Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!

From: David Thomson (news5_at_volantis.org)
Date: 01/18/05 

Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:44:48 -0600

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:csgv89$66m$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> David Thomson wrote:
>> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
>> news:csg45g$24m$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>>
>>>Note the "obvious". I did not bother to check carefully
>>>for mathematical errors.
>>
>> So you agree then that your views are merely opinions and not a true
>> scientific review?
>
> No, I said nothing like that.
>
> Reading comprehension problems, or are you deliberately
> putting words into my mouth?

Your inconsistency is hard to follow. What exactly do you consider your
contribution in this discussion to be? You admit you found nothing wrong
with the math, then you admit you didn't look at the math. If you are not
merely sharing your unfounded opinion, what are you doing?

>> Interesting. A theory that violates the most basic foundations of
>> algebra
>
> It doesn't.
>
>> passes your muster, but you will deride a theory that is perfectly
>> mathematically correct, because in your view there is more to physics
>> than being mathematically correct.
>
> Exactly. Something which contains as many physical errors
> as your proposals can't be a physical theory.

But my theory doesn't include any physical errors. And how would you know,
anyway, if you haven't read it? My theory is fully discrete, the SM, SRT,
and GR are not. So how can my theory not be a physical theory and the other
rubbish pass muster? My theory is mathematically correct, discrete, and
predicts the data. The theories you adhere to are mathematically incorrect,
non-discrete, and predict the data. If anything cannot be a physical
theory, it is modern physics. And, as a matter of fact, modern physics is
not a physical theory, it is many unrelated theories which often disagree
with each other.

>>>>Equations are based upon expressions.
>>>
>>>Yes. Your point?
>>
>> An expression is not an equation.
>
> I never said it is. Your point?

Quit beating around the bush. Is E=mc^2 an equation or an expression?

>>>Sorry for the error. But the crucial point here was that
>>>you not merely claim to present a hypothesis, but to present
>>>a theory.
>>
>> Yes, I present a theory.
>
> No, you *claim* to present a theory.

No, *you* claim I don't present a theory, and you admit you haven't read it.

> If you did not notice: for something to be counted as
> a theory in science, it has to be well-tested. None of
> your claims was ever tested at all.
>
> You have a bunch of untested hypotheses. At best.

I have over 100 years of data that substantially tests my theory. The
relative strengths of the forces have been observed for a long time and in
great detail. The distribution of charge was noted in the very beginning by
Charles Coulomb himself. Many studies have been done that show no linear
relationship between resistance and conductance, but that there is a linear
relationship between magnetic flux and conductance. Just because the theory
came after the experiments does not mean the theory hasn't been validated.

>> The theory accurately explains the data.
>
> It explains *some*, carefully handpicked data only.
>
> You have not demonstrated in the least so far that it
> explains a considerable amount of the existing data.

How would you know? You make it sound like you are an expert in the works
of David Thomson. If I were to claim I had a PhD, you would call me a
fraud. So if you claim to know the Aether Physics Model and pass judgment
on it, that would make you a fraud, too, right?

> > The data demonstrating the correction of charge dimension preceeds the
> > theory.
>
> You make no sense. As usual.

This just proves you have no clue about what you speak.

>> The documentation of experiments demonstrating the relative strengths of
>> the forces preceed the theory.
>
> I already commented on that elsewhere.

And so did I.

>> The timing of the data in no way diminishes the theory.
>
> I never said it does. Could you please stop attacking
> straw men?

You do imply the words. And you are not a straw man. As long as you keep
saying my theory hasn't been tested or proven, you are saying that the
previously existing data doesn't count toward the affirmation of my theory.

>> The theory produces a strong force law.
>
> Which has nothing to do with the observations.

Excuse me? It has something to do with the observations. It turns out that
the strong force law for the electron is nearly transposed to the Casimir
equation. The difference is, my theory shows the Casimir equation is
slightly wrong, which also agrees with experiment.

>> The theory is mathematically and geometrically developed. The theory is
>> discrete and produces a common sense ontology.
>
> What do you mean with "discrete" here?

Discrete, as in it can be modeled. A computer program can be written that
shows the actual processes taking place within the four dimensions of
space-time or the five dimensions of space-resonance. Oh, that's right, the
SM and relativity theories still haven't discovered the true nature of time
and how it contributes to the geometry of space-time. Nor does the SM or
relativity theories have any understanding of how quantum effects occur in
five dimensions of space-resonance. So your ignorance on these matters
makes me the quack, right?

>>>>Early on I thought I was unifying fields, but after careful examination,
>>>>I clearly saw that force is what we should be unifying. Fields are mere
>>>>mathematical constructs.
>>>>They have no substance and they don't do anything.
>>>
>>>Err, ever heard of force fields?
>>
>> Err, yeah. I've heard of velocity, momentum, acceleration, fairies and
>> goblins, too. What's your point?
>
> That force usually comes as a field. So your point that fields
> are mathematical constructs, but forces are not, is a little
> strange.

It may sound strange compared to the paradigm you are used to, but that is
what the physics shows. Force is a primary mover of the physical Universe.
It is as though the Universe is *made* from force. Instead of denying what
the facts reveal, we should be trying to understand the Universe as it is
revealing itself to us.

>> Force can only act on mass or charge.
>
> Wrong. It can also act on energy.

Wrong. Write the force law for energy. And don't use that E=mc^2 nonsense
as I have already shown that is not an equation. There is no equality of
energy and mass.

>> There is nothing else that can be acted upon.
>
> Unsupported assertion.

Not if you look at the Aether Physics Model. The APM clearly shows the
ontology of the Universe. You can clearly see that subatomic particles,
atoms, molecules, etc all develop from a specific set of processes. There
are no other forces and there are no other substances for the forces to act
upon. You can't use the failed SM, SRT, and GR to judge the APM. You have
to judge the APM by its own ability to mathematically and geometrically
define the Universe.

>> Line up a bunch of charges and call it a force field if you want.
>
> Thanks for demonstrating that you have no clue what the
> term "force field" means.

Don't go off on semantics. You know what I mean.

>> Put a bunch of angular momentum together and call it a rock.
>
> Argument by ridicule noted.

Argument by fact! I can show that all physical matter is based on a
collection of angular momentum.

>> No matter how you arrange it, force only acts on mass and charge.
>
> Unsupported assertion.

That's like saying that mass itself is an unsupported assertion. The fact
remains, there are only three force laws (you only know two) and there are
three manifestations of substance, which are mass, strong charge, and
electrostatic charge (once again, you only know two). I have quantified
this very clearly in my book. But because you refuse to read the book, you
imply to have knowledge that I haven't quantified this.

>>>>The only thing that has substance is mass and charge,
>>>
>>>Define "substance".
>>
>> Substance: at the quantum level, that which is mass or charge
>
> Then your statement that "the only thing that has
> substance is mass and charge" becomes a tautology.

It's a fact.

>> and can be acted upon by a measurable force, and obeys a force law.
>
> Mass and charge obey a force law?????

Absolutely. Maybe you have never heard of them? One is Newton's
gravitational law, which is what applies to mass. Another that most of your
peers are familiar with is the Coulomb electrostatic force law, which acts
on electrostatic charge. The strong force is a law I discovered on my own,
as well as the strong charge it acts upon. I also show that Casimir nearly
discovered the strong force law, but got it slightly wrong.

>>>>and the only thing that does anything is force.
>>>
>>>What about force fields?

Force is quantum, just as is mass and charge. You can add a bunch of mass
and have a greater mass. Similarly, you can add a bunch of quantum force
together and get a field.

>> What about rocket engines and hurricanes?
>
> Obfuscation noted. Inability to get my point noted.

Your lack of understanding how force fields are composites of quantum units
of force is noted. You apparently failed to see how a rocket engine or
hurricane ultimately gets its force from the quantum level of existence.

I restate the fact that there are only three physical manifestations of
force, and that these three manifestations of force arise from the way the
Gforce acts upon mass, strong charge, and electrostatic charge.

>> Everything traces back to the three fundamental forces.
>
> Four.

There are only three forces. The so-called "weak nuclear force" is really a
proportion of the electrostatic force and electromagnetic force, as
determined by the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic charge. It
is more appropriately called the "weak interaction".

>> And in the Aether Physics Model, the three fundamental forces are even
>> traced back to a single Gforce.
>
> I.e. you have a bunch of unsupported assertions about things
> which you don't understand.

How would you know? Talk about unsupported assertions!

>> A force field as you appear to be talking about is the combined effect of
>> many subatomic particles reacting on the quantum Aether units.
>
> You make about as much sense as Ken Seto here. I.e. none.

You make yourself sound so smart by putting down other people. But it
doesn't impress me the least bit. I'm only impressed with people who
develop and destroy theories using the tools of science.

>> In fact, the quantum Aether unit is itself a quantum of 2 spin rotating
>> magnetic field. The Aether unit is the source from which the Gforce acts
>> upon mass and charge.
>
> Lots of unsupported assertions. Lots of cases where you
> use well-established terms with your own strange meanings.

Once again, how would you know? It's not like I haven't spent three years
developing the theory, based on mathematics and data, and committing it to
print in an organized document. What's really strange is how you can make
such smart sounding. but inaccurate, assertions without having any basis for
doing so.

Dave

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... theory, it is modern physics. ... The distribution of charge was noted in the very beginning by ... That's like saying that mass itself is an unsupported assertion. ... electrostatic charge. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... theory, it is modern physics. ... The distribution of charge was noted in the very beginning by ... That's like saying that mass itself is an unsupported assertion. ... electrostatic charge. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?
    ... > detect the increased energy state of an electron when it absorbs a ... physics states a photon, but this could be right or wrong, and no one ... there or will there not be net electric charge produced? ... >> Mass and charge are NOT the same thing. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is mass a 3D phenomenon?
    ... My familiarity with physics is an occasional ... | meaningless when we throw away one of the dimensions, ... Why does mass "disappear" when reducing ... The charge and time are related to each other as ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: How the Aether Physics Model came to be
    ... |> You mean coulomb is the MKS expression of electric charge not ... |> | down to the same scale as the electrostatic charge on the left. ... It is an error of 20th Century physics ... |> quantities to dimensionless numbers. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading