Aether Physics Model

[volantis]

I do consider your confusion over the relative importance of the Compton wavelength to be worthy of discussion; it is not intended to "derail" the conversation.

Disagreement is not derailing. But drawing conclusions about who is confused before having a discussion sets the tone for confrontation. Step back a bit and be willing to question your own beliefs, just as you expect me to question mine.

Well, you may think it's "stupid", but frankly I find your discussion of dimensions/units to be quite clumsy and lacking in understanding of the issues involved.

Thinking that my discussion of dimensions and units is clumsy is a fair position to enter the discussion with, but again, the assumption that you are right and anybody challenging you or the mainstream is wrong only sets the tone for needless stress. If you are truly certain you are right, you can wait with patience to make your clear and decisive argument. Checkmate doesn't come at the beginning of the game, you have to demonstrate your skill, first.

The above shows your misunderstanding of rationalized units if you think that the conversion of units of measurements is some actual, physical converstion of one thing into something else. Time remains time even if we measure it in meters or inverse kilograms.

You are missing the point. Planck's constant is NOT a conversion constant except to someone who wants to convert mass to length, which is absurd. Planck's constant is an empirically induced constant related to the real world. It should be the goal of the physicist to identify the actual mechanism that produced Planck's constant, not invent word salad physics where mass is converted to length. Just because physicists went astray one hundred years ago due to a lack of understanding does not mean the present generation has to repeat their mistakes.

Don't worry, I'm having some of my friends over for coffee and there will be a series of dialogues analyzing your "white paper". We haven't seen such a putrid mass of gross misunderstanding and word salad in a long, long time.

You just revealed your prejudiced and bigoted view. You are admitting that you have drawn your negative conclusion before properly analyzing the paper. Tell me, will you be wearing white sheets at this meeting? Are you planning to put a burning cross on my web site?

I suggest a different approach. Why not test the predictions of the theory and see if they work? If they do, try to find out why the Standard Model could not produce the same results. I think that would be more true to the scientific method.

[volantis]

So was the error in the original page in your value for the theoretical value or in the measured value (as if they were both correct then you could not have obtained 4.02%)?

The error was in copying the information from the spreadsheet to the web page. Since it occurred over a year ago, I can't recall exactly how it happened. One column of numbers was apparently copied from the wrong column of the spreadsheet to the web page table. The 4.02% value was correctly copied, as is evident by looking at the table in the PDF paper.

It may have been that I found this error earlier and corrected it, but then when I had to reload a backup copy to the web a few weeks ago, I may have copied the uncorrected backup. The point is, you identified the error and I fixed it. It is also evident from the PDF paper that the math was calculated properly. If you setup your own spreadsheet, you can verify it for yourself.

[volantis]

Since one of your papers has the title "New Foundations of Physics", it looks like you are indeed considering to replace current theories...

No point in having a discussion with you if the scope of your scientific knowledge is to judge a paper by its title. Keep this up and you'll end up on my ignore list just like swoop.

I'm here to discuss the Aether Physics Model, since that is what this thread was started for. I await an intelligent discussion from you.

[37.1101]

Come on guys, surely you can do better than this. I know that the anonymity of the Internet allows people to act out of character and not feel the least bit embarrassed about it but this is absurd behavior going on here.

Agreed. I am interested to hear more from Volantis, but thus far he is being forced to defend against continual sniping. It's all rather pathetic and childish.

I admire Volantis for his patience, but there are many more productive arenas for intelligent conversation than here. I will investigate his work elsewhere...

[volantis]

I admire Volantis for his patience, but there are many more productive arenas for intelligent conversation than here. I will investigate his work elsewhere...

Hi 37, thanks for your openmindedness. I wouldn't dare post a link to lists I post on, but you can do a search for my name and "Aether Physics Model" to find them.

Don't give up on these people too soon, though. Pete and Fortis seem to be giving the papers some real thought, as is Celestial. It is difficult for scientists to accept a new theory, and for good reason. I never expected a warm welcome, but as many other people have discovered, if you actually look into the theory you see that it really does work and has real value beyond other theories.

Since this forum requires people to finish their arguments, and these people are regulars, I expect to see some progress here soon.

Dave

[papageno]

No point in having a discussion with you if the scope of your scientific knowledge is to judge a paper by its title. Keep this up and you'll end up on my ignore list just like swoop.

I'm here to discuss the Aether Physics Model, since that is what this thread was started for. I await an intelligent discussion from you.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to acknowledge your errors about the Standard Model.

[Halcyon Dayz]

I can't believe how dense all you folks are.

There you go again insulting the people you are trying to convince. As if that is going to work. [/sarcasm]

(And neither will a I-was-banned-from-BAUT badge. Read the bloody rules.)

[Celestial Mechanic]

Aether Physics Model -- Part One

A new and very stinky example of what Chris Hillman calls "Simple Physics" has just turned up at BAUTForum. Virginia and Jimmy K are back in Milwaukee for the summer, and my old friends from grad school days, BH and DB are here for coffee and physics. And Tensor was kind enough to send over some doughnuts! Hmmm, doughnuts ...

Celestial Mechanic: "Anyway, you've all read the PDFs I've sent you of 'A New Foundation for Physics' by David W. Thomson III and Jim D. Bourassa. What are your initial impressions?"

DB: "One of my thoughts was, 'how 1935!' They seem stuck in a time-warp to that year when the only particles known were the proton, neutron, electron (and their antiparticles) plus the photon. Pions and gluons are mentioned only once and very dismissively. Seventy years of particle physics is ignored as if it never really happened."

BH: "Something seems to be wrong with their use of the English language. With a name like 'Thomson' among the authors I expect reasonably good, formal, idiomatic English, but, there's just too many examples of unclear writing. We'll run into them soon enough."

Virginia: "I suspect it comes from an effort to sound formal and scientific, but they just couldn't pull it off."

CM: "It is unfortunate that a portion of our criticism will concern the writing style of this work, because it will seem nitpicky and vindictive to some. But a scientific paper has an obligation to communicate precisely what it is about in a language that is concise, uses the proper vocabulary for the subject, and accurately reflects the subject and its context within the wider realm of discourse. I agree, BH, we're going to see a lot of examples where the authors fail at this task."

Jimmy K.: "Well, that's OK, the authors and their supporters will just say that we're being close-minded and that we need to question our assumptions about the standard model."

DB: "As if the standard model of physics hasn't been questioned every step of the way!"

CM: "Indeed. Well, let's start questioning the Aether Physics Model the way the Standard Model has been questioned. First let's look at the abstract of the white paper."

Modern physics describes the mechanics of the Universe. We have discovered a new foundation for physics, which explains the components of the Universe with precision and depth. We quantify the existence of Aether, subatomic particles, and the force laws. ...

BH: "Right there the use of the word 'quantify' bothers me. Do they mean by it to assign quantities and take measurements of them? Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do? Or are they referring to quantization? But go on to the next paragraph, it gets worse."

A key discovery from this new foundation is a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory. ...

CM: "Well, it had better be 'mathematically correct', otherwise it's just a great big waste of time! Let's skip ahead to the next paragraph."

The Aether quantifies as a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic fields with electromagnetic, electrostatic, and gravitational dipole structures. Subatomic particles quantify as angular momentum encapsulated in a quantum, rotating magnetic field. All quantum, atomic, and molecular processes can be precisely modeled, ...

DB: "There's that misused word quantify again. But why do the authors distinguish between electromagnetic, electrostatic and magnetic? Didn't Maxwell unify electricity and magnetism a long time ago?"

CM: "Yes, Maxwell did. Unfortunately, magnetism has a kind of aura about it that invites mindless mysticism, as does energy. All you have to do is say 'energy' and some people will start going all mystical and begin blabbering about 'spiritual energy' and 'chakras'. You never see any new-agey types go ga-ga over momentum, do you?"

JK: "I don't see anything particularly new age or mystical in this paper."

CM: "Thankfully not, but the fact that they distinguish electrostatic from electromagnetism and wrap everything in a 'fabric' of 'quantum rotating magnetic fields' is a warning sign that the authors do not understand electromagnetism at all. They use it as some sort of catch-all explanation for everything, which it is not."

BH: "They speak of gravitational dipoles. I thought there weren't any!"

CM: "That's true. It comes from the fact that gravitation results from a field theory of a symmetric rank two tensor, and in such a theory radiation originates from quadrupole and higher moments."

DB: "So right there in just the abstract alone we have a series of howlers."

CM: "True. Let's get on to an analysis of the white paper's structure. Here are the top-level entries in the table of contents:"

1. Summary
2. A Quick History of the Aether
3. Goals and Objectives
4. Definitions -- Dimensions
5. Geometry of Aether
6. Gravitational Repulsion
7. Charges, Electromagnetic and Electrostatic Charges
8. Matter
9. Interaction of Forces
10. Laws of Forces
11. Other
12. Conclusion

CM: "The table of contents does not list the references at the end. Let's start with a look at the Summary:"

The Aether Physics Model (APM) is an improved quantum physics paradigm, which is based upon:
a. a clearer definition of dimensions,
b. a different structure of units based upon distributed charge dimensions,
c. a new system of units based on electron values,
d. the structure of non-material existence (Aether),
e. a new system of geometrical evaluation,
f. new fundamental constants in addition to the established fundamental constants,
g. the quantification of a previously unknown type of charge,
h. and the quantification of matter as angular momentum.

CM: "Many of these points will be challenged in these dialogues, but look at the next sentence:"

We can postulate that the Universe composes from force, matter and environment. ...

CM: "I'm sure the two of you can postulate, so why don't you? And 'composes from' is awkward and unidiomatic. Much better would have been:"

We postulate that the Universe is comprised of force, matter, and environment.

BH: "And that's just one sentence out of many."

CM: "Unfortunately that's true. We will not attempt to correct every such example."

JK: "That's a relief!"

CM: "There's more, but we will be deconstructing it when we get to the body of the work. I just want to draw your attention to this:"

The Aether Physics Model is mathematical and based on empirical quantum data. Whereas modern physics on what the Universe does, we quantify what the Universe is.

CM: "This reminds me too much of the sort of people who suggest that 'understanding is more important than equations' and then go off on some philosophical/mystical/new age tangent. I will leave the question of what the Universe "is" to philosophers and other charlatans. I prefer to know how it works and whether we can turn it to our advantage to make our lives a little better.

CM: "The second section is entitled 'A Quick History of the Aether'. I don't wish to debate its accuracy, it's not really that important a section, just intended as background. But there is one unintentional laugh to be found in it:"

In a review of Miller's work by Robert Shankland, Einstein posthumously brought pressure to bear on Dayton Miller's work ...

CM: "I'm not sure how Einstein could do this, I mean him being dead and all and his brain in a jar in Wichita, Kansas ..."

BH: "'Night of the Undead Einstein'!"

V: "That's horrible."

CM: "Not really. How about 'Night of the Undead Einstein -- On Ice'?"

DB: "You can always be counted upon to make a bad thing really horrid!"

CM: "I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

CM: "But I see that our cups need refilling, so let's take care of that."

To be continued ...

[Svemir]

If you express yourself in English, which is not my native language, and I don't understand you, then your theory is wrong.
Svemir: Lectures on Logic 2008 vol. 1

----------------------------------------------

[37.1101]

Well, the posts above are just what this thread needed. Not! Zero scientific analysis, but no lack of grammatical dissection and more petty sniping.

Granted, there is one allusion to science -- the 1935 snipe -- but that is predictable at best. Yes, the aether was popular back then, but I'm happy to take a step back in the short term if necessary, especially if it will help us progress past the current crisis in cosmology.

[volantis]

Celestial Mechanic: "Anyway, you've all read the PDFs I've sent you of 'A New Foundation for Physics' by David W. Thomson III and Jim D. Bourassa.

I really appreciate you and your friends taking the time to read through the paper, regardless of your comments.

DB: "One of my thoughts was, 'how 1935!' They seem stuck in a time-warp to that year when the only particles known were the proton, neutron, electron (and their antiparticles) plus the photon. Pions and gluons are mentioned only once and very dismissively. Seventy years of particle physics is ignored as if it never really happened."

I don't hear anybody complaining about 2500 years of Aether theory being ignored by 20th Century physics. Four hundred years of this time was devoted to quantifying the Aether using modern scientific methods.

BH: "Something seems to be wrong with their use of the English language.

The only thing wrong with it is that you don't like it. It is a correct use of vocabulary and grammar, even if it is not the style you would write.

Virginia: "I suspect it comes from an effort to sound formal and scientific, but they just couldn't pull it off."

We didn't seek to put out flowery or savvy language. All we sought was to quantify the Aether and arrange the known physical constants in a better and more useful paradigm. If you want, you can write about the same concepts using your own writing style.

CM: "It is unfortunate that a portion of our criticism will concern the writing style of this work, because it will seem nitpicky and vindictive to some.

Yes, exactly. I'm not going to respond to any more criticisms about the grammar. I will respond to criticisms with regard to the vocabulary and physics, though.

BH: "Right there the use of the word 'quantify' bothers me. Do they mean by it to assign quantities and take measurements of them? Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do? Or are they referring to quantization?

"We quantify the existence of Aether..." because mainstream science fails to do so. If you have already read the paper, then you know we quantify the Aether unit as a quantum rotating magnetic field with a specific value. The Aether unit is exactly that, a dimensional unit with a quantity.

CM: "Well, it had better be 'mathematically correct', otherwise it's just a great big waste of time!

I chose the phrase "mathematically correct" as it was used in SOTA. Mainstream science is not always mathematically correct. For example, the equivalence of mass and energy is explained by making c=1, but only on one side of the equation.

E=mc^2

if c=1, then

E=m

However, if c is made one on one side of the equation, it must be made one on the other side, too. Since by definition E is equal to mc^2, then:

mc^2 = mc^2

if c=1, then

m = m

The equivalence principle explanation is mathematically incorrect.

DB: "But why do the authors distinguish between electromagnetic, electrostatic and magnetic?"

We distinguished between electrostatic and electromagnetic because of the two distinctly different types of charge we quantify later in the paper. The APM is a new paradigm based upon distributed charge and two types of charges. Maxwell's work was presented in a paradigm based upon mixed charge dimensions and only recognizes elementary charge.

JK: "I don't see anything particularly new age or mystical in this paper."
CM: "Thankfully not, but the fact that they distinguish electrostatic from electromagnetism and wrap everything in a 'fabric' of 'quantum rotating magnetic fields' is a warning sign that the authors do not understand electromagnetism at all.

Actually, your statement is a warning sign that you are prejudiced and refuse (or are incapable of) understanding of a new concept. All of these concepts are explained in the paper. Make an effort to understand them before judging them. You would not judge QM based upon Relativity theory, so don't judge the APM based upon other theories.

BH: "They speak of gravitational dipoles. I thought there weren't any!"
CM: "That's true. It comes from the fact that gravitation results from a field theory of a symmetric rank two tensor, and in such a theory radiation originates from quadrupole and higher moments."

Modern theory says there are no gravitational dipoles, the APM says there are. Fermi labs and CERN are presently working on an experiment to see if antimatter is gravitationally repulsive to normal matter, or not. Make your prediction, but save your judgment until the experiment has been performed. It will be a significant blow to the APM if antimatter is gravitationally attracted to normal matter. Likewise, it will be a signficant blow to GR if they repel each other.

CM: "This reminds me too much of the sort of people who suggest that 'understanding is more important than equations' and then go off on some philosophical/mystical/new age tangent.

This paper is strong on equations, which are based upon well-known constants and data. And as a matter of fact, I did not allow anything into the theory that was purely philosophical and did not have an empirical basis.

CM: "I'm not sure how Einstein could do this, I mean him being dead and all and his brain in a jar in Wichita, Kansas ..."

You and your friend's ignorance about the history of physics is showing. Check the references given in the paper. I did not make that situation up, Shankland clearly stated it in his paper, which was published in Science.

To be continued ...

I look forward to your continued comments.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] Granted, there is one allusion to science -- the 1935 snipe -- but that is predictable at best. Yes, the aether was popular back then, but I'm happy to take a step back in the short term if necessary, especially if it will help us progress past the current crisis in cosmology.

You missed the point of my reference to 1935. Aether was not popular back then, it had pretty much been buried and forgotten and even Einstein's half-hearted attempt at resurrecting an aether that he could live with could not bring it back. The point about 1935 is that only a few particles were known then. The discoveries of the muon, pion, Lambda, Sigma, Delta resonance, Cascade (Xi), kappa and so forth were still more than a decade away and they would ultimately blow the lid off of any "theory of everything" (such as Eddington's Fundamental Theory) that only allowed for and explained the electron, proton, neutron and photon.

Needless to say, APM does not explain (or attempt to explain) pions, Lambda hyperons, etc. and is thus not only far from complete, it is inadequate as a "new foundation for physics."

[volantis]

Needless to say, APM does not explain (or attempt to explain) pions, Lambda hyperons, etc. and is thus not only far from complete, it is inadequate as a "new foundation for physics."

The APM does explain pions, and it is right in front of you. You just aren't sophisticated enough, yet, to understand it. I'll give you a clue, "Strong Force Law."

Also, since no other paper has ever been written that explains everything in the Universe, I don't see how you can now place that burden upon me. The Foundation paper explains what the Foundation paper explains. This paper is meant exactly as the title suggests, it is a foundation for a new physics. It is not the complete Encyclopedia Aether with all the solutions to all the questions anybody could ever ask.

The Aether was scientific fact in 1900. Joseph Larmor, who held the Lucasian Professorship at that time, wrote an exhaustive book about the Aether. I don't hear you saying about Einstein's papers, "Because his paper didn't quantify the Aether it is inadequate." Einstein presented a new paradigm. I am presenting a new paradigm (two types of distributed charges) based upon the well-established concept of Aether.

Just stick to the physics of the paper as it is presented, and not as you would like to see it. So far, you have made a big deal out of reading the abstract and introduction of the Foundation paper. Until you start getting to the physics, you haven't said anything worthy at all.

[captain swoop]

Needless to say, APM does not explain (or attempt to explain) pions, Lambda hyperons, etc. and is thus not only far from complete, it is inadequate as a "new foundation for physics."

This seems common among ATM proponents, almost as if all these 'new' particals aren't real and have been invented to make 'modern' theories work.

[volantis]

CM: "This reminds me too much of the sort of people who suggest that 'understanding is more important than equations' and then go off on some philosophical/mystical/new age tangent. I will leave the question of what the Universe "is" to philosophers and other charlatans. I prefer to know how it works and whether we can turn it to our advantage to make our lives a little better.

I want to develop on this further. When we say we are quantifying what the Universe is, we are referring to its structure, as opposed to its mechanics.

You somehow think that the structure of things is a topic for charlatans. I disagree. In order to understand what the Universe is doing, it is very helpful to understand the structure that is doing it.

Therefore, the Aether Physics Model provides a structure for not only subatomic particles, but also for the environment, and even the forces that work in that environment. Quantum Mechanics is extremely crippled in this respect. Although QM can calculate what something is doing, the science is incapable of telling us anything about what it is that is doing it.

For example, scientists speak of subatomic particles as being probability functions and having wave-particle duality (along with photons). Talk about word salad, metaphysical philosophy and charlatanism all in one package! We are supposed to accept on faith that there is something doing the action, but QM is not capable of telling us what it is that is doing it.

The APM provides a solution for the structures that do things. The APM quantifies the structures of the subatomic particles, the structure of the environment the subatomic particles exist in, and the structures of the forces acting between subatomic particles through the environment.

[Fortis]

For example, scientists speak of subatomic particles as being probability functions and having wave-particle duality (along with photons). Talk about word salad, metaphysical philosophy and charlatanism all in one package! We are supposed to accept on faith that there is something doing the action, but QM is not capable of telling us what it is that is doing it.

So does APM provide a "hidden variables" description of the statistical properties of QM? If so, how does it square with Bell's inequality?

[Svemir]

What a nonsence.
The book was written in order to make some money.
DT&JB presented their book probably in the entry hall before the PIRT 2006, not at the conference and certanly not after (someone might claim money back).
I bet that the 'picture above' was not taken at that conference.

Light travels through the Aether, therefore, when the gravitational wave ripples the laser light beam, it also ripples the space-time in which the laser light beam is observed. It is like a stick figure living on a sheet of paper trying to detect when the paper is rolled.

Neither the first sentence is true (logicaly false) neither there is logical connection to the second. Hence: nonsence

Aether is also the source of curved geometry as expressed by Albert Einstein in his General Relativity Theory..

Untrue (read : lie) Einsten never expressed that the aether is a source of curved geometry.
Curved Geometry? Curved geometry of what? Aether?

and the spherical constant

What a heck is that? Units?

The quantum measurements are based upon ....quantum masses (electron and proton masses),

So, what is mass of an neutrino based upon these measuarments?
Clicking on the link detecs scalar waves we can read:

The seismometer is well known as a device for measuring mechanical waves within the particulate Earth. Similarly, acoustics is a branch of science dealing with mechanical waves of molecules.

Nonsence. What is similar between claim that the seizmometer is well known and
incorrect definition of acoustics? Does acoustics really, I mean really, deals with the mechanical waves only in molecules? Who or what deals with sound in atomic H etc..?

Longitudinal waves are scalar waves, which are measured in only one dimension of length (as opposed to transverse waves, which measured in two dimensions of length).

So, the longitudal waves are measured in meters while transverse are measured in squaremeters? Or in (a,b) pairs?
Nonsence. Never heard that someone is able to measure waves.
Maybe amplitude, frequency, phase, but waves themselves?
As from the sudden claim without proof, that the longitudal waves are scalar waves, which group is larger, what is relation between to sets? Please (yeah , right) provide the reference with definitions, theorem and proof)
Let's say that they are scalar waves meaning they can be measured by 3^0 properties, which is length as postulated by the author(s). So, the longitudal (or scalar waves) can be expressed like i.e. 300 m ?
What does it mean? What do the authors mean it means?
Which well known wave detector measures the waves that way?
I would say: nonsence.
What about transversal waves? They are not scalars as stated, nor vectors, since you don't measure them by 3^1 properties, and certainly not tensors. More nonsence.

When lightning strikes, it creates a magnetic scalar wave,...

Nonsence according to previous statements. It creates electromagnetic wave.
It's transversal and both of its components are transversal waves.
Nonsence in any case.

Even modern technology is capable of modulating the Aether with pulsed magnetic fields as when communicating with submarines.

Well, we call it electromagnetic waves.
What is the meaning of saying: 'Even modern technology' ? You see what I mean, don't you?

[volantis]

So does APM provide a "hidden variables" description of the statistical properties of QM? If so, how does it square with Bell's inequality?

I will gladly entertain anybody's questions about how the APM might interface with any other theory, however, I ask the courtesy of you first learning the simple foundation of the APM, first.

I know there is a lot of new ideas and information in the white paper. I doubt the entire foundation of QM could be written starting with definitions of terms and explanations of math and geometrical theory in 25 pages or less. I know the paper causes the brain to go numb on the first few readings.

However, just like it was possible to eventually learn the foundations for understanding QM, it is also possible to understand the foundations for understanding the APM. Please, let's stick to getting a common foundation in the very simple APM before exploring its relationship to other physics theories.

If you don't do this, you will be stuck in judging the APM based upon SM concepts, many of which are changed by necessity in the APM. New paradigms are difficult to learn, but most particularly for people who already have a paradigm that they think applies to the same situation.

I will not shirk my responsibility to show the various commonalities and differences with other physics concepts. I promise. If I don't know an answer, I will tell you. But first, it is essential to fully understand the APM and what it presents. You have undoubtedly discovered by now that the math is all legitimate. Now it is a matter of understanding what the math is revealing to us (dimensional analysis). Then we can apply this revealed knowledge to understanding why this theory seems to work and why it seems to disagree with certain aspects of other theories. If you study the APM, you will find that it is in agreement far more than it first appears. And if you learn the APM, you will see that where it doesn't exactly agree, it is because of a different perspective that you didn't realize existed.

Is this an unreasonable proposition? Can you first focus on the topic of this thread and apply yourself to learning something new? Believe me, I really do want to have a discussion about why the HUP works mathematically, but does not describe quantum structure. It has to do with understanding the five-dimensional paradigm of the Aether Physics Model and how our four-dimensional perspective causes a distortion in observing the Aether. The theory is all very logical and understandable, but you first need to understand the structures of Aether, subatomic particles, and the forces.

[Celestial Mechanic]

The APM does explain pions, and it is right in front of you. You just aren't sophisticated enough, yet, to understand it. I'll give you a clue, "Strong Force Law."

I have a master's degree in physics. Try me. Does your theory account for the three charge states of the pion? Does your theory predict the masses of these particles any better than the standard model does? Lifetimes? Decay modes and branching ratios? Please, no references to your book.

Also, since no other paper has ever been written that explains everything in the Universe, I don't see how you can now place that burden upon me.

But we do expect a lot from a paper that purports to be a "foundation" for physics.

The Foundation paper explains what the Foundation paper explains. [Snip!]

It is what is is when it was what it was.

The Aether was scientific fact in 1900.

Well, whoop-tee-doo! And phlogiston was "scientific fact" in 1750. What's your point?

Joseph Larmor, who held the Lucasian Professorship at that time, wrote an exhaustive book about the Aether. I don't hear you saying about Einstein's papers, "Because his paper didn't quantify the Aether it is inadequate."

Einstein pretty much rendered luminiferous aether superfluous. The various "aethers" attributed to him later serve as a vehicle for metric fields, not electromagnetic fields.

[Snip!] Just stick to the physics of the paper as it is presented, and not as you would like to see it.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice. Learn physics as it has been found to be in countless experiments, and not as you would like to see it.

So far, you have made a big deal out of reading the abstract and introduction of the Foundation paper. Until you start getting to the physics, you haven't said anything worthy at all.

One thing at a time. Your white paper is so full of error it will take a bit of time to discuss it all. Fortunately my friends and I have lots of coffee, not to mention the doughnuts so kindly provided by Tensor!

[volantis]

What a nonsence.
The book was written in order to make some money.
DT&JB presented their book probably in the entry hall before the PIRT 2006, not at the conference and certanly not after (someone might claim money back).
I bet that the 'picture above' was not taken at that conference.

You are a squabbling idiot. Check your facts before making accusations about people.

[Celestial Mechanic]

I want to develop on this further. When we say we are quantifying what the Universe is, we are referring to its structure, as opposed to its mechanics. You somehow think that the structure of things is a topic for charlatans. I disagree. In order to understand what the Universe is doing, it is very helpful to understand the structure that is doing it.

If indeed you were referring to structure, why did you use the word "is" instead of the word "structure"? Write what you mean and maybe we'll understand what you mean!

Therefore, the Aether Physics Model provides a structure for not only subatomic particles, but also for the environment, and even the forces that work in that environment. Quantum Mechanics is extremely crippled in this respect. Although QM can calculate what something is doing, the science is incapable of telling us anything about what it is that is doing it.

As if APM with its "fabric of quantum rotating magnetic fields with electromagnetic, electrostatic, and gravitational dipole structures" tells us anything.

For example, scientists speak of subatomic particles as being probability functions and having wave-particle duality (along with photons). Talk about word salad, metaphysical philosophy and charlatanism all in one package! We are supposed to accept on faith that there is something doing the action, but QM is not capable of telling us what it is that is doing it. [Snip!]

You demonstrate your misunderstanding of QM. You do not have to accept QM on faith; thousands of observations and experiments show that it works. You really need to learn physics as it is, not as you want it to be.

[volantis]

I have a master's degree in physics.

You have a master's degree in the Standard Model. The Standard Model is a different paradigm from the Aether Physics Model. The two share similarities, but there are fundamental differences. You may be an expert in the SM, but I'm the expert in the APM. This thread is not about the SM, it is about the APM. Please, try to expand your knowledge, rather that defend yourself against new knowledge.

But we do expect a lot from a paper that purports to be a "foundation" for physics.

You expect it to be identical in nature to what you already know. But if it was, it wouldn't be a "new foundation," would it?

Your white paper is so full of error it will take a bit of time to discuss it all. Fortunately my friends and I have lots of coffee, not to mention the doughnuts so kindly provided by Tensor!

Empty words until backed up with substance. I look forward to your continued analysis.

[volantis]

If indeed you were referring to structure, why did you use the word "is" instead of the word "structure"? Write what you mean and maybe we'll understand what you mean!

I agree that I should have clarified that the APM describes structure better than I did. But since this paper has already been published, I can't go back and rewrite it. But I did make this distinction clear on the web site and it is clear in the book.

As if APM with its "fabric of quantum rotating magnetic fields with electromagnetic, electrostatic, and gravitational dipole structures" tells us anything.

It tells us a lot. The problem is with the preconceived belief that Aether does not exist. If you believe something is wrong before you investigate it (prejudge), then you will not understand what it was you have denied. BTW, I'm not the first person to suggest the Aether is composed of dipoles. This was understood by scientists far greater than you or I. There are still many theories, today, which describe the Aether (vacuum, quantum foam, p-holes, whatever) in terms of dipoles.

You demonstrate your misunderstanding of QM.

You demonstrate your own weakness when you constantly ignore the fact that I have never claimed to present an understanding of QM. The APM is independent of QM. This thread is not about QM. It is YOU who constantly try to compare the APM to QM. It is YOU who cannot stay on topic and discuss the APM as it is presented. It is only because of your very narrow focus that you can only see what I'm presenting in terms of QM. If the APM depended upon QM, I would address it. However, the APM does not depend upon QM. Mechanics is about what things do. Structure is about what things are. I'm describing quantum structure, not quantum mechanics.

Hopefully, once you understand the structure I'm describing, you'll be better able to understand why the mechanics are the way they are, or appear to be.

You do not have to accept QM on faith; thousands of observations and experiments show that it works.

I do not question that QM works. My statement was, "QM is not capable of telling us what it is that is doing it." There is not one observation in all of physics that can tell us what the structure of an electron is, or what the structure of the environment is. QM works from the premise that quantum structure cannot be known. And QM is right insofar as it only looks at quantum matter and environment from a four-dimensional, half-spin perspective. However, by learning the proper five-dimensional structure of the Aether, we can learn to see how the nature of primary angular momentum causes four-dimensional, half-spin matter.

There is a lot more to this theory than you are capable of understanding without it. You think I'm some simpleton who hasn't got a clue (and mysteriously developed a mathematical theory that works but makes no sense). However, I'm so far ahead of you in understanding the nature of reality that I look upon you as but a poor, ignorant child who has yet to enter kindergarten. You keep throwing your temper tantrums and I have to constantly apply patience and guidance to get you through your ignorance.

Put a stopper in your squabbling ways. Just read the paper and work your way through it.

You really need to learn physics as it is, not as you want it to be.

Excellent advice! Live by it!

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] The problem is with the preconceived belief that Aether does not exist. If you believe something is wrong before you investigate it (prejudge), then you will not understand what it was you have denied. BTW, I'm not the first person to suggest the Aether is composed of dipoles.

And I suspect that you will not be the last, either.

This was understood by scientists far greater than you or I. There are still many theories, today, which describe the Aether (vacuum, quantum foam, p-holes, whatever) in terms of dipoles.

All of which are quantum mechanical descriptions, I might add.

You demonstrate your misunderstanding of QM.

You demonstrate your own weakness when you constantly ignore the fact that I have never claimed to present an understanding of QM. The APM is independent of QM.

How can APM be independent of QM if it is, as you and your co-author say, it is the "foundation of a new physics"?

This thread is not about QM. It is YOU who constantly try to compare the APM to QM. It is YOU who cannot stay on topic and discuss the APM as it is presented. It is only because of your very narrow focus that you can only see what I'm presenting in terms of QM. If the APM depended upon QM, I would address it. However, the APM does not depend upon QM.

Your paper purports to be a "new foundation for physics". As such it must include QM, but every time QM is mentioned you recoil in horror and tell us how QM does not tell us anything yet APM does. Many of the things described in your paper are about particles subject to the laws of quantum mechanics. How does APM explain the successes of quantum mechanics?

Mechanics is about what things do. Structure is about what things are.

No, structure is about what things are made of and how they are put together. That is what I understand structure to mean. An unqualified "is" is just mere philosophy.

I'm describing quantum structure, not quantum mechanics.

An artificial distinction that no one else makes.

[Snip!]

You do not have to accept QM on faith; thousands of observations and experiments show that it works.

I do not question that QM works. My statement was, "QM is not capable of telling us what it is that is doing it."

But APM can't either. Just what is this "fabric" you keep speaking of?

There is not one observation in all of physics that can tell us what the structure of an electron is, or what the structure of the environment is.

Wrong. Observations show the electron to be point-like down to (if memory serves me correctly) about 10^-18m. Below that scale it polarizes the vacuum. All of this has been observed in scattering experiments carried out at accelerators. You and Jim really ought to do a bit more reading. Look up "structure functions" and electrons.

QM works from the premise that quantum structure cannot be known. And QM is right insofar as it only looks at quantum matter and environment from a four-dimensional, half-spin perspective.

Again, QM does a nice job of explaining the structure of the hydrogen atom. How does APM handle hyperfine structure? (This question has been asked by papageno several times.) How about the Lamb-Retherford shift?

[Snip!] There is a lot more to this theory than you are capable of understanding without it. You think I'm some simpleton who hasn't got a clue (and mysteriously developed a mathematical theory that works but makes no sense).

Not a simpleton, but naive nonetheless. You really do need to study some of the physics that you are attempting to replace.

However, I'm so far ahead of you in understanding the nature of reality that I look upon you as but a poor, ignorant child who has yet to enter kindergarten. You keep throwing your temper tantrums and I have to constantly apply patience and guidance to get you through your ignorance.

Try not to get a swollen head.

Put a stopper in your squabbling ways. Just read the paper and work your way through it.

This attitude will do you no good. Get thee to a library! (And thy friend Jim as well.)

[volantis]

snip!

There is nothing in your reply that I haven't addressed earlier or that has not been addressed in the paper. I await your further analysis of the physics I presented in the paper.

[Svemir]

You are a squabbling idiot. Check your facts before making accusations about people.

Let's see facts, indeed.

The book was written in order to make some money.

You charge 61.95$ for your book.

DT&JB presented their book probably in the entry hall before the PIRT 2006.

So are we informed on your web site, remember?

David Thomson and Jim Bourassa presented the Aether Physics Model (white paper) before the Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory (PIRT 2006)

I bet that the 'picture above' was not taken at that conference.

I still bet. Time to earn some money.

What facts are you talking about?

What about other things I marked as nonsence? Any comments?
And finally, do you think that there is slightly chance that you might have been actually ... wrong?

[captain swoop]

You are a squabbling idiot.

play nice

[HenrikOlsen]

play nice

Too late

[captain swoop]

As the proponent of the OP of this thread (theres a mouthful!) is away for a weekshould it be locked so he doesn't lose a chunk of his 28 days?

[Celestial Mechanic]

As the proponent of the OP of this thread (theres a mouthful!) is away for a weekshould it be locked so he doesn't lose a chunk of his 28 days?

My understanding is that locking/unlocking has no effect on the "turkey timer".