Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:03:22 -0600

"AaronB" <amino_acid456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104823276.285867.14470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dave, do you actually know where Newton's law came from? Do you
> understand how it was derived? If you did, you would realize that it is
> not so hard to believe that Newton's law is simply an approximation of
> a more precise gravitational theory.

Nonsense. Newton's law is a fundamental law of gravitation that applies to
all mass all thoughout the Universe. Show me a case where Newton's law does
not apply to a mass. You can't use light bending around a star because
light has no mass. You can't use an object approaching the speed of light
because the effect is entirely perceptual and not reflected in reality.
Where does Newton's law not apply?

> Newton isn't consistent with observations in all cases, because of a
> reason you should know about Newton's law of gravitation had you done
> any work in astrophysics. If the theory isn't consistent with the data,
> the theory is wrong. In Newton's case, his theory of gravitation was
> not consistent with observations, so GR had to be developed.
> Incidentally, GR is consistent with the data.

Wrong. Astrophysicists incorrectly applied Newton's law to problems having
nothing to do with gravity. This happened because astrophysicists threw out
the Aether and didn't understand its properties.

> What is a force? How is the concept of force acting at a distance any
> more bizarre than a purely geometric interpretation? Newton didn't
> release his theory of gravitation for YEARS after it was finished
> because of this problem.

Newton couldn't quantify the Aether, either. But this wasn't his fault.
Nobody could until the Compton wavelength, Planck's constant, speed of
light, permeability, permittivity, Coulomb's constant and the gravitational
constant were all know to a high degree of accuracy. Only then could anyone
begin to see the quantum Aether as it is. Even still, it takes a highly
creative mind to visualize geometrical concepts never visualized by anyone
before. If it weren't for the individual work of others on these lists, I
may never have been inspired to see the Aether geometry as it really is.

I can tell you what force is, but you won't like the answer, so I'm not
going to say anything for now. If you should ever decide to study the APM
and understand its foundation, then we can discuss what force is. And then
you can also understand why it acts over a distance. As for the geometric
interpretation, the APM fully agrees. In fact, I have fully quantified the
geometrics of space-time and space-resonance. I can show you that we see
the Universe in four dimensions, but it really exists in five dimensions.
The problem with the geometrics showing up in GR is that gravity cannot
possible bend space-time. Once again, there is no mass for the gravity to
act on. Gravity is by far the weakest manifestation of force in the
Universe. In order to bend space-time you need the strong force and you
need a mechanism for latching on to space-time to pull it in. GR doesn't
even begin to describe the physics of space-time such that the mechanics
could be explained.

>> 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.
>
> Well, let's see. Newton's law of gravitation is wrong because it does
> not agree with experiment.

Nonsense. You are trying to apply Newton's law where it doesn't belong.
Gravity has nothing to do with bending light or curving space-time. You
might as well say Ohm's law is wrong because it doesn't explain bent light.

> Since Newton's law gravitation is wrong, it
> is entirely acceptable to ignore it if we can find another model that
> predicts the same data accurately as Newton's, plus accurately predicts
> the effects that Newton does not.

No, it is not entirely, nor even partially acceptable to ignore Newton's
law. If the law doesn't work, the problem is with the scientist, not
nature.

> The new model does not necessarily
> require the path of massless objects to be straight lines. This is
> still consistent with observations.

It's all smoke and mirrors. The Aether is folded due to effects of the
strong force within the object's mass. This produces the curvature of
space-time as we perceive it. The gravitational force is directly
proportional to the strong force. It is possible to incorrectly devise a
theory about effects of the strong force based on the gravitational force
when they are directly proportional. It's just a matter of changing the
scale until the data align.

>> Experiment only produces measurements. It shows nothing. It is the
>> theory
>> that attempts to explain the data. The data does not explain the theory.
>
> Partly right. The theory must predict the experiment. If you can come
> up with an experiment that General Relativity fails at but your theory
> doesn't, then you suddenly have a strong case.

Nonsense. I suddenly have a strong case because my theory presents a
mathematically correct Unified Force Theory. Until relativity theories or
the SM can equal this, they have a weak case. Also, the theory doesn't
predict the experiment, it predicts the data. The experiment is what you do
to gather the data.

Having said that, there is an experiment that GR, SRT, and the SM can't
explain. You can do the experiment right now if you have a magnet and CRT.
Just put one of the poles up against the screen. Notice the patters caused
by the electron beams being collected in the magnetic flux. Now twist the
magnet back and forth. The patterns don't change. This is because the
magnetic flux is absolute and comes from the Aether, it is not an artifact
of the magnet. Use any of your theories to explain why the magnetic flux is
absolute with regard to the spin orientation of the magnet if the magnet is
the source of the magnetic flux.

>> 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.
>
> It's called Occam's razor. If part of a theory is superfluous, then you
> are allowed to cut it out.

That's not what Occam's razor says. Occam's razor says that given a choice
of theories, the simplest one tends to be the correct one. Since the APM is
the only theory with a Unified Force Theory, there aren't any choices. The
SM, GR and SR theories are incomplete and disfunctional. The APM describes
the fundamental Universe in simple algebraic terms, the other theories rely
heavily on error laden math and complex calculus that drops the units.
According to Occam's razor, everything points to the APM being the correct
model.

> It doesn't matter, strictly speaking,
> whether the theory is an accurate interpretation of reality,

It most certainly does. Are you trying to say that a theory that accurately
explains reality is inferior to a theory that only predicts the correct
solutions? Not only are you attacking common sense, you are doing it with
an irrational argument.

> it matters
> that it predicts properly. So if you say aether does it, and I say
> gravity does it, and both our theories predict exactly the same things,
> they are the same theory; there is no advantage to considering one over
> another. If I could predict the same things as GR using a theory
> involving multicoloured trolls, that would be a viable physical theory.

Except for the fact that Aether theory also provides a mathematically
correct Unified Force Theory, explains the fine structure constants,
explains the g-factors, quantifies the neutrinos, corrects a SM error in
neutron magnetic moment, identifies dark matter and how it interfaces with
visible matter, and at least a dozen other significant physics discoveries,
you would be correct. The APM explains everything under one theory. You
have at least five disjointed theories (SM, GR, SRT, QED, QCD).
>
>> There is absolutely no scientific basis for stating that gravity curves
>> light. Absolutely none. All you have is the flawed reasoning of GR.
>
> Experiment says that the light path is bent around massive bodies.

Experiment doesn't say anything. The data says that light bends around
massive bodies. Experiments produce data, they are not the data itself.

> Photons have no charge, so the electroweak force cannot cause their
> path to change. The strong force does not act at a large enough
> distance to be able to contribute to this effect, but many orders of
> magnitude.

You keep thinking in terms of SM concepts. That's why I won't present a
paper on the APM apart from the book. You are not capable of seeing the
full importance of the Aether and its mechanics, mostly because you don't
want to. The strong force acts locally to fold Aether units. It's like
pinching a rubber ***. You pinch in the middle and it has an effect all
the way to the edge of the ***. Until you decide to study the APM, you
will continue to convince yourself that the strong force, the strongest
force in the Universe, is incapable of bending space-time. Instead, you
will continue to delude yourself into believing that the weakest force in
the Universe causes the greatest effects in the Universe, namely the effect
of bending space-time. From my perspective and my understanding of the APM,
you are insane.

> Even if GR did not predict this, process of elimination
> tells us that the only "force" it could possibly be is gravity.

It is precisely because the Aether was eliminated from physics that you
can't see things the way they really are. The process of illimination is
the reason why physics is in the mess it's in right now.
>> 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.
>
> Easy. (E/c)^2 = (mc)^2 + p^2. If we define c = 1, then we get
> E^2 = m^2 + p^2

Do you know how to do algebra? Try it again, but using real algebra.

> The units still agree, because c has an implied unit of m/s that is
> generally not shown.

LOL. You would flunk if you tried to pass that through with your math
teacher.

>> 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.
>
> It's not that complicated, it is just a unit conversion.

Go back and do your math again, but apply the c=1 method to BOTH sides of
the equation and don't forget that when you add units they have to be the
same dimensions. Also, if you divide c from a sum of units, c must be
divided from each unit.

>> 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.
>
> I would love to see how the constant G is derived mathematically then.

G is data. It is derived from experiment. G is a constant The
gravitational constant is one of the starting points in quantum physics.
>From G we derive the mass associated with the Aether, and verify the quantum
length, and the quantum frequency.

Other starting points are Coulomb's constant, the speed of light,
permeability constant, permittivity constant, Planck's constant, the mass of
the electron, the electron fine structure, and the Compton wavelength. From
these starting points we can derive the entire geometry of the Aether and
subatomic particles, as well as derive the angles associated with
electrostatic charge and electromagnetic charge. With this information we
can also produce the Unified Force Theory and quantify the neutron, among
other things.

Dave

Quantcast