Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics)

From: Landle (landlematt_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/19/05 

Date: 19 Jan 2005 13:41:52 -0800

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

> >Had the Aether Physics concepts got developed at the start of
> >the century. It could have led to more fruitful researches and
> >questions. The answers of which can change humanity forever.
>
> Aether physics had been in development for at least 250 years by that

> time. Aethers featured prominently in Descartes' theories, and the
> concept of the aether stretches back to the ancient Greeks. The
history
> of science in the past few hundred years has seen the role of the
aether
> in theoretical physics steadily dwindling for lack of useful
application.

Lack of useful application?? Gee. Have they looked deep enough??
There are many things going on in the world... ESP, ghost, UFOs
and other "fringe" stuff. Mainstream physics ignore them because
their Standard Model doesn't support it. What if... that is, what
if the Standard Model doesn't truly represent reality or incomplete?
Then you guys are making a big mistake. This is the reason many
physicists like Fred Alan Wolf, Jack Sarfatti, Bearden, etc. went
on their own. However, because you are dealing with the entire
foundation of science. You can't expect them to give you the
right theory on their own. It's logical they make mistakes.. so
are David Thomson, Seto, etc. They are bound to make mistakes
because you can't expect one single person to give the entire
theoretical foundation of the new physics based on Aether. You
said Aether theory has to be extended every time a new force is
added. So what. For example David Thomson has the mechanism by
which the 4 fundamental forces are created from the dynamics of
the Aether. But then again, you can't expect one person to hit
it right and giving a precise physics of all. Not even a genius
can do that. It has to be the united effort of all physicists and
scientists in different generations.

> I'd spent a fair amount of time studying the professional literature
of
> parapsychology, and I didn't see anything that proves the point as
soundly
> as you think it has been proven.

Have you looked at the right places. As demonstration. If you can
send a hair sample to someone and then you suddenly become sick
for one year with no known cure as a result of non-local quantum
sorcery. Would you be convinced? Of course this is not advisable
but if one merely looked for subtle proof, it is not easy to be
convinced short of directly effect on you. I am sure they exist
from many things I encounter personality, etc. and I'm
looking for the physics that can explain them. But then, I just
want to have a rough understanding of it.. because it seems that
there is a reason to suppress the real physics of the aether
because of the danger it can post to humanity in terms of new
principles and new ways of developing weapons of mass destruction.
Also the financial infrastructure of the world is build on current
physics foundation. If you introduce a new principle, world market
collapse can occur for example from oil suddenly being faced
out by free energy, etc. Therefore I tend to be more comfortable
with the incomplete Standard Model and just want to have a
rough idea of what is the real physics that lurk underneath
everything. In time humanity would discover the precise principles
and they would be introduced to society slowly and there would
not be massive bad impact from financial, psychological and
culture shock. Sometimes I am glad Bearden, Thomson, Seto, etc.
didn't get it completely right and physicists just laught at them...
for now.

Landle

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The map is not the Territory"...
    ... >> Are you sure you just aren't taking certain principles as being ... > which is properties caused by an underlying medium or aether. ... > physics - that meaning being dependant on context. ... > facts do not warrant - we have zero direct evidence, classically, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: "The map is not the Territory"...
    ... >> Are you sure you just aren't taking certain principles as being ... > which is properties caused by an underlying medium or aether. ... > physics - that meaning being dependant on context. ... > facts do not warrant - we have zero direct evidence, classically, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... science and technology. ... It is whatever physics wants it to be. ... >>>aether would do, as long as it has certain basic properties, and test ... >> physicists to explain it to them. ...
    (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)
  • Re: THE GENESES OF THE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS
    ... Even before physics turned into metaphysics no theory was rejected - ... was rejected and the wave in aether theory accepted. ... All the evidence pointed to the fact that light is primarily ... Every attempt to demonstrate the existence of an aether has failed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)