Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!

From: David Thomson (news5_at_volantis.org)
Date: 12/27/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 21:28:42 -0600

"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PNCdncsHkNyOq1LcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
> Aether theories have been around for hundreds of years. All have been
> shown
> to either A) have consequences that are inconsistent with repeatable
> observations, or B) make no difference at all in the operation of the
> universe, depending on the properties attributed to the aether by the
> proponents.
>
> In the first case they have been discarded as being wrong. In the second
> case, they have been discarded as superfluous, according to the principle
> of
> Ockham's Razor.

Nobody has every presented a mathematically correct Aether theory such as
the Aether Physics Model. If they had, I wouldn't have had to discover it
on my own. If the Aether theories of the past included a mathematically
correct Unified Force Theory, such as mine does, few people today would know
who Albert Einstein was.

There is nothing superfluous about a mathematically correct Unified Force
Theory.

> If you truly have a theory that makes *testable* predictions that are
> different from those of current theory (and thus *could* make a
> difference),
> you do yourself a disservice by adopting terminology (specifically the
> word
> 'aether') that identifies you with a host of cranks, crackpots, and
> hypothesists with more imagination than education.

Since when does the peanut gallery tell the actors what to say? Aether is
the proper word. It is the prejudice and bigotry of the present scientific
establishment that has muddied the proper words.

> We have little enough time in our own professional lives to try to make a
> difference on our own. We certainly haven't got the time to thoroughly
> disprove every Flat-Earther, Hollow-Earther, Geocentrist, Paranormalist,
> Dowser, Creationist, Qi manipulator, and anyone else who thinks they can
> overturn centuries of accumulated data and theories consistent with that
> data with a single pipe-dream.

I have never suggested that I was overturning accumulated data. In fact, I
have clearly stated that my theory is based on the exact same empirical data
as the Standard Model is. You're fighting paper tigers. As for the
theories, the theories must constantly stand on their own all through the
march of time. There is no such thing as a theory that collects retirement
and a pension and no longer has to work for its reputation. If the Standard
Model is worth anything, scientists will always welcome critique of its
structure. And if a better theory is presented, scientists should have the
wherewithall to investigate the theory and either once again show the
Standard Model is superior, or put aside an inferior model and accept a
better one.

The truth is, the Standard Model and Relativity Theories will soon be in the
pile along with Flat Earthers and Hollow Earthers. Very few physicists
would doubt that eventually the Standard Model and Special Relativity
Theories will be replaced. They're just waiting for the better theory to
come along. Now that it is here, people like you think you're too busy to
look at it.

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them.

And I've got it.

> Bottom Line:
> Lose the word 'aether' and maybe someone here will read your stuff. Keep
> on
> using it and you are just trying to spend Confederate money.

Tom, when you do something meaningful with your career and produce a
discovery, you can call it what you want. In the meantime, when someone
else rewrites the foundation of physics and discovers that the ancient
gaseous Aether theory was right all along, that person can use whatever
terminology they want to. I have quantified the gaseous Aether theory, and
I gladly proclaim the Aether exists in honor of all those men and women who
were unjustly ridiculed and insulted by a patent clerk and his entourage.

Dave

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... When a neutron forms, two Aether units, one carrying ... |> vacuum in the description of particles. ... The logic is that it is the quantum vacuum ... | I don't have to prove anything about the Standard Model. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... When a neutron forms, two Aether units, one carrying ... |> vacuum in the description of particles. ... The logic is that it is the quantum vacuum ... | I don't have to prove anything about the Standard Model. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... > Aether theories have been around for hundreds of years. ... the proper word. ... I have never suggested that I was overturning accumulated data. ... as the Standard Model is. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... > Aether theories have been around for hundreds of years. ... the proper word. ... I have never suggested that I was overturning accumulated data. ... as the Standard Model is. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Secrets of the Aether
    ... Right now the book is being critiqued and vetted by competent physicists. ... foundational rework of modern physics. ... Aether is identified, the conductance of the Aether is identified, primary ... Merely judging any one part of the theory by the Standard Model expectations ...
    (sci.physics)