Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists

Bilge wrote:
> David Thomson:
> >Bilge wrote:
> >> David Thomson:
> >> >I agree with you that modern physics is constantly changing and that
> >> >old theories tend to go out of style.
> >> Uh, theories have not gone out of style. What has been done is
> >> to increase the mathematical rigor of theories to eliminate potential
> >> ambiguities where there may have been different inequivalent ways of
> >> interpreting something originally.
> >LOL. Yes, there's no more ambiguity in wave/particle duality,
> >probability functions, and force particles.
> Which experiment have these allegedly ambiguous things failed
> to correctly predict?

And with this question we get to the heart of our disagreement. We
both agree that the data and equations are correct. Both the theory
you are defending and my theory are based upon the exact same
experiments, which led to the empirical data and the derived equations.


The difference is that you interpret the data and equations to mean
that quantum existence is a mythical "wave/particle duality," which
nobody can geometrically model. Yet, I have produced a geometrically
modeled theory that quanta exist as primary angular momentum. This
model is perfectly symmetrical and fully explains all the known quantum

structures.

For some reason, you are too dense to understand this simple difference

between our theories, or merely choose to ignore it. Yet my theory
adds considerable knowledge to the present scientific understanding.
You are wasting an opportunity to further understand the quantum
processes, and for what? Because you are afraid to give up
wave/particle duality, probability functions, and force particles?

> So far, you can't even answer the simple questions. You have
> so much difficulty understanding those, that I can't even see
> the point of trying to explain a question pertaining to any of
> the more detailed predictions.

The problem is that you can't comprehend that there is a whole branch
of science that did not previously exist and that I have quantified it.

This branch of science, the quantification of quantum structure, does
not change the overall data or the equations of modern physics (it does

make some minor corrections), yet this new theory does provide new and
useful information in the form of a Unified Force Theory, physical
models for subatomic particles and atoms, a richer set of units, and
much more.

And so what is your rebuttal to this? You keep asking me to recite
*your* understanding of quantum structure as though I haven't provided
a viable alternative, and refuse to look at the alternative I have
presented. You are blind and unable to think for yourself. It is as
though I am talking to a Borg.

> What I ``have'' is a model that actually matches experimental data.
> Since you don't include agreement with experimental data as one of your
> criteria, I don't really care if your theory unifies alchemy and
> gregorian chant.

No, you don't have a model that actually matches experimental data.
You have a myth that you *believe* matches experimental data. You
cannot geometrically express your model. There is no physical model of

a thing that can be its own wave, depending upon how you look at it.

Yes, you do have experiments, data, and equations, but none of these
are the model. The model is wave/particle duality in this case, and
the model does not exist in reality. The same experiments, data, and
equations you use also provided the foundation of the model I
developed. The difference is that my model is a true model and can be
geometrically represented.

> >LOL! Modern physics is based upon Aether theories that worked. Hint:
> >Maxwell's equations, Fresnel's equations, Joseph Larmor's equations,
> >Lorentz's equations, etc.
> Modern physics is based on discarding obstacles like the ether.

Exactly. That is why modern physics sounds weirder than a Star Trek
episode. It is your collective dellusion that Aether is the obstacle
and that your petty intellects alone can solve the problem of the
Aether by ignoring it. You are so heavily invested into the nonsense
of Albert Einstein that you have completely blinded yourself. You are
so heavily invested in Relativity theories that backing down now would
crush an entire population of modern physicists egos. Although Albert
Einstein was a firm believer in the Aether before he wrote SR and GR,
and even after he wrote them, and always maintained that he did not
disprove the Aether, you have this blind faith that the Aether does not

and cannot exist, because you want SR and GR to exist.

> >> >Now I have found a
> >> >very simple, mathematical way to quantify the Aether using the
> >> >precision gathered during the past 50 years.
> >> Which fails to be of any use to do the physics being done 74 years ago.
> >How can you be so stupid?
> Simple. I studied enough physics to know more than you do and
> avoid embarassing myself by talking out my ass.

Listen to yourself. You have studied the modern theories. You didn't
learn critical reasoning to question those theories, though, did you?
No, you could not have. If you did, you would be like the thousands of

other physics students who questioned the establishment and were either

bannished from the classes or chose a different career. So here you
are, a devotee of the Albert Einstein religion, pinning flowers on our
shirts hoping that we will follow you into bliss without questioning
your teachings.

> >> I have news for you. At the moment, you're only concern is to
> >> evade the simple questions posed by a mostly general audience
> >> containing a few physicists who have lobbed you a few easy ones.
> >Bilge, you have demonstrated your empty gestures to me and many other
> >people on these newsgroups in the past.
> Are you saying tht you would like me to be a bit more rude?

Typical logic of a devotee! Be yourself, Bilge. Let us see what you
are made of.

> >My paper has been available online now for six months.
> It can stay there for six years for all I care. There are a lot
> of papers out there are actually interesting to read, without
> wasting my time reading something you can't even give me a reason
> to read.

If a Unified Force Theory, a theory your physics guru desperately tried

to achieve before his death, is not interesting to you, then I don't
think you do have a reason to read my paper. It seems your only
interest is to preserve the memory of your beloved teacher as the
father of modern physics.

Dave

.

Quantcast