Re: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal

On 11 Dec "David Thomson" <google@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> On 9 Dec 2005 21:45:15 -0800, demeo@xxxxxxxx wrote:

Sorry, one of neglected to include Mr. Demeo's text.

>> I really believe that before any time is wasted looking
>> at data, a new specification of just what this ether is
>> supposed to be and just what it is supposed to do.
>> I haven't seen a single post that proffers any
>> attribbutes that this wonderful ether is supposed to
>> have. And the reason is, there can't be any attributes
>> that enable long range gravity.
>
>I have posted links to my paper that quantifies the structure of the
>Aether, shows its relationship to matter, and unifies all the forces
>(including gravity).
>http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

And I told you I can't download pdf at the moment,
I think I need to remove and reinstall Internet explorer.
Can't you just create a download link by html?

>It would be fine to point out the errors in this paper (not mere
>opinions),

I am not qualified to do that, but from what I saw posted
here, it would be difficult for me to tell errors from things beyond
my knowledge.

>but it is demeaning to ignore it.

In think it would be a favor to you if I don't comment,
I am extremely predjudiced toward a particular physical model.

>You talk about the many
>scientists who are forced to accept Relativity theories today or face
>professional censure,

No, I have never said that, I said they must avoid certain
things to avoid public ridicule.

>but what about those scientists who continually
>find evidence of the Aether's existence and continually expouse its
>many uses in physics?

I am not aware of any physicist that would give as
much time as Tom Roberts has, even if you payed him
the fees of an expert witness.

>I have completely quantified the Aether as a fabric of quantum rotating
>magnetic fields, which fully explains exactly what electric and
>magnetic fields are.

I am not interested, but I am convinced you are
not only way over your head, but also treading where
there is no reason to go.

>The theory further demonstrates that strong
>charge, which mediates the strong force, is orthogonal to mass.

I don't know what that means, isn't orthogonal a term
meaning a direction? I thought the strong force was from
within mass/matter.

> Thus
>the gravitational force is orthogonal to the strong force, which is why
>Einstein was able to develop GR based upon gravity, when it should have
>been based upon charge.

Well, that is close to what I believe, I think if the strong
force were not quite as strong as it is thought to be, then
maybe gravity would result. But I may be thinking of something
else.

>In Einstein's GR, the tensors are space-time curvature (whatever that
>is) and mass/energy (whatever that is). In the Aether Physics Model
>the tensors are the electrostatic charge of the Aether (electrostatic
>charge is well-known) and the electromagnetic charge of matter (fully
>quantified within the theory and understandable).

That is all just meaningless words to me, while I have
a deep interest in gravity, I do not study current theory that much,
and I don't study aether at all.

>One of the most pressing problems for Einstein was finding the Unified
>Force Theory, which he thought would be an important discovery for
>physics.

Not unified force, it was unified field, simply meaning
a continuous entity rather than a discrete or quantity in steps,
like the photons of light or the defined bundles of energy of
quantum theory.

But geometry can likely only be a continuous entity.

>The Aether Physics Model I present has a mathematically
>correct, very simple Unified Force Theory, complete with a full set of
>force laws for each force. Modern physics cannot do this, but an
>Aether theory can. This is significant.

Then somebody who knows math shorthand will
be able to tell more than I can.

>I'm glad that Tom Roberts has gotten hold of the data. He seems
>qualified to analyze it from a modern perspective.

I think so.

>My feeling is that
>all the old science needs to be continually proven with each new
>student and subjected continually to rigorous critical analysis.

There are some things that need improved or added to,
but I don't know if anything needs to be continually subjected
to analysis, unless just to give the undergraduate something
to do.

> I look forward to his paper and being able to review his work in detail.
>I would really like to understand why he sees the data as absolute
>proof that Miller had a systematic error, while Maurice Allais was
>absolutely certain there could not have been a systematic error.
>Perhaps between the two perspectives we'll get a deeper understanding
>of the true message of Miller's data.

Maybe years of experience of accelerator work has
provided modern methods.

>I'm also glad to see James Demeo posting here. I have several of his
>books and I have read his work over the past couple years. He has some
>interesting perspectives that might help understand the data.

I think I saw somthing on the web I wanted to look at,
but if it is aether related, I will pass.

>As for the Aether and its perfect inelasticity, that only applies to
>its surface area.

I don't see how there could be a surface for a medium.

>The actual, individual Aether units are capable of
>changing shape without changing surface area.

Then they couldn't be inelastic then, could they?

>The Aether units have a
>toroidal type of geometry so that the small radius can shrink while the
>large radius grows, thus allowing a certain amount of "springiness,"
>which manifests as the inseparable functions of permeability and
>permittivity.

That is fine maybe for electromagnetism in vacuum,
but useless and meaningless for gravity.

> String theory also predicts this type of behavior with
>regard to strings.

I have read string theory since the 1960s, and
found nothing worth remembering.

>Also, the Aether units are capable of folding over
>on to each other, which is what causes the phenomenon of pairing in
>quantum and atomic bindings. Further, each quantum unit of Aether is a
>rotating magnetic field and is capable of moving against adjacent
>Aether units like perfect ball bearings (which is the reason objects
>move so easily through space-time). So although the Aether is
>perfectly inelastic with regard to its surface area, it is quite
>flexible and moveable, like a perfect fluid and gas. In this way,
>Aether acts as a perfect solid, fluid, and gas, simultaneously.

Do all, be all, huh?

>To address your concerns, the Aether is fully quantifiable and an
>extremely useful tool for modern physics.
>Dave

A lot of people would have to be convinced for
anthing to come of it, and I don't know of any way to
even get very many scientists to even read about it.

I feel like you have invested time and money
that may never be recouped.

Without a physical experiment or so to demonstrate
something, there is no hope at all of convincing anybody.
Math won't do it, and words won't do it.

Is there some reason you haven't quoted the most
believable paragraphs from your paper in this forum?

Joe Fischer

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... I'm producing 21st century physics because the 20th century physics is ... The curvature of space-time is due to the folding of Aether units, ... Gravity is a force. ... the photon has zero mass. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... I'm producing 21st century physics because the 20th century physics is ... The curvature of space-time is due to the folding of Aether units, ... Gravity is a force. ... the photon has zero mass. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... I'm producing 21st century physics because the 20th century physics is ... The curvature of space-time is due to the folding of Aether units, ... Gravity is a force. ... the photon has zero mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Maxwells and Faradays formulations of induction
    ... In accordance with these laws, ... The aether is a separate issue. ... Thus, Newton did not reject the aether as a substance, but he had ... gravity this tensor _does not reduce_ to Delta phi. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: my gravity theory - Web Link
    ... >>aether wind exactly as in any aether theory it must. ... > of gravity and the rate of time. ... that is because gravity is space-time curvature. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)