Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!

From: David Thomson (news5_at_volantis.org)
Date: 01/24/05 

Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:05:51 -0600

"Ranando King" <rk@magictouchcorp.com> wrote in message
news:41f15324_1@news.vic.com...
> Until now, your "theory" (read "hypothesis") has been that mass somehow
> warps space-time without producing a gravitational field, and that light
> is
> not affected by gravity but rather by this warped space-time.

Where do you come up with this crap? You really have no clue what I have
been saying.

> I dare say
> that this contradicts the "proven facts." Now while I don't disagree that
> there is probably a better explanation than the existing ones out there, I
> don't agree that yours is among the better ones.

Is this a hypothesis, theory, or fact? Sounds like opinion to me. How
would you know what my theory says?

>> The pinch is temporary, just as nuclear binding is temporary. Nuclear
>> binding only remains until a greater force comes along to tear it apart.
>
> I'm quite thankful that no "greater force" has come along to tear the
> nuclear binding of this planet apart, not to mention that of my own body!

If you had a good understanding of the strong force you would know that the
force is vector dependent. The reason some isotopes are easier to pull
apart than others is because the total number of protons and neutrons, based
on a consitent structure of Aether, determines how the protons and neutrons
are magnetically aligned with each other. It works the same as with regular
magnets. If you change the angle of one magnet to another the binding force
between the two increases or decreases accordingly.

>> As for the straight line, we are not at the location of your imaginary
>> endpoint. We are at a place fairly close to the pinch. So we do see a
>> curvature caused by the pinch.
>
> Even from a position fairly close to the pinch you end up seeing the line
> first bend towards and then bend away... a temporary curvature at best.

But it bends, right?

>> And the rubber *** is merely a visual aid.
>> It is not the theory itself.
>
> Understandable, so use a better visual aid.

I do, in the book. In fact, we hired Jon Lomberg to do the graphic work for
us. You want to see the graphics that we paid several thousand dollars for?
Buy the book. Otherwise, visualize a rubber ***.

>> >> Wrong.
>> > <snipped>
>> >> The angular momentum of light travels through each Aether unit from
>> >> its
>> >> origin until it is absorbed by another atom. The Aether keeps the
> speed
>> >> of
>> >> light constant.
>> >>
>> > ok... First, it isn't a matter of "particulate" vs. "gaseous" but
>> > rather
>> > "solid" vs "gaseous". Even your variation of the "gaseous" theory still
>> > amounts to a particulate theory.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Once again, "gaseous" is merely a visual aid. It is not
>> the theory. The Aether is not a gas. The Aether is a fabric of quantum
>> rotating magnetic fields.
>
> *Sigh*
>
> "quantum rotating magnetic fields"
> If the aether is a "fabric" of these qrmfs, then I should be able to
> isolate
> 1 quanta from the fabric. If that's not possible then you need to ditch
> the
> term "quantum" and stop calling your "theory" (read "hypothesis")
> "discrete".

What makes you think you can isolate a quantum Aether unit? You can't even
isolate a quantum electron or photon. How would you measure a quantum unit
when the media used to record the images is made up of large quantities of
these quanta? How would you measure a quantum of rmfd without filling it
with electrons or protons?

I had to deduce the quanta of the Aether from the measurements of the
electrons and protons that fill the Aether units, and the forces imparted by
the Aether to the electrons and protons.

I'll continue to call my theory "discrete" because that is exactly what it
is. The theory accurately predicts observed properties of the subatomic
particles and goes as far as to describe their precise geometry.

>> There are several faults in your reasoning. First, a photon is not its
>> energy. Energy is a quality of a photon. Energy doesn't strike
>> anything,
>> photons do. Energy does not cause matter to move, photons do. The SM
>> does
>> not quantify photons, but the APM does quantify photons.
>
> What!?!?!?!
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=photon
> pho·ton Audio pronunciation of "photon" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ftn)
> n.
>
> 1. The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete
> particle
> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime.
> See
> table at subatomic particle.

Don't feed me this nonsense. Quantify the photon, don't describe it with
words. What are the dimensions and values of the photon according to the
Standard Model? The SM does not quantify the photon. Yes, it describes it
with words, but that is philosophy. I present a true scientific theory.

> The long and short is that a photon is a discrete packet of
> electromagnetic
> energy. So indeed, a photon IS energy. This is high school physics.

So sayeth who? Einstein? I could care less what your religious beliefs
are. Let's talk science, as in real data and real measurements. Quantify a
photon and leave out the poetry.

> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kinetic%20energy
> kinetic energy
> n.
>
> The energy possessed by a body because of its motion, equal to one half
> the mass of the body times the square of its speed.

That's a lame definition, don't you think? I mean, what is "half the mass?"
Mass is just a dimension. There is no mass to take half of. And what is
this nonsense about the square of speed? If you square speed, it's no
longer velocity. In reality, the kinetic energy is equal to half the force
applied to a body times the distance the force was applied for.

> If something gains energy, it will either store it (potential energy) or
> move (kinetic energy). This is again high school physics. If you refute
> this, you need to provide entirely new definitions for energy!!

It's not new. High school physics also teaches that energy is equal to
force times distance. The so-called "stored energy" is really energy that
is converted to a force. For example, if you pick up an object off the
floor, you are using the kinetic energy of your body to increase the amount
of distance the gravitational force can act on the object. There's nothing
new about this at all.

>> Second, subatomic particles are the manifestation of angular momentum
>> acting
>> *through* Aether units, not *on* Aether units. The subatomic particle is
>> both the angular momentum *and* the charge imparted to it by the Aether.
>
> Small difference. Possibly negligable save for the sake of terminology.
> Care
> to provide a visual model for clarification's sake?

Yes, it's in the book. At our considerable expense and commitment of time
we have made available to you, and others, a very understandable visual
model to clarify the precise structure of subatomic particles.

> Otherwise I'm left with
> the image that a "particle" is energy applied to aether units, and the
> properties of the particle are the effects of the energy interacting with
> the properties of the aether.

This misperception is due to being educated solely in the Standard Model and
not being educated in the Aether Physics Model. You can only think in the
mass/energy paradigm because that is all you have learned. To think in the
Aether paradigm you need to read a textbook that specializes in the
quantification of Aether and the subatomic particles. As far as I know, the
only book in existence on this topic, so far, is Secrets of the Aether,
which I happen to be co-author of.

>> Third, Aether is the structure in which subatomic particles move and
>> exhibit
>> the quality of energy. No energy is collected. Subatomic particles are
>> angular momentum, not energy. Photons are angular momentum times
>> velocity,
>> not energy.
>
> Force is required to alter something's "angular momentum". Force requires
> energy.

Says who? Force is primary to energy. Energy only comes about when force
is applied to something and causes it to move a distance. There is a reason
why Einstein was determined to find a single force, which unifies all the
forces. There is a reason why force acts over a distance. There is a
reason why even the SM traces the whole Universe back to a Big Bang, whether
such a thing ever occurred or not. In the beginning there was dark matter
and Gforce. From these two, all physical existence arose.

> So how is it that all this "angular momentum" is moving around
> without any exchange of energy? The way you're wording things, it appears
> you're going to have to provide a new definition of what energy is in
> reference to your "theory" (read "hypothesis").

No, all I need to do is use the old definition of energy. Energy is work.
It is your "new" definition of energy as an objective form of existence that
is in error and needs to be forgotten.

>> Fourth, you are correct that movement of subatomic particles equate to
>> the
>> movement of Aether units, but the photon is an expanding electron. In
>> this
>> case the photon moves through the Aether, but it does not move the Aether
>> itself.
>
> You just defeated yourself. Check the logic. If moving a subatomic
> particle
> means moving aether units, and subatomic particles are themselves
> quantized,
> then the aether must also be quantized. As such, your "gaseous" aether
> model
> is a particulate model with limited structure.

I've been saying all along that the Aether is quantized. That doesn't
defeat my argument, it bolsters my argument. If a quantum particle exists,
and it exists in only one space and time, then the space and time must also
be quantized. And, in fact, I fully explain the quantification of the
Aether. That's why the book title is "Secrets of the Aether" and the theory
is called "Aether Physics Model."

And if you took the time to read the book, and took the time to reflect on
the meaning of "quantum rotating magnetic field," you would understand how
the Aether can exist as a quantum of non-material, physical reality.

>> > If this logic were fallous, then there would be no logical explanation
>> > for
>> > why such a "gaseous" aether could exist. If the aether could not be
>> > caused
>> > to move with the presence of energy, then the aether would be static,
>> > i.e.
>> > solid.
>>
>> According to your understanding it would seem falacious. You can't judge
>> the APM by SM concepts. If you want to understand the Aether, you must
>> study it as it is, not as a preconceived concept you have about gasses.
>> The
>> Aether exists in five dimensions of space-resonance, the SM never goes
>> beyond four dimensions of space-time. Further, the SM considers fields
>> to
>> be mathematical constructs. The APM sees fields as primary to, and more
>> real than matter. The APM shows a non-material reality that gave rise to
>> a
>> material Universe, which is even what the Big Bang boils down to. Only
>> in
>> the case of the APM, the non-material reality is quantified.
>
> First, my own viewpoint is that much of physics as we know it is, at best,
> mistaken. Second, since in order to study the aether, which cannot
> presently
> be observed directly, we must study its effects on the "material
> Universe,"
> it becomes quite hard to "understand the Aether" until someone provides a
> model that consistently explains **ALL** of the data currently collected
> in
> terms of the aether's effects.

Gosh. Why don't you just break down and contribute to my research and read
my book? I agree that modern physics is mistaken, and I provide a valid
alternative. I agree that we have to observe the Aether indirectly by its
effect on physical reality, and it will never be observed directly.

As for explaining *ALL* the data currently collected, be reasonable. There
is an awful lot of data out there. That data has been accumulated over a
hundred years by perhaps a million scientists at the cost of billions of
dollars. If one person comes along and says, "Hey, I found the foundation
for the new physics you're looking for," don't unreasonably expect this one
person to answer every question under the Sun. If this person can provide a
mathematically correct Unified Force Theory, that is worthy in itself for
being evaluated. But I go further than that and provide a complete
structural system for all subatomic matter that fully agrees with the
empirical data. I make a correction to the Casimir equation and point out
an error in the presently accepted neutron magnetic moment and neutron
g-factor. I show the geometrical cause for the electron and proton
g-factors. I show the geometrical cause for the fine structure constants.
I show an equation that quantifies the neutron as a binding of an electron
and proton.

That's enough for a first step in the right direction. If you want to see
this theory fully developed to explain **ALL** the known data, then help
develop the theory. The SM was not presented in a single paper by a single
scientist and that contained all the answers to all the questions ever
asked. Why would you place such outrageous demands on me?

Look, just break down and read the theory. There is a reason why it is
presented in over 200 pages in book form. It is graphics intensive, full of
equations, full of descriptions, and is well footnoted. No, I don't predict
the shape of an ant's ***, but I do present at least a dozen significant
quantum physics breakthroughs.

I admit openly that I'm self-educated in physics. I'm not ashamed of that.
In fact, I attribute my ability to present a completely different physics
model to the fact that I wasn't indoctrinated in the SM. I did ,and do,
read many books and research papers. I'm learning as I go. Is that a
reason to throw out my research?

My biggest stumbling block is my lack of access to the data I need. If you
have access to data, you could apply the Aether Physics Model to that data
and make your own discoveries. There is no need to wait for me to get
around to it.

The Aether Physics Model is truly a valid system of physics. You really
need to look at it before trashing it any further. Who knows, maybe I did
make a mistake. Then you could be the first to point out its error(s).
That should be worth the $50 right there.

> Further, given the current definition of
> energy, it doesn't matter how many dimensions you work with, any and all
> changes in inertia require application or removal of energy. That means if
> "angular momentum" is moving around, it's either gaining or losing energy
> in
> the process. There's no way around this save to change the definition of
> energy.

You're coming from a paradigm where the Univrse is assumed to be created in
a state of motion. It wasn't. The Universe was created in a state of
force. It turns out that dark matter, while encapsulated by Aether,
provides something for this force to act on. As the force acts on the
subatomic particles they begin to move and the movement manifests as work.
There is no need to redefine energy, and there is no need to make energy
into something it is not. It is only necessary to understand the true
ontology for the creation of the physical Universe.

>> Gravity is one manifestation of the Gforce acting on subatomic particles.
>> The Gforce is the source of the gravitational force, electromagnetic
>> force,
>> and electrostatic force. It is as though subatomic particles were a kind
>> of
>> prism that defracts the Gforce into three distinct manifestations.
>
> ... and the source of this Gforce is... what?

The source of the Gforce is the same source of length, frequency, mass, and
charge. At this point, who cares? The physics clearly show exactly what
Einstein was looking for, a Unified Force Theory where all forces trace back
to a common force. Let's just take things one step at a time.

>> Your explanation of Gravity is merely the observation of two coincidental
>> facts. GR does not present any mechanism for how curved space-time could
>> produce gravity, or vice versa.
>
> For once we agree. GR does not provide a functional conceptual model for
> gravity.

We might agree on much more if you actually took the time to understand the
Aether Physics Model. It is incredibly coherent.

>> >> > As another question, if "gravity does not act on itself" then why
>> >> > does one
>> >> > "pinch" seem to get stronger in proximity to other "pinches"? Asked
>> >> > another
>> >> > way, since each "pinch" doesn't react with other "pinches" then why
>> >> > does a
>> >> > gravitational field vary with R^2?
>> >>
>> >> You mean D^2, right?
>> >
>> > yes. Distance, radius, any scalar measure of linear length from a given
>> > point.
>>
>> There is a big difference between the distance between two points and a
>> radius. The gravitational force varies with the distance squared, not
>> the
>> radius squared.
>
> Given that most gravitation effects are measured as the result of a
> massive
> body having a discernable surface area, and that the effects are usually
> measured outside of that surface, radius as defined as an orbital distance
> from the center of gravity of a massive object will suffice quite nicely.
> In
> other words, the two terms are interchangeable in this context. Now quit
> worrying about this particular straw man and move on to more important
> points.

We're talking about science. You're picking at my theories, I'm going to
pick at your understanding of the SM. The gravitational force law is based
on distance, not radius. Most gravitational effects, if you are looking at
the big picture, have nothing to do with a massive body and a small body on
its surface. Most gravitational effects are huge bodies in space that don't
touch each other. It's only your limited human perception that causes you
to believe that most gravitational effects have to do with the Earth in
particular and objects on its surface. The fact is, the gravitational force
law could care less whether we are talking about bodies in space or small
bodies on the surface of larger bodies. In all cases the only true equation
depends on distance, and has nothing to do with radius except by
coincidence.

>> >> Also, it is the force that varies, not a "field."
>> >
>> > Are you sure about that? Newton's gravity has a "force" acting between
>> > 2
>> > masses. So the "force" of gravity varys with the masses of the objects
>> > and
>> > inversely with the square of their distance apart. However, that same
>> > concept has a "field" of effect surrounding only 1 mass who's strength
>> > varys
>> > in the same way as the "force".
>>
>> Yes, I'm certain that the force varies and not the field. The field is
>> the
>> total of all the force measurements at all the distances. The force is a
>> specific force at a specific measured distance. Also, the force is real,
>> the field is imaginary.
>
> Wait a second, you just stated that:
>
> "The APM sees fields as primary to, and more real than matter."
>
> So if forces are real, fields are imaginary, and matter is less real than
> fields, then what the heck is causing all of this force?

At this point in our discussion, who cares? What the heck is causing all
this matter? It's there. The force laws all share the same structure and
are fundamental to physics.

> If a massive object
> is always assumed to be stationary, and there are no other massive objects
> around, does it still apply a gravitational force?

The object never applies the gravitational force in the first place. That
is one of the great errors of the SM and relativity theories. Objects are
the things the force acts upon, they do not supply the force that acts upon
themselves.

> On what?

The Aether applies the force. The force is fundamental, even more
fundamental than the subatomic particles which the forces act upon. The
subatomic particles are formed from dark matter and Gforce. Both dark
matter and Gforce pre-exist the physical Universe because subatomic
particles are the beginning of the physical Universe. If the physics shows
that force pre-exists matter, then that what it is. Don't fault me for
discovering this, find fault with the physics and point out the errors.

> Force
> accelerates mass, classic definition. If the afore mentioned massive
> object
> is not accelerating and there's no other mass around, then there's no
> force.

Since when does a definition, classic or otherwise, determine the laws of
the Universe? What makes you think that the only thing force does is
accelerate mass? Certainly it is an effect of force to accelerate a mass,
but what else can force do? Also, keep in mind that force only works at the
quantum level.

> So how does this force suddenly pop into existance when another mass shows
> up?

Force was there before the subatomic particle was there. How do subatomic
particles suddenly pop into existence with the Big Bang? My physics model
shows how. Dark matter is absorbed into Aether. Aether is itself a
manifestation of Gforce. Let's figure out the physical Universe before we
try to figure out the non-material existence that preceded it.

The SM does not explain how mass, length, frequency, and charge came into
existence at the same time as the Big Bang. The dimensions are taken for
granted in the SM. That's actually quite understandable because the
dimensions are themselves non-material qualities that give rise to material
qualities. Physical science can only go as far as physical existence. What
preceded physical existence is necessarily beyond the scope of the physical
sciences.

So Gforce, dark matter, and Aether are in the same category as the
dimensions. They can be quantified but they have non-material existence.
Until we develop a non-physical system of physics, we have to accept them as
givens.

> As you correctly stated, fields are primary. The gravitational field is
> real. The gravitational force is conceptual. Watch those contradictions.

I stated that the forces were primary, not the fields. You got to watch
those confusions. The gravitational force is real, the gravitational field
is conceptual.

>> >> As for the
>> >> strong force, it acts directly on strong charge. The strong force
>> >> doesn't
>> >> get any stronger in proximity to other bindings. The strong force
>> >> only
>> >> varies as the distance squared between strong charges.
>> >
>> > That's nice and all, but I'm talking about gravity here. Since you said
>> > that
>> > the strong force is NOT gravity, then why bring it up?
>>
>> Because the strong force is directly proportional to the gravitational
>> force.
>
> That's nice too, but for the majority of this conversation I've been
> speaking of gravity, not the strong force. So unless the strong force is
> relevant to causing gravity, it has no place in this discussion.

I believe this conversation evolved from a discussion of GR. As I pointed
out, GR is a mistake in that it confused the effect of the strong force for
the gravitational force. So as long as you continue to discuss gravity in
relation to GR, it is fair for me to continue to correct this
misunderstanding.

>> >> There is no such thing in the material world as "rest mass." This is
>> >> another one of those mathematical constructs, like "fields." There is
>> >> only
>> >> mass, and mass is only a dimension. The mass in force (weight) is no
>> >> different from the mass in resistance. The only difference is the way
>> >> it is
>> >> viewed through units.
>> >
>> > Unless you're disputing the Principles of Relativity, there's quite a
>> > few
>> > scientists out there willing to disagree with you on that claim. "Rest
>> > mass"
>> > is just the mass of an object as it is measured when the object has 0
>> > velocity relative to the observer.
>>
>> Yes, I am disputing the principles of SRT. Calculations in SRT are based
>> upon imaginary properties of objects. I don't practice physics based on
>> popular opinions, I practice physics based on measureable properties of
>> objects.
>
> So do tell, how exactly in your experimenting did you notice the
> immeasurable, non-directly observable aether had such a large,
> non-gravitating mass? What experiment did you run to note that charge is a
> property of these aether units rather than the subatomic particles?

SRT is based on perception, i.e. seeing through the senses. My theory is
based on logic, i.e. examining the data and deducing first principles.

>> > When an object is moving, especially at
>> > relativistic speeds (which light always is),
>>
>> What is a "relativistic speed?" Do you mean the speed of light? What is
>> so
>> relativistic about the speed of light?
>
> Please try not to be obtuse. Just in case you weren't joking:
>
> Relativistic speed: linear velocity such that measurable effects predicted
> by the theory of relativity can be observed.

You're the one being obtuse. If you're talking about an object moving at
the speed of light, or near the speed of light, say so. The predicted
effects you speak of are optical illusions. Nothing really happens. The
term "relativistic" has no scientific meaning except when describing optical
illusions. Once again, I'm interested in real science only, not imaginary
scenarios where the optical illusion is taken as an actual occurence.

>> >> > You do realize that a) moving objects act like they have more mass
>> >> > than
>> >> > their stationary equialents,
>> >>
>> >> You realize that this is just an illusion seen by an outside
>> >> observer.The
>> >> mass itself sees no change at all.
>> >
>> > Yes, but that illusion also comes with an increase in gravitational
>> > effect
>> > as seen by the outside observer. While that too is likely an illusion
>> > due to
>> > the speed of the object, it doesn't change the observer's measurements.
>>
>> LOL. That was a joke, right? A measured illusion?
>
> Yes. We measure illusions constantly. There aren't any actual letters on
> your screen.

Exactly, and these letters don't bite me when I touch the screen either, or
remain younger than me because the electrons that make them travel at the
speed of light. You can't build a speed of light spaceship that will make
the traveler age less than those on Earth. You can't increase mass to
infinity. You can't increase mass at all. Other than entertainment, who
cares whether time has the illusion of passing slower from some observer.
Just as surely, time appears to pass faster for an observer in the path the
rocketship is heading in. So what? How does that change reality for those
on the ship or those observing?

> All you're looking at right now is a series of closely spaced
> red, green, & blue colored phosphors which are either being illuminated or
> ignored by a stream of electrons passing by at high speed. Those "dots"
> aren't even continuously on like they appear to be. They fade out, but are
> soon struck and re-illuminated again.

And? What does that have to do with Special Relativity Theory? What is the
effect of SRT? I can understand the effect of language, alphabets, electron
beams, colors, etc. But I don't understand what SRT has accomplished. SRT
doesn't describe a real process, it doesn't carry or reveal real
information, and it doesn't describe a real thing. SRT has no more value
than supplying fantasy material for comic books and movies.

> The ground you're standing or sitting
> on isn't really continuously solid. It's 95% empty space! If you were in
> physical contact with the ground as you would appear to be, then the atoms
> in your foot or shoe would be fused with the atoms of the ground. The
> contact you appear to have is the point where the force of repulsion from
> the electrons & protons surrounding from atoms on the floor and the ones
> from the atoms on your feet or shoes balances the force of attraction
> between you and the earth. There are many such illusions.

Your definition of illusion differs considerably with that of even your
peers. The interaction of the forces to produce the appearance of standing
or sitting is considered by most to be "reality." Illusion applies to those
things which seem real but are later found to not truly exist. I don't see
how your observation that solids are not truly solid translates to being an
illusion. I think you are confusing preconception with illusion. We might
imagine something is 100% solid, but that is just our preconception. When
we find out it is really only 5% solid, that does not take away from the
reality of the object, it only modifies our conception of the object.

In the case of SRT, there is no mass increase and no time dilation, even
though it appears that way to an observer. The mirage of water on hot sand
does not give rise to actual water. The mirage of time dilation does not
give rise to actual time dilation. The illusion of mass increase does not
give rise to actual mass increase.

> Too many to name.
> But we accept them all the same and measure them.

You're wrong with respect to SRT. There is nothing is SRT for you to
measure. Don't confuse a measurement with a calculation.

>> >> > and b) light never sits still, don't you?
>> >>
>> >> If you realize that light never sits still, then how can you be sure
>> >> it has
>> >> a rest mass?
>> >
>> > I never said it did. I said it has a "relativistic mass" and that mass
>> > also
>> > has gravity.
>>
>> You just said light has a zero rest mass. Which do you believe? You
>> can't
>> have it both ways. Also, gravity is not a property of mass. Gravity is
>> a
>> force that pertains specifically to the mass in the unit of angular
>> momentum. The object being acted upon cannot be the same thing as the
>> action acting upon it.
>
> Again. I never said that light has a "rest mass." Seeing as how light
> never
> "rests" it cannot ever have a "rest mass."

Then why do you refer to the rest mass of a photon?

> However, light **DOES** have a
> "relativistic mass", and it is this "relativistic mass" that allows light
> to
> interact w/ gravity.

Your physics doesn't even quantify light or a photon, so how can you tell
what its mass is, rest, relativistic, or otherwise?

Here we go again with the illusions. The "relativistic mass" of the light
is an illusion, and yet you say it interacts with gravity. You can't drink
the water of a mirage any more than the illusory effects of light can
interact with something real. Gravity is a force law that requires two
masses. Light has zero mass, therefore zero gravitational force can act
upon it.

> Gravity is a **field** (you remember, those things
> fundamental to your APM?)

Gravity is a **FORCE** (you remember, the stuff fields are made from in the
APM)

> that exherts a force on anything within it having
> a "mass," whether that mass be "relativistic" or "rest".

Resistance has mass. What force does the gravitational field exert on
resistance in your physics model?

> By the way you're
> stating things, it looks as though you're going to have to redefine "mass"
> as well as "energy."

Once again, I rely on the old definition, not the new definition your peers
have made up to support the imaginary mass/energy paradigm. Mass is just a
dimension. It is nothing fancy with qualities of "rest," "relativistic," or
anything else.

You need to explain why mass that appears in other units is not affected the
same way as mass of photons and subatomic particles.

>> >> There is no "effective mass." Light does have mass, but it is not a
>> >> mass in
>> >> a unit that can be acted upon by the gravitational force. Resistance
>> >> also
>> >> has mass, which also cannot be acted upon by the gravitational force.
>> >
>> > Resistance is a force. Forces do not have mass, they act on mass.
>> > Please
>> > double-check your analogies...
>>
>> Resistance is not a force. The only forces are the gravitational force,
>> electrostatic force, and electromagnetic force. Resistance is
>> resistance.
>> And I wasn't giving an analogy in this case, I was giving a fact. One of
>> the dimensions of resistance is mass.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=resistance
> re·sis·tance Audio pronunciation of "resistance" ( P ) Pronunciation
> Key
> (r-zstns)
> n.
>
> 2. A force that tends to oppose or retard motion.
> 6. Electricity. The opposition of a body or substance to current passing
> through it, resulting in a change of electrical energy into heat or
> another
> form of energy.
>
> Now do you also intend to redefine "resistance"?

Resistance, like force, momentum, magnetic flux, magnetic field, current,
potential, and all other units, is defined by being the quality that it is.
The definition of resistance as a force is clearly wrong. Force is force.
Resistance is resistance. Resistance is the property of interfering with a
force, it is not a force of itself. Resistance occurs when two subatomic
particles try to occupy the same space at the same time.

>> >> > where h is Planck's constant, l is the
>> >> > wavelength of the photon and c is the speed of light.
>> >>
>> >> Quantify the photon such that it has frequency or wavelength. What
>> >> exactly
>> >> are the dimensions of the photon you are describing?
>> >
>> > Last I checked, it was 0x0x0. The units are irrelevant.
>>
>> The units are very relevant. How else will you mathematically show the
>> interaction of the photon with electrons?
>
> It could be 0 inches, 0 meters, or 0 miles. However large the units are,
> the
> size remains the same. Therefore the units are irrelevant.

That's plain stupid. Photons are caused by electrons shifting orbitals
(moving from one Aether unit to another within an atom). The electrons move
at the quantum rate, which is the speed of light. Therefore the photon is
equal to the electron times the speed of light. And since the electron is
equal to Planck's constant, the photon is:

phtn = h * c

The photon has specific dimensions and a specific value, therefore it is a
specific unit.

> The Aether has a very specific structure? Are you sure you didn't mean the
> "aether units"? Because if you're referring to the aether as a whole as
> having structure, then your "gaseous" "analogy" doesn't apply.

Yes, the Aether has a very specific structure. The specific structure
arises from a specific Aether unit abiding by specific force laws. Since
the Aether unit is non-material, the Aether structure is necessarily
non-material, too. Just as you can imagine subatomic particles following
specific rules of structure to produce the Eiffel Tower, you can also
imagine the Aether units following specific rules of structure to produce
the fabric of space-time.

>> I'm not fatigued, my theory is quantified. I've shown your ignorance on
>> many counts and you continue to ignore it.
>
> You've neither shown your theory quantified,

Sure I have. It's in the book described at www.16pi2.com.

> When
>> the electron expands outward by jumping to the next Aether unit (energy
>> state, orbital) it moves one quantum length per quantum momentum, which
>> is
>> the speed of light. The wave you seek to quantify is really the distance
>> between successive photons, or their frequency of production.
>
> Ouch. If an electron moves 1ql/qm when emitting photons, then all photons
> contain the exact same quanta of energy. If that were the case, then there
> could only be 1 possible frequency of light.

Even in your own model you consider the photon to be a quantum of light.
Therefore, photons and light must have different dimensions. Light cannot
be its own quanta.

If you have followed my theory, even in these threads, you would know that I
quantify the photon as above and light as:

ligt = phtn * freq

In my theory, the photon truly is quantum. There is just one photon, not an
infinite number of different quanta as in your model. In my model, light is
a unit and is equal to the quantum photon times the frequency at which it is
produced. Now that just blows your model right out of the water, doesn't
it? I quantify the photon in terms of the electron and then I quantify
light in terms of the photon. You have a quantum photon, which is also
light, and which is also energy. To you, there is no difference between the
three and you can't quantify the photon (or energy or light) in terms of the
electron that produces it.

Somehow, you magically stipulate that unquantified quantum photons have both
frequency and energy. It even sounds stupid.

> I'm going to take a wild guess at your model here...

> You're saying that photons only come as packets of energy, whoops...
> angular
> momentum, having the same value, that frequency is the rate of release of
> these photons, and that the wavelength is implied by the frequency and
> speed
> of these photons given that their speed is always the speed of light.

"Wild" guess is right.

> I could almost buy that, except that this would mean that the speed of
> light
> varys near differrent atoms. Let me show you why. Look at Radon and Neon.
> The difference between the energy of the 1s & 2s orbitals in each of those
> atoms is different. Thus, the energy released in a photon by 1 electron
> moving from 2s to 1s in Radon will be significantly greater than the same
> process in Neon. Since there's no frequency property in a photon for your
> theory and thus no way to mitigate the extra energy, the only thing left
> is
> a change in speed. The photon's speed must be variable.

You do have an analytical mind, but you haven't applied it correctly.
You're the one espousing the mass/energy paradigm, right? All the current
data is in terms of binding energies. If you want to view the process of
photon emission from the APM, you need to express the spectra in terms of
ligt units, not binding energies. The spectra, in turn, is determined by
the ability of the particular atom to absorb incoming angular momentum,
which is dependent upon the geometry of the isotope..

As for your analysis of the photon's speed varying within the atom, you are
correct. That is exactly what experiment shows. Photons travel at
different speeds through different materials. In fact, in some materials
and under specific conditions, the photon can be caused to come to a
complete stop, and resume when the conditions change again. If it wasn't
for the variable speed photons, prisms would not separate wavelengths of
light through diffraction grating.

>> You must understand, I don't come to these newsgroups to learn about the
>> Standard Model. I come here to explain the Aether Physics Model, which
>> is a
>> different physics paradigm. I don't care that you have the wrong
>> understanding of physics, I just want to show the correct understanding
>> of
>> physics.
>
> If this is your intent, then you must first show that your model provides
> an
> explaination that agrees with the presently collected data, not just in
> part, but in whole.

You have a strange concept of how a new theory gets introduced. I'm not
adding to the Standard Model. I'm providing an alternative to the SM.
There's no way that one person can fully develop such a new physics all at
once. I'm doing the right thing by presenting what I have found so far so
that others can investigate it and help develop the theory. You just proved
that my theory works by carrying out its logic to prove that photons move at
different speeds through different materials. See how easy and fun this is?

> Where there are disagreements among defined terms, you
> must provide your definitions.

I do that. That is why I had to write a book. Printing 200 pages of text
with each post to give the full background of the theory is just too
inconvenient for most people.

> All things considered, in the discussion
> we've been having the latter has been your greatest failing.

How can you say that? You haven't even read the theory yet. You can't see,
yet, that it is impossible to judge the APM by the SM. They have different
foundations. The systems of units have different charge dimensions, the
definitions of dimensions are clearer and spelled out in the APM, and the
APM defines units of photon, light, friction, eddy current, drag, and
several others which the SM does not recognize. The APM is far more logical
and mathematically based than is the SM. To trash the APM because it
provides clearer and more logical definitions is hardly a sign that I have
failed, but rather that you have failed to understand the APM.

> Your use of
> various terms defies their readily available definitions. Yet you do not
> provide new definitions on which to support your model. Using the current
> definitions of those terms, your model becomes very much untenable.

I do provide a book with an entire chapter on defining dimensions in great
detail, and another chapter for defining units in great detail. Naturally,
I'm going to use the clearer definitions in my theory, rather than the poor
definitions in current use.

>> Just like the mass in non-gravitating resistance, magnetic flux, magnetic
>> field, conductance, capacitance, inductance, and others, yes.
>
> What definitions are you using such as to define masses for these fields
> and
> forces?

Not "masses," but "mass." And they are not "field and forces," they are
units. Mass is a dimension. It is a quality that measures inertia. There
is inertia involved in resistance, magnetic flux, force, capacitance,
inductance, and any unit that includes the dimension of mass.

>> Newton's laws pertain directly to massive objects. Light
>> has zero massiveness. In order for the Newton gravitational law to work
>> the
>> mass has to be in the form of angular momentum. Newton didn't say that,
>> but
>> I do.
>
> That's funny. You saying that gravity affects angular momentum in your
> model
> is the same as the SRT people saying gravity affects relativistic mass in
> their model. The only difference is that you have stripped away the
> "gravitational field" and thus are left with no explanation for the
> "force"
> of gravity. You proffer this Gforce as the source of all forces and yet
> offer no model to explain how this Gforce becomes gravity when matter is
> involved.

I provide the model, you do not provide the interest to read it. Gravity
works through the Aether unit. Angular momentum is the only unit of matter
that resides in the Aether unit and is subject to the forces.

>> > Remember that the acceleration due to gravity is without regard to the
>> > mass
>> > of the object being affected.
>>
>> Who cares about acceleration? The gravitational force law is about
>> force,
>> not acceleration.
>
> Your law "about force" cares about acceleration. F=ma, remember?

F=mfv

so where is the acceleration now? You can't separate out acceleration and
say the force law depends on it. The force law also then depends on energy,
length, frequency, velocity, momentum, angular momentum, photons, light, and
everything else. The gravitational force law depends only on mass and the
distance between them. The only mass that is acted upon is mass that
appears as primary angular momentum, such as electrons and protons.

>> Where is the data to back this up? This is just a hypothesis. You admit
>> in
>> other areas of the theory that the photon has zero mass. So how does
>> Newton's law apply to an object with zero mass? According to Newton's
>> law
>> it would mean there is zero force. You can't both give the photon zero
>> mass
>> and mass greater than zero just to suit your hypothesis.
>
> Now you're being obtuse again. Read this now, and understand it after a
> good
> night's rest. Light has 0 REST MASS and a NON-ZERO RELATIVISTIC MASS.

Now read this, non-zero relativistic mass is an optical illusion. There is
no such measurable thing as non-zero relativistic mass.

> At no point did I ever state anything to the contrary.

You DID state that SRT is an optical illusion.

> So when I stated that the
> "photon has no mass", I was referring to **rest mass**. That much should
> have been apparent from my previous statements. Next straw-man please.

It's no straw man. You are genuinely conflicted in your statements. You
admit that SRT is an illusion, then you take one of the illusory concepts,
such as relativistic mass, and apply it to a real world situation. Your
previous training will not allow you to admit this conflict and you will
necessarily be in a perpetual state of denial over it. But it's there for
you and all the world to see, if you choose to.

> Here's an article for you. Read. Learn. Correct your model.
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1980SoPh...66..245L&amp;db_key=AST
>
>> What I would like to find is a complete table of spectra for all the
>> elements, and not just a bunch of pretty rainbow pictures. If you know
>> of
>> such a source of data, I would be very interested in obtaining it.
>>
>> Dave
>
> 2 places you can look that I'm aware of...
> http://www.spectraheap.com/manual/table-wave-length.html
> http://www.library.yale.edu/scilib/chem/spectra.pdf

I'll read these links tomorrow (later today.) It's getting late.

Dave

Quantcast