Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists

Tom Roberts wrote:
> David Thomson wrote:
> > Charge is a measurable dimension. There are only two types of charge,
> > electrostatic and electromagnetic. Period. No other form of charge
> > has ever been measured.
>
> You _REALLY_ need to learn about modern physics. Not a single thing you
> said here is true.
>
> Charge is a _scalar_, not a "dimension". There are several types of
> charge in modern physics: electric, weak, strong. There is no
> "electromagnetic charge" distinct from electric charge.

Obviously, you are wrong. Check this out, mass, length, and time are
dimensions, are they not? Units are constructed from dimensions, thus
the unit of potential is equal to:

potential = mass * length^2 / (time^2 * charge) [using single dimension
charge]

You can see by looking at physical units that charge is a dimension,
regardless of how you would like to redefine charge.

As for "electric, weak and strong" charges, this too is a choice of
perception. As I show in my paper, the natural expression of the
unification of the charges is:

e^2 = e.emax^2 * 8pia

Where e^2 is the electrostatic charge, e.emax^2 is the strong
(electromagnetic) charge, and 8pia is the weak interaction constant.
You can tell my interpretation of the facts is correct, because my
interpretation leads to a Unified Force Theory, which your model does
not.

The Electric Universe theory was developed before my theory and
completely independent from me, and yet, the Aether Physics Model shows
that the Electric Universe theory is correct. There is no existence
apart from electrical existence. All the forces we experience and
imagine depend on the electric nature of the Aether. Even the
gravitational force is directly proportional to, and inseparable from,
the strong force, which is why Einstein was able to improperly develop
General Relativity around gravitation. This is also why the Unified
Charge Equation is the correct equation that will replace Einstein's
simplified field equation.

e^2 = 8pi (e.emax^2 * a)
G = 8pi T

> > The so-called "weak interaction," which you incorrectly labeled "weak
> > charge" is merely a proportion of the electrostatic and electromagnetic
> > charges.
>
> This is simply not true.

It simply *is* true. Wishing cannot make it so. I have written a book
and a white paper explaining in detail this correct view of charge,
which is fully quantified and properly derived from the empirical data.

> You need to LEARN about modern physics before attempting to discuss it.

You need to understand that modern quantum physics has the wrong
interpretation on many accounts, and you need to accept the fact that I
got lucky and discovered the correct interpretation before you and
thousands of others.

All you have to do to verify this is actually read and study the
written materials I have already made available.

Dave

.

Relevant Pages
Loading