luminiferous aether - Is it natural?

Aether Wizard

08-22-10, 05:55 PM

Suppose the aether exists, and is 'responsible' for the finite speed of light so that: without a 'resistance' to the flow of light particles, they would have infinite velocity through a medium with zero resistance to the 'flow' of energy.

So you must have, if a force is acting on light particles, something like F\;=\; \alpha c , where the RHS has units of Newtons. So \alpha must have units kg/s
You are setting up the parameters for the argument. Let's first examine the parameters.

First, you talk about light having a speed. Technically, light is like a river and photons are like water molecules. The photons possess the speed of interest, not light. The "river" might change its course over time, but the flow of interest is the flow of photons.

Second, you are proposing that photons (light particles) need an external force to maintain velocity. This would be true if photons are ballistic particles of objective matter. But the observations clearly show that light is neither concretely a particle nor a wave. It appears to be something different, but which behaves similarly to both. So is it really in the interest of good scientific investigation to propose a paradigm based upon the behavior of ballistic particles (or waves of particles)?

What if a different paradigm is presented for consideration where photons are seen as a manifestation of angular momentum (neither a physical entity nor a particle, but capable of being treated as either)? Further, the Aether what if the Aether is presented as a non-particulate medium of quantum rotating magnetic fields? The photon could then be modeled as the transfer of angular momentum through the "surfaces" of the quantum rotating magnetic fields. The photons would be like expanding bubbles where the skin of the bubble (angular momentum) becomes continually thinner. Thus, the same photon could be viewed in several different locations at the same time.

Furthermore, if the expanding bubble of angular momentum expanded with a geometry similar to the Compton function (a cardioid), the photon would be traveling through space and yet a portion of it would remain connected to its source.

Cynthia Whitney provides the mathematics for such an expanding (traveling) photon. If these physics are correct, and this theory were properly pursued by engineers, it would be possible to build telescopes that could see all the way to the source of light without any distortion at all.

As for your proposed paradigm, your are suggesting the Aether acts upon photon velocity as though photon velocity was something separate from the Aether. Have you considered whether photon velocity is a property of the Aether? That is, everything is limited by the speed of photons because the Aether itself oscillates at a frequency equal to the speed of photons? That is, the quantum Aether units have inherent frequency of 1.236 \times {10^{20}}Hz at one Compton wavelength ({\lambda _C}).

If we look at Coulomb's constant with dimensional analysis, we find:
\begin{array}{l}
{k_C} = c \cdot Cd\frac{{{\mu _0}}}{{{\varepsilon _0}}} \\
c = 2.998 \times {10^8}\frac{m}{{sec}} \\
Cd = 2.112 \times {10^{ - 4}}siemens \\
{\mu _0} = 1.257 \times {10^{ - 6}}\frac{{kg \cdot m}}{{cou{l^2}}} \\
{\varepsilon _0} = 8.854 \times {10^{ - 12}}\frac{{se{c^2} \cdot cou{l^2}}}{{kg \cdot {m^3}}} \\
{k_C} = 8.988 \times {10^9}\frac{{kg \cdot {m^3}}}{{se{c^2} \cdot cou{l^2}}} \\
\end{array}

Velocity is one of the components of Coulomb's constant, as are conductance, permeability, and permittivity. Analyzing Coulomb's constant is appropriate since it is the force mediator of the electrostatic charge in Coulomb's electrostatic force law.

The Aether unit itself is proposed to quantify as the Coulomb's constant times a geometrical constant of 16{\pi ^2}.

{A_u} = {k_C} \cdot 16{\pi ^2}

The dimensions of Coulomb's constant (and the Aether unit constant) are equal to magnetic field times frequency, which is a unit of rotating magnetic field. Naturally, the Aether constant relates to several other physically observed phenomena, such as the Casimir effect.

Of greater interest is the conductance constant, which directly relates to the magnetic charge of the electron and proton.

Crunchy Cat

08-22-10, 06:04 PM

OK. This is what I read late last night. However i need major elaboration on it. From what i can remember it is a subatomic particle of electrons and it has been studied. So if it is studied, does it make it a 'real' element? Im lost. please help: Quantum Aether Physics Moddel (http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.org/component/content/article/3-aetherphysicsmodel.html)

It's simple. It's not real physics. Just woo-woo pseudo-crap.

AlphaNumeric

08-23-10, 01:38 AM

Translation: "Here poochy poochy, jump through this hoop. When you are done, I'll have more for you to jump through until you get tired and complain, then we will ban you from the group."You claimed you have a unique unified theory. I want you to demonstrate as much. If you haven't got the work ready to present then you shouldn't be making those claims. If you don't want to jump through that particular hoop (the differential cross section one) then simply provide a full and detailed analysis and development of your 'theory'.

If you can't then please explain why you're making claims you won't back up.

You failed to ask for any evidence, and therefore you didn't receive it. But I'll bet you don't want to hear it in the first place. You have already taken aim with your sight and are ready to pull the trigger.I want evidence, I asked for a specific case which is pretty simple on the scale of things. Whenever I ask people for a demonstration their work can do as they claim I ask things which can be done with minimal knowledge of the mainstream. Things like the differential cross section of QED processes or the orbit of Mercury can be done with 4th year level physics or below. This isn't a difficult problem, on the scale of things.

The old straw man argument gets them every time. I concede. Your excellent wisdom has made a fool of me and now I will cower into the corner while you stand valiantly upon your pedestal admiring yourself. And it wasn't even necessary for you to ask one single scientific question about the actual theory. You are amazing. :bravo:I asked, you refused to provide. And my comment was to demonstrate that Iranians giving prizes to themselves is hardly a sign its right. The important thing is to be able to convince others. I'm requesting you try to do so and you seem to be trying to avoid backing up your claims.

Hercules Rockefeller

08-23-10, 02:32 AM

OK. This is what I read late last night. Quantum Aether Physics Moddel (http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.org/component/content/article/3-aetherphysicsmodel.html)

Ooooooh, an "Institute"! :eek: How very impressive and believable. :thumbsup: I'm envisaging the spare bedroom converted into a home office.....

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]

Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Captain Kremmen

08-23-10, 03:55 AM

Interesting thread.
I predict fireworks.

Aether Wizard

08-23-10, 11:26 AM

You claimed you have a unique unified theory. I want you to demonstrate as much.
The theory is quite developed and is too much to post in a simple message on this list, although, I did start to do so in a message, above. If you would like to read the paper on the Unified Force Theory, you'll have to wait until I make 20 posts to this foolish forum. I can't post links, yet. Or you can type the url in from this "unified dash force dash theory dot com."

I asked for a specific case which is pretty simple on the scale of things.
What you asked for was something of interest to you, which is not a part of the presented theory. Did anybody ask the same thing from Isaac Newton or Charles Coulomb? It should have been simple for them, too.

If someone presents a theory for space flight, do you ignore their theory and ask if they can cure cancer? On the scale of things, curing cancer is easier than sending a rocket to the Moon.

Whenever I ask people for a demonstration their work... You didn't ask me for a demonstration of my work, so don't go there.

I asked, you refused to provide.
Ask me for a cure for cancer, or how to build a microchip. Ask me for whatever you want, but if I ask you to actually review my work, will you listen? Will you look at what I am actually presenting? Or are you going to be like the many fools who are too lazy to investigate the actual theory being presented and just ask a plethora of unrelated questions?

Having said that, half of my present work arose because people kept asking me to expand into other areas of physics. So I kept answering their questions and the theory kept developing. My analysis of magnetic moment, kinetic energy, Sagnac effect, Casimir effect, and General Relativity arose because people wanted to know how they fit into the Aether Physics Model. But did that interest them? No! Because they weren't interested in the first place. They were merely asking questions, which they had no interest at all in hearing the answers for. You are just the same. If you are truly interested in my work, you will read what I have already presented in my papers and books (and they are now available free online, so don't accuse me of trying to make millions from ideas).

And my comment was to demonstrate that Iranians giving prizes to themselves is hardly a sign its right.
Again, you are off base. I am not Iranian. I am a thirteenth generation American of Scottish descent. My father is a retired high ranking official with the US DOD. You demonstrated nothing but your ignorance.

The important thing is to be able to convince others. I'm requesting you try to do so and you seem to be trying to avoid backing up your claims.
Once again, you weren't even the slightest bit interested in my physics work. You just came off with guns fully loaded and ready to pull the trigger. As for me having to convince you or anybody else of what you choose not to believe, that is not my responsibility. You have a right to investigate my work, or ignore it. It is just as much your responsibility to listen as it is for me to talk.

And fyi, I have been approached by the Iranians for the past two years about my physics work. They have been taking a sincere interest in it and asking good questions. They are also satisfied with my answers.

I just received this morning an email inviting me to Iran to present my work to the prize committee, with all expenses paid (full accommodations, plane fare, and spending money). You think I'm bullshitting you, but I'm not. I have been in contact with my local congressman over the years and he has presented my theory to the House Science Committee. Apparently, they have the same arrogant and ignorant view of Aether theories that you do. Even DARPA and other government science agencies have blown off my work. I just keep shaking my head in disbelief.

If you and the rest of the Western mainstream establishment do not get off your duffs, you are going to pass scientific superiority to Iran, which they will rightfully deserve. Despite what you and I might think about Iranian policies, they now have a working nuclear power plant and the US and Israel can only cower in the corner. The Iranians are clearly a lot smarter than what they are credited for.

Captain Kremmen

08-23-10, 03:52 PM

NO1

08-23-10, 04:48 PM

@AW
What does your OP mean?
Luminiferous Aether- Is it Natural?

If it exists at all, then it surely must be natural.

What's the alternative?
1. That it is unnatural, in some way artificial, or
2. That it is supernatural.

Are you intending to show that it is not natural?

I was interchanging Natural and Real. Not sure right now if that is valid. From the link I posted, I couldnt understand any of it. Because Im an uneducated idiot. I was kicked out of university. I dont understand terms of elements being electrostatic/magnetic etc. having charges.

My initial question was to find out if it was real. I understood it as 'the air we breath' So, I assumed it was real. But that was my 'friends' general question.

An alternative?
1. It is possible to create artificial space-air I guess, like swimming in the ocean with a scuba tank. ( dont know if that air is trapped or Nitrogen & or Oxygen Enriched )
2. Supernatural? As in beyond my comprehension? Thats not possible :D
and 3 just for the sake of it. Three

Captain Kremmen

08-23-10, 05:47 PM

Right, I understand.

Physicists accept the possibility that the vacuum of space contains a sea of virtual particles, coming in and out of existence all the time. Couldn't that be the medium which waves of light propagate through?

History

Paul Dirac was the first to propose that empty space (a vacuum) can be visualized as consisting of a sea of virtual electron-positron pairs, known as the Dirac sea. The Dirac sea has a direct analog to the electronic band structure in crystalline solids as described in solid state physics. Here, particles correspond to conduction electrons, and antiparticles to holes. A variety of interesting phenomena can be attributed to this structure.

From Wiki

Aether Wizard

08-23-10, 08:04 PM

Physicists accept the possibility that the vacuum of space contains a sea of virtual particles, coming in and out of existence all the time. Couldn't that be the medium which waves of light propagate through?

That is right. Not only does the mainstream consider the "vacuum of space" contains a "sea of virtual particles," but they also admit that real photons and real electrons and positrons can be "spawned" into real existence, thus causing ionization and extra light energy to manifest.
www dot aip.org/pnu/2007/split/841-1.html

One has to ask, "If the Aether does not exist, then what is producing these new particles and photons?"

But not only does the Aether periodically produce new matter, but we see the effects of the Aether every day as electrostatic fields, magnetic fields, and gravitational fields.

Hold two magnets in your hands. Feel the real force that is exerted between the two magnets. Then ask yourself, "What is it that is carrying the force?" Look for little force particles between the magnets or any signs of anything material. There is nothing there, but the force is nonetheless real.

The same goes for gravity. Jump up into the air and look under your feet to see what is pulling you back to the Earth. There is nothing there. There are no gravity particles, no quantum rubber bands, and no other material substance pulling you back to the Earth, yet the force of gravity is always there. What is carrying this force of gravity?

The Aether Physics Model fully quantifies the three fundamental forces plus the weak interaction between two of the forces. It provides the mathematical solution for the third force law governing the strong force, which is missing in the Standard Model. It even provides the experimental proof for the strong force law, which already exists in Steven Lamoreaux's Casimir effect experiment.

AlphaNumeric

08-24-10, 01:39 AM

What you asked for was something of interest to you, which is not a part of the presented theory. Did anybody ask the same thing from Isaac Newton or Charles Coulomb? It should have been simple for them, too. People did ask them to describe the things they claim to have described. That's what science involves, asking people to put their results where their mouths are. And the differential cross section between leptons is part of the Standard Model, its something you can do with QED. You claim you've unified the three forces in the SM into a single description, so you're claiming you can model the phenomena I asked about.

If someone presents a theory for space flight, do you ignore their theory and ask if they can cure cancer? On the scale of things, curing cancer is easier than sending a rocket to the Moon.

You didn't ask me for a demonstration of my work, so don't go there.
Your last post in this thread says (and I quote) "The Aether Physics Model fully quantifies the three fundamental forces plus the weak interaction between two of the forces.". Electron-muon interactions are described by the electroweak theory, which you claim your work supersedes. Are you now saying you haven't done that?

Or are you going to be like the many fools who are too lazy to investigate the actual theory being presented and just ask a plethora of unrelated questions?I ask questions which anyone competant at mainstream research level physics could answer. If someone claiming they have a superior model to the mainstream should be able to provide answers. I only ask from a set of 3 (a QED differential cross section, Mecury's orbit and the emission spectrum of Hydrogen), all of which are 4th year or below material and can be done in less than 3 pages of working using mainstream methods. I ask because invariably hacks don't present quantitative models, they just present arm waving wordy essays. Physics is about the details, about knowing where and when a ball thrown into the air comes down, not just that it comes down. If you can't point me to the specific equations in your work which solve the problems I ask about then you have fallen at the first hurdle and you can't do as you claim.

If you're honestly wanting to get your work into the mainstream its going to have to stand up to review. If you are unwilling to do anything other than say "Read the website" you won't get far. If you really have something then you have nothing to fear.

Again, you are off base. I am not Iranian. I am a thirteenth generation American of Scottish descent. My father is a retired high ranking official with the US DOD. You demonstrated nothing but your ignorance.I don't care who you father is as it has no bearing on the validity of your work. My father is a professor with more than 300 published papers, does that make my work more valid? No. Actually, the fact your father is in the DOD makes your claims all the more dubious. If you think your work gives someone a massive technological advantage then by going to Iranians you've basically exported weapons (the NSA tried to classify the RSA algorithm as such, so abstract concepts aren't out of their considerations). Surely if you believe your work and you're proudly American handing a massive technological advantage to a militant rogue state who is desperate for nuclear weapons and wants to wipe Israel and the US off the map is not just stupid, its treasonous!

And the fact you know someone high up in the DOD who could get your work to the attention of the right people and you've still failed to get anywhere is evidence your work is nonsense. I know from experience the military (well, not your military, I'm not American) will fund highly abstract research if they think it has promise and the US military has a budget you could (literally) feed the planet with. Your failure, despite high connections, counts against you.

As for me having to convince you or anybody else of what you choose not to believe, that is not my responsibility. You have a right to investigate my work, or ignore it. It is just as much your responsibility to listen as it is for me to talk.Actually the onus is on you to present your work and satisfy reviewers. Aren't you familiar with the scientific method? Obviously not.

IAnd fyi, I have been approached by the Iranians for the past two years about my physics work. They have been taking a sincere interest in it and asking good questions. They are also satisfied with my answers.While some Iranians do excellent work its my experience that there's a general dip in quality compared to most other countries. I imagine this is due to a restriction on resources and communication with the outside community, but its none-the-less a very real factor.

I just received this morning an email inviting me to Iran to present my work to the prize committee, with all expenses paid (full accommodations, plane fare, and spending money). You think I'm bullshitting you, but I'm not. And I recently got elected President of the Moon.

I have been in contact with my local congressman over the years and he has presented my theory to the House Science Committee. In the mid 1800s someone, through their local government representative, tried to legislate that pi = 3.125 exactly. It got to the Indiana state level before someone noted it was nonsense. The fact you can convince a government representative you might be scientific has nothing to do with whether you are. Besides, the US congress is not exactly known to being scientifically literate. How many of them don't believe in evolution or think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old? So damn many it makes me glad I'm not American.

You're trying to circumvent the scientific community and go down the route of 'science by popular demand'. You think if you can convince enough non-scientists then it'll be taken seriously by scientists. That isn't how it works. Religion is taken seriously by the majority of Americans but its not done in the science labs or taught as science in any accredited universities.

Your attempts to avoid peer review speaks volumes about your honesty.

Apparently, they have the same arrogant and ignorant view of Aether theories that you do. Even DARPA and other government science agencies have blown off my work. I just keep shaking my head in disbelief. DARPA has funded some pretty crazy stuff over the years, including plenty of highly theoretical stuff into mathematics and physics. They evaluate things on scientific merit so even the abstract things can get funding provided there's plenty of reason and justification. Your failure you should take as a lesson, not as a reason to dig your head further into the sand.

IIf you and the rest of the Western mainstream establishment do not get off your duffs, you are going to pass scientific superiority to Iran, which they will rightfully deserve. Despite what you and I might think about Iranian policies, they now have a working nuclear power plant and the US and Israel can only cower in the corner. The Iranians are clearly a lot smarter than what they are credited for.Have you told your father you're willing to arm Iranians with superior technology and provide them the know-how to build terrible weapons of mass destruction, because 'they rightfully deserve it'? My, what a patriot you are. Makes me glad you're full of shit, you'd actually be a danger if you weren't an idiot.

Captain Kremmen

08-26-10, 07:36 AM

................and there the thread ended.

Aether Wizard

08-26-10, 08:06 AM

................and there the thread ended.It doesn't have to. I'm just waiting for somebody to say something intelligent. I learned long ago not to feed the monsters.

przyk

08-26-10, 02:52 PM

It doesn't have to. I'm just waiting for somebody to say something intelligent.
You've already destroyed your own credibility. Normally to criticise your theory we'd have to go to your website and find some deficiency to complain about, but you've absolved us of even that. In case you didn't notice where that happened, what really did it in for you was this little exchange, which to paraphrase went something like:

Aether Wizard: The Aether Physics model is a "unified force" theory that (implied) provides a new foundation for physics and in particular would replace the Standard Model of particle physics.
AlphaNumeric: Please provide your own derivation of this well known and well tested Standard Model prediction which any fourth year physics student should be familiar with.
Aether Wizard: Uh, my theory doesn't cover that...

Epic fail.

AlphaNumeric

08-26-10, 04:08 PM

I learned long ago not to feed the monsters.Not an excuse. You make extraordinary claims so you should provide extraordinary evidence. Did you expect to make such claims and no one ever ask you to justify them?

You claim you've tried to get your work to the attention of various mainstream groups, so obviously you want to make it replace the mainstream models of particle physics. To do that you are going to need to convince mainstream people, people in the research community, as they are the people who determine what is mainstream. Thus at some point its expected you're going to come up against people who don't accept "Because I say so" as an answer, people who want details. I'm one of those people. Not just in the "Can you justify your claims?" way but in the "I'm in the research community" way. People like me are a stepping stone to getting your work accepted because if you can't convince a postgrad your claims have substance you'll never convince people who teach postgrads.

Do you honestly think that you can get your work into the mainstream without providing any reason to any researcher why they should change from their current area to work on your ideas?

You claim to have unified the forces of nature into a single description. I'm asking you to demonstrate that on pretty much the simplest possible quantum process, bouncing two particles off one another. You used the analogy that I'm asking you to provide a cure to cancer when your claims are in physics. No, I'm asking you to provide a simple quantitative result in an area you have explicitly mentioned. You brought up unifying forces, I'm only following up on that comment.

If you won't jump through hoops of my choosing it seems unlikely you'll jump through the hoops of other particle physicists, despite it being a necessary step in your supposed goal of getting it into the mainstream.

Feel free to select your own hoop to jump through. Pick one phenomenon in the universe which you have a working quantitative model for and then provide a detailed explanation and work through of that model and compare it to both the mainstream quantitative model and experimental results. Just one. After all, if you are honest and have got justifications and workings of how you unified the forces then you must have already done a number of worked examples, so its not like you need to reinvent the wheel. Feel free to make it as mathematically detailed as you wish, I'm comfortable doing any of the mathematics covered in a physics degree (and a fair bit more). This is precisely what journals and professors require too and they are vastly more educated and competent at physics than I am so I'm an easier hurdle to get over.

Aether Wizard

08-26-10, 04:10 PM

I will repeat what I said before. If anybody would like to discuss the work I have already done, I will be glad to answer questions. If you aren't interested, then there isn't a basis for me to spend my time here.

AlphaNumeric

08-26-10, 04:48 PM

If anybody would like to discuss the work I have already done, I will be glad to answer questions.
And a I quote : "Pick one phenomenon in the universe which you have a working quantitative model for and then provide a detailed explanation and work through of that model and compare it to both the mainstream quantitative model and experimental results. Just one. After all, if you are honest and have got justifications and workings of how you unified the forces then you must have already done a number of worked examples, so its not like you need to reinvent the wheel. Feel free to make it as mathematically detailed as you wish".

Or have you not actually managed to do that yet?

Aether Wizard

08-26-10, 04:57 PM

Pick one phenomenon in the universe which you have a working quantitative model for and then provide a detailed explanation and work through of that model and compare it to both the mainstream quantitative model and experimental results. Just one.

Since there is no Newtonian type equation for the strong force and I claim to have found that equation, let us start there.

Naturally, you will have to learn the basis for this new foundation for physics, which rests in the hypothesis that all charge should be notated as distributed relative to a single mass dimension, and that there are two distinct manifestations of charges. But in case you are not ready to look into that just yet, we will see how these observations lead to the third force law.

The following is adapted from my book.

Chapter 9

"The Casimir effect is a small attractive force which acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. It is due to quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field�," from "What is the Casimir Effect?" by Philip Gibbs[1].

The equation for calculating the attractive Casimir force between two plates is shown below. We chose the area A separated by a quantum distance L to be the length and area for quantum measurement analysis purposes.

\begin{array}{l}
{\rm{L}} = {\lambda _{\rm{C}}} \\
{\rm{A}} = {\lambda _{\rm{C}}}^{\rm{2}} \\
\frac{{\pi \cdot {\rm{h}} \cdot {\rm{c}}}}{{{\rm{48}}0 \cdot {{\rm{L}}^{\rm{4}}}}}{\rm{A}} = {\rm{2}}.{\rm{2}}0{\rm{8}} \times {\rm{1}}{0^{ - {\rm{4}}}}{\rm{newton}} \\
\end{array}

The Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir developed the form of the above equation in 1948. In 1996, Steven Lamoreaux conducted an experiment that verified the Casimir effect equation to within 5%[2].

Looking at Casimir's equation, we see the h�c in the numerator. In the Aether Physics Model, h�c is equal to the unit of the photon.

"Casimir realised that between two plates, only those virtual photons whose wavelengths fit a whole number of times into the gap should be counted when calculating the vacuum energy," Gibbs said.

It is no error that the equation for the Casimir Effect contains the APM unit for the photon in the numerator. But as will be seen shortly, the so-called "virtual photons" are mathematically shown to be the result of the strong charge of the electron being acted upon by the strong force.

Using the Aether Physics Model, let us modify Casimir�s equation by replacing h�c with the phtn unit and express the force in units of forc.

\frac{{\pi \cdot {\rm{phtn}} \cdot {\rm{A}}}}{{{\rm{48}}0 \cdot {{\rm{L}}^{\rm{4}}}}} = {\rm{6}}.{\rm{545}} \times {\rm{1}}{0^{ - {\rm{3}}}}{\rm{forc}}

where:

\begin{array}{l}
{\rm{phtn = h}} \cdot c \\
forc = .034newton \\
\end{array}

Because we have chosen the quantum distance for L and the quantum distance squared for A, the numerical terms simplify to produce an identity.

\frac{\pi }{{{\rm{48}}0}} = {\rm{6}}.{\rm{545}} \times {\rm{1}}{0^{ - {\rm{3}}}}

The numerical \pi divided by 480 is too close to \frac{1}{{16{\pi ^2}}} = {\rm{6}}.{\rm{333}} \times {\rm{1}}{0^{ - {\rm{3}}}} to ignore. Could it be that the Casimir equation was calculated or inferred incorrectly? Perhaps it should be:

\frac{{{\rm{phtn}} \cdot {\rm{A}}}}{{{\rm{16}}{\pi ^{\rm{2}}} \cdot {{\rm{L}}^{\rm{4}}}}} = {\rm{6}}.{\rm{333}} \times {\rm{1}}{0^{ - {\rm{3}}}}{\rm{forc}}

A comparison of the numerical term in the original Casimir equation to the assumed {{\rm{16}}{\pi ^{\rm{2}}}} numerical term gives:

\frac{{6.545}}{{6.333}} = 1.033

The Casimir value is just 3.3% greater than the APM value. In 1996 Steven Lamoreaux empirically measured the Casimir Effect to within 5% of the Casimir equation. Therefore, the assumed 16{\pi ^2} value could be correct.

What's the point of this exercise? 16{\pi ^2} is the geometrical constant of the Aether in the Aether Physics Model. According to an article about the Casimir effect research of U. Mohideen and Anushree Roy, published in the Physical Review[3],

�...the most puzzling aspect of the theory is that the [Casimir] force depends on geometry: If the plates are replaced by hemispherical shells, the force is repulsive. Spherical surfaces somehow "enhance" the number of virtual photons."

The shape of 16{\pi ^2} is a double loxodrome and it is equal to the spherical constant squared. As shown in the neutron equation for the neutrino (page 184), Aether folds according to its spherical geometry in order to trap the angular momentum known in the Standard Model as the anti-neutrino.

Of further interest is that phtn/16{\pi ^2} is equal to the strong charge of the electron times Coulomb's constant.

\frac{{phtn}}{{16{\pi ^2}}} = {k_C} \cdot {e_{emax}}^2

So the Casimir equation can transpose as:

{k_C}\frac{{{e_{emax}}^2 \cdot A}}{{{L^4}}} = 6.333 \times {10^{ - 3}}forc

where strong charge is equal to:

{e_{emax}}^2 = 1.400 \times {10^{ - 37}}cou{l^2}

And so it appears that the Casimir effect is the result of the electron strong charge of the electrons in the metal plates affecting each other through a form of Coulomb's law. But Lamoreaux clearly states in his paper, �There was no evidence for a 1/a^2 force in any of the data�.� But even though the force is not an inverse square force, it does increase rapidly with the closer distances, as he writes, �The Casimir force is nonlinear and increases rapidly at distances less than 0.5 μm.� This is entirely consistent with the strong force law as it increases according to the inverse square law, but at a rate 16{\pi ^2} times sharper than the electrostatic force.

Taking the area and lengths to be the quantum length, the adjusted Casimir equation transposes and simplifies as the Aether Physics Model strong force equation for the electron:

{A_u}\frac{{{e_{emax}} \cdot {e_{emax}}}}{{{\lambda _C}^2}} = forc

where the Aether unit quantifies as:

{A_u} = 1.419 \times {10^{12}}\frac{{kg \cdot {m^3}}}{{se{c^2} \cdot cou{l^2}}}

So the success of the Casimir effect experiments is evidence of the existence of the strong charge of the electron, as well as the electron strong force law. The experiments also provide evidence to support the Aether Physics Model�s assertion that the photon is equal to the angular momentum of the electron times the speed of light.

To calculate the force between two Casimir plates, measure the strong charge of each plate, divide by the distance between them squared, and multiply by the Aether constant. The strong charge is easy to calculate, because it is always proportional to the mass. In the Casimir effect experiment, the mass is that of the electrons placed on each plate.

Another observation about Lamoreaux�s experiment:

With the Casimir plates separated but externally shorted together, there was an apparent shockingly large potential of 430 mV; there are roughly 40 separate electrical connections in this loop and a potential this large is consistent with what is expected for the various metallic contacts. This potential was easily canceled by setting an applied voltage between the plates to give a minimum dV; this applied voltage was taken as �zero� in regard to the calibration.

The �apparent shockingly large potential of 430 mV� seemed anomalous because only 300mV had applied to the plates. Instead of interpreting the increased potential as an artifact of the Casimir effect, Lamoreaux sought to dismiss it as the result of various metallic contacts. Lamoreaux did not explain exactly what physical principle he thought it was that produced the increased potential. It seems he would have been careful enough to avoid thermoelectric effects, so it is unclear just what process he thought caused the extra 130mV of potential across shorted plates.

An alternative to the �40 separate electrical connections� explanation is that photons emerged from the Aether between the plates. The angular momentum for the photons would have come from between the Aether units (dark matter) as described in the neutrino section (page 186), thus there is conservation of angular momentum.

It may have been that the short between the plates provided a resistance load. That may have converted the photons into electrons via the photoelectric effect, in which case the electrons flowed in order to balance the opposite potentials of the plates.

[1] The Physics and Relativity FAQ, as a collection, is � 1992--2002 by Scott Chase, Michael Weiss, Philip Gibbs, Chris Hillman, and Nathan Urban.

[2] Lamoreaux, Steven K., Demonstration of the Casimir Force in the 0.6 to 6 mm Range (Physical Review Letters, VOLUME 78, NUMBER 1, 1996)

[3] The Force of Empty Space (Focus, Physical Review, 1998)

AlphaNumeric

08-26-10, 06:36 PM

But as will be seen shortly, the so-called "virtual photons" are mathematically shown to be the result of the strong charge of the electron being acted upon by the strong force.Electrons have no strong charge, they do not interact with gluons. If they did they'd not be separable into individual particles as the strong force exhibits confinement. Its the reason the next collider after the LHC will be a linear collider, protons are easier to power up for collisions but they are 'messy' due to a high strong force induced background, while a positron/electron collider does not suffer from the strong force background issue but has power issues.

Provide a reference to an experiment which demonstrates electrons are charged under the strong force.

Using the Aether Physics Model, let us modify Casimir�s equation by replacing h�c with the phtn unit and express the force in units of forc.You don't modify it, you just relabel it.

The numerical \pi divided by 480 is too close to \frac{1}{{16{\pi ^2}}} = {\rm{6}}.{\rm{333}} \times {\rm{1}}{0^{ - {\rm{3}}}} to ignore. Could it be that the Casimir equation was calculated or inferred incorrectly? Numerology, you are simply altering the expressions in an ad hoc manner due to personal preference, not some underlying physical motivation. If Casimir's work was indeed wrong then you would have to go through it and demonstrate it explicitly and show that it should have been \frac{1}{16\pi^{2}}. Typically the powers of pi are closely related to dimensionality issues as they almost invariably come from doing some multidimensional spherical coordinates integral. Hence the arbitrary changing of \frac{\pi}{480} \to \frac{1}{16\pi^{2}} is not only unjustified, it might actually contradict a simple line of reasoning. Unfortunately since you haven't provided a detailed examination of the original work its not possible to go through the original derivation. Yet another reason you should include such things.

The Casimir value is just 3.3% greater than the APM value. In 1996 Steven Lamoreaux empirically measured the Casimir Effect to within 5% of the Casimir equation. Therefore, the assumed 16{\pi ^2} value could be correct.That's your 'derivation'? You don't do any actual construction of a model from a set of base postulates, you simply lifted wholesale someone else's equation, changed the constant infront to something sufficiently close to be within experimental error and said "Ta da!". You've not given any derivation or justification why this expression has anything to do with aether or follows from earlier results.

The shape of 16{\pi ^2} is a double loxodrome and it is equal to the spherical constant squared. As shown in the neutron equation for the neutrino (page 184), Aether folds according to its spherical geometry in order to trap the angular momentum known in the Standard Model as the anti-neutrino.Since when is 'angular momentum' called 'the anti-neutrino'. The neutrino has the same angular momentum as other leptons.

Of further interest is that phtn/16{\pi ^2} is equal to the strong charge of the electron times Coulomb's constant.

\frac{{phtn}}{{16{\pi ^2}}} = {k_C} \cdot {e_{emax}}^2

{e_{emax}}^2 = 1.400 \times {10^{ - 37}}cou{l^2}Except that such a value would imply the electron would interact with gluons in other experiments, that it would exhibit confinement and not be able to be 'viewed' on its own (just as quarks cannot). You have taken 1 phenomenon, do nothing more than change the mainstream equation in a completely ad hoc manner and reached a conclusion which you then fail to consider the implications of. The value of your 'electron strong charge' is comparable to its EM charge yet it does not interact with gluons or particles charged under the strong force unless via the electroweak force. Your result, even ignore its unjustified ad hoc construction, is falsified by experiments.

�The Casimir force is nonlinear and increases rapidly at distances less than 0.5 μm.� This is entirely consistent with the strong force law as it increases according to the inverse square law, but at a rate 16{\pi ^2} times sharper than the electrostatic force.No, it doesn't. Its not really appropriate to consider a 'classical' limit to the strong force's distance dependence due to it exhibiting confinement and being self-interacting but none-the-less if you follow the procedure which allows you to extract Coulomb's Law from quantum electrodynamics but in QCD you get something of the form V(r) = \alpha r + \beta\frac{e^{-\lambda r}}{r} if memory serves. When you try to pull a meson apart into its constituent quarks the attractive force stays about the same. This is why the first attempts as developing a model for the strong force involves strings, the energy involves goes up as if there's some kind of tension involved. Once enough energy is put in the meson 'snaps' and forms into two mesons, where the new quarks arise from the energy released from the gluon flux tube. That's why we can't see individual things which have colour charge, you have to put in so much energy to rip out a quark you make more quarks!

So the success of the Casimir effect experiments is evidence of the existence of the strong charge of the electron, as well as the electron strong force law. False. If you'd derived the Casimir equation from base postulates you might have a point but you just lifted it from another model, changed it enough to stay within experimental uncertainty and claimed it as your own. And you failed to realise the strong charge would have other implications.

The strong charge is easy to calculate, because it is always proportional to the mass.Experiment says otherwise. Gluons have no rest mass but they are charged under the strong force.

The angular momentum for the photons would have come from between the Aether units (dark matter) as described in the neutrino section (page 186), thus there is conservation of angular momentum.Quantum angular momentum is not the same as classical angular momentum. Photons don't 'spin', neither do electrons, they are labels associated to degrees of freedom the particles have. Its called 'spin' because it obeys the same su(2) Lie algebra structure as angular momentum.

Classically you have angular momentum L such that L_{i} = \epsilon_{ijk}x_{j}p_{k} from which it follows [L_{i},L_{j}] = \epsilon_{ijk}L_{k}. Quantum mechanically you have [J_{i},J_{j}] = \epsilon_{ijk}J_{k}. They are seperate, in that [J,L]=0. L has a continuous spectrum, in that the angular momentum of say a spinning ball can take any value while J has a discrete spectrum, it comes in unit steps of half integers.

The conservation of angular momentum follows from the invariance of an action under the SO(3) Lie group. Its a continuous symmetry which, via Noether's theorem, gives rise to a conserved quantity, angular momentum. Quantum spin is not associated to a continuous transformation, it has no conservation law. An electron is spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1 yet a electron can emit a photon. Yet another experimental fact you've overlooked.

Your work is both unjustified conceptually, its details are lifted from other work thus meaning you haven't derive the results you have, your knowledge of current physics is sub-par and last, but by no means least, your 'predictions' contradict experiments. Time to face reality, your work is wrong.

But something tells me you'll be in a state of denial about this....

Aether Wizard

08-26-10, 07:40 PM

Electrons have no strong charge, they do not interact with gluons.

Gluons are hypothetical particles, they have never been observed. Consider that gluons were proposed because physicists were not able to conceive of the strong force law for electrons because of underlying errors in the notations of charges.

If they did they'd not be separable into individual particles as the strong force exhibits confinement.

The strong force has different manifestations with the increasing complexity of matter. At the quantum level and in protons and neutrons, it is the nuclear binding force, in electrons it is the Casimir force, in binding atoms and molecules it is the Van der Wals force, in large scale macro matter it is magnetism. Even magnetic fields are scalable all the way up to galactic cluster structures, and probably even beyond that.

Yes, it is conventional wisdom to say the electron does not experience the strong force. Yet there is no physical reason why the electron should be excluded from possessing the strong charge, and hence the strong force, especially since the electron has inherent magnetic moment. The only argument against the electron possessing strong charge is due to the present system of quantifying the strong force.

My system is based upon the empirically measured Casimir force and several other empirical data sets.

Provide a reference to an experiment which demonstrates electrons are charged under the strong force.

I just did, Steven Lamoreaux's Casimir force experiment. Of course, Lamoreaux does not analyze the force the same as I do, but all that was necessary was that he verify the Casimir force is real. I then showed an alternative system of analysis, which derives the Casimir force equation from first principles. I didn't show that in this example, but if you study my complete work you see how the entire Universe can be constructed from a Singularity.

Numerology, you are simply altering the expressions in an ad hoc manner due to personal preference, not some underlying physical motivation. If Casimir's work was indeed wrong then you would have to go through it and demonstrate it explicitly and show that it should have been \frac{1}{16\pi^{2}}.

I have been looking for years for Hendrick Casimir's derivation of his equation. Others interested in my work have as well. If you can find it, please pass it on to me and I'll gladly review it.

That's your 'derivation'? You don't do any actual construction of a model from a set of base postulates

Not in this introduction, I don't. You said to focus on "one" problem. I did. If you want to start from the beginning and systematically understand the foundations of the theory, you might as well read my book. That is what it is for.

I will admit, however, that I am not the best science writer. It was burden enough for me to reanalyze the existing data and find an alternative explanation for the physics. Incidentally, when I first started, I didn't believe the Aether existed anymore than the mainstream scientists do. It was only after careful consideration of the whole paradigm that I finally conceded the Aether was the best and simplest explanation for the space-resonance structure that emerged from the analysis. As time goes on, and when I acquire sufficient resources and finish my new lab and apartment, I'll write a better introduction to the physics theory and produce videos. The whole project is slowly coming together.

you simply lifted wholesale someone else's equation, changed the constant infront to something sufficiently close to be within experimental error and said "Ta da!".

Despite your conspiratorial and insulting accusations, I first developed the strong force equation from a different route. It was only after other snide and degrading people (much like yourself) challenged me to explain the Casimir force that I realized it was the same thing as my electron strong force. You wouldn't know that, of course, you haven't read my work or asked about how I derived the strong force equation.

Since when is 'angular momentum' called 'the anti-neutrino'. The neutrino has the same angular momentum as other leptons.

One of the problems with our discussion is that you are bringing in your mainstream understanding and using it as the gold standard for evaluating this new paradigm. If I had accepted the same systems of units and underlying mass-energy paradigm as you believe in, you would be correct in doing so. But since you have not yet looked at the greater body of information I provide, which is substantial, you do not yet have the correct paradigm for judging my use of the phrase, "angular momentum."

Angular momentum is both a property and a substance in the Aether Physics Model. It composes from dark matter. Neutrinos (anti or otherwise) are not visible matter, they are dark matter, and many mainstream scientists subscribe to this view. I quantify the neutron as a proton bound to an electron and which capture between them a quantity of dark matter, the anti-neutrino. The only difference between the neutrino and anti-neutrino is the spin direction, which is also a mainstream view.

Except that such a value would imply the electron would interact with gluons in other experiments, that it would exhibit confinement and not be able to be 'viewed' on its own (just as quarks cannot).
Again, you are using one paradigm as a gold standard for judging another paradigm. It would be like Christianity using Christianity as the gold standard for judging Buddhism. If Buddhism is not like Christianity, then it must be wrong. You are saying that if the Aether Physics Model is not like the Standard Model, then the Aether Physics Model must be wrong. But the APM is a whole new paradigm with a fundamentally different underlying structure (and with many similarities, too).

False. If you'd derived the Casimir equation from base postulates you might have a point but you just lifted it from another model, changed it enough to stay within experimental uncertainty and claimed it as your own.

That is not true. Your lack of knowledge about my work and your very limited knowledge of what you have just for the first time viewed is in no way indicative of the scope of my work, which has been developed over several years.

Quantum angular momentum is not the same as classical angular momentum. Photons don't 'spin', neither do electrons, they are labels associated to degrees of freedom the particles have. Its called 'spin' because it obeys the same su(2) Lie algebra structure as angular momentum.

The Aether Physics Model shows that spin occurs in a five dimensional framework, not the four-dimensional space-time framework limited to physical matter. There is another time dimension (actually frequency dimension), which physical matter does not experience. And the reasons for this are explained in the theory. The appearance of linear forward time is caused by the half-spin nature of the subatomic particles. You need to ask questions about the spin structure of the Aether before telling me what the theory says or doesn't say about spin.

Classically you have angular momentum L such that L_{i} = \epsilon_{ijk}x_{j}p_{k} from which it follows [L_{i},L_{j}] = \epsilon_{ijk}L_{k}. Quantum mechanically you have [J_{i},J_{j}] = \epsilon_{ijk}J_{k}. They are seperate, in that [J,L]=0. L has a continuous spectrum, in that the angular momentum of say a spinning ball can take any value while J has a discrete spectrum, it comes in unit steps of half integers.
Well, if you would take the time to study the APM, you would realize that I am very cognizant of the difference between Classical angular momentum and what you call quantum angular momentum. Quantum angular momentum is directly related to spin. Subatomic particle half-spin is inherited from the two-spin Aether (along with the two types of charges).

The conservation of angular momentum follows from the invariance of an action under the SO(3) Lie group.
Mainstream physics says spin comes from a math equation. I provide the discrete source of spin from physical structures of space.

An electron is spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1 yet a electron can emit a photon. Yet another experimental fact you've overlooked.
Actually, it's hidden from you because of your very big ego. You think you now fully understand the Aether Physics Model and have read the whole theory. You asked for just one problem, and now that you have it, you are under the delusion that it is all there is.

I can also show how the photon is produced from the electron (and positron in anti-matter) and how and why it transfers the angular momentum of the electron through the Aether. The Aether has four spin positions within its structure (actually eight when backward time is considered). A photon generated by an electron fills half the electron spin position and half the positron spin position of the Aether. This is why when two photons collide in a particular way, they can generate an electron-positron pair. The reason photons do not appear to have charge is because half the angular momentum is in the electron position and half in the positron position and their charges neutralize. The charge is still there, but it is net neutral. The one-spin nature of the photon comes because it occupies to spin positions (1/2 + 1/2 = 1).

Your work is both unjustified conceptually, its details are lifted from other work thus meaning you haven't derive the results you have, your knowledge of current physics is sub-par and last, but by no means least, your 'predictions' contradict experiments. Time to face reality, your work is wrong.

I have considered your view many times. But each time I go back and look at the work, I am convinced my work is right and people like you are just not interested in seeing what it is really all about.

About your comments before concerning mainstream acceptance. I'm not looking for acceptance. I'm here as a favor to you. If you want to learn about this new, discrete vision of quantum existence, I'll gladly teach it to you. If you are on an ego trip or looking for a pissing contest, you are on your own. I don't need you or this forum. I came here only because someone asked a question about my work.

But something tells me you'll be in a state of denial about this....Deja vu, I had the same feeling about you all along.

AlphaNumeric

08-27-10, 02:02 AM

Gluons are hypothetical particles, they have never been observed. Consider that gluons were proposed because physicists were not able to conceive of the strong force law for electrons because of underlying errors in the notations of charges.Experiments say otherwise.

The strong force has different manifestations with the increasing complexity of matter.Experimental justification needed.

At the quantum level and in protons and neutrons, it is the nuclear binding force, in electrons it is the Casimir force, in binding atoms and molecules it is the Van der Wals force, in large scale macro matter it is magnetism. Even magnetic fields are scalable all the way up to galactic cluster structures, and probably even beyond that.No colour charge is seen outside of nucleons. The Casimir force and Van der Wals forces are all due to photon exchanges, something which is experimentally observed. And magnetic fields are almost tautologically part of the electromagnetic force.

You'd be better off trying to argue that its the photon which does nucleon binds as well as the Casimir, Van der Wal and magnetic interactions, as we have observed photons doing those interactions.

The interaction between nucleons, ie the thing which holds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus, are mediated by particles we do see, they are mesons. Pions etc which are formed by the residual effect of the strong force. The strong force is not see 'naked', due to confinement, but it can leak out of nucleons in the form of mesons. This is an experimentally investigated phenomena and is not the same force as that which say holds the electrons to the atom.

Its easy to claim you have a single unification but you have to provide the quantitative work and you have to derive it yourself, not just steal it from others and relabel things.

Yes, it is conventional wisdom to say the electron does not experience the strong force. Yet there is no physical reason why the electron should be excluded from possessing the strong chargeBy definition if something is 'charged' under a specific force then it interacts with that force's messenger particle. Thus the electron would interact with the particle which carries the strong force. It doesn't. It has no interaction with the strong force except through loop level processes when it causes virtual pairs which are strong charged to be made.

and hence the strong force, especially since the electron has inherent magnetic moment. A complete non-sequitor.

What carries the strong force in your view? What is interacting with the electron to give it a strong force property?

The only argument against the electron possessing strong charge is due to the present system of quantifying the strong force.Said like someone who has no idea what experimental results he has to explain. I suppose that's why you think you've got something, you're ignorant of the HUGE amount of things you have to explain.

My system is based upon the empirically measured Casimir force and several other empirical data sets.
Which makes up about 0.001% of the phenomena you need to explain. You're naive.

just did, Steven Lamoreaux's Casimir force experiment. Of course, Lamoreaux does not analyze the force the same as I do, but all that was necessary was that he verify the Casimir force is real. I then showed an alternative system of analysis, which derives the Casimir force equation from first principles. I didn't show that in this example, but if you study my complete work you see how the entire Universe can be constructed from a Singularity.
Simply calling an electromagnetic phenomena a strong force phenomenon doesn't make it so. The Casimir force can be explained in terms of something other than the strong force therefore it cannot be unequivocal evidence for the strong force interpretation. Its pretty basic logic if phenomenon A has explanations B and C but cannot be explained by D then if A is observed D is falsified but it doesn't help you determine which of B or C is preferable.

You have taken 1 experiment and proclaimed the electron interacts with the strong force but you have neglected to consider its implications, as such an interaction would surely appear in other phenomena as the electron has a big role to play in the universe, or at least our experience of the universe.

One of the original motivations for the existence of a force beyond EM and gravity was that baryons have 3 point charges within them (ie quarks, as demonstrated by deep inelastic scattering experiments) and some of them had full spin alignment, in that all 3 quarks (which have spin 1/2) had +1/2 spin. This meant they'd be in the same quantum state, in violation of the Pauli exclusion principle, unless they had an additional quantum number. This is 'colour', the charge of the strong force. If electrons are also charged then they would have this additional quantum number, allowing more than 2 of them to be in the same quantum state (if you ignored their colour). The atomic electron energy levels, which make chemistry and thus life possible, are the way they are because electron orbitals only have two electrons at each orbital, due to their spin 1/2 structure. If electrons had an additional quantum number six of them would fall into each orbital. And we'd see similar things in other phenomena, such as Fermi surfaces and fermionic condensates. Nowhere ever has an electron demonstrates it has such an additional set of states.

Even if your idea could explain the Casimir force its implications for other experiments contradict those experiments. You have no clue what you have to explain and you don't realise just how far short you fall.

I have been looking for years for Hendrick Casimir's derivation of his equation. Others interested in my work have as well. If you can find it, please pass it on to me and I'll gladly review it.
Sorry, I have my own research to do (and I get paid to do it). I'm not going to waste my time finding something for you you obviously won't understand.

ot in this introduction, I don't. You said to focus on "one" problem. I did. If you want to start from the beginning and systematically understand the foundations of the theory, you might as well read my book. That is what it is for.
This has nothing to do with focusing on one problem on this forum. Your conclusions demonstrate you've failed to consider the implications. Doesn't matter what the rest of your work says, the implications of your conclusion for the Casimir phenomenon is falsified.

It was burden enough for me to reanalyze the existing data
You have no idea just how little data you've 'analysed'.

I first developed the strong force equation from a different route
What equation? You just stole someone else's equation for electromagnetic phenomena and proclaimed its a strong force. I haven't seen anything which involves you deriving your own results from your own assumptions or anything to do with aether.

or asked about how I derived the strong force equation
I originally asked you to provide a derivation from base postulates. You haven't provided that, your 'derivation' was "I'll copy someone else's work and call it something different". Don't blame me for the fact your example you picked appears to amount to plagiarism, something considered the cardinal sin in research.

One of the problems with our discussion is that you are bringing in your mainstream understanding and using it as the gold standard for evaluating this new paradigm
Yes, I'm expecting evidence, logic, clear derivation and consistency with experiments. If you feel this is an inappropriate 'gold standard' then science isn't for you. But that much is obvious.

But since you have not yet looked at the greater body of information I provide, which is substantial, you do not yet have the correct paradigm for judging my use of the phrase, "angular momentum."
You misused the term. And its ironic you complain I haven't looked at the greater body of information you provide when you make it clear you haven't looked at even introductory material on the phenomena relevant to your claims.

Angular momentum is both a property and a substance in the Aether Physics Model. It composes from dark matter.
Sounds like you're throwing in buzzwords to try to sound like you've looked at cutting edge stuff.

I quantify the neutron as a proton bound to an electron
There is no electron within the neutron, deep inelastic scattering experiments demonstrate it. There are 3 localised charges within a neutron and 3 within a proton, none of which have the same charge as an electron.

You have no clue as to the experimental evidence relevant to your claims.

The only difference between the neutrino and anti-neutrino is the spin direction, which is also a mainstream view.
False. Spin direction doesn't have any impact on the matter/antimatter nature of a particle. Each electron orbital in atoms has an electron with spin +1/2 and an electron with spin -1/2, its to do with the alignment of a spin vector. Actually the mainstream model doesn't distinguish between a neutrino and an antineutrino, its currently an open question whether or not the neutrino is a Majorana particle (which is a fermion that is its own antiparticle). Experiments into things like double beta decay are looking into it.

If you haven't worked it out yet I'm quite familiar with particle physics so simply trying to BS your way past me isn't going to work.

Again, you are using one paradigm as a gold standard for judging another paradigm.
If the electron has strong charge it'll interact with the strong force. Why don't we see this in any experiment? Even allowing for the Casimir force, for the sake of argument, why doesn't any other electron experiment involve strong interactions?

It would be like Christianity using Christianity as the gold standard for judging Buddhism. If Buddhism is not like Christianity, then it must be wrong. You are saying that if the Aether Physics Model is not like the Standard Model, then the Aether Physics Model must be wrong. But the APM is a whole new paradigm with a fundamentally different underlying structure (and with many similarities, too).
My 'gold standard' is experiments, experiments you haven't realised your claims have implications for. The electron is heavily examined in particle physics yet we don't see it having strong force properties anywhere. It doesn't have the strong force quantum number, as evidenced by atom orbitals. This isn't a case of "Your model doesn't agree with my model", its "Your model doesn't agree with reality".

The Aether Physics Model shows that spin occurs in a five dimensional framework, not the four-dimensional space-time framework limited to physical matter.
The spin I just mentioned has nothing to do with the dimensionality of space-time. Well done on demonstrating you don't understand it, despite your claim to the contrary.

you would realize that I am very cognizant of the difference between Classical angular momentum and what you call quantum angular momentum.
I doubt you understood anything I said about Lie algebras.

I can also show how the photon is produced from the electron (and positron in anti-matter) and how and why it transfers the angular momentum of the electron through the Aether. The Aether has four spin positions within its structure (actually eight when backward time is considered). A photon generated by an electron fills half the electron spin position and half the positron spin position of the Aether. This is why when two photons collide in a particular way, they can generate an electron-positron pair. The reason photons do not appear to have charge is because half the angular momentum is in the electron position and half in the positron position and their charges neutralize. The charge is still there, but it is net neutral. The one-spin nature of the photon comes because it occupies to spin positions (1/2 + 1/2 = 1).
Wordy BS is easy to do. Do you have the quantitative work to back it up? Quantitative work you haven't just lifted from someone else?

I'm here as a favor to you.
Wow, aren't you generous, throwing down crumbs of wisdom from your intellectual table. :rolleyes:

If you are on an ego trip or looking for a pissing contest, you are on your own
I love how I get called egotistical when I ask a crank "Can you back that claim up" and then stand my ground about vapid claims by the people who make claims like "I've explained all of physics and my work is perfect". You're claiming to have a model superior to the sum total of all of current physics and you're calling me egotistical? I don't deny I have confidence about my own knowledge but I don't come here to tell people about my work, I don't start threads proclaiming to have done this or that and posting my work. And unlike every single crank who does do that here I have published work. I have justified confidence in my knowledge of some areas of physics. Cranks are so used to BS'ing that they forget some people don't need to BS, we actually opened a book once or twice.

I don't need you or this forum.
Who are you trying to convince? Clearly you do want acknowledgement or you wouldn't be pushing your work to your local congressman, despite the obvious fact that politicians don't determine what is or isn't science (thankfully!!). You've failed to meet the standards of mainstream science, you've failed to provide a derivation of any result here (you just stole someone else's!!) and you've failed to consider the implications of your claims and you have no idea just how much experimental work your claims contradict.

And you never answered my question about Iran. What does your father think of your willingness (if you really believe in your work and you aren't lying) to hand over a huge technological advantage to a sworn enemy of the US, pretty much an Islam theocracy who is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. I bet you'd make him proud.

Aether Wizard

08-27-10, 07:18 PM

By definition if something is 'charged' under a specific force then it interacts with that force's messenger particle.
Force is not a particle, and imaginary particles cannot carry force. Magnetic, electric, and gravitational fields are fields of forces. If there were particles making up those fields, they would have been observed a long time ago. There are no particles making fields.

Thus the electron would interact with the particle which carries the strong force. It doesn't.
Did it occur to you that the reason the electron does not interact with the imaginary gluon is because the gluon does not exist? There are no gluons that hold protons together, either. A gluon is a hypothetical particle that is supposed to carry force. There are no such things as force particles.

What carries the strong force in your view? What is interacting with the electron to give it a strong force property?
You honestly believe that something from outside the proton and neutron is giving it the property of strong force. Yet, there is nothing there but a math equation to support it. There is no observed particle conveying strong force.

In a true quantum theory, complex structures arise from simpler structures. One of the fallacies of the Standard Model is the belief that you can "prove" what something composes of by breaking it. Thus, if protons and neutrons are collided, then the debris must be what the protons and neutrons compose from? That is like shattering a glass and then proposing that glass is made from glass shards. Glass is made from molten sand, not broken glass shards held together with imaginary glue. Similarly, protons, neutrons, and electrons have an organized construction method that in no way resembles the "shards" observed in particle colliders.

The paradigm of the Standard Model is flat wrong when it comes to hypothesizing quantum structures. They keep building bigger and more expensive colliders and the theories get further and further from reality. There are few scientists who don't question the fact that the Standard Model has to be superseded by a better model. It is a common belief. The problem is, in order to understand how particles are made requires a full understanding of the underlying structures of space-time, which is the Aether. And since modern scientists have convinced themselves there is no Aether, they won't look there. And that is where you are right now in your understanding.

The strong force of the electron, proton, positron, and anti-proton ise inherent to the structures of the subatomic particles by way of the strong charge dimension. The Aether is a dynamic non-material structure of quantum rotating magnetic field. The Aether is the quantum of all three fundamental forces. If you look carefully and dimensionally analyze the Newtonian gravitational force law, the Coulomb electrostatic force law, and the strong force law that I revealed, you can understand that the dimensions of charge and mass are the carriers of the forces, not some imaginary particles.

Driving all three fundamental forces is a common reciprocal force, which I call Gforce. The Gforce acts upon the dimensions of charge to produce the Aether units, the Aether units absorb dark matter and results in the formation of subatomic particles and photons. The Gforce is the ultimate driver of all three forces. The Gforce continually acts through each Aether unit to do several things, such as maintain the constant speed of photons (light), a constant of conductance, a constant of permeability, and a constant of permittivity. Through its inherent reciprocal action, the Gforce constant creates physical force polarities according to the three dimensions of mass, electrostatic charge, and electromagnetic charge.

You might think at first that gravity is unipolar, but it is not. According to the Aether Physics Model (and this is testable) anti-matter is gravitationally repulsive of normal matter. There is even some empirical data that backs this up including the massive positron clouds seen in free space. As I recall, one of the accelerators is planning an experiment to determine if anti-matter is gravitationally repulsive or attractive to normal matter.

As I said, the Aether Physics Model is a new foundation for physics. There are several perspectives of reality that are different from the Standard Model. You cannot sit there and use the Standard Model to evaluate the Aether Physics Model. Just as you would say the Aether Physics Model must be wrong because it does not agree with the Standard Model, I sit here and say you cannot be right because your Standard Model does not agree with the Aether Physics Model. It isn't that the Standard Model is useless as a physics model, but that these are two different paradigms.

Keep in mind, the paradigms are merely perspectives. For now, the Standard Model is useful for working out problems of quantum mechanics. The Aether Physics Model is useful for understanding quantum structure. It could be that better mechanical equations may eventually be discovered with the APM, as in some cases it already has. But the APM is not yet fully developed in every topic of physics. When you consider the Standard Model has had well over a hundred years with thousands of scientists spending billions of dollars to figure it out, and that I am just one person with less than a decade of working with a few thousand dollars, it is easy to understand why the APM is not yet fully extended into all areas.

The Casimir force can be explained in terms of something other than the strong force therefore it cannot be unequivocal evidence for the strong force interpretation.
The Standard Model explains the Casimir force with magical fairies that pop in and out of reality. I explain it with Newtonian force equations. It's pretty basic logic that if you cannot describe the Casimir force in terms of Newtonian force equations then you really haven't described it at all.

Even if your idea could explain the Casimir force its implications for other experiments contradict those experiments.
That is what you would like to believe, but your beliefs do not stand as the ultimate judge of the validity of the Aether Physics Model. For that, we need to wait for real scientists to properly test the theory. That is, people who actually read and understand the underlying paradigm, not armchair physicists who spout off mindless words of denial.

Sorry, I have my own research to do (and I get paid to do it). I'm not going to waste my time finding something for you you obviously won't understand.
Be honest, you have already looked and cannot find Casimir's original work describing how he came up with his equation. Don't be shy, no other deniers I've talked to have, either.

There is no electron within the neutron, deep inelastic scattering experiments demonstrate it. There are 3 localised charges within a neutron and 3 within a proton, none of which have the same charge as an electron.
You're talking about destroyed neutrons again, not a working neutron. When you shatter something, the resulting debris does not tell you how the object was made, it tells you how it falls apart. There is a big difference there. Until you construct a neutron or proton in a laboratory, you have no idea what your data means. And you certainly haven't succeeded in producing a proton or neutron from quarks!

Spin direction doesn't have any impact on the matter/antimatter nature of a particle.
Again, you need to understand how I describe spin in terms of two temporal dimensions and three spatial dimensions (five dimensions). Just as you couldn't explain the entire Standard Model in one post, I can't explain the entire APM (even in its present limited state of development) in one post.

Each electron orbital in atoms has an electron with spin +1/2 and an electron with spin -1/2
Now you are talking about spin structure in atoms, rather than spin structure in Aether and subatomic particles. Atoms are more complex structures than Aether and subatomic particles, and thus the rules become more complex. Let's just stick to talking about quantum existence and leave the nuclear physics and chemistry out for now in order to tackle one topic at a time.

And for your information, I can predict all the 1s orbital electron binding energies with a single equation derived from first principles and based upon the Aether Physics Model. And this, btw, is another proof for the existence of the electron strong charge, for it is because of the electron strong charge that I can predict its binding energies in atoms.

If the electron has strong charge it'll interact with the strong force. Why don't we see this in any experiment?
You do. It is how the electron binds to the proton to produce the neutron. That is why when the neutron decays due to the interference of the electron and proton magnetic moments, it produces a proton and electron. The anti-neutrino is dark matter captured between the two.

Even allowing for the Casimir force, for the sake of argument, why doesn't any other electron experiment involve strong interactions?
If you read my work, you'll find that nearly every single electric action occurs because of the electron strong charge instead of the electron electrostatic (elementary) charge. The mainstream nonsense about relativistic electrostatic charge isn't even mathematically correct (the units don't add up).

The Aether Physics Model shows that particle magnetic moment, whether electron, proton, or neutron, gets its wobble because of the interaction of the particle strong charge with the particle electrostatic charge.
www dot secrets-of-the-aether.com/units/118-magneticmoment.html

The electron is heavily examined in particle physics yet we don't see it having strong force properties anywhere.
That is because you don't know what you are looking for. You think that force is mediated by an imaginary particle. You have killed the Aether and refuse to resuscitate it and understand how it works.

The spin I just mentioned has nothing to do with the dimensionality of space-time.
I know that, that is why I am trying to help you to understand the APM concepts of spin. You could learn a lot from the APM if you even gave it a small effort.

For example, I have developed a new system of useful units called Quantum Measurements Units. These units offer deep insights into the structures and mechanics of the quantum realm.

As for what I have already presented and which you have already read through. You can see that the math works. That, of course, does not necessarily means the physics are correct, but it does show coherence.

You asked for an example, I gave you one. You don't have to be convinced of the validity of the theory, but you do have to acknowledge that my analysis works out mathematically.

The next step, if you truly wanted to offer peer review, would be to investigate the underlying constants I provided and make sure they are developed from empirical data and are not circularly derived. You would also investigate the logic from the perspective of how it is presented to see if it is self-consistent. At that point, you might be more willing to open your mind to the possibility that this paradigm might have something useful to offer to physics.

I'll repeat, I'm not asking for your acceptance. I'm asking for your skepticism and fair review. I'm not asking you to judge a new paradigm based upon an old paradigm, but rather to learn the new paradigm and see if it has any scientific value as a new paradigm.

Clearly you do want acknowledgement or you wouldn't be pushing your work
You stop talking science, and make this only a pissing contest, and I won't be posting here anymore. I really don't care whether you want to look at this, or not. It really is your choice.

AlphaNumeric

08-28-10, 05:28 PM

Force is not a particle, and imaginary particles cannot carry force.
'Force' is not a thing in and of itself, it is the result of interactions. A field can apply a force or induce a force but it isn't 'force' in the same way a chair can be made of wood.

Magnetic, electric, and gravitational fields are fields of forces. If there were particles making up those fields, they would have been observed a long time ago. There are no particles making fields.You are, quite literally, staring at photons right now, as the screen in front of you is emitting them in huge quantities. We have been able to detect single photons in the lab for pretty much a century now. The fact light is quantised into packets has been experimentally established and enormous amounts of work has been done in the properties of individual photons. You are, once again, ignorant of the experiments you have to explain and thus have no clue that your claims are contradicted by reality.

The electric and magnetic fields were realised to be two sides of the same coin by Faraday's experiments. Maxwell then unified them into a single description, the electromagnetic field. This was done 150 years ago, you're that far behind the curve. Electromagnetism is the most examined as its easy to manipulate and quantum electrodynamics is the most accurately tested theory ever. Its predictions about the behaviours of single photons exceeds 11 decimal places in some instances. The weak bosons, W+, W- and the Z, were experimentally observed in the 1970s at LEP, earning various people Nobel Prizes. Gluons are observed indirectly through jet formation in hadronic collisions or things like tau decays. Gluon-gluon scattering is believed to be the main channel for the creation of Higgs bosons at the LHC so a great deal of work has gone into refining the models, all of which correctly describe all particle physics experimental results to date. Results you are unaware of.

This isn't a matter of interpretation, you can quite literally see the effects of single photons in the lab.

Did it occur to you that the reason the electron does not interact with the imaginary gluon is because the gluon does not exist? The strong force is what holds nucleons together very very tightly, there's a reason its called strong. The electron is not held to the atom very tightly, nor does it ever interact with anything in any way as strong a manner as the strong force gets quarks to interact.

If the electron feels the strong force why do no experiments see it? The gluon explains jet formations as well as flux tube formations in hardons. No experiment thus far done contradicts the model. Of course this isn't proof they exist but it doesn't discount them either, they are a completely consistent model of nature. Which is more than can be said for your claims.

There are no gluons that hold protons together, either. A gluon is a hypothetical particle that is supposed to carry force. There are no such things as force particles.Simply asserting things doesn't make them so. People proposed the gluon's existence in the 60s and 70s and made predictions about it, such as asymptotic freedom and the behaviour of meson decays or the plasma formed by high energy collisions of Gold atoms at RHIC. All of the predictions were verified. A bunch of Nobel Prizes were given out for that too.

You are asserting things about how nature works when you aren't even aware of what experiments have been done and what they saw. Do you think its wise you assert things about how the universe is when you haven't got any information on what we've seen the universe do?

You honestly believe that something from outside the proton and neutron is giving it the property of strong force.
No, gluons stay confined within the nucleons due to colour confinement. Hadrons have 2 or 3 quarks in them because that's what you need to form a 'colour neutral' bound state. You dismiss the mainstream without even know what it says.

Yet, there is nothing there but a math equation to support it. There is no observed particle conveying strong force.
In the 50s and 60s a slew of new particles were found and it soon became apparent they weren't fundamental, they were built of smaller things. Deep inelastic scattering made it clear that there were either 2 or 3 point charges within a hadron and things like spin alignment couldn't explain it all. Furthermore the energy requirements to separate the point charges didn't decrease as distance increased. Electromagnetic interactions couldn't explain this, nor the stability of the bound states or the production of jets under high energy collisions. Other experiments, which later included WW production decays, lead to the realisation there was an additional degree of freedom for the point charges, which got labelled 'colour' (since red+green+blue = white ~ neutral). The strange behaviour of the energy requirements then could be immediately explained because the 'colour' was being responsible for a new force carried by particles which interacted with themselves, unlike photons. This lead to a slew of predictions about expected particles, their masses, their decay rates etc, all of which were confirmed as particle colliders got more powerful. It was also predicted that these particles behaved in such a way that their interactions got weaker as their collision energies got higher, known as 'asymptotic freedom'. It was experimentally observed, hence the aforementioned Nobel Prizes.

Its not 'just some maths equation', the maths makes predictions, predictions which were tested and verified. That's how science works, clear predictions are made and then they are tested. If the model fails then its refined or replaced. There's a wealth of experimental testing and justification for photons, weak bosons and gluons, you just haven't done your homework.

In a true quantum theory, complex structures arise from simpler structures
And you're the authority on quantum theory because...?

One of the fallacies of the Standard Model is the belief that you can "prove" what something composes of by breaking it.
Please don't try to misrepresent the Standard Model. Firstly it makes it all the more obvious you haven't actually found out what the SM says. Secondly it makes you seem dishonest. Thirdly I'm certain I'm more familiar with it than you so you aren't going to BS your way out any holes you dig for yourself.

Thus, if protons and neutrons are collided, then the debris must be what the protons and neutrons compose from? That is like shattering a glass and then proposing that glass is made from glass shards. Glass is made from molten sand, not broken glass shards held together with imaginary glue. Similarly, protons, neutrons, and electrons have an organized construction method that in no way resembles the "shards" observed in particle colliders.
No one says that. In fact its a fundamental property of quantum field theory (compared to quantum mechanics) that the collision kinetic energy can be turned into the mass of new particles. LEP worked by colliding an electron with a positron and it'd produce a shower of particles, despite the fact the electron and positron are believed to be irreducible.

The LHC works by colliding protons but this is actually a simplification. It works mainly by having the protons pass close enough that they can exchange gluons, which combine and form new particles.

You have once again demonstrated you haven't done any homework on this because the creation of new massive particles from a small number of very high energy light particles is the basis upon which colliders work!

And besides, the determination of the internals of nucleons is done via deep scattering, electrons are blasted through the middle of a nucleon and out the otherwise and the way in which they are deflected allows you to reconstruct the internal charge make up of the nucleon.

They keep building bigger and more expensive colliders and the theories get further and further from reality
The SM is so accurate that the issue experimental particle physics has is not that they can't explain current collider physics, its that they explained it so well in the 1970s they've yet to find a problem with it.

The problem is, in order to understand how particles are made requires a full understanding of the underlying structures of space-time, which is the Aether.
And you're the authority on space-time, quantum field theory and experimental fact because....?

Please provide evidence for the aether.

If you look carefully and dimensionally analyze the Newtonian gravitational force law, the Coulomb electrostatic force law, and the strong force law that I revealed, you can understand that the dimensions of charge and mass are the carriers of the forces, not some imaginary particles.
Newtonian gravity is experimentally falsified, it is only an approximation. Coulomb's potential is experimentally falsified, it is only an approximation.

Newton was known to be not quite right more than 100 years ago. GR corrected him. Classical electromagnetism was found lacking about 100 years ago too, QED corrected it. And your equation for the strong force is also experimentally falsified. In all these cases you'd know that if you'd actually looked up the experiments relevant to your claims but you haven't. You haven't got any clue what you're supposed to explain, you don't know what the mainstream says and you're daft enough to assert things about phenomenon you have no experience of.

There is even some empirical data that backs this up including the massive positron clouds seen in free space.
Massive positron clouds? Citation needed.

You cannot sit there and use the Standard Model to evaluate the Aether Physics Model.
I was using experimental facts, you know, reality.

Just as you would say the Aether Physics Model must be wrong because it does not agree with the Standard Model,
Wow, not only are you daft enough to misrepresent the particle physics community to particle physicist but you're daft enough to misrepresent me to my face.

The Aether Physics Model is useful for understanding quantum structure.
And you know this how? You don't know what experiments have done or seen so you have no way of evaluating the validity of your claims, you simply assert them.

The Standard Model explains the Casimir force with magical fairies that pop in and out of reality.Its a common thing for people to reject the non-intuitive nature of quantum theory but the fact you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.

It's pretty basic logic that if you cannot describe the Casimir force in terms of Newtonian force equations then you really haven't described it at all.
A complete non-sequitor. Your argument is "I understand, somewhat, this simple equation so if you can't phrase a phenomenon in terms of this simple equation then you're wrong.". It amounts to you arguing that the universe should conform to your expectations of complexity, which is both arrogant and naive. The usual \frac{1}{r^{2}} behaviour of forces taught in school is only an approximation, none of the forces actually behaves like that when you get down to the fine details. That isn't to say the equations aren't useful, you can put a man on the Moon using Newton's gravity models but you couldn't build a GPS network.

I hate to break it to you but the universe has no reason to be simple enough for you to understand it. Particularly when you make no effort to.

That is what you would like to believe
It's a fact, your claims lead to contradictions with experiments.

For that, we need to wait for real scientists to properly test the theory
No one is going to do that since you don't provide any actual work of your own. Your best example was basically plagiarism, no one is going to look at work like that. Besides, experiments aren't theory specific, they just provide data points against which any theory can be compared. The SM has passed them all so far. Nothing is stopping you calculating quantitative predictions for things like the Hydrogen emission spectrum or the Lamb shift or the spectrum of black body radiation and all the quantitative results from experiments are freely available via Google, you can test your claims right now. If you did that, demonstrated the accuracy of your work and wrote it all up then you'd get taken seriously. At the moment you're just blindly asserting things and expecting other people to do the work for you. No one is going to drop the SM and help you if you can't give them a compelling reason. Thus far you have failed. In fact the most you post the more you make it obvious just how disingenuous you are.

That is, people who actually read and understand the underlying paradigm, not armchair physicists who spout off mindless words of denial.
I have a degree in mathematics, a masters in mathematics (specialising in theoretical physics), a PhD in string theory, several papers published in reputable journals and I'm employed by a company as a (and I quote) 'mathematics researcher'. Other members here will confirm that I'm telling the truth. Hence why I said you weren't going to BS about particle physics and get away with it, it was quite literally my day job for half a decade (I graduated last month). I think the title of 'armchair physicist' goes to the guy who doesn't know any quantum theory, doesn't know the experiments, misrepresents the physics community and who wouldn't know the scientific method if it gave him a prostate check.

Be honest, you have already looked and cannot find Casimir's original work describing how he came up with his equation. Don't be shy, no other deniers I've talked to have, either.
I didn't look and even if I did how in any way does that negate my point about you having no justification for ad hoc changes to his expression, which you basically plagiarise?

You're talking about destroyed neutrons again, not a working neutron.
Do your homework (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering)

And you certainly haven't succeeded in producing a proton or neutron from quarks!
Because you can't separate quarks individually, the energy requirements lead to the production of more quarks. We've made plenty of different baryons by colliding other baryons or leptons, including such things as using anti-protons to make anti-Hydrogen.

Now you are talking about spin structure in atoms, rather than spin structure in Aether and subatomic particles.
Given your inability or unwillingness to provide a quantitative description I have nothing to work with. I don't accept wordy explanations as its easy to just make up BS and then say "and this matches experiments". No quantitative details, no justification.

And for your information, I can predict all the 1s orbital electron binding energies with a single equation derived from first principles and based upon the Aether Physics Model.
Provide derivation and demonstration. The derivation must not be in any way linked to mainstream models, it must be a derivation from your initial assumptions (which you have yet to state) and done clearly. Until then your claims are not believable.

You do. It is how the electron binds to the proton to produce the neutron. That is why when the neutron decays due to the interference of the electron and proton magnetic moments, it produces a proton and electron. The anti-neutrino is dark matter captured between the two.
Except that such a thing would imply there's an electron in a neutron and this is falsified by deep inelastic scattering. Furthermore its an experimental observational fact that the decay of a neutron into a proton, electron and anti-neutrino is actually done via a W- weak boson. The neutron decays into a proton and a W- boson, which then decays into an electron and an anti-neutrino. Only at low energies does it seem like it goes directly to proton+electron+anti-neutrino, its the effective theory Fermi developed (and whose coupling constant bears his name).

Another experimental fact you didn't know and which you failed to consider when making up your claims.

The mainstream nonsense about relativistic electrostatic charge isn't even mathematically correct (the units don't add up).
Prove it. To which equation are you referring? You do realise that most of quantum field theory and relativity are done in the natural units where c=G=\hbar=k=1 for easier notation and they are only put back in at the end when you want numerical values. This is done in a consistent way via dimensional analysis. Its covered in, literally, the first page of most textbooks on relativity of quantum field theory. You have again demonstrated you haven't looked into the mainstream work you dismiss and obviously don't understand.

You think that force is mediated by an imaginary particle
You really should get with the times. Hell, getting with last century would be a start.

You have killed the Aether and refuse to resuscitate it and understand how it works.
And you never understood or even looked at the mainstream before you decided you disagree. I really don't think you're taking the intellectual honesty high ground here.

You can see that the math works
Your entire maths working was to change a constant for no reason other than an ad hoc assumption. Thus far you haven't displayed any mathematics I'd not expect an 8 year old to be able to do. If you'd ever looked in the books on quantum field theory or general relativity or had any grasp of what is expected of a viable model in physics you'd know just how far short you fall.

You asked for an example, I gave you one. You don't have to be convinced of the validity of the theory, but you do have to acknowledge that my analysis works out mathematically.
I acknowledge you can copy other people's work and change \frac{\pi}{480} to \frac{1}{16\pi^{2}}. I do not acknowledge that you have any justified reason to do that. I do not acknowledge you have any actual derivation of such a result. I do not acknowledge you have any justification for any of your claims. I do not acknowledge that you have presented anything even remotely viable here.

If we're up to 3rd grade level mathematics let's hope you'll manage to get your physics up to that level too.

if you truly wanted to offer peer review
Where did I say I'd review it all? I asked you to provide an example to justify your claim, as this sometimes gets the hack to crawl back under their rock. You have yet to offer even one example of a result you can derive yourself so there's no point getting forward with anything else until you can do that.

You would also investigate the logic from the perspective of how it is presented to see if it is self-consistent.
I like how you say 'would' rather than 'could', as if I'd be at your beck and call. I don't have to investigate further, you've failed to provide even a single derivation on your own in relation to anything aether-like.

I'm asking for your skepticism and fair review
My 'fair review' is that thus far your single example was nothing more than plagiarism and an ad hoc change and relabellings. You have presented nothing of worth.

You stop talking science, and make this only a pissing contest, and I won't be posting here anymore.
Well one of us has to talk science. As for pissing contests, you're here claiming you have all the answers, that you've made such huge discoveries there's immediate technological advantages to be had.

And you didn't tell me whether or not you'd told your father you're willing to help arm Iran with superior technology. Or were you just making crap up?

Aether Wizard

08-28-10, 07:26 PM

Your whole post was nothing more than a lecture about the Standard Model and some more pissing. When you are interested in the Aether Physics Model, let me know.

AlphaNumeric

08-29-10, 03:14 AM

Anyone who reads what I said can see that isn't the case. I made frequent references to experiments. You claimed there's no evidence for 'force particles'. We've directly seen photons, you can do it with simple, easily available equipment. We've directly seen weak bosons. We have a great deal of consistent evidence for the gluon. Deep inelastic scattering, contrary to your claim, doesn't destroy the nucleon being 'scanned', so your comments like that about shards of glass were false. Time and again you made claims about reality which are contradicted by experiment. Not 'this contradicts the Standard Model' but 'this contradicts experiments'.

What's the matter, realise you weren't going to be able to bullshit your way past me and want to give up? Clearly you thought I am an 'armchair physicist' and you didn't get the hints previously where I mentioned complicated stuff. You want to 'discuss' things with people who don't know enough to see through your BS and you lucked out. If you honestly want to get your work into the mainstream its people with my level of experience (and much much higher) who you'll have to convince as we are the research community.

You have no idea the level of detail and evidence you're expected to provide because you've never experienced any kind of actual science. When you first complained about DARPA and no one taking any interest I expected you'd have at least something to show, not just "I steal other people's results and make ad hoc changes". Congratulations, I think you're the first crank where you've fallen short of my expectation of cranks!

Captain Kremmen

08-29-10, 05:45 AM

You want to 'discuss' things with people who don't know enough to see through your BS and you lucked out.

It convinces me.
It's got that squiggly line stuff.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjvaQd7ScGgGzzson7XCYPun-xddqqGHm0H3Af1YTlv4-VuC4&t=1&usg=__VTlwFgP7QS2kgz-IiZ-M6bEUtTI=
Squiggly line stuff

Aether Wizard

08-29-10, 09:31 AM

You claimed there's no evidence for 'force particles'. We've directly seen photons, you can do it with simple, easily available equipment.
A photon is a force particle in the same way a thrown rock is a force particle. You impart momentum to something, and then it kinetically imparts momentum to something else. That is not the same thing as saying there must be gluons (which have never been observed) holding together atomic nuclei.

We've directly seen weak bosons.
That's because you read Cosmopolitan instead of Playboy.

What you call a boson is just an arbitrary classification of streaks on photographic film. When it comes down to what really makes the backbone of reality, the only stable forms of particles are electrons, protons, positrons, and anti-protons. That's it. These particles can exist for billions of years ...at least. These are the types of particles it takes to build a Universe that continues to exist even after billions of years.

The rest of the tiny temporal streaks you see on photographic plates are nothing more than debris caused by breaking otherwise perfectly good subatomic particles at high speeds.

As for photons, you call them "energy packets." That shows just how insufficient your reasoning process is. You can't provide even a single piece of energy, let along a packet of energy. Energy is a unit of work, not a physical object of some kind.

Further, if energy comes in packets, then the packet can't be quantum, because it is a collection of something smaller.

If you would look into the Aether Physics Model, you would see a proper dimensional analysis of the photoelectric effect showing you exactly why you think you see "energy packets" and that there are other physics occurring.

The photon is not a bullet going from point a to b. Neither is it a wave of physical particles. The photon is an expanding wave of angular momentum carried in the fabric of Aether, which composes from non-material Aether units. When you properly quantify the photon (which is the true quantum of light, and not "energy packets") you can follow its angular momentum as it spreads out (except in the case of lasers, which are photons modified by clipping through the use of mirrors). The so-called energy packet is, in fact, a valence spot on an atom collecting partial angular momentum from numerous photons, which gives the appearance of the wave-nature of the "energy packet." The appearance of the discrete amount of energy is due to the valence position being filled, and then the atom ejecting an electron (or positron, depending upon the circumstances) to a higher energy state. That higher energy state could be high enough to send the new electron (or positron) away as another photon.

Furthermore, the Aether Physics Model suggests protons can produce proton-sized photons in a process similar to the Casimir effect for electrons. These proton-sized photons can be produced within the atomic nucleus (or between atoms within molecules) and before the proton-sized photon can escape it gets collected into an empty atomic position and formed into a proton (which can later bind with an electron to produce a neutron). This process, according to the Aether Physics Model, should be what drives both hot and cold fusion.

The constant production of protons from the Sun, both from its corona and from its core, is evidence to support this theory. The reason why fifty years of research by thousands of scientists and billions of dollars cannot produce a working fusion reactor is because the scientists are using the Standard Model's mass-energy paradigm to imagine how fusion works. And that is a clear example of failure within the Standard Model.

We can go back and forth pissing on each other, but what is the point? I have better things to do with my time. For example, I have a paper to write for the Khwarizmi Science Award. And I can assure you, you have done nothing but harden my resolve to get this theory before Iranian scientists. At least they will listen. I am really sick of listening to closed-minded armchair physicists lecturing on the infallibility of the Standard Model every time a new idea is presented. You are truly worse than bully-pulpit preachers who attack other religious views because they don't agree with their own views.

And you shouldn't worry. Because if you are correct, and I'm a crank, you can look at my actions as sabotaging the Iranian science apparatus and slowing them down. And that should make you feel good about my patriotic service to the US. And with this thought, I'm sure all Americans (myself included) hope you are right and I am wrong.

AlphaNumeric

08-29-10, 04:41 PM

That's because you read Cosmopolitan instead of Playboy.Do you really think its wise to play the "Whose read relevant material?" game? I have within arms reach more books on physics than you've read.

What you call a boson is just an arbitrary classification of streaks on photographic filmOnce again your nativity in what experiments have seen, what they involve and what implications they have only serves to demonstrate you have stuck your head in the sand to avoid facing up to your own short comings.

When it comes down to what really makes the backbone of reality, the only stable forms of particles are electrons, protons, positrons, and anti-protons.And what experiments are you basing that on? You obviously haven't done any experiments yourself and you have no knowledge of the experiments you need to explain so your claim is simply an unjustified assertion.

Further, if energy comes in packets, then the packet can't be quantum, because it is a collection of something smaller.
Argument by analogy is a flawed line of reasoning.

The constant production of protons from the Sun, both from its corona and from its core, is evidence to support this theory.
For the most part the Sun is a massive collection of protons, it's like saying the oceans produce water. The core of the Sun doesn't produce protons, it turns them into Helium nuclei!

The reason why fifty years of research by thousands of scientists and billions of dollars cannot produce a working fusion reactor is because the scientists are using the Standard Model's mass-energy paradigm to imagine how fusion works. And that is a clear example of failure within the Standard Model.
Actually the nuclear physics is very well and accurately understood. The issues are that we currently don't have the technical prowess to create and sustain for lengthy periods of time stable magnetic fields constricting billion degree plasmas.

You are either ignorant of the state of physics, which undermines your position, or you're deliberately misrepresenting physics, which undermines your position.

I have better things to do with my time
It wouldn't appear so.

For example, I have a paper to write for the Khwarizmi Science Award. And I can assure you, you have done nothing but harden my resolve to get this theory before Iranian scientists. At least they will listen.
Can you provide evidence you have won this award and that the people giving the award are legitimate competent physicists?

I am really sick of listening to closed-minded armchair physicists lecturing on the infallibility of the Standard Model every time a new idea is presented.
Did you miss where I listed the things which mean I'm not an armchair physicist. I have papers published in reputable journals. I have a PhD in theoretical physics. I gained employment specifically because of that and I am now paid to do research in mathematics and physics for a living. I know you need to tell yourself that anyone who disagrees with you is 'an armchair physicist' or claims 'the infallability of the SM' but that doesn't make it so. I've explained how you've been wrong on a number of experimental things, which are model independent, and you've failed to respond to any of them.

You are truly worse than bully-pulpit preachers who attack other religious views because they don't agree with their own views.
My comments to you are much like my comments to people of religious inclinations, what evidence can you provide that what you claim and/or believe is true?

Thus far you and religion have provided about the same, you've misrepresented science, you're tried to take credit for the work of others and when pushed your claims amount to nothing.

When you or a creationist get published in a reputable peer reviewed journal you're welcome to let me know. Until then you're just another hack with delusions of grandeur.

Aether Wizard

08-29-10, 08:05 PM

Do you really think its wise to play the "Whose read relevant material?" game? I have within arms reach more books on physics than you've read.
I seriously doubt that unless you are at a scientific library. I have within four feet of my typing this email over one hundred books on physics and electronics. Elsewhere about my house I have about two hundred more books on mathematics, law, religion, genealogy, and several other topics. I'm fairly well read myself. And, no, I don't have Cosmopolitan or Playboy magazines. :-)

And what experiments are you basing that on? You obviously haven't done any experiments yourself and you have no knowledge of the experiments you need to explain so your claim is simply an unjustified assertion.
I have performed several experiments. In fact, I just built a new workshop and I'm presently building the new forty feet workbench, installing the parts shelving, and preparing to move in and do more experiments. I have a custom machine shop building me some custom parts in California as we speak.

For the most part the Sun is a massive collection of protons, it's like saying the oceans produce water. The core of the Sun doesn't produce protons, it turns them into Helium nuclei!
I think the hydrogen/helium model of the Sun is flat wrong. I base this on the forty years research by Oliver Manuel, who has done extensive testing and measurements related to the Sun. It likely has a neutron core with heavy elements progressing toward lighter elements toward the surface.

Actually the nuclear physics is very well and accurately understood. The issues are that we currently don't have the technical prowess to create and sustain for lengthy periods of time stable magnetic fields constricting billion degree plasmas.
Nonsense. Fusion occurs at all temperatures. And where in the hell are there billion degree plasmas in our solar system? You sound like you learned solar physics from Al Gore.

Can you provide evidence you have won this award and that the people giving the award are legitimate competent physicists?
I haven't yet won the award, I have been nominated for it. And no, I would not share any names with you.

Did you miss where I listed the things which mean I'm not an armchair physicist. I have papers published in reputable journals. I have a PhD in theoretical physics. I gained employment specifically because of that and I am now paid to do research in mathematics and physics for a living. I know you need to tell yourself that anyone who disagrees with you is 'an armchair physicist' or claims 'the infallability of the SM' but that doesn't make it so. I've explained how you've been wrong on a number of experimental things, which are model independent, and you've failed to respond to any of them.
Congratulations. I couldn't tell you had these qualifications from your communications on this thread. I always had the impression that real physicists would actually study a theory and refrain from attacking the personalities of people presenting them. Maybe you are a skilled physicist with a serious personality disorder? I don't know, I'm just asking.

My comments to you are much like my comments to people of religious inclinations, what evidence can you provide that what you claim and/or believe is true?
And yet, you would not consider your adherence to the SM as a religious inclination? You defend it with the fervor of a televangelist preacher.

I was under the impression that a true physicist is always willing to question the validity of the prevailing theories and investigate new theories claiming to expand our understanding of the Universe.

As for your physics PhD, you can't possibly be gainfully employed as such and still spend so much time online. There is more to your story that you haven't shared. But I am not asking your for your story. Your personal life is not of interest to me. I'm only interested in exploring the structures and mechanics of the Universe and seeing if I can help make improvements in our understanding of it. Your PhD means nothing to me if you can't practice real science and explore the ideas of others.

Who knows, maybe there is a real flaw in my math. Maybe my concepts and assumptions are wrong. But lecturing me about how the Standard Model works when I am presenting a new paradigm based upon distributed charge dimensions and two types of charges, which reveals a fundamental geometry in the fabric of space-time, does nothing to help me understand any faults in my own ideas. Calling me names is so childish and unscientific that any contributions you make along those lines does absolutely nothing for me.

arfa brane

08-29-10, 08:07 PM

Ooh! Someone's managed to get their panties in a bunch.

AlphaNumeric

08-30-10, 01:23 AM

I seriously doubt that unless you are at a scientific library. I have within four feet of my typing this email over one hundred books on physics and electronics. Elsewhere about my house I have about two hundred more books on mathematics, law, religion, genealogy, and several other topics. I'm fairly well read myself. And, no, I don't have Cosmopolitan or Playboy magazines. :-)You obviously haven't read any books on physics because you are unaware of even the simplest experiments and you have no clue as to the level of detail and quantitative work expected of a model.

I have performed several experiments. In fact, I just built a new workshop and I'm presently building the new forty feet workbench, installing the parts shelving, and preparing to move in and do more experiments. I have a custom machine shop building me some custom parts in California as we speak.
How many of these 'experiments' are relevant to your claims in this thread? None. You don't do experiments with nuclei using a workbench.

I think the hydrogen/helium model of the Sun is flat wrong. I base this on the forty years research by Oliver Manuel, who has done extensive testing and measurements related to the Sun. It likely has a neutron core with heavy elements progressing toward lighter elements toward the surface.
NASA and ESA (the European Space Agency) have a plethora of satellites in space measuring various properties of the Sun, they literally have buildings full of computers running simulations to test their models, which are constantly refined. There's even a neutrino telescope to look into the core of the Sun. You base your claims on one man and ignore all the other evidence while the mainstream bases it on billions of dollars of research and equipment used and considered by the entire community for half a century. Doesn't mean its perfect but it certainly means that your claim of 1 man's experimental work falls a long way short of the volume of information and effort used by the mainstream.

Can you or he provide a quantitative model which accurately reproduces ALL of the phenomena the mainstream model can?

Fusion occurs at all temperatures. And where in the hell are there billion degree plasmas in our solar system? You sound like you learned solar physics from Al Gore.
Provide evidence fusion occurs at all temperatures. The handful of fusion research labs says otherwise, where they need to induce temperatures into the hundreds of millions using either inertial confinement or electromagnetic confinement.

As for where in the solar system there's a billion degree plasma haven't you ever noticed that large ball of light in the sky during the day? I believe its call the Sun.

Congratulations. I couldn't tell you had these qualifications from your communications on this thread.
The fact I said it twice suggests you aren't even bothering to read what people say. That means your previous post of "You're not discussing aether!" was just an automatic response because you hadn't read what I'd posted.

And yet, you would not consider your adherence to the SM as a religious inclination? You defend it with the fervor of a televangelist preacher.You seem to conflate explaining why your 'work' contradicts experiment with me supposedly claiming your work is wrong because it contradicts the SM.

You have made claims which are demonstrably false. You then defend your claims "with the fervor of a televangelist preacher".

As for your physics PhD, you can't possibly be gainfully employed as such and still spend so much time online.I work 10am to 6pm weekdays. These last few days have been the weekend (it now being Monday morning). If you look at the time stamps on my posts and work out what time it was in the UK when I posted them you'll see it's not between 10am and 6pm on weekdays (well actually 9.10am and 7pm as it takes me an hour to get to and from work).

I gained employment so quickly because I demonstrated to a research company I have a lot of knowledge and a great passion for doing mathematical physics. And I have a proven track record in research. Unlike you I managed to convince journals my work was worth publishing.

There is more to your story that you haven't shared. But I am not asking your for your story. Your personal life is not of interest to me.Good one. You insinuate there's something wrong in my personal life, as an attempt to somehow insult or denigrate me and then you quickly move on saying "I don't care" so I can't provide a retort.

Your PhD means nothing to me if you can't practice real science and explore the ideas of others.The rest of the community thinks I'm capable of doing real science and exploring the ideas of others and now I'm employed to do precisely that. Unlike you I got somewhere when I wanted to do some physics.

Who knows, maybe there is a real flaw in my math. Your 'math' is just "Steal someone else's equation, change some constants so that the numerical value is hardly changed and declare it 'my work'". Your 'math' is nothing but plagiarism.

Calling me names is so childish and unscientific that any contributions you make along those lines does absolutely nothing for me.
Ah, so its okay for you to complain about me but you insinuating I'm a liar about my work and there being something in my personal life I'm not saying is fine?

Not only are you a plagiarist and a hack but you're a hypocrite too.

Aether Wizard

08-30-10, 09:31 PM

NASA and ESA (the European Space Agency) have a plethora of satellites in space measuring various properties of the Sun, they literally have buildings full of computers running simulations to test their models, which are constantly refined. There's even a neutrino telescope to look into the core of the Sun. You base your claims on one man and ignore all the other evidence while the mainstream bases it on billions of dollars of research and equipment used and considered by the entire community for half a century. Doesn't mean its perfect but it certainly means that your claim of 1 man's experimental work falls a long way short of the volume of information and effort used by the mainstream.

Can you or he provide a quantitative model which accurately reproduces ALL of the phenomena the mainstream model can?
You're a physicist. Do your own research.
www dot omatumr.com/papers.html

Boy, you sure do get hot under the collar quick, don't you?

Is it fair to say you are not going to look at the Aether Physics Model?

AlphaNumeric

08-31-10, 02:14 AM

You're a physicist. Do your own research.I do, that's why I don't have time to wade through every bit of nonsense by every hack on the internet. Hence why I ask simple questions (on the scale of things), as if someone cannot answer a direct simple question relevant to their claims then there's no need to get into the 'details' (if they even have any) of their work.

And actually research in relation to solar models is something I have involvement with.

Boy, you sure do get hot under the collar quick, don't you? I don't suffer lying frauds who plagiarise gladly. You've shown you're dishonest, your claims are overblown, you have no justification for your position and you're a hypocrite. I see no reason to sugar coat my replies to you.

Is it fair to say you are not going to look at the Aether Physics Model?You failed to convince me in a back and forth discussion, why would a monologue you wrote be any better? Your best example of your work was basically plagiarism and you've shown you repeatedly misrepresent physics. I gave you a chance and you repeatedly failed, not just in terms of your results but in terms of intellectual honesty.

Aether Wizard

08-31-10, 09:01 AM

The only thing you have convinced me of is that you are an armchair physicist who enjoys being rude and lecturing on the Standard Model. You haven't demonstrated the slightest inclination to observe the scientific method, nor have you demonstrated any interest in the ideas I have presented. You couldn't even recap what I posted, and that you will instead come up with a rude excuse why you will not.

You can tell that I have learned not to buy into the trolling of armchair physicists, who continually derail the discussion with every tactic except engaging in actual science.

Hercules Rockefeller

08-31-10, 08:20 PM

You haven't demonstrated the slightest inclination to observe the scientific method....

You�re going to lecture people on the scientific method?!?!?

:roflmao:

Here�s a demonstration of your grasp of the scientific method:

You said:

I base this on the forty years research by Oliver Manuel

Alphanumeric highlights your total lack of scientific rigour by pointing out:

NASA and ESA (the European Space Agency) have a plethora of satellites in space measuring various properties of the Sun, they literally have buildings full of computers running simulations to test their models, which are constantly refined. There's even a neutrino telescope to look into the core of the Sun. You base your claims on one man and ignore all the other evidence while the mainstream bases it on billions of dollars of research and equipment used and considered by the entire community for half a century. Doesn't mean its perfect but it certainly means that your claim of 1 man's experimental work falls a long way short of the volume of information and effort used by the mainstream.

And how do you counter? You merely re-offer the same single guy�s work!

You're a physicist. Do your own research.
www dot omatumr.com/papers.html

It�s sort of funny and really sad at the same time. :facepalm:

Perhaps you need to get back out to your garage and perform some more nuclear physics experiments on your work bench. :crazy:

AlphaNumeric

09-01-10, 02:46 AM

The only thing you have convinced me of is that you are an armchair physicistI really don't think its wise for you to call anyone, let alone me, an armchair physicist. You have claims you can't back up, a complete ignorance of basic mathematics and physics, you don't know the scientific method, no one accepts your work and you've completely failed (despite a lot of trying) to get your work published anywhere. I have published work, in collaboration with other postgrads, postdocs, lecturers and professors in reputable journals. I have a working demonstrable understanding of physics and mathematics. I am paid by people with similar or higher qualifications and abilities to do research. By any reasonable definition I am not an armchair physicist. By any reasonable definition you are.

If you're going to try and insult me at least try an insult which doesn't blow up in your face.

who enjoys being rude and lecturing on the Standard Model.I am rude to people who I deem to be wilfully ignorant. I'm not a religious person but one of the few things I consider akin to a 'sin' is wilful ignorance. And you have it in spades.

And I've had to explain parts of the SM to you because you've misrepresented it, either through ignorance or malice. I have no rejected your claims because "They aren't the SM!" but because you've not derived any result yourself, you've simply plagiarised (another thing close to a 'sin' in the science world) results and then ignored evidence contradicting you. Experimental evidence isn't model dependent, the fact the people who do experiments with electrons etc are using current physics to guide what experiments they do doesn't nullify the experimental results. Electrons do not interact via the strong force.

You haven't demonstrated the slightest inclination to observe the scientific methodI asked you for evidence, justification and reasoned argument. That's what any reputable journal would expect. That is the scientific method. You've simply provided none of it.

nor have you demonstrated any interest in the ideas I have presented. You failed, when asked, to provide evidence, justification and reasoned argument. You instead plagiarised work. When asked directly you can't provide reason for anyone to listen to you, nothing else needs to be said.

You can tell that I have learned not to buy into the trolling of armchair physicistsNo, you have learned to label anyone who disagrees with you, for whatever reason, 'armchair physicist', while ignoring that's precisely what you are, so that you can convince yourself (not anyone else, yourself) that you're not a miserable failure at physics. This forum is filled with people who have their own pet theories, almost all of them mutually exclusive and they all think precisely as you do, that its everyone else whose wrong, they are the special one, the one who is not delusional and naively ignorant, they have all the secrets of the universe. If you think I'm wrong about you then you must concede I'm right to knock all the other people who put forth work as if you're right then they are wrong. So even if I'm wrong about you my criticism of people is still 99.99% accurate.

And you've given me no reason to think you're that 0.01%.

who continually derail the discussion with every tactic except engaging in actual science.[/QUOTE]

Captain Kremmen

09-03-10, 05:21 AM

...... at this point everyone got fed up of arguing, and the thread finally died.

Aether Wizard

09-03-10, 10:29 AM

I really don't think its wise for you to call anyone, let alone me, an armchair physicist.

As for where in the solar system there's a billion degree plasma haven't you ever noticed that large ball of light in the sky during the day? I believe its call the Sun.

Your ignorance says it all. You can't possibly be a physicist and believe such ridiculous temperature could exist within the Sun. The upper limit of the Sun's highest temperature (at its core) is estimated somewhere around 15,000,000 �C. Most regions of the Sun, particularly the surface, where the light you reference comes from, are only about 5500 - 6000 �C.

An error of this magnitude and the abundance of posting you do online suggests you really are an armchair physicist.

AlphaNumeric

09-03-10, 11:45 AM

You can't possibly be a physicist and believe such ridiculous temperature could exist within the Sun. I am not above admitting mistakes. The Sun is hot enough to initiate fusion, which doesn't happen at temperatures in the thousands of degrees, despite your claim otherwise (and you call my mistake 'ridiculous'!).

Larger stars do have core temperatures into the billions so my point is valid.

Most regions of the Sun, particularly the surface, where the light you reference comes from, are only about 5500 - 6000 �C.I didn't say anything about the entire Sun. Strawman.

An error of this magnitude and the abundance of posting you do online suggests you really are an armchair physicist.Feel free to ask the other members of this forum, including the moderators of the physics and maths section. If you wish I can provide you with links to posts of mine where I demonstrate knowledge and ability at least degree level. Even those people here who dislike me acknowledge that. Go ahead, PM a moderator. My slight mistake about the temperature of our Sun (other suns are that hot) doesn't nullify my point. Besides, I did string theory as a PhD and its been about half a decade since I did anything astrophysics related. The fact I remember anything about it is only due to casual reading.

Is your only other line of reasoning that I post a fair bit? I work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. I sleep about 6 hours a day. That leaves plenty of time to do however I please and if a total of 30 minutes a week is spent pointing out your BS so be it.

And simply saying "You're an armchair physicist!" doesn't negate my criticisms of your claims. It doesn't negate your plagiarism. It doesn't negate your failures. Its simply an attempt to change the subject and ignore the massive hypocrisy that you are an armchair physicist and whether I am or not will not change that fact about you.

Aether Wizard

09-03-10, 12:23 PM

I am not above admitting mistakes.
That is encouraging. You had me concerned. Let's see how far you are willing to go in admitting to your mistakes.

The Sun is hot enough to initiate fusion, which doesn't happen at temperatures in the thousands of degrees, despite your claim otherwise (and you call my mistake 'ridiculous'!).
www dot lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm
Fusion happens at all temperatures, not just hot temperatures. Are you saying the US Navy is filled with cranks?

They call it "cold" fusion for a reason!

I didn't say anything about the entire Sun.
You specifically referred to that portion of the Sun that produced light, which is its surface. You also specifically referenced our solar system, so forget your excuse about the stars on the other side of the Universe or elsewhere in the Milky Way. Just stick with the fact that you made a mistake.

My slight mistake about the temperature of our Sun (other suns are that hot) doesn't nullify my point.
Yes, as a matter of fact, it does nullify your point. Our Sun does not reach billions of degrees temperature, period!

It doesn't negate your plagiarism.
Why do you keep attacking my integrity in this way? Aren't you a scientist? Since when is it plagiarism to quote the equations of other scientists and point out a possible correction to its accuracy? Even you have to admit you cannot find Hendrick Casimir's original derivation of his equation.

My work involving distributed charge and two types of charges is entirely unique, and not anticipated by any other scientist, as far as I am aware. Showing that the Casimir equation is evidence for a Newtonian type strong force relationship between electrons is hardly plagiarism unless I copied the work word-for-word from another scientist and claimed it as my own. You have a severe lack of integrity, which I find disturbing.

As for a real plagiarist, what are your thoughts concerning Albert Einstein and his use of Charles Lorentz' transformations? Charles Lorentz first explained the small Aether drift of Michelson and Morley in terms of a relativistic Aether. Albert Einstein used the Lorentz transformations and called it relativistic light and never gave credit to Lorentz. Suddenly, the Aether no longer existed because Albert Einstein claimed he had explained phenomena without it, even though the Lorentz transformation did explain the small Aether drift.

Then, post posthumously, Albert Einstein brought pressure to bear upon Shankland to smear Dayton Miller's work in order to cover his own ass.

How is my work plagiarism and Albert Einstein's work not? Your cowboy attitude toward physics, and your heavy emphasis on your self-importance, and your rude rantings toward people you randomly choose to attack hardly convince me that you are a true scientist of any kind, let alone an armchair physicist.

Captain Kremmen

09-04-10, 03:14 AM

Larger stars do have core temperatures into the billions so my point is valid.

Have you got a reference for that Alpha?
The temperature at the centre of our own Sun is only 15million K.

The hottest place I can find is 300 Million K.
An as yet unexplained hot patch of gas in the constellation of Virgo.
http://skymania.com/wp/2009/11/hottest-spot-in-universe-found.html

Maybe Virgo is hot tempered at being the shittest astrological sign.

James R

09-04-10, 05:11 AM

They suggest that the speed of light could be a quantum value.
Do any real physicists say that?

I don't even know what that would mean. If that's the language they use, they don't know what they are talking about.

The model was not previously discoverable because nobody thought to question whether the dimension of charge was properly notated in dimensional analysis (all charge should be squared relative to the dimension of mass).

Can you briefly explain what you mean by this, please?

Further, nobody thought to quantify the magnetic charge as a unique dimension along with the electrostatic charge.

What evidence do you have that magnetic charge exists at all?

The Aether Physics Model uniquely presents a Unified Force Theory that is entirely expressed in terms of Newtonian type force laws.

Does it accurately reproduce the results of general relativity, or does it disagree with those results?

I think the hydrogen/helium model of the Sun is flat wrong. I base this on the forty years research by Oliver Manuel, who has done extensive testing and measurements related to the Sun. It likely has a neutron core with heavy elements progressing toward lighter elements toward the surface.

Which measurements in particular support the notion of a neutron core? Is it wholely neutrons? If so, what is its diameter and density?

Fusion occurs at all temperatures.

Can you demonstrate room-temperature fusion?

Who knows, maybe there is a real flaw in my math. Maybe my concepts and assumptions are wrong.

Maybe.

Aether Wizard

09-04-10, 09:59 AM

I don't even know what that would mean. If that's the language they use, they don't know what they are talking about.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. The speed of light is the fastest speed photons can travel between two points, and this is well documented. This suggests the space between the two points is quantized. Which means light is traveling at the quantum distance per the quantum time. In the Aether Physics Model, the quantum distance is equal to the Compton wavelength and the quantum frequency is equal to 1.236 x 10^20 Hz.

Can you briefly explain what you mean by this, please?
When Coulomb first derived his electrostatic force law he was using units of cgs. Coulomb's constant is equal to 1 in cgs units because there was no specific dimension for charge, which was notated as gm*cm^3/sec^2. When the MKS system of units was invented, nobody could understand why charge should be notated as a distributed unit relative to mass, but when they attempted to convert charge from MKS to cgs, they had to invent a new unit in cgs called the statcoulomb, which is the square root of gm*cm^3/sec^2. This means charge was based upon the square root of mass and volume, which is absurd.

To properly align the dimensions of charge between cgs and MKS, charge should have been notated as coul^2 in MKS.

This wouldn't have been a major problem if all the units had been adjusted accordingly. However, the units of capacitance, inductance, permittivity, permeability, and conductance maintained their distributed charge notations while all other electrical units were converted to single charge notation. This caused a mismatch between certain units in equations, which have plagued physics ever since.

For example, in MKS units resistance is reciprocal to conductance. In fact, magnetic flux should be reciprocal to conductance, and the evidence already exists to prove this.

It is because of this dimension mismatch that the impedance equation (and others) require imaginary numbers to make them work.

What evidence do you have that magnetic charge exists at all?

Electrons have inherent magnetic moment,
The Casimir equation is equivalent to the electron strong force equation,
Electrons can be oriented by magnetic fields (cathode ray tubes),
Quantum Dimensional Analysis

Quantum Dimensional Analysis is a new system of units based upon the mass of the electron, strong charge of the electron, elementary charge of the electron, Compton wavelength, and quantum frequency.

Every known physical constant is exactly factor-able by the five named quantum dimensions. Only the magnetic moment constant of the electron involves both the elementary charge and the magnetic charge of the electron. Every other unit factors only by the magnetic charge.

Does it accurately reproduce the results of general relativity, or does it disagree with those results?
General relativity simplifies to:

G = 8\pi \cdot T

where G is the space-time tensor, and T is the mass-energy tensor.

In the Aether Physics Model, General Relativity is shown to have its cause in the relationship of the two types of charges.

{e^2} = {e_{emax}}^2 \cdot 8\pi \alpha

where \alpha is the fine structure constant.

General Relativity effects are caused by the tug of aggregate magnetic charge (which is directly attributed to matter) against aggregate electrostatic charge (which is directly attributed to space).

The Aether Physics Model comes to the same conclusion as General Relativity, but explains the process in terms of the two types of charges instead of mathematical tensors.

Which measurements in particular support the notion of a neutron core? Is it wholely neutrons? If so, what is its diameter and density?
You would need to consult the work of Oliver Manuel for the technical details of his work. I do not claim to be qualified to represent his nearly forty years of research.

Can you demonstrate room-temperature fusion?
The US Navy apparently can. I haven't tried it.

James R

09-05-10, 07:55 PM

Aether Wizard:

Actually, it makes perfect sense. The speed of light is the fastest speed photons can travel between two points, and this is well documented. This suggests the space between the two points is quantized.

How so?

When Coulomb first derived his electrostatic force law he was using units of cgs.

....

To properly align the dimensions of charge between cgs and MKS, charge should have been notated as coul^2 in MKS.

The dimensions of charge are the same whatever system of units you use. The equations of physics are not dependent on a particular system of units.

For example, in MKS units resistance is reciprocal to conductance. In fact, magnetic flux should be reciprocal to conductance, and the evidence already exists to prove this.

But resistivity is defined to be the reciprocal of conductance. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

What evidence do you have that magnetic charge exists at all?

1. Electrons have inherent magnetic moment,
2. The Casimir equation is equivalent to the electron strong force equation,
3. Electrons can be oriented by magnetic fields (cathode ray tubes),
4. Quantum Dimensional Analysis

Sorry. Maybe I wasn't clear.

Are you claiming that isolated magnetic charge exists (as opposed to magnetic dipoles)?

Also, regarding point #2, the strong nuclear force doesn't affect electrons, does it, because electrons are leptons.

In the Aether Physics Model, General Relativity is shown to have its cause in the relationship of the two types of charges.

So mass is irrelevant in Aether Physics?

Which measurements in particular support the notion of a neutron core? Is it wholely neutrons? If so, what is its diameter and density?

You would need to consult the work of Oliver Manuel for the technical details of his work. I do not claim to be qualified to represent his nearly forty years of research.

I would have thought the second two of my three questions would be fairly basic. Never mind.

Can you demonstrate room-temperature fusion?

The US Navy apparently can. I haven't tried it.

I'm surprised this hasn't been widely reported.

Got a link to the relevant papers?

Aether Wizard

09-05-10, 10:16 PM

How so?
If light moves one quantum length per quantum rate, then there has to be some kind of structure present to manifest the quanta.

The dimensions of charge are the same whatever system of units you use. The equations of physics are not dependent on a particular system of units.
This is not true. The cgs system of units did not have a dimension of charge until the MKS system came along. It was after the MKS system was developed that the statcoulomb was added to the cgs system. Prior to the MKS, the cgs system expressed all charge as gm*cm^3/sec^2. The statcoulomb is the square root of gm*cm^3/sec^2.

But resistivity is defined to be the reciprocal of conductance. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
That is correct. In modern physics, resistance is defined to be the reciprocal of conductance. However, the data does not support such a linear relationship. If you measure resistance and independently measure conductance, the plots are not reciprocals of each other.

Sorry. Maybe I wasn't clear.

Are you claiming that isolated magnetic charge exists (as opposed to magnetic dipoles)?
There is no such thing as isolated charge of any kind. Charge is a property of something, such as an electron or proton. There can be isolated electrons, but charge is inseparable from a charged surface just as length is inseparable from a ruler.

Also, regarding point #2, the strong nuclear force doesn't affect electrons, does it, because electrons are leptons.The strong nuclear force is a manifestation of magnetic charge of the proton (and neutron). The Casimir force is a manifestation of magnetic charge of the electron. Magnetic charge is the basis for both the Casimir force and also the strong nuclear force. Strong nuclear force specifically applies to the nuclei of the atom and naturally the electron is not a nuclei.

So mass is irrelevant in Aether Physics?
Mass is very relevant. So if you don't subscribe to my electrical view of General Relativity, does that mean charge is not relevant in the Standard Model?

[/QUOTE]I'm surprised this hasn't been widely reported.
Got a link to the relevant papers?[/QUOTE]
www dot lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm

James R

09-05-10, 10:25 PM

Aether Wizard:

If light moves one quantum length per quantum rate, then there has to be some kind of structure present to manifest the quanta.

And if light moves 1 light year per year then you conclude that there must be a structure, too? I'm asking where how you get quantisation from the bare fact of speed.

The dimensions of charge are the same whatever system of units you use. The equations of physics are not dependent on a particular system of units.

This is not true.

Yes it is.

If you want a good discussion of the two systems of units, you ought to refer to Jackson's Electrodynamics, which has a nice discussion of the issue in an appendix.

But resistivity is defined to be the reciprocal of conductance. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

That is correct. In modern physics, resistance is defined to be the reciprocal of conductance. However, the data does not support such a linear relationship. If you measure resistance and independently measure conductance, the plots are not reciprocals of each other.

You mean "resistivity", not "resistance", right?

Measuring resistivity is equivalent to measuring conductance since they are reciprocals of each other.

And no data is needed to support a definition.

There is no such thing as isolated charge of any kind. Charge is a property of something, such as an electron or proton. There can be isolated electrons, but charge is inseparable from a charged surface just as length is inseparable from a ruler.

Let me rephase once more. Do you believe that there are objects that have the magnetic property of only having a north or south magnetic pole, but not both?

The strong nuclear force is a manifestation magnetic charge of the proton (and neutron). The Casimir force is a manifestation of magnetic charge of the electron. Magnetic charge is the basis for both the Casimir force and also the strong nuclear force.

I can't comment on that without reviewing your theory in its entirety.

Thanks for the link to the page of US Navy papers on cold fusion. Which one do you recommend I read first for its proof of cold fusion?

AlphaNumeric

09-06-10, 02:52 PM

www dot lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm
Fusion happens at all temperatures, not just hot temperatures. Are you saying the US Navy is filled with cranks?

They call it "cold" fusion for a reason!'Cold fusion' has received research attention, particularly after a claim in the mid 1980s by two people who claimed to have managed it. They claimed it was done using electrodes, using a process which was basically electrolysis. Interesting methods other have tried include using sound waves in a fluid to produce microbubbles which then collapse at high speed and might produce fusion.

In all cases attempts to repeat the claimed results have failed and in the case of the 1980s claim it was realised that if true the neutron emissions would kill the two people doing the experiment.

The government finds a lot of crazy things, there's plenty of stuff from the 50s and 60s when nuclear technology or space technology was funded to insane levels. People proposed nuclear powered planes. Space based laser anti-ICBM projects like 'Star Wars' were taken seriously.

Can you provide a peer reviewed article in a serious, reputable scientific journal which has verified (by an independent research group) evidence of cold fusion. Your link does not suffice.

You specifically referred to that portion of the Sun that produced light, which is its surface.No, I said that the object which had temperatures up to a billion degrees was easily noticeable in the day time sky. The Sun's surface temperature being 5,000~10,000K I'm aware of. If you're having to paraphrase me to the point of a strawman it might suggest you're clutching at straws, trying to avoid justifying your own claims.

You also specifically referenced our solar system, so forget your excuse about the stars on the other side of the Universe or elsewhere in the Milky Way. Just stick with the fact that you made a mistake.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it does nullify your point. Our Sun does not reach billions of degrees temperature, period!
Yes, I made a mistake. Does me being mistaken negate the fact you claimed fusion happens at all temperature? No. Does it negate your burden of proof for your claims? No. Does it mean you aren't an armchair physicist? No.

Why do you keep attacking my integrity in this way?Yes, why do I keep making a statement of fact. Why would that be?

Aren't you a scientistSo I'm not allowed an opinion?

Since when is it plagiarism to quote the equations of other scientists and point out a possible correction to its accuracy?You didn't derive any result, you just lifted someone else's. If you truly have got a justification for this equation in your work you should have provided it. You haven't demonstrated your own work is capable of concluding that result, you just took someone else's and said "Mine does this". Your claiming the result of someone else's work to be your own.

Even you have to admit you cannot find Hendrick Casimir's original derivation of his equation. Since when does that nullify what I've been saying? Do I have to read the original derivation of Newton to know that if you said "I invented calculus" that you'd be a liar? You said "This is someone else's result, I'm going to shuffle it around and proclaim it follows from my work". Do I need to see Casamir's original derivation to know you took his equation? You admit it!

Showing that the Casimir equation is evidence for a Newtonian type strong force relationship between electrons is hardly plagiarism unless I copied the work word-for-word from another scientist and claimed it as my own. I think you should find out what plagiarism means. It's more than just a copy and paste, its about ideas and results. Relabelling doesn't negate plagiarism. You have taken a result someone else did, in work utterly unconnected to aether, and said "Aether produces this result". That's at best dishonest and at worst plagiarism. Neither one of which would allow you to pass peer review.

As for a real plagiarist, what are your thoughts concerning Albert Einstein and his use of Charles Lorentz' transformations? Charles Lorentz first explained the small Aether drift of Michelson and Morley in terms of a relativistic Aether. Albert Einstein used the Lorentz transformations and called it relativistic light and never gave credit to Lorentz. Suddenly, the Aether no longer existed because Albert Einstein claimed he had explained phenomena without it, even though the Lorentz transformation did explain the small Aether drift.
Special relativity demonstrated how the work of Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincare and Maxwell all could be put into a single formulation, which Minkowski then put into a geometric context. It is sometimes said that 'special relativity was in the air', in that if Einstein hadn't done it someone else (likely one of the people I just mentioned) would have before the decade was out. What was really the work of Einstein's genius was general relativity, which took the physics community by shock and was something which might have taken another 10 or 20 years for someone else to develop.

And Einstein actually mentioned aether after special relativity was published, including after general relativity was published. It didn't leave his work until some time later, so your claim that its Einstein killing aether is not true. I know you want it to be true but I want to be a billionaire but wishing doesn't make it so.

Then, post posthumously, Albert Einstein brought pressure to bear upon Shankland to smear Dayton Miller's work in order to cover his own ass.
Yes, yes, there's a huge conspiracy against people who believed as you do not. Tell you what, how about you provide some evidence for your claims or evidence they presented for their claims being valid. Conspiracies are easy to whine about but if you and they couldn't provide evidence, logic and reasoned argument then even without a conspiracy you'd get nowhere.

Your cowboy attitude toward physics, and your heavy emphasis on your self-importance
I love it when hacks like you say things like that. Am I here claiming I'm the greatest physicist ever? Nope. Am I claiming to have a theory of everything? Nope. A theory of even one force? Nope. Do I claim there's a huge technological advantage to be gained from my work? Nope (though I do now work in the realms of applying highly mathematical concepts to technological problems my PhD was in string theory). You're here claiming to have a ToE with high technological potentials.

So which of us has the more inflated view of himself?

and your rude rantings toward people you randomly choose to attack hardly convince me that you are a true scientist of any kind, let alone an armchair physicist.
Why is it that hacks have an issue with accepting scientists, including physicists and mathematicians, can have strong opinions? We're not robots or on the day of getting a degree or doctorate sworn to be pleasant to everyone. My opinions are my own and I voice them as I see fit. Now if I step over a particular line a moderator steps in and I get a warning. I've had 3 over the time I've been here, including one which doesn't expire for another month or two. Clearly I skim close to the line of what this forum allows but the fact I have been a member here for quite a while and moderators (like JamesR above this post) have been reading this thread, for which I haven't been told to cool it, I'd say I'm operating within the bounds of acceptability. I tone it down in other forums but this is pseudoscience. In pseudo hacks are allowed to post crap which wouldn't be acceptable in the maths/physics forum but then their responders are also allowed to be a bit blunter.

The day you provide reason and evidence for your position and claims, demonstrating your results follow from your assumptions, not someone else's, is the day I play nicer. You want to be taken seriously by the science community you have to earn it. Whether or not you think I'm part of said community is irrelevant. Whether or not I know the temperature required to fusion Silicon into Iron within a star is irrelevant. Whether I have a PhD in theoretical physics or failed to get a GED is irrelevant to your claims. The progression of your work relies on you presenting a good argument for it. Everything else is ultimately immaterial.

Aether Wizard

09-08-10, 12:30 PM

The Aether Physics Model shows that spin occurs in a five dimensional framework, not the four-dimensional space-time framework limited to physical matter. There is another time dimension (actually frequency dimension), which physical matter does not experience. And the reasons for this are explained in the theory. The appearance of linear forward time is caused by the half-spin nature of the subatomic particles. You need to ask questions about the spin structure of the Aether before telling me what the theory says or doesn't say about spin.

The spin I just mentioned has nothing to do with the dimensionality of space-time. Well done on demonstrating you don't understand it, despite your claim to the contrary.
Some just brought this article to my attention:
www dot nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7300/full/nature09124.html

the above article was linked to from this article:
www dot nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7300/full/465846a.html

I know you'll say this is a crank magazine, but it is interesting to see that other scientists have also been exploring the geometrical structures and spin structures of space since the late 1950s.

The article also puts into perspective your continued ignorance concerning the amount of research done with regard to spin structures and their relationships to space. Without a spin structure with spatial characteristics, the spins would not be able to align themselves parallel, anti-parallel, or in any other configuration relative to each other.

Aether Wizard

09-08-10, 12:41 PM

Yes, yes, there's a huge conspiracy against people who believed as you do not. Tell you what, how about you provide some evidence for your claims or evidence they presented for their claims being valid. Conspiracies are easy to whine about but if you and they couldn't provide evidence, logic and reasoned argument then even without a conspiracy you'd get nowhere.
Not that it will change your mind or cause you to become an honorable person, but you can read the evidence for yourself in this article:

Robert S. Shankland, Science, New Series, Vol. 176, No. 4035 (May 12, 1972), 652-653
At the strong encouragement of Albert Einstein, the Miller data was re-examined posthumously and judged to be questionable due to the claim that Miller�s results correlated with the temperature gradient across the interferometer table. For all of Miller�s extensive experience, it seems highly suspect that Miller did not notice what should have been an obvious flaw in the results, were it true.

Aether Wizard

09-08-10, 01:18 PM

And if light moves 1 light year per year then you conclude that there must be a structure, too? I'm asking where how you get quantisation from the bare fact of speed.
The quantization comes from the quantum, measurable nature of the Compton wavelength. The Earth's orbit is not a quantum measurement; it is a random duration of time.

Also, it isn't the value of the speed that is important, but that it is the maximum speed anything can move in a linear trajectory across space. There must be a physical cause for this maximum speed (regardless of its value), unless you believe the limits of the Universe are arbitrarily put in place and maintained by some kind of overseeing entity.

You mean "resistivity", not "resistance", right?
No, I meant the unit of resistance, which in MKS units is notated as:

\Omega = \frac{{kg \cdot {m^2}}}{{sec \cdot cou{l^2}}}

Measuring resistivity is equivalent to measuring conductance since they are reciprocals of each other.
That isn't true in the neurosciences.

Stefan Schmidt and Harald Walach, "Electrodermal Activity (Eda) -- State-of-the-Art Measurement and Techniques for Parapsychological Purposes," The Journal of Parapsychology 64.2 (2000): 139

Let me rephase once more. Do you believe that there are objects that have the magnetic property of only having a north or south magnetic pole, but not both?
Do you know what the word "monopole" means? It may be possible to engineer macro objects to exhibit monopole-like characteristics, but at the quantum level there are no monopoles. The electrostatic and magnetic charges are both dipoles.

Also, the Aether Physics Model reveals the left-right spin characteristic of space is another type of dipole. So that even gravity is not a monopole at the quantum level. But that is obviously not the case at the macro level where antimatter generally is excluded from existence. Subatomic particles have half spin because they exclude the opposite spin direction (and also only move in the forward time direction) with regard to left-right spin (and forward-backward spin).

To be more specific, the Aether provides only dipole structures. In the case of matter, the mass dimension acts as if it is a monopole relative to gravity because normal matter subatomic particles lack the antimatter spin direction. Aether is the environment in which matter resides. Aether is a dipole with regard to mass, but matter is still only a monopole with regard to mass.

At the quantum level, electrostatic charge always belongs to the Aether, and it is always a dipole. An electron only resides on the negative electrostatic side of the Aether unit, so it exhibits a monopole negative electrostatic charge, whereas the proton exhibits a monopole positive electrostatic charge because it always exists on the other half of the dipole Aether unit.

Further, at the quantum level, the Aether generates magnetic charge in proportion to the mass associated with the subatomic particle's angular momentum. All subatomic particles always possess both north and south magnetic poles, which makes it possible for the numerous types of magnetic-related forces (Casimir force, strong nuclear force, Van der Wals force, macro magnetic forces, diamagnetic force, and paramagnetic force).

I can't comment on that without reviewing your theory in its entirety.
You really shouldn't be judging any of the theory without reviewing the theory in its entirety. Otherwise, you are like a freshman college student judging mainstream theories of physics on his first day of class. Whether a theory exists in the mainstream or on the fringe, it should be reviewed in its entirety before passing judgment.

Generally, it is better to start with questions before proceeding to comments.

Thanks for the link to the page of US Navy papers on cold fusion. Which one do you recommend I read first for its proof of cold fusion?
Proof? You won't get proof of anything, anywhere, when it comes to physics. What you will get is evidence. Proofs are mathematical analyses of mathematical equations.

The evidence is present in all the papers, otherwise, they wouldn't have been written and posted there.

James R

09-09-10, 04:21 AM

Aether Wizard:

Also, it isn't the value of the speed that is important, but that it is the maximum speed anything can move in a linear trajectory across space. There must be a physical cause for this maximum speed (regardless of its value), unless you believe the limits of the Universe are arbitrarily put in place and maintained by some kind of overseeing entity.

True, apart from the part about an overseeing entity.. I reserve judgment on that issue.

No, I meant the unit of resistance, which in MKS units is notated as ...

So, what's the problem with that, again?

Measuring resistivity is equivalent to measuring conductance since they are reciprocals of each other.

That isn't true in the neurosciences.

Stefan Schmidt and Harald Walach, "Electrodermal Activity (Eda) -- State-of-the-Art Measurement and Techniques for Parapsychological Purposes," The Journal of Parapsychology 64.2 (2000): 139

Parapsychology isn't neuroscience. Maybe you're reading the wrong journals.

I don't have ready access to the Journal of Parapsychology, so I'll just assume they made a mistake about the physics. It wouldn't be uncommon in that field.

Do you know what the word "monopole" means?

Yes.

It may be possible to engineer macro objects to exhibit monopole-like characteristics, but at the quantum level there are no monopoles. The electrostatic and magnetic charges are both dipoles.

Electric charges are not dipoles. Take an electron, for example. Where is the positive charge?

You really shouldn't be judging any of the theory without reviewing the theory in its entirety.

I'm not judging your theory. Nothing you've said so far makes it worth investigating further, in my opinion. It sounds like a bunch of wild guesses and unsupported claims (well, maybe supported in the Journal of Parapsychology).

Whether a theory exists in the mainstream or on the fringe, it should be reviewed in its entirety before passing judgment.

Proof? You won't get proof of anything, anywhere, when it comes to physics. What you will get is evidence. Proofs are mathematical analyses of mathematical equations.

The evidence is present in all the papers, otherwise, they wouldn't have been written and posted there.

Well, none of them have been widely publicised. For such a cheap, revolutionary energy source, I'm surprised we're not all running our cars on cold fusion by now. It would help climate change immensely.

Or is there a conspiracy afoot?

Aether Wizard

09-09-10, 10:00 AM

At the quantum level, electrostatic charge always belongs to the Aether, and it is always a dipole. An electron only resides on the negative electrostatic side of the Aether unit, so it exhibits a monopole negative electrostatic charge, ...

Electric charges are not dipoles. Take an electron, for example. Where is the positive charge?
Where did you imagine I said the electron's electrostatic charge is a dipole?

I'm not judging your theory. Nothing you've said so far makes it worth investigating further, in my opinion. It sounds like a bunch of wild guesses and unsupported claims.
I'm not here to change your mind about anything. You can think however you choose to think. If you ever decide to investigate the Aether Physics Model further, let me know.

James R

09-09-10, 07:23 PM

Where did you imagine I said the electron's electrostatic charge is a dipole?

Where I quoted you. You know, when you wrote:

It may be possible to engineer macro objects to exhibit monopole-like characteristics, but at the quantum level there are no monopoles. The electrostatic and magnetic charges are both dipoles.

You know, like immediately above the comment you've just responded to.

Duh!

I'm not here to change your mind about anything. You can think however you choose to think. If you ever decide to investigate the Aether Physics Model further, let me know.

Ok. Will do.

Aether Wizard

09-09-10, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by Aether Wizard
Where did you imagine I said the electron's electrostatic charge is a dipole? Where I quoted you. You know, when you wrote:

Originally Posted by Aether Wizard
It may be possible to engineer macro objects to exhibit monopole-like characteristics, but at the quantum level there are no monopoles. The electrostatic and magnetic charges are both dipoles.
You know, like immediately above the comment you've just responded to.

Duh!
You are not a physicist, are you? Apparently my words are too big for you.

A "macro object" is an object made of molecules in complex forms, like nanotubes. Some people claim to have developed monopoles in macro objects, or at least the appearance of monopoles.
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48630634d2591

But at the quantum level (i.e. aether units and electrons) there are no monopoles.

If you take the time to read what I have written, instead of projecting your own thoughts, you will see that I said the Aether is the domain where electrostatic dipoles exist. The electron electrostatic charge monopole occurs because the electron exists on only one side of an Aether unit. Thus the electrostatic charge of the electron is a monopole (despite the fact the Aether possesses an electrostatic dipole. And, in fact, electrons can be physically arranged such that an electrostatic dipole can be created between the negative charge side of the Aether unit occupied by the electron, and the remaining positively charged empty side of the Aether unit, and this is called the electron dipole moment:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100720101349.htm

However, your question concerned the magnetic charge of the electron, not the electrostatic charge. And as I clearly explained, the electron is measured to have a magnetic moment and technology routinely harnesses the magnetic dipole of the electron, such as in cathode ray tubes where electrons are deflected by magnetic fields. The magnetic charge of the electron is always a dipole in that it always has both north and south magnetic poles.

duh!

Dywyddyr

09-10-10, 01:35 AM

For someone to post this question:

You are not a physicist, are you?
and then give this link
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48630634d2591
as support seems rather silly.
You do know that Orion's Arm is a science-fiction site, don't you?

Oh wait, you thought the accompanying illustration was a genuine photo... :rolleyes:
http://www.orionsarm.com/im_store/dalethorbital.jpg

Aether Wizard

09-10-10, 08:49 AM

You do know that Orion's Arm is a science-fiction site, don't you?
You do know that magnetic monopoles are science fiction, don't you? James was asking about magnetic monopoles. The topic of magnetic monopoles has been entertained by the mainstream because they developed math that treats the magnetic dipole forces as two separate monopoles. Physicists have been looking for physical manifestations of magnetic monopoles ever since, but cannot find them.

Every now and then someone claims to be right on the verge of finding magnetic monopoles. That is why I said, "It may be possible to engineer macro objects to exhibit monopole-like characteristics, but at the quantum level there are no monopoles."

Orion's Arm is an independent web site that produces science fiction, but official sites for CERN, LIGO, JPL, and other nationally funded labs also produce science fiction in the form of Higgs bosons, interferometer-based gravitational wave detectors, and imaginary force particles such as gluons.

Check out this science fiction from Caltech (http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/12590):

The crucial difference between the two theories is that while the photons of QED carry no charge of their own, the gluons of QCD are themselves colored particles. A quark is surrounded by a sea of "virtual" gluons that arise due to quantum fluctuations, and the color of the virtual gluons enhances the quark's own color. A probe coming closer and closer to the quark is influenced less and less by the virtual gluons, so that the effective color charge of the quark seems to weaken; this is asymptotic freedom.

Why invent all this fairy tale nonsense when the forces between protons and neutrons can be expressed with a simple Newtonian force equation acting on the magnetic charges of the particles?

For reasons previously mentioned, quarks are merely temporary debris caused by destroying perfectly good subatomic particles in collisions. The visible matter of the protons and neutrons loses its stability because the Aether unit (quantum rotating magnetic field) shatters and the particle's angular momentum once again is released as dark matter. The transition is brief, but noticeable, and is erroneously named a quark. To say that protons and neutrons build from quarks is like saying a wine glass builds from glass shards, and then prove it by slamming the glass against a brick wall. And then claiming the glass shards must have been once held together by "virtual" glue. And then claiming that the glue cannot be found because the closer you get to seeing it, the more invisible it becomes, and then call this "asymptotic freedom" to make it sound official. :rolleyes:

Yes, there is a lot of science fiction on the web. Unfortunately, a large portion of it is maintained on mainstream science web sites.

AlphaNumeric

09-10-10, 04:01 PM

but it is interesting to see that other scientists have also been exploring the geometrical structures and spin structures of space since the late 1950s.

The article also puts into perspective your continued ignorance concerning the amount of research done with regard to spin structures and their relationships to space.Where did I say otherwise? Your reply is a complete non-sequitor. And I know that research has been done on the geometric and spin structure of space-time, my PhD topic was on the structure of the fields which parametrise the deformations of compact dimensions in string theory and the properties of gauge fields living on branes which deform space-time.

My comment was about how quantum spin is not the same as angular spin. Quantum spin is associated to the way a field changes under a representation of the Lorentz group. The Lorentz group is associated to space-time but this doesn't mean there's a direct relationship between space-time and quantum spin. For instance a gauge field A_{\mu} is spin 1 because it has 1 Lorentz index. The dimensionality of space-time is then how many values the index can take. Then there's another kind of spin which is more closely linked to space-time, the spin connection. Its difficult to put spinors into curved space-time, as their index doesn't transform under the Lorentz group in the way a gauge field does, its got a spinorial index. In order to couple the spinor to space-time properly you have to use vierbeins and in doing this you end up with a spin connection in the same way coupling a spinor to a gauge field gives you a gauge connection.

This isn't high level stuff, its something anyone whose done a course in quantum field theory and a course in GR should know about. It's required knowledge to even get onto a PhD, never mind complete one. I know you have to go to Google to find your information but some of us have books and lecture notes and can either recall this stuff on demand or know precisely where to find it.

I'll be happy to provide you with a pdf copy of the 4th year lecture notes on black holes I transcribed from when I was doing the course, so you can actually try to learn something of this area.

Proof? You won't get proof of anything, anywhere, when it comes to physics. What you will get is evidence. Proofs are mathematical analyses of mathematical equations.

The evidence is present in all the papers, otherwise, they wouldn't have been written and posted there. The claimed result of cold fusion has not been confirmed by other research groups, at any point. People tried to do cold fusion and failed. No doubt people are working on it now and will do so in the future but the fact remains there's no example of it being produced and then the results repeated by others. If cold fusion were a well documented reality there'd not be any need to spend billions on hot fusion technology, there'd be no need to worry about global warming as we'd have a carbon-less practically limitless supply of energy.

But anyway, this is besides the point. I'm still waiting for you to derive even one result yourself from clearly stated postulates and in such a way to demonstrate (or even define) aether.

Aether Wizard

09-10-10, 07:32 PM

The Lorentz group is associated to space-time but this doesn't mean there's a direct relationship between space-time and quantum spin.
Okay, but I'm saying I can show a direct relationship between space-time and quantum spin through dimensional analysis.

For instance a gauge field A_{\mu} is spin 1 because it has 1 Lorentz index. The dimensionality of space-time is then how many values the index can take.
I'm sure this makes perfect sense to you because you have been taught to think of physics in terms of probability theory and matrices. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this approach. And, in fact, I expect the Lorentz gauge, spinors, matrices, Lagrangians, and Hamiltonians will apply also to the Aether structures I have identified.

The Aether Physics Model does not involve Lorentz gauges, spinors, and matrices because it is a theory of structure, not a theory of mechanics. The Aether Physics Model is a dimensional analysis of the known physical constants, which led to a correction in the notation of charge and the identification of a second type of quantum charge. The Aether Physics Model has several unique innovations for understanding quantum physical structures, as differentiated from quantum physical mechanics.

I agree the various forms of calculus as functions over time, rotations, and the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian perspectives are helpful for predicting behaviors. By the same token, the skills of mainstream physicists for understanding quantum structures through dimensional analysis are wanting because they have the wrong foundations in their units and do not understand the two quantifiable types of quantum charges. What I am proposing is that the same equations for mechanics should also be applicable to the quantum structures I have identified. This, in theory, could give rise to a far more productive physics than the present systems.

You are expecting me to use the calculus developed for quantum mechanics to describe quantum structures. I'm trying to explain that quantum structures are understood in terms of dimensions and units, not calculus. The quantification of movement requires calculus and matrices, but the quantification of structure requires a proper understanding of dimensions and units.

Then there's another kind of spin which is more closely linked to space-time, the spin connection. Its difficult to put spinors into curved space-time, as their index doesn't transform under the Lorentz group in the way a gauge field does, its got a spinorial index. In order to couple the spinor to space-time properly you have to use vierbeins and in doing this you end up with a spin connection in the same way coupling a spinor to a gauge field gives you a gauge connection.
Great. This is truly more than I know about quantum mechanics. But if you are going to understand the quantum structure I'm trying to convey, you will need to set this aside for the time being and go back to simple dimensional analysis. Not because I don't understand calculus as well as you do, but because quantum structure does not require calculus to understand.

I'll be happy to provide you with a pdf copy of the 4th year lecture notes on black holes I transcribed from when I was doing the course, so you can actually try to learn something of this area.
Thanks, but I probably have those notes already in Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. This is truly a topic I intend to study further later on. Right now, I'm spending far more time that I had hoped in finding someone who understands simple dimensional analysis who could help verify and further extend the basic principles of the theory.

The claimed result of cold fusion has not been confirmed by other research groups, at any point.
I do not claim to be a cold fusion expert. I read the news like most others. Here is a fairly recent article (http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=222&content_id=WPCP_012362&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=3b3f06a5-867a-4be0-9d08-56ac9b465549).

If cold fusion were a well documented reality there'd not be any need to spend billions on hot fusion technology, LOL.
We have spent billions of dollars on hot fusion and it still is not a documented reality, whether well done or not. Despite people pointing to the Sun and their chalkboards and saying, "look, it works," nobody knows how it works. Several very expensive prototypes have been built and basically the only result has been very expensive welders.

But anyway, this is besides the point. I'm still waiting for you to derive even one result yourself from clearly stated postulates and in such a way to demonstrate (or even define) aether.I'm still waiting for you to show the slightest bit of interest in my work rather than tempt me to provide you with targets for shooting practice.

If you learned anything while getting your PhD, I would hope it would be how to analyze a theory and test it. Your nonsense about me plagiarizing Casimir's work because I provided a necessary correction and transposed it into a Newtonian type magnetic force equation, which I derived previously on my own is hardly encouraging. And if you really are a physicist and have access to science libraries, please find me a copy of Hendrick Casimir's work where he derived his famous Casimir force equation. It would be instructive to see how he predicted the existence of the force several decades before we had the technology to prove it.

When you are ready to come down to Earth and engage me like a gentleman, I would be willing to show my calculation of the anti-neutrino angular momentum based upon the electron and proton angular momenta, or showing my 1s electron orbital binding energy equation for all elements from lithium to uranium, or my calculated correction of the neutron magnetic moment, or my new analysis of what a photon energy packet really is, my quantification of the Aether unit, my predictions for the angular momenta of the proton and neutron (surprisingly missing from NIST (http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Results?search_for=proton)) or one of several other original works.

AlphaNumeric

09-11-10, 08:13 AM

Okay, but I'm saying I can show a direct relationship between space-time and quantum spin through dimensional analysis.So do it.

I'm sure this makes perfect sense to you because you have been taught to think of physics in terms of probability theory and matrices. You're showing your ignorance.

Lagrangians, Hamiltonians, variational principles, they all pre-date quantum mechanics. The fact they bear the names of Lagrange and Hamilton, who lived before quantum theory, might have given you a clue. You can phrase much of classical mechanics in terms of them. In fact the first course I met Lagrangians in was titled 'Classical Dynamics'. If you want to compute the motion of a spinning top its vastly simplified using a Lagrangian method than trying to solve Newtonian force equations of motion. And matrices are not something restricted to quantum theory. Rotations, translations, boosts, all of them can be written in terms of matrices. Inner products can be given a matrix representation. The very notion of distance can be phrased in terms of a matrix, that's what a metric is usually written as.

Thinking of things in terms of matrices and vectors and the like isn't narrowing ones views, its a powerful tool. If you grasp Lagrangian methods than you can apply them to both classical and quantum systems, that's their power. Classical mechanics has things like {x,p} = 1, where { , } is the Poisson bracket, quantum mechanics has [x,p] = i, [ , ] is the commutator. The quantum world has a formalism very like that of the classical one, your unwillingness (and I imagine inability) to grasp this doesn't negate their usefulness.

And, in fact, I expect the Lorentz gauge, spinors, matrices, Lagrangians, and Hamiltonians will apply also to the Aether structures I have identified.This is your way of saying "I haven't formalised anything but if I claim that all the complicated stuff seen in actual physics can be explained by my work maybe someone will believe me". You want people to think your work has value but you're unwilling or unable to show it.

The Aether Physics Model does not involve Lorentz gauges, spinors, and matrices because it is a theory of structure, not a theory of mechanics. The Aether Physics Model is a dimensional analysis of the known physical constants, which led to a correction in the notation of charge and the identification of a second type of quantum charge. The Aether Physics Model has several unique innovations for understanding quantum physical structures, as differentiated from quantum physical mechanics.You keep saying what your 'model' (which cannot model anything and is thus not a model) is or isn't but you never demonstrate the validity of what you say. Rather than saying "Aether can do X" please show aether doing X.

If I said "String theory can do everything and explain everything" you'd no doubt say "Prove it, where's your evidence? Show me!". I'm asking you to do the same (and I'm not making that claim about string theory).

By the same token, the skills of mainstream physicists for understanding quantum structures through dimensional analysis are wanting because they have the wrong foundations in their units and do not understand the two quantifiable types of quantum charges. How do you know what current quantum physicists can or can't do when you don't know what the current state of quantum physics is?

What I am proposing is that the same equations for mechanics should also be applicable to the quantum structures I have identified.As I just commented, quantum systems can be phrased in much the same way as classical ones, the same methodologies often apply.

You are expecting me to use the calculus developed for quantum mechanics to describe quantum structuresNo, you're welcome to invent a new kind of mathematics. That's partly what physics, particularly theoretical physics, is about. For instance, string theory required (and continues to require) new mathematics to be developed. The major motivating factor in the development of generalised geometry and structures in particular kinds of 7 dimensional manifolds has been the fact that they are the kinds of spaces string theory says would exist in our universe but when people first realised this there were no known examples, no tools for the job, it was next to impossible to even define them properly. Now we're a little closer thanks to the absolute genius of people like Hitchin and Joyce, but work continues.

If you find the mathematical methods present in current research lacking then invent your own. Of course you'll have to prove them consistent and viable, which can be a lifetime of work in itself.

Great. This is truly more than I know about quantum mechanicsWhat I said was in relation to general relativity actually.

but I probably have those notes already in Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.Unlikely, as half of the notes cover things done in the 1973 publication of MTW. Not to mention the fact you obviously haven't read MTW or even introductory books suggested as prerequisites for such a book. For instance, the lecture notes include the proof of the positive energy theorem due to Witten, which itself involves spinors in curved space-time and thus uses vierbeins. Given you were completely unfamiliar with my previous comment on them its clear there's major holes in your knowledge on things you tend to try to preach about.

Just to make it clear that negative comment about you is not because you're claiming to put forth new work but because you're trying to pass yourself off as knowledgeable on subjects you aren't. Though I can't guarantee I'll be 100% pleasant I'm more likely to be nice to people who are honest when they pitch their pet theories than those who aren't.

Right now, I'm spending far more time that I had hoped in finding someone who understands simple dimensional analysis who could help verify and further extend the basic principles of the theory.I'm familiar with dimensional analysis, as should anyone who didn't sleep through high school physics. It gets used in mainstream physics all the time, such as when you want to convert from 'natural units' to SI units in quantum field theory or relativity or if you want to derive the form of Newtonian gravitational force.

The issue isn't that people fail to meet your intellectual requirements, it is rather the reverse.

I do not claim to be a cold fusion expert. I read the news like most others. Here is a fairly recent article.If cold fusion were a practical reality the US wouldn't be so worried about oil security. The world wouldn't be pouring money into renewable energy sources. There wouldn't be issues with building new generation fission reactors in the UK. There wouldn't be a crisis about global warming. A clean unlimited (for all intents and purposes) concentrated energy supply would solve our energy needs and as a result our recycling issues. Part of the issue with recycling certain types of materials is that while its possible in principle it takes a huge amount of energy. Then there's water, its predicted at least 1/3 of the Earth's population will be experiencing water scarcity by 2050. Desalination is possible but it has huge energy requirements. Slap a cold fusion reactor in your desalination plant and you'd have no problems at all and all the water you need.

If cold fusion were a reality, ie achievable (and achieved) with current technology, it would change the world economically, politically and environmentally. It would solve quite a few of the reasons people go to war, resources like oil, water and many minerals, and while that wouldn't rid us of war it'd certainly stabilise a lot of the issues various regions have. The fact this isn't already happening is reason enough to deduce your claims are false, without having to even search the nuclear physics research literature.

Despite people pointing to the Sun and their chalkboards and saying, "look, it works," nobody knows how it works. Several very expensive prototypes have been built and basically the only result has been very expensive welders. We know how hot fusion works. The hydrogen nuclear weapon is an example of what goes on in the Sun every second of every day, but on a much larger scale. Uncontrolled hot fusion is ease but it tends to destroy everything within a few miles. To generate power the energy has to be released in a controlled way, which means you have to maintain high temperatures and pressures over long periods of time in a controlled manner.

Its the same with petrol. Your car burns petrol in a controlled manner, allowing the steady release of energy which drives the wheels. Release the energy too quickly and the car explodes. People knew oil burns easily and strongly in the time of the Ancient Greeks but it wasn't until the industrial revolution people managed to do it in a controlled fashion.

I'm still waiting for you to show the slightest bit of interest in my work rather than tempt me to provide you with targets for shooting practice.
I cannot show interest in something you do not present.

Your nonsense about me plagiarizing Casimir's work because I provided a necessary correction and transposed it into a Newtonian type magnetic force equation,
Firstly Newton didn't do anything with electromagnetism. Secondly the \frac{1}{r^{2}} nature of the electric field is not synonymous with the \frac{1}{r^{2}} nature of the magnetic field. You'd need magnetic point charges for that and we've never seen such things, magnetic fields are created by moving electric charges, ala Maxwell's equations. And the standard force equation involving magnetic fields is Lorentz's force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force), \mathbf{F} = q(\mathbf{E} + \mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}) (where \times is the vector cross product). That's not what you presented.

And if you really are a physicist and have access to science libraries, please find me a copy of Hendrick Casimir's work where he derived his famous Casimir force equation.
I work for a private research company, which doesn't have access to online journals (we occasionally buy specific articles though). One does not need to be in a university to do science. And its not my job to justify your arguments, the onus is on you. You claimed Casimir was mistaken in his work but by your own admission you haven't read his original work! You simply disagree with the form of the result, though you cannot present your own derivation, only say "I'm going to change this in an ad hoc way". That isn't justification. That is not science.

It would be instructive to see how he predicted the existence of the force several decades before we had the technology to prove it.
He paid attention in school, read a lot, thought a lot, discussed ideas with other people, was willing to correct himself when he made mistakes and he was intellectually honest. Give that a try.

When you are ready to come down to Earth and engage me like a gentleman
Tell you what, I'll do that when you practice what you preach. I disagreed with you and you call me an 'armchair physicist' which was both untrue and hypocritical. You can't whine about my tone when you have no qualms about simply making things up about people and being a hypocrite.

I would be willing to show my calculation of the anti-neutrino angular momentum based upon the electron and proton angular momenta, or showing my 1s electron orbital binding energy equation for all elements from lithium to uranium, or my calculated correction of the neutron magnetic moment, or my new analysis of what a photon energy packet really is, my quantification of the Aether unit, my predictions for the angular momenta of the proton and neutron (surprisingly missing from NIST) or one of several other original works.
Don't you have all this written up already? Why can't you just provide a link? If I'm wrong about you then the best way thing to do is put me in my place by providing all the things I don't believe you have. That's all any crank has to do to shut me up and thus far not one has managed it.

Aether Wizard

09-11-10, 12:02 PM

Thinking of things in terms of matrices and vectors and the like isn't narrowing ones views, its a powerful tool.
You completely missed what I said, and you are talking to yourself.

You completely missed the point that the core of what I'm presenting is quantum ******structure******. It is as though you can only see things moving, but cannot see what it is that is doing the movement. And apparently, you don't want to know, either. The foundation of the Aether Physics Model begins with "is" not "does." Why is that so difficult to pick up?

How do you know what current quantum physicists can or can't do when you don't know what the current state of quantum physics is?
Read carefully your own choice of words. You are talking about mechanics (do), not structure (is). The present state of quantum physics has a very feeble model for quantum structure (probability functions, force particles, wave-particle duality, colors, up-down, relativity, etc.).

The Aether Physics Model demonstrates actual geometries, actual spin structures, actual force laws, or in other words, real "physics." (Physics in the sense of measurable phenomena and not poetic expressions.)

No, you're welcome to invent a new kind of mathematics.
I don't have to invent new mathematics. In fact, I can explain quantum structures in terms of very simple mathematics. All I had to do was dimensionally analyze the known physical constants and systems of units to realize an error was made in charge notation, and that there is a second quantifiable type of charge (magnetic charge) present in each subatomic particle.

Since I am not describing the behavior of things, but rather their structures, I don't need to use calculus. Everything can be expressed in terms of length, time, mass, charges, and curvature.

This does not in any way suggest calculus is not needed. These structures do move and calculus is necessary to describe their motions. But I'm not concerned about motions, I'm concerned about structures.

That's partly what physics, particularly theoretical physics, is about. For instance, string theory required (and continues to require) new mathematics to be developed.
String theory actually has a physical basis in reality according to the Aether Physics Model. The APM describes dark matter as strings of mass. The subatomic particle describes as dark matter captured within a quantum rotating magnetic field, thus strings are truly the basis for all physical existence. There are real strings and they are not mathematical inventions.

The major motivating factor in the development of generalised geometry and structures in particular kinds of 7 dimensional manifolds has been the fact that they are the kinds of spaces string theory says would exist in our universe but when people first realised this there were no known examples, no tools for the job, it was next to impossible to even define them properly. Now we're a little closer thanks to the absolute genius of people like Hitchin and Joyce, but work continues.
I haven't taken the time to follow String Theory in depth. My focus is on quantum structure, not quantum mechanics. I'm familiar with the names because I have read the generalized articles describing in layman's terms what the theory proposes to do. Mostly, I have read the editorials of Brian Greene (sp?).

If you find the mathematical methods present in current research lacking then invent your own.
Stop being so defensive and hurt. I'm not attacking you or the present math. I'm trying to explain to you that I developed a model for quantum structure with very simple math. I have filled in a major void in physics by mathematically (geometrically and dimensionally) describing the quantum structures underlying the physical Universe.

Just to make it clear that negative comment about you is not because you're claiming to put forth new work but because you're trying to pass yourself off as knowledgeable on subjects you aren't. Though I can't guarantee I'll be 100% pleasant I'm more likely to be nice to people who are honest when they pitch their pet theories than those who aren't.
You are not hurting my feelings at all. I ignore the pissing stuff and stay focused on the science. Your perceptions of dishonesty have nothing to do with me, but are strictly a result of what you want to see in others. It reflects your own character.

I'm familiar with dimensional analysis, as should anyone who didn't sleep through high school physics.
I am sure you are. If we can focus on dimensional analysis, and not wander off into the calculus of motions and probabilities, then we can systematically work through the Aether Physics Model and see if it makes any sense.

Actually, there is room for calculus within the Aether unit since the Aether unit (and the Gforce driving it) are dynamic structures. I haven't gone there, yet.

If cold fusion were a practical reality the US wouldn't be so worried about oil security.
Who really knows what the US thinks? It isn't even clear who is in charge. Forget cold fusion as an energy source, thorium reactors are the way to go.

The world wouldn't be pouring money into renewable energy sources. Yes they would. Renewable energy has nothing to do with economics or science, it is what is deemed to be politically correct at the time. We even have environmentalists who want to install solar power in the deserts and other environmentalists who are preventing solar power because of turtle habitat.

The viability of cold fusion is completely irrelevant in this discussion. We are discussing the physics of the Universe, whether they are economically viable, politically correct, or whatever.

If cold fusion were a reality, ie achievable (and achieved) with current technology, it would change the world economically, politically and environmentally.
Right, and if travel to Mars were possible, we would already be there, but we aren't, so travel to Mars is not possible. Physics has nothing to do with the decisions people make regarding which physical processes to develop and which to use. Physics is pure science about how the Universe works. Thorium technology was discovered before uranium and plutonium technology, but because it didn't produce weapons grade materials, it was scrubbed. Now there is so much investment in uranium technology that presently operating plants are not ready to convert to the much cleaner and safer thorium technology.

We know how hot fusion works. The hydrogen nuclear weapon is an example of what goes on in the Sun every second of every day, but on a much larger scale.
Nonsense. The physics underlying the hydrogen bomb are not fully understood, otherwise we would have working hot fusion prototypes by now. It is one thing to throw a little tritium and/or deuterium into a fission reaction and get fusion, it is a different thing to understand and control that fusion reaction. We simply do not yet know how fusion reactions work, even if we know what ingredients to throw into the pot.

Its the same with petrol. Your car burns petrol in a controlled manner, allowing the steady release of energy which drives the wheels. Release the energy too quickly and the car explodes.
This is not an accurate description, either. The chemical structure of the gasoline is important, but so also is the technology for containing the explosion. Gasoline would do nothing to move the car if the carburetor, cylinder timing, cylinder volume, exhaust timing, exhaust pressure, and numerous other factors were not properly engineered.

Also, gasoline does not cause cars to explode. Exploding cars are a Hollywood stunt effect created with dynamite and other powerful explosives. Throw a match into a gas tank and it will ignite quickly and burn hot, for sure, but it will not blast the car to the other side of the parking lot or cause parts to otherwise leave the vehicle. I know this for a fact. I have been in a car that burned. It is just a muffled puff and an increase in heat. That is the way gasoline is designed to burn.

I cannot show interest in something you do not present.
And I will not spend time presenting something you do not show a genuine interest in, because it is already available in print form on the Internet whenever you decide to read it.

Secrets of the Aether (http://www.secrets-of-the-aether.com/)
Electron Binding Energy (http://www.16pi2.com/files/Electron_binding_energy_equation.pdf)
Unified Force Theory (http://www.unified-force-theory.com/)

Firstly Newton didn't do anything with electromagnetism.
Did I say he did? Have you never heard the phrase "Newtonian type" before?

Secondly the \frac{1}{r^{2}} nature of the electric field is not synonymous with the \frac{1}{r^{2}} nature of the magnetic field. You'd need magnetic point charges for that and we've never seen such things, magnetic fields are created by moving electric charges, ala Maxwell's equations.
We have never seen an electric point charge, either! So what is your point?

Are you saying that because you don't know the physics for quantifying magnetic charge that it doesn't exist? And as for the quantification of the magnetic field being described as a moving charged particle, that is clearly insufficient. There are no moving electrons in a permanent magnet. If there were, we could tap permanent magnets for unlimited energy source.

Also, the electron has magnetic moment, so what causes its magnetic field surrounding the electron if the electron is sitting still?

Also, charge is not a point. It is a surface. Electrons might be called point particles relative to macro objects, but electrons have surface, which is where the charge is. You charge up a sphere and then look on the surface for gaps between charges... there aren't any gaps. The charge may have a gradient, but it is a smooth gradient... no gaps.

And the standard force equation involving magnetic fields is Lorentz's force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force), \mathbf{F} = q(\mathbf{E} + \mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}) (where \times is the vector cross product). That's not what you presented.
That is very disingenuous of you. You called me a liar and plagiarist when I transposed Casimir's force equation to the strong force law for the electron (which I had independently derived before analyzing Casimir's equation). Now you are expecting me to "plagiarize" Maxwell's equations?

And its not my job to justify your arguments,
But it is your job to attack my work with the silliest of nonsense with excessive rudeness? That's why I keep my eye out for a serious scientist. I'm looking for someone who doesn't have an agenda and who can see past personalities and look directly at the science. A real scientist (whether they have a PhD or not) would look at my work and see whether the theory agrees with the data and whether the theory can be put to practical use.

the onus is on you. I don't feel it. I offer what I have to offer. If you don't want to look at it, then don't.

You claimed Casimir was mistaken in his work but by your own admission you haven't read his original work!
Apparently, nobody has! If Casimir had written a paper showing how he derived his equation, then why isn't it in the public domain, or at the very least, an abstract explaining where the paper can be found?

I disagreed with you and you call me an 'armchair physicist' which was both untrue and hypocritical.
Like you have said, I merely reported the facts as they were presented to me. You exhibit no behavior suggesting you are a real scientists, so I assume you are not a real scientist. What is good for you, is good for me.

Don't you have all this written up already? Why can't you just provide a link?
I provided the links in a previous message, and again in this message. At least now I can post the whole unbroken link because I have posted more than 20 times to this forum. And for that, I thank you!

AlphaNumeric

09-12-10, 10:32 AM

You completely missed the point that the core of what I'm presenting is quantum ******structure******. It is as though you can only see things moving, but cannot see what it is that is doing the movement. And apparently, you don't want to know, either. The foundation of the Aether Physics Model begins with "is" not "does." Why is that so difficult to pick up?
There's more to mainstream physics than just 'does', you're not presenting or considering any kind of notion which is alien to physics.

You are talking about mechanics (do), not structure (is). The present state of quantum physics has a very feeble model for quantum structure (probability functions, force particles, wave-particle duality, colors, up-down, relativity, etc.).
Again I ask you why you think you're in a position to evaluate current physics when you don't know any of it?

The Aether Physics Model demonstrates actual geometries, actual spin structures, actual force laws, or in other words, real "physics." (Physics in the sense of measurable phenomena and not poetic expressions.)
Ah yes, the "Current physics isn't 'real physics'" argument. You haven't taken the time to find out what current physics says and the pop science Wiki articles you've read you don't understand therefore you reach the conclusion that since you don't understand the concepts the concepts aren't 'real physics'.

Its an argument from ignorance.

I don't have to invent new mathematics. In fact, I can explain quantum structures in terms of very simple mathematics. All I had to do was dimensionally analyze the known physical constants and systems of units to realize an error was made in charge notation, and that there is a second quantifiable type of charge (magnetic charge) present in each subatomic particle.
Magnetic 'charge' is not a new concept. As I mentioned many posts ago Dirac considered magnetic charge more than 70 years ago. The concept likely goes back further because Maxwell's equations have a clear 'gap' in them in that they include electric charges but not magnetic charges, despite linking electric and magnetic phenomena. And not only is it considered in electromagnetism and quantum electrodynamics but the generalisation is common place in such things as Yang-Mills theory and string theory. Generalised Maxwell Lagrangians (ie including a magnetic charge) are invariant under the pair of exchanges e^{2} \leftrightarrow -\frac{1}{e^{2}}, F_{\mu\nu} \leftrightarrow \ast F_{\mu\nu}, its known as Seiberg duality, linking a weakly coupled theory to a strongly coupled one (if e^{2} is small then its negative inverse is big or vice versa). This extended into a continuous symmetry in other gauge theories. It is extended even further into a string duality, linking the various kinds of string theory, known as S duality.

If you wish I can go into painfully detailed specifically, I have written two papers on the subject.

Since I am not describing the behavior of things, but rather their structures, I don't need to use calculus.
How do you describe the structure (ie the layout) of something if you can't describe locations? General relativity is the study of the structure of space-time, as well as the motion of things in space-time. The entire issue of compact dimensions in string theory is about the structure the space-time takes on, never mind how things then move in it. All the stuff to do with Calabi-Yau manifolds is primarily to do with what structure such spaces have.

Everything can be expressed in terms of length, time, mass, charges, and curvature.
Define, precisely, what you mean by 'curvature' without using anything quantitative. I believe you're just spouting buzzwords you don't understand the origin of because 'curvature' is something which needs precise definition as there's many different ways you can talk about such a thing. Intrinsic curvature, extrinsic curvature, the Riemann curvature tensor, Gaussian curvature, all of them relate to the warping of something but if you don't pin down your definition you're just waving your arms.

String theory actually has a physical basis in reality according to the Aether Physics Model.
Citation needed.

The APM describes dark matter as strings of mass.
Citation needed.

There are real strings and they are not mathematical inventions.
Where does string theory say strings aren't real?

I haven't taken the time to follow String Theory in depth.
You haven't taken the time to follow physics in depth. And even if you'd paid attention in physics class its next to impossible to follow string theory in anything more than the most superficial way without considerable knowledge of relativity and quantum field theory.

My focus is on quantum structure, not quantum mechanics.
My entire PhD thesis was on the structure of space-time on scales far smaller than any quantum mechanics can describe. That's what most string theory research is on! You're not presenting anything new on even a conceptual level and you're certainly not presenting anything on a quantitative level to justify your claims.

Stop being so defensive and hurt.
How am I 'hurt'? I don't take you seriously, I don't think you've got anything of merit to present. How can I be hurt by someone I consider a hack? You aren't shaking my foundations or making me question anything, you're just presenting unjustified naive assertions on things you then demonstrate you don't know.

. I'm trying to explain to you that I developed a model for quantum structure with very simple math.
How about you stop telling me what you've done and you actually show what you've done. Its easy to say "I've got the answer to that question", even when you don't.

Actually, there is room for calculus within the Aether unit since the Aether unit (and the Gforce driving it) are dynamic structures. I haven't gone there, yet.
Your comments about not needing calculus, as if its only used to describe 'mechanics' shows how little physics you've looked at.

Renewable energy has nothing to do with economics or science
Now you're just denying reality.

The viability of cold fusion is completely irrelevant in this discussion.
So you now admit its not viable, as a result of you now realising it hasn't been done?

Right, and if travel to Mars were possible, we would already be there, but we aren't, so travel to Mars is not possible.
Flawed logic. Cold fusion would economically be a gold mine. Why would large power companies be worrying about spending billions on huge power stations and future energy security if cold fusion was easily doable? Your analogy doesn't work, as we do have the technology to go to Mars but it is so enormously expensive for so little gain its not going forward in any serious way. Money makes the world go around and if you could save an energy company hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few decades they'd be beating a path to you. If the Navy could do cold fusion why build large, expensive, radioactive, environmentally dangerous power plants on their aircraft carriers? Why not make use of the technology to lower costs and allowing more room on the carriers for personnel and equipment? Or submarines, which are extremely cramped at the best of times. If you could build a comparable power plant even 20% smaller than the current ones which power nuclear subs the Navy would be all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake. But they aren't. So what does that tell you about the present state of cold fusion?

Nonsense. The physics underlying the hydrogen bomb are not fully understood
You should really read some textbooks, the fact you don't know doesn't mean others don't.

We can test our understanding of fusion processes in many ways. The most obvious being the fact we can build fusion weapons, though it is a little crude. The fusion processes in the Sun provide all kinds of ways to test our understanding such as the neutrino emissions from the core, the energy output, emission spectra across many different frequency bands, the electromagnetic fields (which also produce sunspots), nova stars, supernova stars, solar wind and plenty more. Models which aren't consistent with these observations are wrong and any model which can accurately describe these phenomena is thus very stringently tested. The understanding we've gained from doing experiments leads to models of the Sun which then dovetail with the observations of the Sun to a very high accuracy. Yes, this doesn't mean they are perfectly correct but they at least give us a very good understanding of how the Sun works. Certainly we understand the processes in fusion weapons, which are significantly simpler than the processes in stars.

otherwise we would have working hot fusion prototypes by now.
I told you before, its not that we don't understand the underlying processes but rather that we have insufficient technological know-how to artificially produce and control the kinds of environments needed to fuse elements together on a large scale.

Knowing the principles and putting them into practice are two entirely different things.

Gasoline would do nothing to move the car if the carburetor, cylinder timing, cylinder volume, exhaust timing, exhaust pressure, and numerous other factors were not properly engineered.
Precisely my point, its the implementation of the principles which is the issue with fusion power, not the principles themselves. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Also, gasoline does not cause cars to explode. Exploding cars are a Hollywood stunt effect created with dynamite and other powerful explosives. Throw a match into a gas tank and it will ignite quickly and burn hot, for sure, but it will not blast the car to the other side of the parking lot or cause parts to otherwise leave the vehicle. I know this for a fact. I have been in a car that burned. It is just a muffled puff and an increase in heat. That is the way gasoline is designed to burn.I didn't say 'blast to the other side of a parking lot'. An 'explosion' is a rapid combustion of a flammable material which produces significant quantities of highly pressured gas, which then expands rapidly. The point where the fuel tank ignites is an explosion, just not generally the kind you see in films.

Have you never heard the phrase "Newtonian type" before?Newtonian type of what? Newtonian force? Newtonian mechanics? Newtonian principle? Newtonian polytope? The inverse square law isn't 'Newtonian', its a more general principle.

We have never seen an electric point charge, either! So what is your point?You've heard of electrons, right?

Are you saying that because you don't know the physics for quantifying magnetic charge that it doesn't exist?Where did I say physics can't quantify the notion of magnetic charge? I've said precisely the opposite on more than one occasion, the notion of magnetic charges is more than a century old.

And as for the quantification of the magnetic field being described as a moving charged particle, that is clearly insufficient. There are no moving electrons in a permanent magnet. If there were, we could tap permanent magnets for unlimited energy source. The electrons don't have to 'flow' like in a conductor to produce a magnetic field. The origin of magnetism in things like iron is to do with the structure of the electron orbital energy levels. The electrons can be regarded, on a very superficial level, as moving in those orbitals and this produces the macroscopic effect of magnetism. Though they don't possess classical angular momentum (in the sense of spinning like a top) electrons possess quantum angular momentum and this has the same effect as the classical notion, it produces a magnetic field and thus the electron has a magnetic moment (this is not the same as a magnetic charge).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism#Sources_of_magnetism

Also, the electron has magnetic moment, so what causes its magnetic field surrounding the electron if the electron is sitting still?
Ah, so you know about magnetic moments yet you still said what I just responded to? (I reply to posts one section at a time, so I typed the above response before reading the fact you've heard of magnetic moments)

Electrons don't sit still in their orbitals. Either you haven't bothered to find out what they do or you have and you misunderstood the fact quantum mechanics says the electron orbitals are time independent. The region in which an electron is to be found is time independent but the location of the electron is not.

Also, charge is not a point. It is a surface.
Citation needed.

which I had independently derived before analyzing Casimir's equation
So why didn't you show me your original derivation? That's what I wanted, to see you derive a result from your own set of initial postulates. Instead you skipped that and just said "I changed this equation someone else did".

Can you derive your result without reference to anything in the mainstream?

Now you are expecting me to "plagiarize" Maxwell's equations?
If you can provide a completely new derivation of any known result like Maxwell's equations then its not plagiarism as you demonstrate you can accurately model electromagnetism. But you didn't do that, you just took someone else's result and changed it in an ad hoc manner.

String theory can derive the Einstein Field Equations in a way completely different to how general relativity does it, thus it is not only not plagiarism its a good motivation for thinking string theory might be viable. In fact any theory of everything must be able to construct, in some suitable limit, known results like electromagnetism or Newtonian gravity, as those models are known to be accurate descriptions of reality in certain domains so any new model of those domains must make the same predictions. In order for me to accept that your work can describe electromagnetism you must show a complete derivation, from postulate to prediction, and then demonstrate you have a result which is very very close to Maxwell's equations. If your result were different from Maxwell's equations by more than a tiny fraction the model is falsified as you'd not be able to accurately model electromagnetism.

Please note that I'm not saying "If your work differs in any way from any current models then you're wrong" but instead I'm saying "We know current model X explains phenomenon Y to an error of less than Z%. If your model disagrees with X about phenomenon Y by more than Z% then the model is wrong as you disagree with experiments."

But it is your job to attack my work with the silliest of nonsense with excessive rudeness?
When you demonstrate you've got more to say than naive ignorance then I'll stop treating you as naive and ignorant.

I'm looking for someone who doesn't have an agenda
Someone unlike yourself then? What you're really looking for is someone who doesn't know enough physics to know you don't know enough physics. That's why you went to your local congressman after competent research groups turned you down, you have failed to convince people whose business is science so you try to get in the back door.

Apparently, nobody has! If Casimir had written a paper showing how he derived his equation, then why isn't it in the public domain, or at the very least, an abstract explaining where the paper can be found?
Because journals from the 1940s and 1950s are hard to find, given they are not digitized and few universities have records going that far back.

As it happens though you can find it and its very very easy to find. The Wikipedia page on the Casimir force has as its first two references a paper by Casimir and Polder where they show classically there should be no force and the paper by Casimir where he derives the force quantum field theory says should exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Papers.2C_books_and_lectures
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v73/i4/p360_1
http://www.historyofscience.nl/search/detail.cfm?pubid=2642&view=image&startrow=1

First references on the first Google hit for 'Casimir'. You obviously didn't try very hard.

. You exhibit no behavior suggesting you are a real scientists, so I assume you are not a real scientist.
So because I don't suffer fools gladly and you have failed to justify your position and I'm willing to say as much then that makes me not a scientist? Unlike you there's more to my science research than a self made website or posts on internet forums. This thread (and this forum) is not a place I discuss my work, thus the fact you see nothing from me which resembles research is not a sign I do no science research. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the work I do and the things I post on forums are two entirely different things. Any serious scientist isn't going to do his work through the medium of forum discussion, I don't post my day to day results and work, I write them on paper, keep them in folders, type up results into papers or into documents for my employer. None of the other people on this forum who are postgrad or postdoc researchers post their day to day work here or even anything more than occasional points where its relevant to a pre-existing discussion or when they have specific queries about something. In fact someone who does present his 'research' in the manner of forum posts I'd be very very suspicious of.

Aether Wizard

09-12-10, 01:14 PM

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v73/i4/p360_1
http://www.historyofscience.nl/search/detail.cfm?pubid=2642&view=image&startrow=1
I don't do wickedpedia for physics. In fact, I completely avoid the site altogether.

Thanks for these links. It was exactly what I was looking for, but wasn't able to find in 2002, when I was doing the research. Apparently, this information has been made available online since then. BTW, the complete Phys Rev article can be found at:
Casimir Article (http://www.mit.edu/~kardar/research/seminars/Casimir/PR-CasimirPolder48.pdf)

After reading the paper, it appears the reason Casimir's equation was slightly off was because he only calculated the perturbation energy to the fourth order, which is still a good approximation.

The whole concept of "perturbation energy" is another way of saying, "there is more affecting the plates than electrostatic charge dipoles." And that is exactly what I am saying. The charge affecting the plates is not the electrostatic dipole, but rather the magnetic dipole of the electrons.

Here is the last paragraph of Casimir's article:

"The very simple form of eq (56) and the analogous formula (25) suggest that it might be possible to derive these expressions, perhaps apart from the numerical factors, by more elementary considerations. This would be desirable since it would also give a more physical background to our result, a result which in our opinion is rather remarkable. So far we have not been able to find such a simple argument."
Well, sir know-it-all with the PhD, I have found the simple argument Casimir was looking for. Does that open your eyes any?

AlphaNumeric

09-12-10, 04:56 PM

After reading the paper, it appears the reason Casimir's equation was slightly off was because he only calculated the perturbation energy to the fourth order, which is still a good approximation.And how quantitatively good is it? Anyone whose done quantum field theory will know that 4th order is a pretty good calculation. You have changed his result by more than 1% which is of lower order, ie contradicts the accuracy he's determined. The expansion parameter is e^{2}, which when you do the usual reformulation into the fine structure constant is known as \alpha. His calculation goes to order \alpha^{2} and since \alpha \sim \frac{1}{137} the result is roughly accurate to parts per thousand. You changed his result by parts per hundred so your results are not consistent with his as he's gone to higher accuracy. You originally claims he might have made a mistake or not calculated to the precise value but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Furthermore, as I originally suspected, the factors of \pi are due to standard integral arguments and this even if your numerical value was not outside the accuracy of Casimir's calculation your result is entirely incompatible with the geometric construction of the result. No doubt you fail to grasp this as you're likely completely unfamiliar with such things as spherical integrals.

The whole concept of "perturbation energy" is another way of saying, "there is more affecting the plates than electrostatic charge dipoles." And that is exactly what I am saying. The charge affecting the plates is not the electrostatic dipole, but rather the magnetic dipole of the electrons.Once again you attempt to have the appearance of understanding but you really don't.

Perturbative methods are common place throughout the entirety of physics, they are based on the same principle as a Taylor expansion in calculus. Its often possible to compute the value of something like energy at a particular place in space-time or value of a coupling (like zero coupling) and then the value of the energy for non-zero couplings can be obtained by doing a Taylor expansion in terms of the coupling. This is also the principle used in the Feynman diagram construction of many quantum field theory processes. Doing an expansion in a given coupling and truncating it at a specified order is not going to be exactly right but that doesn't mean the bit you left out was due to some other kind of coupling. Other types of couplings would have entirely different perturbative energy expansions, as any sort of multi-variable function would.

Well, sir know-it-all with the PhD, I have found the simple argument Casimir was looking for. Does that open your eyes any? You haven't provided your own derivation though, you just took his result and changed it. That isn't providing a new derivation or a simpler argument, its just cheating and dishonest.

The paper only weakens your argument, as it contradicts your numerical 'result' and the algebraic factorisation you put forth.

I take it from your lack of reply to my previous post that you concede that magnetic charges are not new concept, that cold fusion isn't a practical reality, that structure is an important concept in physics, that fusion models have undergone a lot of experimental testing, that magnetism in ferromagnetic materials doesn't need magnetic charges and that you can't justify any of your flat assertions about what APM says about string theory or dark matter?

I just want to clarify that before you change the subject again.

Aether Wizard

09-12-10, 05:53 PM

And how quantitatively good is it? ... You originally claims he might have made a mistake or not calculated to the precise value but that doesn't appear to be the case.
When you consider Steve Lamoreaux tested the theory and found the equation to be accurate to within 5% of measured values, and my equation is accurate to within 2% of measured value, then that suggests there is room for error in Casimir's equation. Whether I am correct or not can only be determined through further examination by qualified scientists. Since you choose not to properly examine my work, you are not qualified to judge my work and I will keep waiting until I get my fair hearing.

Furthermore, as I originally suspected, the factors of \pi are due to standard integral arguments and this even if your numerical value was not outside the accuracy of Casimir's calculation your result is entirely incompatible with the geometric construction of the result. No doubt you fail to grasp this as you're likely completely unfamiliar with such things as spherical integrals.
That is exactly why I don't trust calculus in physics. You make it sound like physical reality depends upon numerical math tools, that somehow the Universe won't otherwise function.

The simplicity of my equation, which was derived directly from the symmetrical analysis of the gravitational and electrostatic force equations, shows a physical basis for the Casimir force, which is what Casimir was hoping to find. Further, my equation shows the Casimir force is a fundamental force and is not based upon the electrostatic charge, which Casimir used as a basis for his equations.

Perturbative methods are common place throughout the entirety of physics, they are based on the same principle as a Taylor expansion in calculus.
Naturally, perturbative methods would be common-place since all of modern physics are based upon the incorrect notation of charges, and the error of not identifying the magnetic charge as a separate quantum dimension of subatomic particles (which is different from the electrostatic charge). When the foundations of physics are corrected, many of the normalization, statistical, and perturbative methods will no longer be necessary.

You haven't provided your own derivation though, you just took his result and changed it. That isn't providing a new derivation or a simpler argument, its just cheating and dishonest.
The real dishonesty is in your not taking the time to read the principles behind my presentation of the Unified Force Theory. If you had, you would see how the force affecting magnetic charge is applied to the electron and how it could be transformed into the Casimir equation.

I take it from your lack of reply to my previous post that you concede that magnetic charges are not new concept, that cold fusion isn't a practical reality, that structure is an important concept in physics, that fusion models have undergone a lot of experimental testing, that magnetism in ferromagnetic materials doesn't need magnetic charges and that you can't justify any of your flat assertions about what APM says about string theory or dark matter?
Actually, it is me keeping to my word not to join you in your pissing contest. Since you lack integrity as a practicing scientist, and even though you may well have a paper degree, it is not worth responding to your immature and off-topic rants.

For the record, it is my quantification of the magnetic charge as a dimension which is missing in modern physics. I fully agree that magnetic charge as a concept has been discussed ever since Coulomb devised the electrostatic force law and suspected there was a similar law for magnetic force. Also, various scientists through the past couple centuries have used the phrase "magnetic charge" in a general sense, but none of them ever figured out how to quantify it as a dimension for use in units. Again, this quantification of magnetic charge is my unique contribution.

Also, your discussion about the viability of cold fusion is off topic. It is a topic for politics. What we are discussing is physics. The question is, "Is cold fusion a natural process of nature?" Since it is being produced and replicated in reputable laboratories, it is clear that cold fusion is indeed a natural process of nature.

Also, it is not a question of whether the scientists need magnetic charges to quantify magnetism, the question is whether or not magnetic charge is a natural phenomenon in nature, and, if so, how is it quantified and used in physics? You are satisfied to get approximate results by using relativistic electrostatic charge equations (which are dimensionally incorrect). It's a free world (for now), you can do what you want. Does your ignorance of magnetic charge mean that magnetic charge does not exist? No. It just means you choose to be ignorant. Go for it.

And yes, I can justify my assertion about the APM supporting the existence of strings of matter as being the structure of dark matter and one of the basic ingredients of visible matter. How to interpret strings of matter using dimensional analysis is explained in my book, Secrets of the Aether. But is it worth reposting here? Not if you are the one I'm posting it for. Despite your paper degree, you have demonstrated only that you have serious communications challenges and are scientifically dysfunctional.

I just want to clarify that before you change the subject again.I haven't changed the subject. I'm staying on topic. You started by asking me to provide just one example of my work. I presented the example of how my strong force equation for the electron transposed to the Casimir equation and was more accurate than Casimir's derivation.

AlphaNumeric

09-15-10, 05:02 PM

When you consider Steve Lamoreaux tested the theory and found the equation to be accurate to within 5% of measured values, and my equation is accurate to within 2% of measured value, then that suggests there is room for error in Casimir's equation. That isn't what I was referring to. You say that fourth order is a good approximation but you don't make any attempt to consider how good. As I explained, typical 4th order (or second order in \alpha) corrections are into the parts per thousand.

You seem to be misunderstanding what the 5% means. It doesn't mean that Casimir was close but not exact, it means that the current error bars in the experimental measurements are about 5%. For instance, if a measurement comes out to be 100 with 5% error then it means (typically) that the statistical analysis of results lead to a 95% confidence that the true exact value of what it being measured is between 95 and 105.

Your 'result' (which I have already explained isn't your result so you can't claim its a verification of aether's viability) isn't superior to Casimir's, as its not possible to check predictions to a sufficient accuracy.

There isn't room to just change Casimir's result as you did. As I originally commented, the factors of pi come from specific arguments involving spherical integrals and thus even if Casimir's result isn't exact you can only alter it in such a way as to maintain the structure of the pi factors, unless you can provide a full, from the ground up, derivation of your result. Casimir's derivation doesn't allow for your arbitrary change, you are going to have to derive your result properly.

you are not qualified to judge my workI clearly am, you just dismiss me because I'm not telling you what you want to hear.

That is exactly why I don't trust calculus in physics. Then you're just ignorant of the role is plays. Furthermore I suspect you're just trying to make excuses, to yourself more than anyone else, as to why you don't know any calculus.

You make it sound like physical reality depends upon numerical math tools, that somehow the Universe won't otherwise function.
No, I'm not saying that. Your comment betrays how little physics reading you've actually done, as you don't even understand the ethos and position of mathematics in physics.

he simplicity of my equation, which was derived directly from the symmetrical analysis of the gravitational and electrostatic force equations
Except that neither forces really obey the \frac{1}{r^{2}} law exactly, its just a simplification for people who don't want to or can't do the details. Its common for hacks to cling to high school level concepts, as its easier for them to understand, while ignoring that high school physics or science in general is only a first approximation to actual physics.

GR is superior to Newtonian gravity in every say and its not expressed as an inverse square gravitational force. Same goes for QED and electromagnetism. And certainly for the strong force, which doesn't exhibit an inverse square law as even a simple approximation.

which is what Casimir was hoping to find.
Every physicists wants to find simpler more elegant approaches, doesn't mean you've provided one.

Naturally, perturbative methods would be common-place since all of modern physics are based upon the incorrect notation of charges, and the error of not identifying the magnetic charge as a separate quantum dimension of subatomic particles (which is different from the electrostatic charge). When the foundations of physics are corrected, many of the normalization, statistical, and perturbative methods will no longer be necessary.
Perturbation methods exist in ALL physics, its a general principle used to simplify things like non-linear dynamics. Name an area of physics and there'll be instances of perturbation methods relating to it. You demonstrate again you've done no reading on the matter as you'd not have said that if you had.

When the foundations of physics are corrected, many of the normalization, statistical, and perturbative methods will no longer be necessary.
Navier-Stokes equations are non-linear and govern the behaviour of fluids. They are the equations which govern fluid flow so no rewriting of quantum theory will get rid of non-linear fluid behaviour and the fact some instances can be solved using perturbative methods.

Since you lack integrity as a practicing scientist
How does asking you to back up your extraordinary claims with evidence mean I lack integrity? You're the one failing to do his research. I get paid to do research, clearly there's other researchers who think my work is worth spending money on, the same can't be said for you.

Also, various scientists through the past couple centuries have used the phrase "magnetic charge" in a general sense, but none of them ever figured out how to quantify it as a dimension for use in units. Again, this quantification of magnetic charge is my unique contribution.
Magnetic charges have been considered for more than a century, you're not doing anything new. Dirac considered magnetic charges and their interplay with electric charges long ago. By making claims without checking the facts you're just digging yourself in deeper.

Also, your discussion about the viability of cold fusion is off topic. It is a topic for politics.
You said it occurred at all temperatures. I asked you to provide evidence. You couldn't.

Its a demonstration you'll state things as fact when you have no basis for them. If you fail on some irrelevant point then it calls into question all the other claims about your work. Claims you have yet to justify either.

which are dimensionally incorrect
Maxwell's equations are dimensionally consistent. You should look up what 'dimensional analysis' is, its a standard method for checking the inconsistency of an equation because if the units don't match the equation is wrong. For instance, the equation E=mc^{2} has units of energy on both sides (or kilograms metres squared per second squared) so is dimensionally consistent. E=mc^{2} + v^{2}t is inconsistent as the units of v^{2}t are not kilograms metres squared per second squared.

Does your ignorance of magnetic charge mean that magnetic charge does not exist? No. It just means you choose to be ignorant. Go for it.
I told you that Dirac considered this stuff in the 1930s, clearly I know about the concept. The electric <-> magnetic charge symmetry is of fundamental importance in string theory, its something I have personal experience with.

You're equating the fact I disagree with you with somehow me disagreeing or not knowing about magnetic charges in mainstream physics. Magnetic charges are not unknown to mainstream physics.

Despite your paper degree, you have demonstrated only that you have serious communications challenges and are scientifically dysfunctional.
Out of wittier responses are you? You haven't seen me do any physics and you've got my ability to do research all figured out? How can you judge my research when you know nothing of it and when you have demonstrated you fail to grasp even mainstream physics and that no one else considers your work 'scientific'. You've been turned down by everyone and rather than accepting it might be your fault you're trying to convince yourself its everyone else. Who are you to judge people's scientific abilities when you have none of your own? Clearly its not just me who thinks your work is crap, so even if I were 'scientifically dysfunctional' that wouldn't do anything to make your work more viable.

If I'm 'scientifically dysfunctional' then what does that say about you, given you've failed to do anything science related even remotely comparable. Now you're just down to 'weasel words' like "paper degree". As it happens my degree is from Cambridge (the British one), about as 'unpaper-like' as you're going to find.

in my book, Secrets of the Aether
Vanity publishing, the refuge of the self deluded.

You started by asking me to provide just one example of my work. I presented the example of how my strong force equation for the electron transposed to the Casimir equation and was more accurate than Casimir's derivation.
As I've explained, you didn't do anything of the sort. But if you don't trust my 'dysfunctional' opinion submit it to a journal for review by people who you can't deny the qualifications of. Oh wait, you did. It failed to pass anyone's analysis.

Maybe its a conspiracy by people with 'paper degrees' to keep you down? Or maybe its just because your work is rubbish.