Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

From: David Thomson (_at_)
Date: 07/19/04 

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:00:36 -0500

"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrncfm228.6jq.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >Forget the trajectory stuff.
>
> You stated above that you quantify the ether by observing the stuff
> that passes through it. I just gave you example of stuff passing through
> it. Either you can or cannot tell me how that quantifies the ether.

I'm talking about actually analyzing the stuff, not its behavior according
to a flawed Special Relativity paradigm.

Let me be more precise. The quantum Aether unit is a 2-spin rotating
magnetic field. It has four spin positions within it that can be inhabited
by matter and anti-matter. The electron, which occupies one of the spin
positions, gets several of its properties directly from the Aether, most
noteably its charge properties and 1/2 spin. By observing the actual
properties of the electron, we can see what the Aether is.

> Calculate the compton cross scattering section (the spin-averaged cross
> section will do), but not the simplistic one you wrote down. Then, I'll
> believe you are in a position to discuss electromagnetism.

You show me a mathematically valid Unified Force Theory and I'll then
believe you are in a position to understand electromagnetism.

> >I know you won't believe this, but electrons and protons get their 1/2
spin
> >from the Aether.
>
> You're right. I don't believe it.

Fortunately, there are many other people who do. And these people are the
ones I'm targeting in my book. Once the Aether paradigm, with its simpler
and more extensive equations are understood by a substantial group of
people, it won't be necessary to convert people like you over. We'll have
enough to do making new discoveries and fixing the mess people like you have
given us.

> >When a neutron forms, two Aether units, one carrying the
> >proton and the other carrying the electron, overlap each other. The
effect
> >is spacetime is folded and the two particles produce a single particle
still
> >having 1/2 spin. The anti-neutrino also ends up with 1/2 spin and your
> >forgot to include that.
>
> Use your aether to calculate the decay rate of 10C.

Use your theory to calculate the exact mathematical equation of the electron
and proton g-factors. Don't define the g-factor with constants such as
magnetic moment and gyromagnetic ratio, which are themselves products of the
g-factors.

> >The binding process of the neutron is different from the binding process
of
> >nucleons in the way the particles share spacetime.
> >
> >Like I said, I know you won't believe it because you already have
everything
> >figured out.
>
> I don't have everything figured out, but we aren't discussing
everything.
> We're discussing something I happen to know something about.

But I'm discussing something I know something about. And like you, I don't
have everything figured out, either. So what are you going to do when I
present a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory, quantify the strong
force in terms of charge, quantify the Aether, and precisely quantify the
folding of spacetime showing how the neutron is formed, ...call me a quack?

I thought science was about presenting theories and having them examined.
Can you explain why my Unified Force Equations predict the precise relative
strengths of all four forces, if they are not a true Unified Force Theory?

> >> A calculation please.
> >
> >I've spent the last 5 months putting all the equations, and graphics
into a
> >book.
>
> Since you're posting here, you obviously didn't break your fingers
> typing your book, so I see nothing that would stop you from posting a
> calculation.

Proprietary information and book sales. I want to my book to make
headlines. I'm not presenting just a single unique concept, backed up by
empirical data, I presenting dozens of unique concepts backed by empirical
data. Since last we sparred, and while you were wasting your time knocking
others on the newsgroups, I've been hard at work fully developing the Aether
Physics Model. I've also attracted a few good doctors and physicists, who
took the time to understand what I wrote online, and who are supporting my
work and waiting for my publication so they can reference it in their own
work. I have also attracted research capital that has made writing the book
possible.

> Wishful thinking.

Why don't you go back to my web site and read some of my earlier raw notes
on the theory? Try engaging me on a mature, scientific footing.

> I'm not reading your book. I'm reading your usenet post.

You can read other people's posts after I publish the book.

> >> Then how is it that experiments have measured electron-neutrino
> >> scattering? Just a fluke?
> >
> >You're reading too much into the "research" papers.
>
> No, I'm reading precisely what the author's literally wrote.

No you're not. The paper's I've read are filled with "may", "might",
"possibly", ...not "is" or "proved". They think they have measured neutrino
scattering, but the results don't agree with the theory, unless you want to
consider huge discrepancies as "results". Hawking thought he had black
holes figured out for 25 years, until just recently. You need to read your
papers more critically.

> >Just as do the "vitual photons" from the Casimir effect. Bohr was
right,
> >conservation of energy and momentum does not apply at the subatomic
level
> >with regard to neutrinos. The evidence clearly shows that the neutrino
mass
> >and angular momentum should be 1.531 times the electron. And the
evidence
> >just as clearly shows that the neutrino mass and angular momentum are
not
> >there. Having a preconceived idea that neutrinos must observe a
man-made
> >law of physics is the absurdity here, not the violation of that man-made
> >law.
>
> If you post more of the same bull***, I'm going to take it as an
> attempt to bull*** me with jargon and treat it accordingly.

You haven't changed. You get cornered and you hide behind insults. You're
not even a scientific priest, you're a cowardly scientific cleric. If you
don't want to discuss physics as the data shows it, and instead continue to
insist on spouting the dogma of your religious order, we don't need to have
a conversation.

The facts are, virtual photons are a violation of conservation of energy,
Bohr did suggest conservation of energy doesn't apply at the quantum level,
and the neutrino should be 1.531 times the mass and angular momentum of the
electron.

Do the math yourself.

m.n - m.p - m.e = m.no

The mass of the neutrino has to be equal to the mass of the neutron minus
the mass of the proton minus the mass of the electron. Otherwise there is
no conservation of mass. Now you tell me, if the mass of the neutrino is
zero or 10,000 times smaller than the electron, then where is the missing
mass? And don't fill me with the relativistic crap where the dimension of
mass is equal to a unit of energy. That's nonsense and you know it. Even
if the SR theory were correct, the neutrino would then be a stationary
photon, which means it would not have relativistic mass.

Just be a man and admit there is sufficient evidence to question the
conservation of mass and energy at the quantum level.

Dave