Re: Is it our math letting us down?


David Thomson wrote:
Borne wrote:
Note the electron doesn't even feel the strong force. It only
feels the electromagnetic force.

You are wrong in this assumption. Cooper pairs and the Casimir effect
are two physical examples of the electrons binding due to the strong
force. The Casimir effect equation is mathematically identitical to
the strong force law of the electron. If you read my white paper, you
would know this.

Anyway. I also believe an
Aether is possible but also believe in Standard Model mass
energy paradigm.

Belief is everybody's right. You can believe in whatever you want.
But if you take the time to fully understand the definitions and
equations of the APM, your belief in the mass/energy paradigm will be
shaken to its foundation. Mine was. Let your scientific views be
guided by knowledge, not belief. That will save a lot of unnecessary
conflict.

The new dynamic aether model has to
be backward compatible or you'll have all kinds of problems
and inconsistencies.

No, the Aether Physics Model must be entirely based upon empirical data
and a consistent adherence to the rules of math. There can be no
political interference by saying that the model has to agree with some
Catholic dogma or mass/energy dogma.

In the sense that the APM is entirely derived from the same empirical
data as the Standard Model, the two systems are already compatible.
But the two systems are different because they interpret the data
differently. To say that the APM must agree with the SM interpretation
is like saying the APM has no right to exist in spite of its many
successes.

I'll return to you later when I have time
and give more details what I think is wrong with your model and
how it is in severe conflict not just with the current theoretical
paradigm but the experimental arena as well.

I would greatly appreciate a direct critique of my work. But please,
don't do like the other guys do and say, "the standard view is x,
therefore you are wrong." Point out actual errors in the math or
places where I applied certain data where it was wrong to apply. Show
me that my geometrical interpretations are wrong. Address the theory
and show why it is inconsistent with itself. Do not just make
unfounded comments that because I have violated Papal decree number 374
or disagreed with Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, or some other physicists
interpretation then I am therefore wrong.

But at least you
tried to develope the aether paradigm. It needs many
modifications if it has to be compatible to our experimental data.

Great. This is the kind of engagement that I have been looking for. I
don't ask for you to believe in me or my work, but simply to examine it
objectively and point to its actual qualities and quantities.

Dave

First of all. Pls. show how your aether units can form waves.
I mean when you have two slits open. Why is there interference
pattern at all. Pls. be specific and exact. I can't imagine how
waves can form in your model.

Now the second inquiry is how your aether units or
onns or particles or whatever can appear in the detectors.
For example. You emit one electron from the source each
day a year. After 2 years. Interference pattern is formed.
This means each electron emission has wave characteristic
that passes thru both slit and affect the particle.

To elaborate. How does your onn or whatever moves in
between the source and detector in the double slit
experiment. Suppose it moves and passes thru the
right slit. How come the wave passes thru both slits.
And the location of the particle is in the positions in
the detector where there are no destructive interference.
How does the particle as it passes thru one slit
communicate its activity with the wave part that passes
thru both slits??

Pls. focus on the above. If you can answer it. Your model
may even be more than 50% right already. If you can't
answer it, then well. Sorry. It's wrong. Note this is not
about applications where you'd say Einstein doesn't know
how lasers or DVD work. Your model should provide
answer to the double slit experiment because the double
slit directly relates to your aether units mechanics.

What I mention here may be what the NSA or CIA may
even ask you to determine the soundness of your model.
If you fail to explain it well. Then you are excluded in
the CIA Advanced Science Project division automatically
and categorically. So pls. attend to this matter (what
I wrote in this message) well.

borne

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Double Slit Puzzle Explained (?)
    ... Normally, when only one slit is open, the pattern on the plate is a ... let's look at where that radiation might come from. ... I believe the way an electron experiment is done is ... An electron is also a wave. ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)
  • Re: Logic behind wave from single electrons double slit experiment ?
    ... And this electric field is most likely being perturbed as the electron ... is passing through the slit and "perhaps" is what generating the ... charge doesn't perpetually have some sort of less ... light wave) is generating the interference pattern ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Double Slit Puzzle Explained (?)
    ... Normally, when only one slit is open, the pattern on the plate is a diffraction pattern, a fairly narrow central band with dimmer bands parallel to it on each side. ... Since the mechanism for recording these "baffling" events is photographic plates, and since the plates are sensitive to radiation, let's look at where that radiation might come from. ... I believe the way an electron experiment is done is that it is actually an electron hitting the detection "plate" that is recorded. ... So it will morph -- on impact -- into a wave that just happens to have the exact pattern of peaks and valleys as would have formed if another electron had simultaneously gone through the other slit. ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)
  • Re: Logic behind wave from single electrons double slit experiment ?
    ... charge doesn't perpetually have some sort of less ... through 1 slit. ... I think you mean a "wave" for a nail? ... electron to not always have a field is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... There's nothing there at all about a double slit experiment ... A single electron is not entangled with another, ... 1.TURN OFF THE ELECTRON DETECTORS AT THE SLITS. ... An individual photon passing ...
    (talk.origins)