Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!

From: David Thomson (news5_at_volantis.org)
Date: 12/28/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:05:28 -0600

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:hrKzd.9782$8e5.2016@fed1read07...
>> The light is bending, but it is not due to gravity. It is due to the
>> density of the body. As subatomic particles bind, they fold the Aether
>> (and capture dark matter.) As the Aether folds, it pulls in surround
>> quantum Aether units, just like a bowling ball on a flat rubber ***,
>> except that it is 3D.
>
> There is no "density" in the vicinity that light is passing through.

Of course not. The Aether IS space-time. The only effect warped Aether has
on light is to bend its path. As far as the light knows, it's going in a
straight line.

>>>> and since photons have zero mass, the gravitational force is zero.
>>>
>>> Gravitational force is zero in GR anyway.
>>
>> Then why are you saying that gravity bends light? The gravitational
>> force IS gravity. If the gravitational force is zero, then gravity does
>> not bend light.
>
> Why does the press insist on E=mc^2?

Because until now, no better solution was provided. Science isn't about
popular opinion, or at least it shouldn't be.

> Same as with "gravity bends light".

Same answer.

>>>> Now if you really wanted to know how light bends around massive
>>>> objects, you might ask me for the answer, because I have it.
>>>
>>> No wonder people accuse science of being religion. David Thomson, the
>>> mystic.
>>
>> I'm actually the one presenting the science here. I have fully
>> quantified the Aether, quantified how Aether folds to capture dark matter
>> as neutrinos, and provided a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory
>> that properly shows the relationship between the strong force and the
>> gravitational force. What do you call a science that does not have a
>> Unified Force Theory, cannot quantify the neutrino, ignores the existence
>> of Aether, and says gravity can bend light with a zero force?
>
> Your "science" is mysticism. GR has spacetime as the product of
> mass/energy... the playground produced by the toys. No force is required.

Yes, the nuclear binding force is required as it is the actual mechanism
taking place. And talk about mysticism, you're giving space-time the
qualities of mass/energy. Space-time is massless, therefore it has zero
mass and zero energy according to E=mc^2. And you're saying that the toys
produce the playground, including the space-time in which they exist. So
tell me, where were the toys before the playground was made?

>>>> As for dark matter, it exists mainly near massive objects.
>>>
>>> Most of it is in the intergalactic void. The balance is inside the
>>> visible rim of spiral galaxies.
>>
>> No, actually, most of dark matter exists in the center of galaxies and
>> near massive objects. What looks like a void from our tiny human
>> perception is actually a densely packed group of stars.
>
> You really need to check your "facts" more carefully. Dark Matter has
> been carefully mapped. It is NOT where your imagination places it. It is
> NOT "at the center of galaxies", but at (and beyond) the rims of spiral
> galaxies. This is known, since spiral galaxies seem to have been intact
> with their "amazing" velocity profile. If the DM were located at the
> center, then this profile would be much different than what is seen.

You mean theories were developed that placed dark matter where it was needed
in order to make other theories work. Don't tell me it was mapped. The
fact is, I can quantify neutrinos as dark matter, and since neurtrinos exist
in greatest abundance where neutrons are greatest in abundance, that places
the greater density of dark matter near massive objects. Further, recent
VLA radio telescope images show that galaxies have a clear magnetic
structure. It is more likely that spiral galaxies are produced from a
greater magnetic field (from the Aether) and has nothing to do with gravity.

Dave

Quantcast