Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 07/18/04 

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:59:58 -0000

 David Thomson:
>"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrncfi9ot.26e.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> David Thomson:
>> >"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
>> >news:DhdJc.54378$W6.33927@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> >> How the hell do you "find" it if it is not detectable?
>> >
>> >You quantify empty Aether by observing the stuff that passed through it.
>>
>> So, I take it that a particle with an initial trajectory along the
>> axis of a piece of beam pipe under vacuum, should scatter and hit the
>> edge of the beam pipe? Assuming a vacuum of 10^-6 torr and an electron
>> of energy E, what contribution to the scattering would be represented
>> by the ether? At 10^-6 torr, the mean free path is extremely long, so
>> for the most part, you shouldn't have to worry about scattering from
>> the residual gas.
>
>Forget the trajectory stuff.

  You stated above that you quantify the ether by observing the stuff
that passes through it. I just gave you example of stuff passing through
it. Either you can or cannot tell me how that quantifies the ether.
 
[...]
>recognize the Aether. A unit of Aether is equal to a 2 spin rotating
>magnetic field. In order to see this you need to understand
>electromagnetism, not the momentum of electrons and photons.

>The Compton scattering of photons against electrons reflect the various
>angles photons would scatter off of electrons. The scattering angle is
>equal to (1-cos(theta)) where theta is the incident angle of the photon.
>Producing a plot for these angles yields a cardioid pattern, which reflects
>the actual shape of the electron when seen from the perspective of a single
>frame of time. This pattern indicates part of the shape of the Aether
>rotating magnetic field seen from a particular viewpoint, since the
>subatomic particles take their shape from the Aether.

  Calculate the compton cross scattering section (the spin-averaged cross
section will do), but not the simplistic one you wrote down. Then, I'll
believe you are in a position to discuss electromagnetism.
 
[...]
>> I'm sure you won't believe this, but the electron spin is 1/2, the
>> proton spin is 1/2, the neutron spin is 1/2 and 1/2 + 1/2 can only
>> add to 0 or 1.
>
>I know you won't believe this, but electrons and protons get their 1/2 spin
>from the Aether.
 
  You're right. I don't believe it.

>When a neutron forms, two Aether units, one carrying the
>proton and the other carrying the electron, overlap each other. The effect
>is spacetime is folded and the two particles produce a single particle still
>having 1/2 spin. The anti-neutrino also ends up with 1/2 spin and your
>forgot to include that.
 
  Use your aether to calculate the decay rate of 10C.

>The binding process of the neutron is different from the binding process of
>nucleons in the way the particles share spacetime.
>
>Like I said, I know you won't believe it because you already have everything
>figured out.
 
  I don't have everything figured out, but we aren't discussing everything.
We're discussing something I happen to know something about.
[...]
>>
>> A calculation please.
>
>I've spent the last 5 months putting all the equations, and graphics into a
>book.

   Since you're posting here, you obviously didn't break your fingers
typing your book, so I see nothing that would stop you from posting a
calculation.

 ?I've got the rough draft done and am now finishing it off. I expect
>to have the manuscript sent out for peer review in mid September (yes, there
>are actually physicists with PhDs in this country who see the value of what
>I have done.)

  Wishful thinking.
 
[...]
>>
>> La-de-da... search google for super kamiokande.
>
>La-de-da, I have. I have quoted the authors of the Super-Kamiokande
>experiment in my book.
 
  I'm not reading your book. I'm reading your usenet post.
 
[...]
>>
>> Then how is it that experiments have measured electron-neutrino
>> scattering? Just a fluke?
>
>You're reading too much into the "research" papers.

  No, I'm reading precisely what the author's literally wrote.
 
>Nothing has been
>confirmed to the precision of the Compton scattering. The scattering angles
>don't even match the expected Weinberg angle of sin^2theta. It's not a
>fluke, it just hasn't been conclusively proved.
 
  You apparently don't even know what the weinberg angle is.

[...]

>Just as do the "vitual photons" from the Casimir effect. Bohr was right,
>conservation of energy and momentum does not apply at the subatomic level
>with regard to neutrinos. The evidence clearly shows that the neutrino mass
>and angular momentum should be 1.531 times the electron. And the evidence
>just as clearly shows that the neutrino mass and angular momentum are not
>there. Having a preconceived idea that neutrinos must observe a man-made
>law of physics is the absurdity here, not the violation of that man-made
>law.

  If you post more of the same bull***, I'm going to take it as an
attempt to bull*** me with jargon and treat it accordingly.