Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!

From: Tom Capizzi (etianshrldu_at_verizon.net)
Date: 01/27/05 

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:04:16 GMT

"Ranando King" <rk@magictouchcorp.com> wrote in message
news:41f586d3_1@news.vic.com...
> "David Thomson" <news5@volantis.org> wrote in message
> news:t71Jd.2323$L92.25692@news.uswest.net...
>> "Ranando King" <rk@magictouchcorp.com> wrote in message
>> news:41f15324_1@news.vic.com...
>> > Until now, your "theory" (read "hypothesis") has been that mass somehow
>> > warps space-time without producing a gravitational field, and that
>> > light
>> > is
>> > not affected by gravity but rather by this warped space-time.
>>
>> Where do you come up with this crap? You really have no clue what I have
>> been saying.
>
> This is what it appears you've been saying. If this is not what is meant
> by
> your model, then please elaborate more.
>
>> > I dare say
>> > that this contradicts the "proven facts." Now while I don't disagree
> that
>> > there is probably a better explanation than the existing ones out
>> > there,
> I
>> > don't agree that yours is among the better ones.
>>
>> Is this a hypothesis, theory, or fact? Sounds like opinion to me. How
>> would you know what my theory says?
>
> Once again, it's all based on the information you've been presenting for
> our
> review in this newsgroup. Your arguments against those of us discussing
> this
> with you are believed to be representative of the model you wrote about in
> your book. As such, I and others are judging your model based on your
> words
> in here.
>
>> >> The pinch is temporary, just as nuclear binding is temporary. Nuclear
>> >> binding only remains until a greater force comes along to tear it
> apart.
>> >
>> > I'm quite thankful that no "greater force" has come along to tear the
>> > nuclear binding of this planet apart, not to mention that of my own
> body!
>>
>> If you had a good understanding of the strong force you would know that
> the
>> force is vector dependent. The reason some isotopes are easier to pull
>> apart than others is because the total number of protons and neutrons,
> based
>> on a consitent structure of Aether, determines how the protons and
> neutrons
>> are magnetically aligned with each other. It works the same as with
> regular
>> magnets. If you change the angle of one magnet to another the binding
> force
>> between the two increases or decreases accordingly.
>
> One thing I fail to understand is your continual references to the strong
> force when the conversation is about gravity. What connection is there
> between the strong force and gravity such that it is relevant to our
> conversation? Is gravity a product of the strong force? Does the strength
> of
> the strong force affect the strength of gravity? From what you said, both
> gravity and the strong force derived from this "GForce". Indeed, that does
> make them 2 different portions of the same thing, but since you have yet
> to
> define **how** gravity is derived from this "GForce", then cannot even
> begin
> to discuss gravity's relationship to the otherwise unrelated strong
> force...
> unless you are saying that gravity and the strong force are 1 and the
> same.
>
>> >> As for the straight line, we are not at the location of your imaginary
>> >> endpoint. We are at a place fairly close to the pinch. So we do see
>> >> a
>> >> curvature caused by the pinch.
>> >
>> > Even from a position fairly close to the pinch you end up seeing the
> line
>> > first bend towards and then bend away... a temporary curvature at best.
>>
>> But it bends, right?
>
> Only in the middle. The starting and ending points remain the same as if
> there had never been a pinch.
>
>> >> And the rubber *** is merely a visual aid.
>> >> It is not the theory itself.
>> >
>> > Understandable, so use a better visual aid.
>>
>> I do, in the book. In fact, we hired Jon Lomberg to do the graphic work
> for
>> us. You want to see the graphics that we paid several thousand dollars
> for?
>> Buy the book. Otherwise, visualize a rubber ***.
>
> If the rubber *** image is as close as you can get to the conceptual
> model
> used in your book, then I am left with the disturbing image that any
> gravitational field... sorry... force will invariably stress the aether to
> an unnerving degree in a fashion not consistant Newton's laws.
>
>> >> >> Wrong.
>> >> > <snipped>
>> >> >> The angular momentum of light travels through each Aether unit from
>> >> >> its
>> >> >> origin until it is absorbed by another atom. The Aether keeps the
>> > speed
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> light constant.
>> >> >>
>> >> > ok... First, it isn't a matter of "particulate" vs. "gaseous" but
>> >> > rather
>> >> > "solid" vs "gaseous". Even your variation of the "gaseous" theory
> still
>> >> > amounts to a particulate theory.
>> >>
>> >> No, it doesn't. Once again, "gaseous" is merely a visual aid. It is
> not
>> >> the theory. The Aether is not a gas. The Aether is a fabric of
> quantum
>> >> rotating magnetic fields.
>> >
>> > *Sigh*
>> >
>> > "quantum rotating magnetic fields"
>> > If the aether is a "fabric" of these qrmfs, then I should be able to
>> > isolate
>> > 1 quanta from the fabric. If that's not possible then you need to ditch
>> > the
>> > term "quantum" and stop calling your "theory" (read "hypothesis")
>> > "discrete".
>>
>> What makes you think you can isolate a quantum Aether unit? You can't
> even
>> isolate a quantum electron or photon. How would you measure a quantum
> unit
>> when the media used to record the images is made up of large quantities
>> of
>> these quanta? How would you measure a quantum of rmfd without filling it
>> with electrons or protons?
>
> Simple... but I'm afraid your answer can be found in a question. How do
> you
> isolate a hydrogen molecule (H2)? Believe it or not, everything follows
> from
> answering that question. The bottom line is that a know quantity of any
> substance can be isolated if the substance is quanitifiable. As far as the
> single quantum of rmfd goes, I'd measure it by filling it then emptying
> it.
>
>> I had to deduce the quanta of the Aether from the measurements of the
>> electrons and protons that fill the Aether units, and the forces imparted
> by
>> the Aether to the electrons and protons.
>
> So you deduced the nature of an aether unit by it's aparent effect on
> other,
> more tangeable things? That's good science. No different than people
> comming
> to an understanding that air is a real substance by studying how wind
> moves
> things.
>
>> I'll continue to call my theory "discrete" because that is exactly what
>> it
>> is. The theory accurately predicts observed properties of the subatomic
>> particles and goes as far as to describe their precise geometry.
>
> Please. First, until the newer concepts in your idea are tested and proven
> rigorously by others in the scientific community, it would suit you better
> to use the term hypothesis or model. Your conjecture is not yet a theory.
>
> Second, does your model accurately **predict** or accurately **calculate**
> those properties? The difference is subtle but important. Prediction
> requires foreknowledge. Since the data you speak of your model being able
> to
> "predict" already exists, all you're actually doing is calculating. For
> example: Newton's and Einstein's equations predicted the possible
> existance
> of black holes. Eventually, someone found some.
>
>> >> There are several faults in your reasoning. First, a photon is not
>> >> its
>> >> energy. Energy is a quality of a photon. Energy doesn't strike
>> >> anything,
>> >> photons do. Energy does not cause matter to move, photons do. The SM
>> >> does
>> >> not quantify photons, but the APM does quantify photons.
>> >
>> > What!?!?!?!
>> >
>> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=photon
>> > pho·ton Audio pronunciation of "photon" ( P ) Pronunciation Key
> (ftn)
>> > n.
>> >
>> > 1. The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete
>> > particle
>> > having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long
>> > lifetime.
>> > See
>> > table at subatomic particle.
>>
>> Don't feed me this nonsense.
> <snipped to preserve the appearance of a sane argument...>
>
> If you consider this to be nonsense, then supply a new definition. No
> matter
> how you choose to use science, you end up falling back on words to explain
> yourself and your concepts to others. If you use a word in a way someone
> else is not familiar with, then you will fail to make yourself clear.
>
>> > The long and short is that a photon is a discrete packet of
>> > electromagnetic
>> > energy. So indeed, a photon IS energy. This is high school physics.
>>
>> So sayeth who? Einstein? I could care less what your religious beliefs
>> are. Let's talk science, as in real data and real measurements.
>> Quantify
> a
>> photon and leave out the poetry.
>
> So sayeth quantum physics, the model of which you have yet to depreciate
> in
> this discussion.
>
>> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kinetic%20energy
>> > kinetic energy
>> > n.
>> >
>> > The energy possessed by a body because of its motion, equal to one
> half
>> > the mass of the body times the square of its speed.
>>
>> That's a lame definition, don't you think? I mean, what is "half the
> mass?"
>> Mass is just a dimension. There is no mass to take half of. And what is
>> this nonsense about the square of speed? If you square speed, it's no
>> longer velocity. In reality, the kinetic energy is equal to half the
> force
>> applied to a body times the distance the force was applied for.
>
> If you did your homework back in highschool physics, you'd realize that
> the
> equation you described is actually the equation for **WORK**. Work energy
> is
> the energy expended supplying something else with energy or converting
> something's energy between kinetic and potential. In other words, work is
> the energy required to change something else's state by a fixed amount.
> Kinetic energy is the energy something has because it's moving. Motion is
> energy. 0 motion means 0 kinetic energy.
>
> Now do you see the importance of words? Without them we can't even
> communicate ideas properly. So if you don't agree with the definitions
> I've
> supplied, then write up the definitions implied by your model.
>
>> > If something gains energy, it will either store it (potential energy)
>> > or
>> > move (kinetic energy). This is again high school physics. If you refute
>> > this, you need to provide entirely new definitions for energy!!
>>
>> It's not new. High school physics also teaches that energy is equal to
>> force times distance. The so-called "stored energy" is really energy
>> that
>> is converted to a force. For example, if you pick up an object off the
>> floor, you are using the kinetic energy of your body to increase the
> amount
>> of distance the gravitational force can act on the object. There's
> nothing
>> new about this at all.
>
> Exactly, except that your wording is wrong. You did **work** lifting the
> object. You **converted** the *kinetic energy* of your arm into *potential
> energy* in the object. Now here's where I ask a critical question, but
> first, the setup. As long as you continue to hold that mass, you continue
> to
> do work because gravity is continually pulling on the mass. If you moved
> to

Wrong, again. If you hold a weight at any fixed position at any elevation,
you
are doing no work at all! Work is force times distance. No distance change =
no work done. It makes no difference that your arm will tire. And you claim
to
have an advanced physics theory. You don't even get the basics.

> a higher elevation, say the top of Mt. Everest, then the amount of work
> you're doing to hold that mass would be less. So what in your model
> explains
> why acceleration due to gravity (the force of gravity) keeps getting less
> the higher up you go?
>

Loading