you call "virtual
particles." I'm also saying that if you investigate the structure of the
Aether, you will devise your measuring equipment and data output such that
Fourier and Gabor transforms are completely unnecessary. Because of the
modern view of physics, the subatomic realm, which is five dimensional, is
measured in four dimensional perspective. The reason Fourier and Gabor
transforms and Green's functions work is because the data is screwed up to
begin with. These functions merely reverse the error of the data, or finish
the correct interpretation of the data.
And once again, the data is not the theory. Using mathematical functions to
correct the presentation of the data only corrects the data. It doesn't
prove a given theory is correct or not. You can't produce Green's functions
as an argument in favor of your theory. All these calculus functions do is
correct the form of the data.
>> There is no violation of conservation laws once it is realized
>> that the system goes beyond the observable world and includes dark
> matter.
>
> Oh, dear, the horse is supposed to be put on the other side of the cart.
Now that you've put aside the insults, I find your sarcasm amusing. But it
is more because your sarcasm is really your own blinders used to keep your
focus narrow and prevent you from investigate greater perspectives. If you
were the only person in the world presented with the Aether Physics Model
and you had this view, it would be a tragedy. Fortunately, there are quite
a few people who are willing to look at a new theory, particularly when it
is mathematically based. Good luck with the view from behind the blinders.
Dave
David Thomson
> "Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> news:m40us0lidn8hps01a...@4ax.com...
>> > experiment involves at least one virtual particle.
>>
>> Show us the particle, track,
>
> What makes you think that seeing the track of a particle is "seeing
> the particle" You are simply seeing the effects of a vast number of
> sequential interactions strung together.
Maybe you need to visit a national lab where they smash things together.
Particle tracks are supposedly the evidence for the existence of a wide
range of particles. They don't call them *particle* tracks for nothing.
> You don't understand the meaning of the word "metaphysical".
> Virtual particles are phenomena which actually participate in
> interactions.
Then maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word "virtual." Virtual
means that it is almost real, but not quite. How can a non-real particle
interact with a real particle? By allowing non-real particles to interact
with real particles, you are practicing metaphysics, which makes Paul appear
to be the one who knows what he's talking about.
> If you can produce a theory for the Compton scattering differential
> cross section without involving any virtual particles, please feel
> free to acquaint us with it
The thing is that the particles are real, not virtual. Also, the
assumptions made in the Klein-Nishina differential cross section equations,
by virtue of the equation structure, is that photons are particles. The
equations need to be rewritten in terms of Planck's constant all the way
through and drop the relativistic energy and mass nonsense.
A photon is actually spread out to the full Compton function. There is no
probability that a given photon will be going a given direction, a single
photon is expanding with the indicated magnitude in all the directions of
the Compton function in each moment. By investigating the Aether unit, this
is easily modeled and understood from both the five dimensional and four
dimensional perspectives.
Dave
David Thomson
> David Thomson wrote:
>
>> As you can see, nobody on these newsgroups is interested in actually
>> looking
>> at an alternative theory. All they want to do is insult anybody who
>> would
>> try to buck the present model.
>
> We do see that you don't know what a theory is, nor do you know what
> requirements exist before it can be called a theory at all, much less an
> alternate one... there are many different theories for something like the
> big bang though, but real scientists are always attacking all theories..
> if the theory can't hack it, real scientists accept that.. they don't do
> like you do, scream and cry and whine till someone humours you to shut you
> up, pats you on the head and sends you off to play with your d...theory.
See what I'm talking about!
Androcles
> Androcles wrote:
>>
>> "Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
>> news:cqmeor$7kj$2...@news.iucc.ac.il...
>> > In sci.physics.particle Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > : The quintessential hallmark of the crank/crackpot/spewing
>> > psychotic
>> > is
>> > : a vigorously maintained ignorance of catalogued observations.
>> >
>> > You mean like someone who would claim that a well-documented
>> > cryptosporidium
>> > outbreak was due to EPA regulations limiting chlorination of water?
>>
>> That, claiming winter is at apogee, and stating Einstein's equation
>> 稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
>> tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
>> isn't worth a rat's ass displays the brilliant intellect of the
>> spewing
>> psychotic that goes under the pseudonym "Uncle Al".
>>
>> Androcles.
>
> Hey idiot Schwartz, you are reposting the same idiot drool.
Androcles
Bilge
>I've heard of Green's functions. They are a purely mathematical calculus
>intuitively applied to real world observations.
So is a multipole expansion of a charge distribution, but that also
contains physically meaningful quantities.
Morituri-|-Max
>> Neutrinos are dark matter. Neutrinos are released from beta decay.
>> Neutrinos get absorbed within the Earth and Sun, but not in the space in
>> between. I could provide citations for these observations, but I don't
>> have the time.
>
> You don't have a clue.
Heh, it's hilarious.. he has time to post dozens of messages in here, all full
of lots and lots of mysticism.. and yet he doesn't have time to provide one,
one, single citation.... freaking hilarious..
David Thomson
news:PNCdncsHkNy...@comcast.com...
> Aether theories have been around for hundreds of years. All have been
> shown
> to either A) have consequences that are inconsistent with repeatable
> observations, or B) make no difference at all in the operation of the
> universe, depending on the properties attributed to the aether by the
> proponents.
>
> In the first case they have been discarded as being wrong. In the second
> case, they have been discarded as superfluous, according to the principle
> of
> Ockham's Razor.
Nobody has every presented a mathematically correct Aether theory such as
the Aether Physics Model. If they had, I wouldn't have had to discover it
on my own. If the Aether theories of the past included a mathematically
correct Unified Force Theory, such as mine does, few people today would know
who Albert Einstein was.
There is nothing superfluous about a mathematically correct Unified Force
Theory.
> If you truly have a theory that makes *testable* predictions that are
> different from those of current theory (and thus *could* make a
> difference),
> you do yourself a disservice by adopting terminology (specifically the
> word
> 'aether') that identifies you with a host of cranks, crackpots, and
> hypothesists with more imagination than education.
Since when does the peanut gallery tell the actors what to say? Aether is
the proper word. It is the prejudice and bigotry of the present scientific
establishment that has muddied the proper words.
> We have little enough time in our own professional lives to try to make a
> difference on our own. We certainly haven't got the time to thoroughly
> disprove every Flat-Earther, Hollow-Earther, Geocentrist, Paranormalist,
> Dowser, Creationist, Qi manipulator, and anyone else who thinks they can
> overturn centuries of accumulated data and theories consistent with that
> data with a single pipe-dream.
I have never suggested that I was overturning accumulated data. In fact, I
have clearly stated that my theory is based on the exact same empirical data
as the Standard Model is. You're fighting paper tigers. As for the
theories, the theories must constantly stand on their own all through the
march of time. There is no such thing as a theory that collects retirement
and a pension and no longer has to work for its reputation. If the Standard
Model is worth anything, scientists will always welcome critique of its
structure. And if a better theory is presented, scientists should have the
wherewithall to investigate the theory and either once again show the
Standard Model is superior, or put aside an inferior model and accept a
better one.
The truth is, the Standard Model and Relativity Theories will soon be in the
pile along with Flat Earthers and Hollow Earthers. Very few physicists
would doubt that eventually the Standard Model and Special Relativity
Theories will be replaced. They're just waiting for the better theory to
come along. Now that it is here, people like you think you're too busy to
look at it.
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them.
And I've got it.
> Bottom Line:
> Lose the word 'aether' and maybe someone here will read your stuff. Keep
> on
> using it and you are just trying to spend Confederate money.
Tom, when you do something meaningful with your career and produce a
discovery, you can call it what you want. In the meantime, when someone
else rewrites the foundation of physics and discovers that the ancient
gaseous Aether theory was right all along, that person can use whatever
terminology they want to. I have quantified the gaseous Aether theory, and
I gladly proclaim the Aether exists in honor of all those men and women who
were unjustly ridiculed and insulted by a patent clerk and his entourage.
Dave
Morituri-|-Max
> Besides, in order for gravity to be the explanation, there has to be some
> kind of substance to space such that it would have mass. You can't have a
> gravitational force pulling in a vacuum. Also, Einstein purposefully
> created his Relativity theories to bypass any kind of Aether.
Oh my.... oh my...... it just boggles the mind.. people out there that believe
this stuff... they actually sit around trying to figure out how to get other
people to believe it.. I wonder when he's going to suggest bringing back the
practice of drilling holes in peoples heads to let out the demons.
Bilge
>message news:oBFzd.8185$8e5.1249@fed1read07...
>>> Those experiments are revealing EFFECTS of neutrinos on other substances.
>>> They are not measuring or detecting the neutrinos themselves.
>>
>> A distinction without a difference. For some, neutrinos are Dark Matter,
>> and the effects that Dark Matter is proposed to produce, neutrinos could
>> produce.
>
>It is a big difference. Seeing the a broken window tells you something
>broke it. It doesn't necessarily tell you much about the object that caused
>the damage. Regardless of how much data we collect on the effects of
>neutrinos and dark matter, we're only going to have an interpretation of the
>data, not a direct description of the object.
large rock.
>Neutrinos are no more substantial than cup fulls of water. The water will
>take the shape and volume of any cup. Neutrinos are merely quantities of
>angular momentum caught between Aether units when subatomic particles bind.
>When they unbind, the neutrino angular momentum gets shot out.
The only difference between an electron and a neutrino is its mass
and electric charge. There is more difference between a proton and
an electron than between a neutrino and an electron.
>I show data that suggests the reason neutrinos disappear within the Earth is
>because unstable isotopes can easily have captured dark matter (neutrinos)
>knocked loose, thus causing radioactivity.
Then why don't you post a calculation of the capture cross section?
You must already have perfomed that calculation or you couldn't make
the statement you just made and therefore, you shouldn't have much
difficulty posting it.
Morituri-|-Max
> See what I'm talking about!
See, not ENOUGH people insulted you growing up.. if they had shamed you more
often you might not have grown up intellectually lazy.