Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!

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

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:41:56 -0600

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:HISzd.90287$K7.39851@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Learn some 20th century physics - energy is the conserved Noether current
> associated with time symmetry. See
> http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/kmath564.htm.

I'm producing 21st century physics because the 20th century physics is
defective and incomplete.

>> There
>> is nothing for gravitational force to act on. You might as well say that
>> force acts on velocity and resistance.
>
> First gravity is not a force - it is space-time curvature.

You're deluding yourself. Newton showed us the gravitational law and it
applies across the board, throughout the Universe. Just because some patent
clerk came up with flawed mathematics doesn't mean the laws of the Universe
have changed.

The curvature of space-time is due to the folding of Aether units, which is
due to the nuclear binding force. It's all quantifiable and it doesn't
require relativity nonsense. In fact, it's fully consistent with Newton,
which is what common sense would dictate. I know, modern physics has no
common sense and they're proud of it. But why would one turn down common
sense when the physics supports it?

> Secondly who
> said it acts on anything? - light is 'curved' by gravity for precisely the
> same reason it travels in straight lines in an inertial frame.

Nonsense. Absolute, metaphysical, nonsense. Gravity is not a curvature of
space-time. Gravity is a force. Folded Aether units produce curved
space-time around curved massive bodies because Aether IS space-time. There
is no way to bring gravity into the equation without two masses being acted
upon, unless you violate the laws of math and physics.

Can't you see? You're treating Einstein's weird equations as though they
were more fundamental than reality. You're willing to change the definition
of gravity, ignore the gravitational force law, and accept that a massless
object can be "curved." And in this case, I'm not talking about the photon,
I'm talking about space-time itself. First of all, WHAT is being curved
that light would follow through it, and second, how can gravity act upon
this curved thing? Gravity doesn't just magically produce "curve" just
because Einstein said so.

You think you know what you're talking about because other people talk about
it. But you have no clue.

>> The gravitational force can act only on mass.
>
> Assuming by acts you mean it follows a curved path when gravity is present
> then experiment shows it does.

Experiment only produces measurements. It shows nothing. It is the theory
that attempts to explain the data. The data does not explain the theory.
You have convinced yourself that because light bends, that it must be due to
gravity. You're stuck with this wrong interpretation because your science
threw away the Aether and you are left with no other explanation.

There is absolutely no scientific basis for stating that gravity curves
light. Absolutely none. All you have is the flawed reasoning of GR.

>> Now, even according to your
>> understanding of physics, the photon has zero mass. If the photon has
>> zero
>> mass, then it has zero energy, because energy is equal to mass times the
>> speed of light squared, as you see it.
>
> See
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html.

> In units c = 1 E2 = M2 + P2. Now when M = 0 what does that make E? - even
> an idiot like you should be able to figure that one out - but judging from
> what you write maybe not.

E is equal to the unit of energy, M is the unit of mass, and P is the unit
of momentum. You can't add mass to momentum, the units don't agree.

Of course I don't understand this nonsense. It flagrantly violates the
rules of mathematics. If you think you understand this, then you really
have a mess on your hands.

>> >> Now if you really
>> >> wanted to know how light bends around massive objects, you might ask
>> >> me for the answer, because I have it.
>> >
>> > Too late. I already know that light travels along a geodesic.
>>
>> No you don't. Your physics has denied the existence of Aether. There is
>> nothing for you to call a geodesic.
>
> I guess the principle of maximal time is all in physicists imagination
> then - even when it is simply a generalization of Newton's first law. Hey
> David why do free particles move at constant velocity in an inertial
> frame? - is that because of your marvelous aether as well?

Yes, absolutely. The Aether is a "gaseous" medium. The Aether of space has
its own reference, and the Aether associated with a rocket moves along with
the rocket, so it has a different reference. It's very simple to
understand. That's also why Michelson - Morley, and Morley - Miller didn't
detect an Aether wind. The Aether containing the subatomic particles of the
Earth and its atmosphere is moving with the Earth.

> - after all there
> is nothing compelling it to do that is there? something must cause it? -
> so
> I guess classical mechanics is up the creek as well.

The Aether Physics Model is not only compatible with Classical Mechanics, it
is an extension of Classical Mechanics. Every equation in the APM is fully
consistent with Newtonian type expressions.

> We are obviously in a
> real bad way - or maybe, just maybe, here is a wild idea - you have no
> idea
> what you are talking about.

More likely, you have no idea what you're talking about. You have too much
faith in a science that boasts of its lack of common sense.

Dave

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... that when photons fall under gravity they gain energy. ... There are two methods of measuring mass you either measure the ... without the aether - which you agree does not exist - ... Even sillier physics then decided it ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... for sound reasons states that the energy W of a photon ... Plus the relation between mass and energy ... education in physics. ... that is not the definition of aether. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... Photons have mass as clearly demonstrated by the fact that they gain ... energy when attracted to a massive object and lose energy in exactly the ... aether theory is impeccable. ... How long have you been studying physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dayton Millers Data have no Real Signal
    ... studied in physics and chemistry. ... >>>I have completely quantified the Aether as a fabric of quantum rotating ... The orthogonality of charge and mass works in the same way. ... >> maybe gravity would result. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... Photons have mass as clearly demonstrated by the fact that they gain ... energy when attracted to a massive object and lose energy in exactly the ... It is not my doing that physics split unnecessarily into two separate ... aether theory is impeccable. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading