Aether Physics Model

[Kristophe]

I wasn't sure whether this should go here, or in ATM, but since I'm asking about it, I thought I'd start here.

In a discussion about gravity that cropped up, someone mentioned the "Aether Physics Model". I took a look at their website, and my eyes rolled so far back into my head I'm still trying to find them. I went over all the superfluous junk, but they've come back a couple of times with the Electron Binding Energies calculations on the site.

I can't quite figure out where it's coming from. I literally can't follow along with what the page is saying. I'm sure this site has been covered on these fora before, but I can't find it. Could someone point me in the right direction, or possibly take a look at the page itself to see what I apparently can't?

[antoniseb]

I wasn't sure whether this should go here, or in ATM, but since I'm asking about it, I thought I'd start here.

Until we have someone on board who wants to defend Aether Physics, we can simply address it here in a mainstream context. If I understand correctly, Aether Physics doesn't really predict anything different at current observable energies... but I am no expert.

[Kristophe]

Well, skimming over the page, it doesn't seem to actually predict anything. It makes claims of gravitational dipoles and anti-gravity, but it gets its language confused over and over again (Electron Strong Charge, the word photon used interchangeably with gravitron, etc). The authors also claim that their model predicts the binding energies of the 1s orbitals of all of the elements, but when questioned via email the authors have simply stated that I should "buy the book" (right).

Those calculations that come up with those energies don't seem to show any real rigor, either. As far as I can tell, they've simply redefined a number of variables and used them to come up with new constants. But that's a claim without any rigor backing it on my behalf, since the page honestly just causes my brain to cramp. It feels so wrong I can barely look at it. I don't have the proper background to say why, though, and my text books that could help me along are some 5000 km away at the moment.

I was sure this had been tackled here before, but maybe I'm mistaken. It just seems so familiar. I thought someone could point me to a past discussion and debunking.

[orionjim]

As far as aether models go this looks pretty bad. This page on their site describes the math behind their “bent coat hanger” (my description):
http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/quantumleap.html

They call it quantumleap which must mean the leap in faith you’ll need to believe that nature creates this complicated binding mechanism. Actually if you read farther into their website you will see they believe the only way this can happen is through intelligent design.

From their site: http://www.16pi2.com/gforce.htm

(This is from the link on the upper right side of their page you referenced:
Binding Energies calculations ):

Getting down to the heart of the matter, either God exists, or God does not exist. If God truly does exist and God is the Creator of the physical Universe, then God must be represented in quantum physics. In our book, "Secrets of the Aether," we scientifically explore the connection between God and quantum physics. The discovery of the Gforce is certain to become one of the important arguments for Intelligent Design as it provides solid evidence for God.

You had it pegged!

I would love a discussion on whether aether exists or not; but I don’t think the site you listed would provide any meaningful insight on the subject.

Jim

[Kristophe]

Huh. I hadn't come across that part yet. It's the "Then a Miracle Occurs" comic, re-written as a "serious" website.

[speedfreek]

Always be wary of "theories" that are sold in books, rather than published as papers for peer review.

[trinitree88]

Until we have someone on board who wants to defend Aether Physics, we can simply address it here in a mainstream context. If I understand correctly, Aether Physics doesn't really predict anything different at current observable energies... but I am no expert.

antoniseb. I looked at it cursorily, and note a few things for the authors.

1.The Casimir Effect has nothing to do with the strong force...it is entirely electromagnetic in nature.
2. Neither does the strong force have anything to do with a combination of the weak and electromagnetic forces. The charged weak current is short ranged and has a massive carrier. The electromagnetic force has a massless, infinite range carrier. They are mutually exclusive, but belong to a gauge group.(Glashow, Weinberg, Salaam circa 1978.)
3 The massive Z boson has been predicted and confirmed, along with it's charged partners at all the major accelerator labs. The low energy variants of the Z have been my baliwick for 25 years, and claims to their possible interactions have been enumerated both here and elsewhere, in hard copy print, e-print, and lecture halls before real physicists, at international conferences, where all questions were addressed, too many times to count.
4. The strong force arises naturally out of Quantum Chromodynamics as a shadow of the color force, much in the same manner that virtual photons exchanged between passing helium atoms causes Van Der Waals attractions that are a shadow of the electromagnetic force. For the helium, it means two slow atoms coalesce to liquid drops. For the nucleons, the "strong" shadow of the color force means nuclear binding energy....which was also at one time modeled as a "drop", with the nucleons free to move about, like water molecules in a raindrop.
5. There remains only one model that quantizes gravitational interactions within the confines of the Standard Model, with an identifiable carrier, that interacts with all the members of the Standard Model, without the need for dozens of new particles (supersymmetry), or inflation, or Dark Energy, or Dark Matter, or breaking the hierarchy of conservation laws, and has predicted physical effects that were seen and published.
6. With the recent discovery of ~ 50 % of the missing baryonic matter as highly ionized oxygen, and the anticipation of more baryonic mass being found between x-ray and visible light spectra by the new UV sensors...times look to be interesting indeed.
7. Experts in galactic studies will determine how much the recent Fisher -Tully relationship bends to the discovery that that standard candle has been missing ~ 50 % of the true intrinsic luminosity due to entrained galactic dust.
8 Correlations between an abriged Fisher Tully relationship and the ultra high Z Sne standard candles will be critical to maintaning the status quo of acceleration....hence dark energy.

pete

[volantis]

Until we have someone on board who wants to defend Aether Physics, we can simply address it here in a mainstream context.

I'm the author of the theory. I will gladly answer relevant questions as I have the time available.

If I understand correctly, Aether Physics doesn't really predict anything different at current observable energies... but I am no expert.

The Aether Physics Model makes many predictions starting out with the nature of charge. According to the APM, all charge should always be notated with distributed charge (charge squared), not single dimension charge. Also, there are two distinctly different and quantifiable types of charges, the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic (strong) charge.

The Standard Model states that the electron does not experience the strong force. The Aether Physics Model predicts it does, and in fact, there is already evidence to prove it. The Casimir force equation transposes to the strong force law for the electron. If you would like a quick tutorial of the Aether Physics Model, you can read A New Foundation for Physics. This paper was presented to the PIRT 2006 conference held at Imperial College in London.

It is true that mainstream publications will not allow an Aether theory to be published. This is not a fault of the Aether Physics Model, but of prejudice and bigotry in mainstream science. The theory stands on its own. It is fully and properly quantified. The theory is induced from empirical constants and measured data. There are no presumed postulates.

The Aether Physics Model properly unifies all the forces, something Einstein could not do. As pointed out by others, the APM predicts the ground state electron binding energies of all elements from first principles (modern physics cannot do this). Now we have built a magnetic scalar wave detector, which detects gravitational waves. This is another area of science modern physics fails at. Gravitational waves can only be detected if you are looking at the medium (Aether) in which they travel. The interferometer experiments are doomed to fail because they assume that the fabric of space-time (Aether) does not ripple when the gravitational wave ripples the laser light beam. But, in fact, the Aether does ripple and therefore the deflection of the light beam is cancelled. It is like a stick figure on a sheet of paper trying to determine when the paper is being folded or curled.

Have at it. I'm always looking for the flaws in my work. Maybe you can help me find them.

Dave

[Halcyon Dayz]

It is true that mainstream publications will not allow an Aether theory to be published. This is not a fault of the Aether Physics Model, but of prejudice and bigotry in mainstream science.

Yeah, sure...

Using the word Aether might not have been the smart thing to do then.
Nowadays it just pushes the must-be-woo button with most physicists.

And for good reason.

[tusenfem]

If even Thornhill can get his ridiculous paper on the "electrical nature of comets" and "the Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and electric stars" published (the latter has 13 pages and exactly 0 equations) then I am sure if Aether Physics would write a readable paper with enough foundation, it would be publishable in a peer reviewed journal. Did the PIRT not have proceedings? These days, proceedings are more and more special issues of peer reviewed journals.

It seems like APM is already playing the underdog card, before seriously trying.

[volantis]

It seems like APM is already playing the underdog card, before seriously trying.

It seems like you are already playing the denial card without even looking at the theory. I saw the post saying you folks were interested in discussing the theory. I assumed that meant you were interested in the physics, and not just bashing it with snide remarks. If you are not interested in discussing the physics, I'll leave you to your mindless ranting.

Dave

[John Mendenhall]

I'm the author of the theory. I will gladly answer relevant questions as I have the time available.


The Aether Physics Model makes many predictions starting out with the nature of charge. According to the APM, all charge should always be notated with distributed charge (charge squared), not single dimension charge. Also, there are two distinctly different and quantifiable types of charges, the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic (strong) charge.

The Standard Model states that the electron does not experience the strong force. The Aether Physics Model predicts it does, and in fact, there is already evidence to prove it. The Casimir force equation transposes to the strong force law for the electron. If you would like a quick tutorial of the Aether Physics Model, you can read A New Foundation for Physics. This paper was presented to the PIRT 2006 conference held at Imperial College in London.

It is true that mainstream publications will not allow an Aether theory to be published. This is not a fault of the Aether Physics Model, but of prejudice and bigotry in mainstream science. The theory stands on its own. It is fully and properly quantified. The theory is induced from empirical constants and measured data. There are no presumed postulates.

The Aether Physics Model properly unifies all the forces, something Einstein could not do. As pointed out by others, the APM predicts the ground state electron binding energies of all elements from first principles (modern physics cannot do this). Now we have built a magnetic scalar wave detector, which detects gravitational waves. This is another area of science modern physics fails at. Gravitational waves can only be detected if you are looking at the medium (Aether) in which they travel. The interferometer experiments are doomed to fail because they assume that the fabric of space-time (Aether) does not ripple when the gravitational wave ripples the laser light beam. But, in fact, the Aether does ripple and therefore the deflection of the light beam is cancelled. It is like a stick figure on a sheet of paper trying to determine when the paper is being folded or curled.

Have at it. I'm always looking for the flaws in my work. Maybe you can help me find them.

Dave

That's a strong position. Are you willing to defend your theory on ATM?

Be forewarned, there are a lot of good mainstream people on this forum. You might be wise, if you're willing to go to ATM, to introduce just a small piece at a time of your theory, to avoid being overwhelmed.

Regards, John M.

[trinitree88]

Yeah, sure...

Using the word Aether might not have been the smart thing to do then.
Nowadays it just pushes the must-be-woo button with most physicists.

And for good reason.

Halcyon Dayz. One must remember that Asimov discussed the four correct physical interpretations of the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment in the late 70"s in his book, titled I believe''On Physics"...a blue Hardcover. Only one of the four interpretations was that there is no "ether". The others were to the effect that it was there but was of such a nature that a M-M experiment would not show it for various principle reasons.
So if people jump to "woo" they need to read a bit. To date I've found one typo in all his works. pete.

[volantis]

That's a strong position. Are you willing to defend your theory on ATM?

Be forewarned, there are a lot of good mainstream people on this forum. You might be wise, if you're willing to go to ATM, to introduce just a small piece at a time of your theory, to avoid being overwhelmed.

If anybody is ready to talk science, I'm ready to engage. As I said, I'm always looking for the flaws in my research. One thing I don't have time for, though, are people who make no effort at all to examine the theory and just proselytize what they were taught in school or read in books.

Either the data and equations I used are flawed, or they are not. The theory I present is directly infered from the physics. Perhaps I infered the wrong thing, if so, let's discuss it.

In the meantime, I'm building up an arsenal of working experiments and unique physics formulas that adequately describe and measure the Universe.

Dave

[captain swoop]

It seems the Gforce says 'God Did IT' how can that be scientific?

[trinitree88]

If anybody is ready to talk science, I'm ready to engage. As I said, I'm always looking for the flaws in my research. One thing I don't have time for, though, are people who make no effort at all to examine the theory and just proselytize what they were taught in school or read in books.

Either the data and equations I used are flawed, or they are not. The theory I present is directly infered from the physics. Perhaps I infered the wrong thing, if so, let's discuss it.

In the meantime, I'm building up an arsenal of working experiments and unique physics formulas that adequately describe and measure the Universe.

Dave

volantis. Section 8. The neutron is not a combination of a proton and an electron. Early experiments in the history of beta decay definitively showed that cloud chamber photographs failed to conserve linear momentum in the decay of free neutrons, and in beta decays in general. The neutrino and antineutrino were successfully postulated (Pauli) to explain the missing momentum, and were subsequently verified experimentally ~ 25 years later. Cowan, Rheines).
Subsequent investigations into radioactive decays (the weak force) showed that in strong magnetic fields, there is universally present an inherent asymmetry (parity effects). Perhaps you could elucidate how your aether does that. pete

[volantis]

volantis. Section 8. The neutron is not a combination of a proton and an electron. Early experiments in the history of beta decay definitively showed that cloud chamber photographs failed to conserve linear momentum in the decay of free neutrons, and in beta decays in general. The neutrino and antineutrino were successfully postulated (Pauli) to explain the missing momentum, and were subsequently verified experimentally ~ 25 years later. Cowan, Rheines).

I presume you mean section 11? The Neutron is quantified as a bound electron and proton with captured angular momentum, which is the anti-neutrino. Beta decay clearly shows a neutron decays to a proton and electron and releases a certain quantity of non-visible angular momentum. This non-visible angular momentum has been measured in the Kamiokande experiment in Japan. Reread section 11. It says exactly what you say. We are in agreement but you somehow think we are not.

Subsequent investigations into radioactive decays (the weak force) showed that in strong magnetic fields, there is universally present an inherent asymmetry (parity effects). Perhaps you could elucidate how your aether does that. pete

The parity of matter and antimatter, in both its spin and time reversal modes, is included in the Aether Physics Model. The concept of quantum frequency applies to the frequency of forward-backward time and the frequency of right-left spin. The electrostatic charge dipoles of the Aether are a third frequency dimension, however, this third frequency dimension is static, rather than dynamic. The three frequency dimensions produce eight possible spin positions. Half of these spin positions occur in the backward time direction, which we never see. Of the remaining four forward time spin positions, two are left-spin and two are right-spin. Of the two left-spin spin positions, one is on the positive electrostatic half of the dipole and the other is on the negative electrostatic half of the dipole. The same for the right-spin spin positions. The Aether is constantly oscillating between forward and backward time and right and left spin.

As such, the Aether has three dimensions of length, two dimensions of frequency, and an electrostatic dipole meaning that the Aether has a five-dimensional spatial-temporal structure as opposed to the four-dimensional spatial-temporal structure the physical Universe experiences.

When the five dimensional Aether unit absorbs a quantity of primary angular momentum (dark matter), the primary angular momentum can only fill one of the four forward-time spin positions of the Aether.

The Aether is a flexible tubular construction. As long as the surface area of the Aether unit tubes remains constant, it can deform in to a range of shapes. Although the Aether would normally conserve parity, it is conceivable that under certain circumstances it could appear to violate that parity. Although, it is questionable as to whether the violation is real, or just an illusion caused by a deformed Aether unit. I have not investigated the experiment surrounding Lee and Yang's discoveries, so I cannot say for sure at this time how their observation ties in to the Aether Physics Model. All I can say for sure is that parity is definitely supported.

Each sphere of the Aether unit has one spin. There are two spin positions on each sphere, meaning that each spin position has half spin. Thus when a subatomic particle is formed (matter or antimatter), it can only fill one spin position and has half spin. It is the half-spin nature of the subatomic particle, which gives the physical Universe the illusion of forward time. Matter and antimatter only exist in the forward time component of the Aether oscillation.

Dave

[trinitree88]

I presume you mean section 11? The Neutron is quantified as a bound electron and proton with captured angular momentum, which is the anti-neutrino. Beta decay clearly shows a neutron decays to a proton and electron and releases a certain quantity of non-visible angular momentum. This non-visible angular momentum has been measured in the Kamiokande experiment in Japan. Reread section 11. It says exactly what you say. We are in agreement but you somehow think we are not.



The parity of matter and antimatter, in both its spin and time reversal modes, is included in the Aether Physics Model. The concept of quantum frequency applies to the frequency of forward-backward time and the frequency of right-left spin. The electrostatic charge dipoles of the Aether are a third frequency dimension, however, this third frequency dimension is static, rather than dynamic. The three frequency dimensions produce eight possible spin positions. Half of these spin positions occur in the backward time direction, which we never see. Of the remaining four forward time spin positions, two are left-spin and two are right-spin. Of the two left-spin spin positions, one is on the positive electrostatic half of the dipole and the other is on the negative electrostatic half of the dipole. The same for the right-spin spin positions. The Aether is constantly oscillating between forward and backward time and right and left spin.

As such, the Aether has three dimensions of length, two dimensions of frequency, and an electrostatic dipole meaning that the Aether has a five-dimensional spatial-temporal structure as opposed to the four-dimensional spatial-temporal structure the physical Universe experiences.

When the five dimensional Aether unit absorbs a quantity of primary angular momentum (dark matter), the primary angular momentum can only fill one of the four forward-time spin positions of the Aether.

The Aether is a flexible tubular construction. As long as the surface area of the Aether unit tubes remains constant, it can deform in to a range of shapes. Although the Aether would normally conserve parity, it is conceivable that under certain circumstances it could appear to violate that parity. Although, it is questionable as to whether the violation is real, or just an illusion caused by a deformed Aether unit. I have not investigated the experiment surrounding Lee and Yang's discoveries, so I cannot say for sure at this time how their observation ties in to the Aether Physics Model. All I can say for sure is that parity is definitely supported.

Each sphere of the Aether unit has one spin. There are two spin positions on each sphere, meaning that each spin position has half spin. Thus when a subatomic particle is formed (matter or antimatter), it can only fill one spin position and has half spin. It is the half-spin nature of the subatomic particle, which gives the physical Universe the illusion of forward time. Matter and antimatter only exist in the forward time component of the Aether oscillation.

Dave

Dave. "In the Aether Physics Model, the neutron is a composite of a proton and electron" the quote marks are from section 8 as I said.
You cannot both say that parity is supported, and at the same time that it is not conserved without some rationale. In a court of law it's guilty or not. For parity, it's conserved or not, which is it? pete

[astromark]

So tell me Dave,...When did the passage of time become an illusion.?

I must have missed something.

and please do not quote me when responding... we can all see the relevance of replies as they are posted. filling the page with what has been said is frustrating.

Do not interpret my question as a rebuff... I want you to explain more. Mark.

[astromark]

Having also noted the mention of other dimensions, is troubling me also.

[volantis]

"In the Aether Physics Model, the neutron is a composite of a proton and electron" the quote marks are from section 8 as I said.

Then apparently you did not read to section 11, where you question was answered in detail. Please read section 11 and tell me if you can now understand how the neutron can be quantified as a bound electron and proton and be fully consistent with physical observations.

You cannot both say that parity is supported, and at the same time that it is not conserved without some rationale. In a court of law it's guilty or not. For parity, it's conserved or not, which is it?

In a court of law the conclusion is not drawn until the facts are presented. How much of the theory have you studied, so far? When you have learned the basic geometrical structure of the Aether and subatomic particles, the conservation of area, how the force constants are driven by the Gforce, and the more advanced concepts of spiralled dimension geometry, then you'll be at the present cutting edge of understanding parity that I am.

I do not claim to have total knowledge of all that can be known about quantum geometry, but I do claim to have more knowledge about quantum geometry than you do at the moment. You are asking questions unrelated to the theory that is presented. My present claim of what I DO know is that which I have written about. Judging me for what I don't know or haven't had time to fully investigate is unprofessional.

Let's stay on topic. The Aether Physics Model is the theory that is presented. It includes a Unified Force Theory, an electron binding energy formula, quantum dimensional analysis, two types of charges, distributed charge correction, and an analysis of magnetic moment, all which is unique to the theory and claims to be scientifically correct. There is plenty of material for us to be discussing, which is relevant to the discussion. Let's not go off topic to theories that I have not presented.

You asked for me to develop an idea about parity, which was a curiosity for you. I did. I also stated it was not something I have worked out to the very end. That should be sufficient for your question at this time.

Dave

[volantis]

So tell me Dave,...When did the passage of time become an illusion.?

It never *became* an illusion. That would imply time existed in reality at some point.

I must have missed something.

It was probably the paper. Have you read it yet?

and please do not quote me when responding...

There is a reason why the ability to use QUOTE tags was provided in the first place. Please do quote me when responding. I am involved with discussions on dozens of lists simultaneously. It helps me to quickly focus on the discussion at hand and reduces confusion.

[/QUOTE]Do not interpret my question as a rebuff... I want you to explain more.[/QUOTE] If you want me to explain more, you need to ask a specific question. For example, point to the specific section in the paper where time was presented as an illusion and then either pick apart my presentation, or ask for clarification about it. Don't pick a sentence out of one of my replies to someone else if you have not done the basic research behind the discussion. We are discussing my theory, not my discussion about the theory.

Having also noted the mention of other dimensions, is troubling me also.

Am I your psychotherapist? I think not. If you do not understand something, then study the paper. If the paper is not providing you with the clarification you are looking for, then try putting clarification into your question. If I understand where the logic is not working for you, I can probably fill in the gaps. The paper explains dimensions in detail.

Dave

[John Mendenhall]

Then apparently you did not read to section 11, where you question was answered in detail. Please read section 11 and tell me if you can now understand how the neutron can be quantified as a bound electron and proton and be fully consistent with physical observations.

Section 11 of what?

[volantis]

...there are a lot of good mainstream people on this forum. You might be wise, if you're willing to go to ATM, to introduce just a small piece at a time of your theory, to avoid being overwhelmed.

John, it isn't possible to introduce just a small piece of the APM at a time. Due to the change in charge notation from single dimension charge to distributed charge, the entire foundations of physics has to be reexamined. A new way of thinking has to be developed that incorporates distributed charge. This leads to a unification of the forces and the recognition that there are two types of charges, not just one. In case you haven't read the foundation paper, yet, that is exactly what the paper is about.

If you are still of the mind that the theory can be presented in small pieces, then it means you have not studied the theory.

Dave

[Tinaa]

Moved to ATM since the author is here and willing to defend his work.

[volantis]

Section 11 of what?

http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

[John Mendenhall]

John, it isn't possible to introduce just a small piece of the APM at a time. Due to the change in charge notation from single dimension charge to distributed charge, the entire foundations of physics has to be reexamined. A new way of thinking has to be developed that incorporates distributed charge. This leads to a unification of the forces and the recognition that there are two types of charges, not just one. In case you haven't read the foundation paper, yet, that is exactly what the paper is about.

If you are still of the mind that the theory can be presented in small pieces, then it means you have not studied the theory.

Dave

How about a link to the paper? Or a clue to where it is? Might want to check with a moderator first, you have to be careful about pushing your own site or products.

If you're a new member, read through the rules carefully. The folks in ATM are notoriously rough, be prepared to defend your ideas vigorously. Remember, a response is required, even if it is "I don't know." The important thing is a response.

Good luck, John M.

[tusenfem]

How about a link to the paper? Or a clue to where it is? Might want to check with a moderator first, you have to be careful about pushing your own site or products.

If you're a new member, read through the rules carefully. The folks in ATM are notoriously rough, be prepared to defend your ideas vigorously. Remember, a response is required, even if it is "I don't know." The important thing is a response.

Good luck, John M.

John, I think you want this paper apparently known as "the white paper".

[volantis]

John, I think you want this paper apparently known as "the white paper".

Thanks. I tried twice to post the link and it either wasn't approved or is still in queue.

[trinitree88]

Dave's Aether' ....Thus, all nuclear reactions give up more energy than what goes into the reaction.


That's not the case for elements created during the r-process in type 2 supernovae. It takes energy to produce the heavy isotopes heavier than Fe and Ni. The nuclear reactions in each of those cases has more energy go "into" the reaction than comes out. That's why when you try to either fuse iron, or fission it, energy is consumed, not released.
Careful calorimetric measurements of these processes by hundreds of experimentalists over decades shows this to be true....that's how the curve of binding energy was determined. pete

see:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ne/nucbin.html