Re: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal

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

There is a .doc format at:
www.16pi2.com/files/A_New_Foundation_of_Physics.doc

If the link doesn't work, remove the underscores in the filename.

> >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.

I think that is true for a lot of us. I think that is the way human
intelligence has advanced over the years. People with strengths worked
with others with different strengths. Since Tom is particularly strong
in signal analysis and has access to some of Miller's data, we could
learn something from him when he has finished his paper. It doesn't
bother me that he has an anti-Aether view. Who knows, he might be
right!

> >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.

That doesn't matter, I am not. I don't let the prejudices of others
get in the way from speaking my mind and staying focused on the topic.
You would actually be doing me a favor if you could find a true
weakness in the theory. I would love to bury this idea if it is no
good. The problem I am facing is that the math all works out perfect,
the theory is solidly based upon empirical data, and the theory
actually solves problems that other models cannot. I cannot let this
idea go until it has been thoroughly examined and either found to be
based on error or proven to be correct.

> >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.

That is the same thing. Scientists must avoid mentioning anything that
contradicts Relativity theory to avoid public ridicule. Public
ridicule is essentially the same thing as censure since a ridiculed
scientist is not hired by anybody. It will be interesting to see if
the Maryland university professor looses his job over the Scientific
American article.

> >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.

What does that have to do with the question? The purpose of science is
not to advance a particular political view, but to discover the truth.
The truth appears to be that the Aether exists, is quantifiable, and
has uses in physics. Paying people like Robert Shankland and Tom
Roberts to focus only on cynical responses to a particular physics
theory just to keep Relativity propped up doesn't sound like a rational
response.

> >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.

Well, at least you admit to your prejudice, which is admirable. You
have a right to hold whatever thoughts you choose. As for me being
over my head, aren't we all when it comes to new discoveries? The
trick is to learn to reach new limits of understanding, not give up and
drown. I'm not ashamed of my humble education background or my lack of
professional experience. When I look at the communications skills of
the so-called professionals and experts on these newsgroups, I actually
feel quite good about myself.

> >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.

Yes, orthogonal means from a different direction, but the direction
need not be limited to just the length dimensions. Imagine a stop sign
has being strictly two dimensional. The surface of the sign has
dimensions of length squared, but if you turn the sign 90 degrees, the
same sign appears to have a single dimension of length and appears as a
line. The orthogonality of charge and mass works in the same way.

Think of the surface of the sign as being charge squared, but when you
turn it 90 degrees you see the linear dimension of mass. This is how
mass is orthogonal to charge. Charge is actually a line of mass moving
a velocity through a quantum Aether unit. Charge exists as a line of
mass scanning an area.

As strange or different as this may sound at first, the concept is
fully quantified and modeled. In fact, it is precisely because mass
and charge are orthogonal to each other that subatomic particles can
appear as both a particle (mass) and wave (charge), depending upon how
you look at it. The fact that a subatomic particle is a line of mass
scanning an area in a quantum moment also explains why the position of
the subatomic particle appears to be a probability function, rather
than a discrete location when trying to pinpoint it in 4D space-time.

> > 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.

It is a different concept in content, but similar in form. You do see
a relationship between the strong force and gravity, and that
relationship is quantified in the Aether Physics Model.

> >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.

It is meaningless to a lot of people who don't read General Relativity
theory. And I can't blame them. GR theory is presented in such a
loose and vague manner, with a new dictionary of terms, that few people
have the time in their graduate program to put up with it. PhD
physicists that I have talked to almost brag that their 8 years of
University physics education makes them qualified to state that they
don't understand it. Nevertheless, they know what they need to know to
pass the class and produce the numbers they are required to produce. I
don't claim to fully understand the logic of General Relativity theory
as it is presented, but I can follow the underlying physics and its
importance.

> >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.

It has been called many names; Grand Unified Theory, Unified Field
Theory, Unified Force Theory, and probably others. The forces are
spread out as fields, so a Unified Force Theory is also a Unified Field
Theory and it is Grand in the sense that it unifies all the known
forces. Fields are fields of force.

> But geometry can likely only be a continuous entity.

At the quantum level, this is true. In each quantum unit of Aether,
geometry is a continuous entity. The space-time physicist work with,
however, is a fabric of Aether. In order to understand how the
geometry of the fabric works, we must understand the function of the
quantum unit from which the fabric is made. Space-time, as the space
and time we live in, is a complex structure, just as are the physical
objects we see existing in space-time. If we are to understand the
physics of space-time, we must first quantify its quantum state.

> >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.

It is interesting that you think I am in above my head, but you don't
think you can do simple algebra. This is not meant as a slight on your
character, because as I said, we all have different strengths. All
that is necessary is to replace the variables with the proper values
and dimensions and then do the simple algebra. If you take the time to
write the problem out on a piece of paper, you will be surprised at how
easy it is to do. All the variables are properly identified in the
paper and in the book.

> >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.

It is important for the student to have instilled into him or her that
he or she is allowed to question authority. Nobody should ever be told
that they must accept an idea because it has already been proven to be
true. Making mistakes and experiencing failure during the learning
process instills appreciation for the successes that make science
useful.

> >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.

This is where the tools of geometry become useful. We can
mathematically determine the geometry of quantum Aether by observing
the structures of the subatomic particles that reside within it. We
can independently confirm this geometry by analyzing the force
constants.

> >The actual, individual Aether units are capable of
> >changing shape without changing surface area.
>
> Then they couldn't be inelastic then, could they?

You are right, there are limits to the elasticity of the Aether. Even
though it appears near perfectly inelastic during our everyday
experiences on the surface of the Earth, there are several extreme
instances where the Aether can be stretched and compacted. Thus
gravity waves are possible, space-time can stretch, and matter can
implode into a black hole.

> >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.

Not true. Gravity is due to spin direction of the subatomic particles
within the Aether unit. Just as mass is orthogonal to charge, gravity
is orthogonal to electromagnetism, which is why gravity is such a weak
force. We will learn a lot about gravity by examining this quality of
the Aether and understanding the mechanics.

> > 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.

I didn't think so, either, until I saw what the equations could do. It
seems at least some of the equations of string theory are directly
applicable to the Aether Physics Model. The equation structures share
certain similarities.

> >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?

It would have to in order to be the proper explanation for how the
Universe works, wouldn't it?

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

You are correct in that a tremendous amount of effort has been expended
in keeping the Aether out of physics by the Relativists. You are a
prime example of the fruits of their efforts. You are a part of their
system and speak as though you cannot break away from it or you will
fail. In fact, you seem to believe the whole system will fail if the
Aether is mentioned. Fear of failure or being expelled from the
community keeps many people from studying the Aether, today.

But like so many issues where outcasts invade the system and become the
norm (anti-slavery, freedom, children without marriage, the earth is
round, etc.), time is the medium of change, not scientists. Science
would be so much stronger if it would be perfectly elastic in its
reception of new ideas. We should build into our system of science a
process where anybody can present a new idea, regardless of how
ridiculous it is, and have the full privilege of failing under a fair
and truly scientific review.

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

That is a foregone conclusion. But it isn't about time or money, it is
about the pursuit of truth and the happiness that comes from doing your
own part in the greater scheme of things. I don't need fame or
fortune. A satisfied conscience will suffice.

> 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.

The truth is, I have the experiment, the math, and the data. I have it
all. The philosophy is merely the culmination of all of these things.
The Aether Physics Model did not exist until I performed an experiment
with high potential, high frequency coils, which clearly produced two
distinct manifestations of charges. The Aether Physics Model is the
unintended result of seeking to quantify these two observed
manifestations of charges. The experiments have been replicated by
several others using different types of apparatuses.

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

I have on many occasions. But the paper is not something that can be
reduced to a single paragraph, otherwise I would have saved a lot of
time and wrote only one paragraph. The theory is broad in its scope.
Not only does it unify the forces, quantifies matter, quantifies
space-time, and quantifies the two different types of charges, it also
reveals errors in our systems of units with regard to charge,
quantifies the neutron as a compound particle, corrects the Casimir
equations, corrects the neutron g-factor, and dozens of other important
important discoveries. In fact, the 27 pages white paper is a highly
condensed version of the book. The book explains many more
discoveries. This is no ordinary model I'm presenting. It is a
completely new foundation for physics; something that never existed
before. There is a tremendous amount of knowledge in this theory, and
much more waiting to be discovered.

Dave

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Magnetism is a false or fictatious force.
    ... for a single point charge moving inertially, ... in that in classic electrodynamics as per Maxwell that force was the ... result of stress in the aether, (stress in the aether = electrostatic ... increasing complexity of modern physics as showing that to be the case. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dayton Millers Data have no Real Signal
    ... studied in physics and chemistry. ... >>>I have completely quantified the Aether as a fabric of quantum rotating ... The orthogonality of charge and mass works in the same way. ... >> maybe gravity would result. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
    ... A charge does not move because an equation says ... The starting point is that not only was it considered as being capable of further understanding but the aether, which was the key part to that understanding, was found to be a useful concept in other respects and is the basis of Maxwell's electrodynamics. ... distance force on a charge the existence of an aether is one ... If you are suggesting that you can assume that the action at a distance force between charges can be considered as fundamental and that can be assumed in isolation without it affecting anything else in physics then I cannot agree. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Magnetism is a false or fictatious force.
    ... Perhaps we should start with charge. ... result of stress in the aether, (stress in the aether = electrostatic ... physics decided to keep those properties of the aether it ... understanding of what an 'electrostatic field' *is* changed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... Unfortunately Ritz died at an early age in 1909. ... Physics today would be different. ... My problem is that with hindsight everything points to the fact that if you accept "no aether" the decision to go with Einstein makes absolutely no logical sense although an enormous amount of rhetoric has been expended trying to present it in a way which makes it seem sensible. ... Einsteins idea that photons travel at c wrt source and observer. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)