luminiferous aether - Is it natural?

[Aether Wizard]

You claimed there's no evidence for 'force particles'. We've directly seen photons, you can do it with simple, easily available equipment.

A photon is a force particle in the same way a thrown rock is a force particle. You impart momentum to something, and then it kinetically imparts momentum to something else. That is not the same thing as saying there must be gluons (which have never been observed) holding together atomic nuclei.

We've directly seen weak bosons.

That's because you read Cosmopolitan instead of Playboy.

What you call a boson is just an arbitrary classification of streaks on photographic film. When it comes down to what really makes the backbone of reality, the only stable forms of particles are electrons, protons, positrons, and anti-protons. That's it. These particles can exist for billions of years ...at least. These are the types of particles it takes to build a Universe that continues to exist even after billions of years.

The rest of the tiny temporal streaks you see on photographic plates are nothing more than debris caused by breaking otherwise perfectly good subatomic particles at high speeds.

As for photons, you call them "energy packets." That shows just how insufficient your reasoning process is. You can't provide even a single piece of energy, let along a packet of energy. Energy is a unit of work, not a physical object of some kind.

Further, if energy comes in packets, then the packet can't be quantum, because it is a collection of something smaller.

If you would look into the Aether Physics Model, you would see a proper dimensional analysis of the photoelectric effect showing you exactly why you think you see "energy packets" and that there are other physics occurring.

The photon is not a bullet going from point a to b. Neither is it a wave of physical particles. The photon is an expanding wave of angular momentum carried in the fabric of Aether, which composes from non-material Aether units. When you properly quantify the photon (which is the true quantum of light, and not "energy packets") you can follow its angular momentum as it spreads out (except in the case of lasers, which are photons modified by clipping through the use of mirrors). The so-called energy packet is, in fact, a valence spot on an atom collecting partial angular momentum from numerous photons, which gives the appearance of the wave-nature of the "energy packet." The appearance of the discrete amount of energy is due to the valence position being filled, and then the atom ejecting an electron (or positron, depending upon the circumstances) to a higher energy state. That higher energy state could be high enough to send the new electron (or positron) away as another photon.

Furthermore, the Aether Physics Model suggests protons can produce proton-sized photons in a process similar to the Casimir effect for electrons. These proton-sized photons can be produced within the atomic nucleus (or between atoms within molecules) and before the proton-sized photon can escape it gets collected into an empty atomic position and formed into a proton (which can later bind with an electron to produce a neutron). This process, according to the Aether Physics Model, should be what drives both hot and cold fusion.

The constant production of protons from the Sun, both from its corona and from its core, is evidence to support this theory. The reason why fifty years of research by thousands of scientists and billions of dollars cannot produce a working fusion reactor is because the scientists are using the Standard Model's mass-energy paradigm to imagine how fusion works. And that is a clear example of failure within the Standard Model.

We can go back and forth pissing on each other, but what is the point? I have better things to do with my time. For example, I have a paper to write for the Khwarizmi Science Award. And I can assure you, you have done nothing but harden my resolve to get this theory before Iranian scientists. At least they will listen. I am really sick of listening to closed-minded armchair physicists lecturing on the infallibility of the Standard Model every time a new idea is presented. You are truly worse than bully-pulpit preachers who attack other religious views because they don't agree with their own views.

And you shouldn't worry. Because if you are correct, and I'm a crank, you can look at my actions as sabotaging the Iranian science apparatus and slowing them down. And that should make you feel good about my patriotic service to the US. And with this thought, I'm sure all Americans (myself included) hope you are right and I am wrong.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

That's because you read Cosmopolitan instead of Playboy.

Do you really think its wise to play the "Whose read relevant material?" game? I have within arms reach more books on physics than you've read.

What you call a boson is just an arbitrary classification of streaks on photographic film

Once again your nativity in what experiments have seen, what they involve and what implications they have only serves to demonstrate you have stuck your head in the sand to avoid facing up to your own short comings.

When it comes down to what really makes the backbone of reality, the only stable forms of particles are electrons, protons, positrons, and anti-protons.

And what experiments are you basing that on? You obviously haven't done any experiments yourself and you have no knowledge of the experiments you need to explain so your claim is simply an unjustified assertion.

Further, if energy comes in packets, then the packet can't be quantum, because it is a collection of something smaller.

Argument by analogy is a flawed line of reasoning.

The constant production of protons from the Sun, both from its corona and from its core, is evidence to support this theory.

For the most part the Sun is a massive collection of protons, it's like saying the oceans produce water. The core of the Sun doesn't produce protons, it turns them into Helium nuclei!

The reason why fifty years of research by thousands of scientists and billions of dollars cannot produce a working fusion reactor is because the scientists are using the Standard Model's mass-energy paradigm to imagine how fusion works. And that is a clear example of failure within the Standard Model.

Actually the nuclear physics is very well and accurately understood. The issues are that we currently don't have the technical prowess to create and sustain for lengthy periods of time stable magnetic fields constricting billion degree plasmas.

You are either ignorant of the state of physics, which undermines your position, or you're deliberately misrepresenting physics, which undermines your position.

I have better things to do with my time

It wouldn't appear so.

For example, I have a paper to write for the Khwarizmi Science Award. And I can assure you, you have done nothing but harden my resolve to get this theory before Iranian scientists. At least they will listen.

Can you provide evidence you have won this award and that the people giving the award are legitimate competent physicists?

I am really sick of listening to closed-minded armchair physicists lecturing on the infallibility of the Standard Model every time a new idea is presented.

Did you miss where I listed the things which mean I'm not an armchair physicist. I have papers published in reputable journals. I have a PhD in theoretical physics. I gained employment specifically because of that and I am now paid to do research in mathematics and physics for a living. I know you need to tell yourself that anyone who disagrees with you is 'an armchair physicist' or claims 'the infallability of the SM' but that doesn't make it so. I've explained how you've been wrong on a number of experimental things, which are model independent, and you've failed to respond to any of them.

You are truly worse than bully-pulpit preachers who attack other religious views because they don't agree with their own views.

My comments to you are much like my comments to people of religious inclinations, what evidence can you provide that what you claim and/or believe is true?

Thus far you and religion have provided about the same, you've misrepresented science, you're tried to take credit for the work of others and when pushed your claims amount to nothing.

When you or a creationist get published in a reputable peer reviewed journal you're welcome to let me know. Until then you're just another hack with delusions of grandeur.

 

[Aether Wizard]

Do you really think its wise to play the "Whose read relevant material?" game? I have within arms reach more books on physics than you've read.

I seriously doubt that unless you are at a scientific library. I have within four feet of my typing this email over one hundred books on physics and electronics. Elsewhere about my house I have about two hundred more books on mathematics, law, religion, genealogy, and several other topics. I'm fairly well read myself. And, no, I don't have Cosmopolitan or Playboy magazines.

And what experiments are you basing that on? You obviously haven't done any experiments yourself and you have no knowledge of the experiments you need to explain so your claim is simply an unjustified assertion.

I have performed several experiments. In fact, I just built a new workshop and I'm presently building the new forty feet workbench, installing the parts shelving, and preparing to move in and do more experiments. I have a custom machine shop building me some custom parts in California as we speak.

For the most part the Sun is a massive collection of protons, it's like saying the oceans produce water. The core of the Sun doesn't produce protons, it turns them into Helium nuclei!

I think the hydrogen/helium model of the Sun is flat wrong. I base this on the forty years research by Oliver Manuel, who has done extensive testing and measurements related to the Sun. It likely has a neutron core with heavy elements progressing toward lighter elements toward the surface.

Actually the nuclear physics is very well and accurately understood. The issues are that we currently don't have the technical prowess to create and sustain for lengthy periods of time stable magnetic fields constricting billion degree plasmas.

Nonsense. Fusion occurs at all temperatures. And where in the hell are there billion degree plasmas in our solar system? You sound like you learned solar physics from Al Gore.

Can you provide evidence you have won this award and that the people giving the award are legitimate competent physicists?

I haven't yet won the award, I have been nominated for it. And no, I would not share any names with you.

Did you miss where I listed the things which mean I'm not an armchair physicist. I have papers published in reputable journals. I have a PhD in theoretical physics. I gained employment specifically because of that and I am now paid to do research in mathematics and physics for a living. I know you need to tell yourself that anyone who disagrees with you is 'an armchair physicist' or claims 'the infallability of the SM' but that doesn't make it so. I've explained how you've been wrong on a number of experimental things, which are model independent, and you've failed to respond to any of them.

Congratulations. I couldn't tell you had these qualifications from your communications on this thread. I always had the impression that real physicists would actually study a theory and refrain from attacking the personalities of people presenting them. Maybe you are a skilled physicist with a serious personality disorder? I don't know, I'm just asking.

My comments to you are much like my comments to people of religious inclinations, what evidence can you provide that what you claim and/or believe is true?

And yet, you would not consider your adherence to the SM as a religious inclination? You defend it with the fervor of a televangelist preacher.

I was under the impression that a true physicist is always willing to question the validity of the prevailing theories and investigate new theories claiming to expand our understanding of the Universe.

As for your physics PhD, you can't possibly be gainfully employed as such and still spend so much time online. There is more to your story that you haven't shared. But I am not asking your for your story. Your personal life is not of interest to me. I'm only interested in exploring the structures and mechanics of the Universe and seeing if I can help make improvements in our understanding of it. Your PhD means nothing to me if you can't practice real science and explore the ideas of others.

Who knows, maybe there is a real flaw in my math. Maybe my concepts and assumptions are wrong. But lecturing me about how the Standard Model works when I am presenting a new paradigm based upon distributed charge dimensions and two types of charges, which reveals a fundamental geometry in the fabric of space-time, does nothing to help me understand any faults in my own ideas. Calling me names is so childish and unscientific that any contributions you make along those lines does absolutely nothing for me.

 

[arfa brane]

Ooh! Someone's managed to get their panties in a bunch.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I seriously doubt that unless you are at a scientific library. I have within four feet of my typing this email over one hundred books on physics and electronics. Elsewhere about my house I have about two hundred more books on mathematics, law, religion, genealogy, and several other topics. I'm fairly well read myself. And, no, I don't have Cosmopolitan or Playboy magazines.

You obviously haven't read any books on physics because you are unaware of even the simplest experiments and you have no clue as to the level of detail and quantitative work expected of a model.

I have performed several experiments. In fact, I just built a new workshop and I'm presently building the new forty feet workbench, installing the parts shelving, and preparing to move in and do more experiments. I have a custom machine shop building me some custom parts in California as we speak.

How many of these 'experiments' are relevant to your claims in this thread? None. You don't do experiments with nuclei using a workbench.

I think the hydrogen/helium model of the Sun is flat wrong. I base this on the forty years research by Oliver Manuel, who has done extensive testing and measurements related to the Sun. It likely has a neutron core with heavy elements progressing toward lighter elements toward the surface.

NASA and ESA (the European Space Agency) have a plethora of satellites in space measuring various properties of the Sun, they literally have buildings full of computers running simulations to test their models, which are constantly refined. There's even a neutrino telescope to look into the core of the Sun. You base your claims on one man and ignore all the other evidence while the mainstream bases it on billions of dollars of research and equipment used and considered by the entire community for half a century. Doesn't mean its perfect but it certainly means that your claim of 1 man's experimental work falls a long way short of the volume of information and effort used by the mainstream.

Can you or he provide a quantitative model which accurately reproduces ALL of the phenomena the mainstream model can?

Fusion occurs at all temperatures. And where in the hell are there billion degree plasmas in our solar system? You sound like you learned solar physics from Al Gore.

Provide evidence fusion occurs at all temperatures. The handful of fusion research labs says otherwise, where they need to induce temperatures into the hundreds of millions using either inertial confinement or electromagnetic confinement.

As for where in the solar system there's a billion degree plasma haven't you ever noticed that large ball of light in the sky during the day? I believe its call the Sun.

Congratulations. I couldn't tell you had these qualifications from your communications on this thread.

The fact I said it twice suggests you aren't even bothering to read what people say. That means your previous post of "You're not discussing aether!" was just an automatic response because you hadn't read what I'd posted.

And yet, you would not consider your adherence to the SM as a religious inclination? You defend it with the fervor of a televangelist preacher.

You seem to conflate explaining why your 'work' contradicts experiment with me supposedly claiming your work is wrong because it contradicts the SM.

You have made claims which are demonstrably false. You then defend your claims "with the fervor of a televangelist preacher".

As for your physics PhD, you can't possibly be gainfully employed as such and still spend so much time online.

I work 10am to 6pm weekdays. These last few days have been the weekend (it now being Monday morning). If you look at the time stamps on my posts and work out what time it was in the UK when I posted them you'll see it's not between 10am and 6pm on weekdays (well actually 9.10am and 7pm as it takes me an hour to get to and from work).

I gained employment so quickly because I demonstrated to a research company I have a lot of knowledge and a great passion for doing mathematical physics. And I have a proven track record in research. Unlike you I managed to convince journals my work was worth publishing.

There is more to your story that you haven't shared. But I am not asking your for your story. Your personal life is not of interest to me.

Good one. You insinuate there's something wrong in my personal life, as an attempt to somehow insult or denigrate me and then you quickly move on saying "I don't care" so I can't provide a retort.

Your PhD means nothing to me if you can't practice real science and explore the ideas of others.

The rest of the community thinks I'm capable of doing real science and exploring the ideas of others and now I'm employed to do precisely that. Unlike you I got somewhere when I wanted to do some physics.

Who knows, maybe there is a real flaw in my math.

Your 'math' is just "Steal someone else's equation, change some constants so that the numerical value is hardly changed and declare it 'my work'". Your 'math' is nothing but plagiarism.

Calling me names is so childish and unscientific that any contributions you make along those lines does absolutely nothing for me.

Ah, so its okay for you to complain about me but you insinuating I'm a liar about my work and there being something in my personal life I'm not saying is fine?

Not only are you a plagiarist and a hack but you're a hypocrite too.

 

[Aether Wizard]

NASA and ESA (the European Space Agency) have a plethora of satellites in space measuring various properties of the Sun, they literally have buildings full of computers running simulations to test their models, which are constantly refined. There's even a neutrino telescope to look into the core of the Sun. You base your claims on one man and ignore all the other evidence while the mainstream bases it on billions of dollars of research and equipment used and considered by the entire community for half a century. Doesn't mean its perfect but it certainly means that your claim of 1 man's experimental work falls a long way short of the volume of information and effort used by the mainstream.

Can you or he provide a quantitative model which accurately reproduces ALL of the phenomena the mainstream model can?

You're a physicist. Do your own research.
www dot omatumr.com/papers.html

Boy, you sure do get hot under the collar quick, don't you?

Is it fair to say you are not going to look at the Aether Physics Model?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You're a physicist. Do your own research.

I do, that's why I don't have time to wade through every bit of nonsense by every hack on the internet. Hence why I ask simple questions (on the scale of things), as if someone cannot answer a direct simple question relevant to their claims then there's no need to get into the 'details' (if they even have any) of their work.

And actually research in relation to solar models is something I have involvement with.

Boy, you sure do get hot under the collar quick, don't you?

I don't suffer lying frauds who plagiarise gladly. You've shown you're dishonest, your claims are overblown, you have no justification for your position and you're a hypocrite. I see no reason to sugar coat my replies to you.

Is it fair to say you are not going to look at the Aether Physics Model?

You failed to convince me in a back and forth discussion, why would a monologue you wrote be any better? Your best example of your work was basically plagiarism and you've shown you repeatedly misrepresent physics. I gave you a chance and you repeatedly failed, not just in terms of your results but in terms of intellectual honesty.

 

[Aether Wizard]

The only thing you have convinced me of is that you are an armchair physicist who enjoys being rude and lecturing on the Standard Model. You haven't demonstrated the slightest inclination to observe the scientific method, nor have you demonstrated any interest in the ideas I have presented. You couldn't even recap what I posted, and that you will instead come up with a rude excuse why you will not.

You can tell that I have learned not to buy into the trolling of armchair physicists, who continually derail the discussion with every tactic except engaging in actual science.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

You haven't demonstrated the slightest inclination to observe the scientific method....

You’re going to lecture people on the scientific method?!?!?

:roflmao:

Here’s a demonstration of your grasp of the scientific method:

You said:

I base this on the forty years research by Oliver Manuel

Alphanumeric highlights your total lack of scientific rigour by pointing out:

NASA and ESA (the European Space Agency) have a plethora of satellites in space measuring various properties of the Sun, they literally have buildings full of computers running simulations to test their models, which are constantly refined. There's even a neutrino telescope to look into the core of the Sun. You base your claims on one man and ignore all the other evidence while the mainstream bases it on billions of dollars of research and equipment used and considered by the entire community for half a century. Doesn't mean its perfect but it certainly means that your claim of 1 man's experimental work falls a long way short of the volume of information and effort used by the mainstream.

And how do you counter? You merely re-offer the same single guy’s work!

You're a physicist. Do your own research.
www dot omatumr.com/papers.html

It’s sort of funny and really sad at the same time. :facepalm:

Perhaps you need to get back out to your garage and perform some more nuclear physics experiments on your work bench. :crazy:

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The only thing you have convinced me of is that you are an armchair physicist

I really don't think its wise for you to call anyone, let alone me, an armchair physicist. You have claims you can't back up, a complete ignorance of basic mathematics and physics, you don't know the scientific method, no one accepts your work and you've completely failed (despite a lot of trying) to get your work published anywhere. I have published work, in collaboration with other postgrads, postdocs, lecturers and professors in reputable journals. I have a working demonstrable understanding of physics and mathematics. I am paid by people with similar or higher qualifications and abilities to do research. By any reasonable definition I am not an armchair physicist. By any reasonable definition you are.

If you're going to try and insult me at least try an insult which doesn't blow up in your face.

who enjoys being rude and lecturing on the Standard Model.

I am rude to people who I deem to be wilfully ignorant. I'm not a religious person but one of the few things I consider akin to a 'sin' is wilful ignorance. And you have it in spades.

And I've had to explain parts of the SM to you because you've misrepresented it, either through ignorance or malice. I have no rejected your claims because "They aren't the SM!" but because you've not derived any result yourself, you've simply plagiarised (another thing close to a 'sin' in the science world) results and then ignored evidence contradicting you. Experimental evidence isn't model dependent, the fact the people who do experiments with electrons etc are using current physics to guide what experiments they do doesn't nullify the experimental results. Electrons do not interact via the strong force.

You haven't demonstrated the slightest inclination to observe the scientific method

I asked you for evidence, justification and reasoned argument. That's what any reputable journal would expect. That is the scientific method. You've simply provided none of it.

nor have you demonstrated any interest in the ideas I have presented.

You failed, when asked, to provide evidence, justification and reasoned argument. You instead plagiarised work. When asked directly you can't provide reason for anyone to listen to you, nothing else needs to be said.

You can tell that I have learned not to buy into the trolling of armchair physicists

No, you have learned to label anyone who disagrees with you, for whatever reason, 'armchair physicist', while ignoring that's precisely what you are, so that you can convince yourself (not anyone else, yourself) that you're not a miserable failure at physics. This forum is filled with people who have their own pet theories, almost all of them mutually exclusive and they all think precisely as you do, that its everyone else whose wrong, they are the special one, the one who is not delusional and naively ignorant, they have all the secrets of the universe. If you think I'm wrong about you then you must concede I'm right to knock all the other people who put forth work as if you're right then they are wrong. So even if I'm wrong about you my criticism of people is still 99.99% accurate.

And you've given me no reason to think you're that 0.01%.


who continually derail the discussion with every tactic except engaging in actual science.[/QUOTE]

 

[Captain Kremmen]

...... at this point everyone got fed up of arguing, and the thread finally died.

 

[Aether Wizard]

I really don't think its wise for you to call anyone, let alone me, an armchair physicist.

As for where in the solar system there's a billion degree plasma haven't you ever noticed that large ball of light in the sky during the day? I believe its call the Sun.

Your ignorance says it all. You can't possibly be a physicist and believe such ridiculous temperature could exist within the Sun. The upper limit of the Sun's highest temperature (at its core) is estimated somewhere around 15,000,000 °C. Most regions of the Sun, particularly the surface, where the light you reference comes from, are only about 5500 - 6000 °C.

An error of this magnitude and the abundance of posting you do online suggests you really are an armchair physicist.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You can't possibly be a physicist and believe such ridiculous temperature could exist within the Sun.

I am not above admitting mistakes. The Sun is hot enough to initiate fusion, which doesn't happen at temperatures in the thousands of degrees, despite your claim otherwise (and you call my mistake 'ridiculous'!).

Larger stars do have core temperatures into the billions so my point is valid.

Most regions of the Sun, particularly the surface, where the light you reference comes from, are only about 5500 - 6000 °C.

I didn't say anything about the entire Sun. Strawman.

An error of this magnitude and the abundance of posting you do online suggests you really are an armchair physicist.

Feel free to ask the other members of this forum, including the moderators of the physics and maths section. If you wish I can provide you with links to posts of mine where I demonstrate knowledge and ability at least degree level. Even those people here who dislike me acknowledge that. Go ahead, PM a moderator. My slight mistake about the temperature of our Sun (other suns are that hot) doesn't nullify my point. Besides, I did string theory as a PhD and its been about half a decade since I did anything astrophysics related. The fact I remember anything about it is only due to casual reading.

Is your only other line of reasoning that I post a fair bit? I work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. I sleep about 6 hours a day. That leaves plenty of time to do however I please and if a total of 30 minutes a week is spent pointing out your BS so be it.

And simply saying "You're an armchair physicist!" doesn't negate my criticisms of your claims. It doesn't negate your plagiarism. It doesn't negate your failures. Its simply an attempt to change the subject and ignore the massive hypocrisy that you are an armchair physicist and whether I am or not will not change that fact about you.

 

[Aether Wizard]

I am not above admitting mistakes.

That is encouraging. You had me concerned. Let's see how far you are willing to go in admitting to your mistakes.

The Sun is hot enough to initiate fusion, which doesn't happen at temperatures in the thousands of degrees, despite your claim otherwise (and you call my mistake 'ridiculous'!).

www dot lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm
Fusion happens at all temperatures, not just hot temperatures. Are you saying the US Navy is filled with cranks?

They call it "cold" fusion for a reason!

I didn't say anything about the entire Sun.

You specifically referred to that portion of the Sun that produced light, which is its surface. You also specifically referenced our solar system, so forget your excuse about the stars on the other side of the Universe or elsewhere in the Milky Way. Just stick with the fact that you made a mistake.

My slight mistake about the temperature of our Sun (other suns are that hot) doesn't nullify my point.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it does nullify your point. Our Sun does not reach billions of degrees temperature, period!

It doesn't negate your plagiarism.

Why do you keep attacking my integrity in this way? Aren't you a scientist? Since when is it plagiarism to quote the equations of other scientists and point out a possible correction to its accuracy? Even you have to admit you cannot find Hendrick Casimir's original derivation of his equation.

My work involving distributed charge and two types of charges is entirely unique, and not anticipated by any other scientist, as far as I am aware. Showing that the Casimir equation is evidence for a Newtonian type strong force relationship between electrons is hardly plagiarism unless I copied the work word-for-word from another scientist and claimed it as my own. You have a severe lack of integrity, which I find disturbing.

As for a real plagiarist, what are your thoughts concerning Albert Einstein and his use of Charles Lorentz' transformations? Charles Lorentz first explained the small Aether drift of Michelson and Morley in terms of a relativistic Aether. Albert Einstein used the Lorentz transformations and called it relativistic light and never gave credit to Lorentz. Suddenly, the Aether no longer existed because Albert Einstein claimed he had explained phenomena without it, even though the Lorentz transformation did explain the small Aether drift.

Then, post posthumously, Albert Einstein brought pressure to bear upon Shankland to smear Dayton Miller's work in order to cover his own ass.

How is my work plagiarism and Albert Einstein's work not? Your cowboy attitude toward physics, and your heavy emphasis on your self-importance, and your rude rantings toward people you randomly choose to attack hardly convince me that you are a true scientist of any kind, let alone an armchair physicist.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Larger stars do have core temperatures into the billions so my point is valid.

Have you got a reference for that Alpha?
The temperature at the centre of our own Sun is only 15million K.

The hottest place I can find is 300 Million K.
An as yet unexplained hot patch of gas in the constellation of Virgo.
http://skymania.com/wp/2009/11/hottest-spot-in-universe-found.html

Maybe Virgo is hot tempered at being the shittest astrological sign.

 

[James R]

They suggest that the speed of light could be a quantum value.
Do any real physicists say that?

I don't even know what that would mean. If that's the language they use, they don't know what they are talking about.

The model was not previously discoverable because nobody thought to question whether the dimension of charge was properly notated in dimensional analysis (all charge should be squared relative to the dimension of mass).

Can you briefly explain what you mean by this, please?

Further, nobody thought to quantify the magnetic charge as a unique dimension along with the electrostatic charge.

What evidence do you have that magnetic charge exists at all?

The Aether Physics Model uniquely presents a Unified Force Theory that is entirely expressed in terms of Newtonian type force laws.

Does it accurately reproduce the results of general relativity, or does it disagree with those results?

I think the hydrogen/helium model of the Sun is flat wrong. I base this on the forty years research by Oliver Manuel, who has done extensive testing and measurements related to the Sun. It likely has a neutron core with heavy elements progressing toward lighter elements toward the surface.

Which measurements in particular support the notion of a neutron core? Is it wholely neutrons? If so, what is its diameter and density?

Fusion occurs at all temperatures.

Can you demonstrate room-temperature fusion?

Who knows, maybe there is a real flaw in my math. Maybe my concepts and assumptions are wrong.

Maybe.

 

[Aether Wizard]

I don't even know what that would mean. If that's the language they use, they don't know what they are talking about.

Actually, it makes perfect sense. The speed of light is the fastest speed photons can travel between two points, and this is well documented. This suggests the space between the two points is quantized. Which means light is traveling at the quantum distance per the quantum time. In the Aether Physics Model, the quantum distance is equal to the Compton wavelength and the quantum frequency is equal to 1.236 x 10^20 Hz.

Can you briefly explain what you mean by this, please?

When Coulomb first derived his electrostatic force law he was using units of cgs. Coulomb's constant is equal to 1 in cgs units because there was no specific dimension for charge, which was notated as gm*cm^3/sec^2. When the MKS system of units was invented, nobody could understand why charge should be notated as a distributed unit relative to mass, but when they attempted to convert charge from MKS to cgs, they had to invent a new unit in cgs called the statcoulomb, which is the square root of gm*cm^3/sec^2. This means charge was based upon the square root of mass and volume, which is absurd.

To properly align the dimensions of charge between cgs and MKS, charge should have been notated as coul^2 in MKS.

This wouldn't have been a major problem if all the units had been adjusted accordingly. However, the units of capacitance, inductance, permittivity, permeability, and conductance maintained their distributed charge notations while all other electrical units were converted to single charge notation. This caused a mismatch between certain units in equations, which have plagued physics ever since.

For example, in MKS units resistance is reciprocal to conductance. In fact, magnetic flux should be reciprocal to conductance, and the evidence already exists to prove this.

It is because of this dimension mismatch that the impedance equation (and others) require imaginary numbers to make them work.

What evidence do you have that magnetic charge exists at all?

1. Electrons have inherent magnetic moment,
2. The Casimir equation is equivalent to the electron strong force equation,
3. Electrons can be oriented by magnetic fields (cathode ray tubes),
4. Quantum Dimensional Analysis

Quantum Dimensional Analysis is a new system of units based upon the mass of the electron, strong charge of the electron, elementary charge of the electron, Compton wavelength, and quantum frequency.

Every known physical constant is exactly factor-able by the five named quantum dimensions. Only the magnetic moment constant of the electron involves both the elementary charge and the magnetic charge of the electron. Every other unit factors only by the magnetic charge.

Does it accurately reproduce the results of general relativity, or does it disagree with those results?

General relativity simplifies to:

$$G = 8\pi \cdot T$$

where G is the space-time tensor, and T is the mass-energy tensor.

In the Aether Physics Model, General Relativity is shown to have its cause in the relationship of the two types of charges.

$${e^2} = {e_{emax}}^2 \cdot 8\pi \alpha $$

where $$\alpha $$ is the fine structure constant.

General Relativity effects are caused by the tug of aggregate magnetic charge (which is directly attributed to matter) against aggregate electrostatic charge (which is directly attributed to space).

The Aether Physics Model comes to the same conclusion as General Relativity, but explains the process in terms of the two types of charges instead of mathematical tensors.

Which measurements in particular support the notion of a neutron core? Is it wholely neutrons? If so, what is its diameter and density?

You would need to consult the work of Oliver Manuel for the technical details of his work. I do not claim to be qualified to represent his nearly forty years of research.

Can you demonstrate room-temperature fusion?

The US Navy apparently can. I haven't tried it.

 

[James R]

Aether Wizard:

Actually, it makes perfect sense. The speed of light is the fastest speed photons can travel between two points, and this is well documented. This suggests the space between the two points is quantized.

How so?

When Coulomb first derived his electrostatic force law he was using units of cgs.

....

To properly align the dimensions of charge between cgs and MKS, charge should have been notated as coul^2 in MKS.

The dimensions of charge are the same whatever system of units you use. The equations of physics are not dependent on a particular system of units.

For example, in MKS units resistance is reciprocal to conductance. In fact, magnetic flux should be reciprocal to conductance, and the evidence already exists to prove this.

But resistivity is defined to be the reciprocal of conductance. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

What evidence do you have that magnetic charge exists at all?

1. Electrons have inherent magnetic moment,
2. The Casimir equation is equivalent to the electron strong force equation,
3. Electrons can be oriented by magnetic fields (cathode ray tubes),
4. Quantum Dimensional Analysis

Sorry. Maybe I wasn't clear.

Are you claiming that isolated magnetic charge exists (as opposed to magnetic dipoles)?

Also, regarding point #2, the strong nuclear force doesn't affect electrons, does it, because electrons are leptons.

In the Aether Physics Model, General Relativity is shown to have its cause in the relationship of the two types of charges.

So mass is irrelevant in Aether Physics?

Which measurements in particular support the notion of a neutron core? Is it wholely neutrons? If so, what is its diameter and density?

You would need to consult the work of Oliver Manuel for the technical details of his work. I do not claim to be qualified to represent his nearly forty years of research.

I would have thought the second two of my three questions would be fairly basic. Never mind.

Can you demonstrate room-temperature fusion?

The US Navy apparently can. I haven't tried it.

I'm surprised this hasn't been widely reported.

Got a link to the relevant papers?

 

[Aether Wizard]

How so?

If light moves one quantum length per quantum rate, then there has to be some kind of structure present to manifest the quanta.

The dimensions of charge are the same whatever system of units you use. The equations of physics are not dependent on a particular system of units.

This is not true. The cgs system of units did not have a dimension of charge until the MKS system came along. It was after the MKS system was developed that the statcoulomb was added to the cgs system. Prior to the MKS, the cgs system expressed all charge as gm*cm^3/sec^2. The statcoulomb is the square root of gm*cm^3/sec^2.

But resistivity is defined to be the reciprocal of conductance. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

That is correct. In modern physics, resistance is defined to be the reciprocal of conductance. However, the data does not support such a linear relationship. If you measure resistance and independently measure conductance, the plots are not reciprocals of each other.

Sorry. Maybe I wasn't clear.

Are you claiming that isolated magnetic charge exists (as opposed to magnetic dipoles)?

There is no such thing as isolated charge of any kind. Charge is a property of something, such as an electron or proton. There can be isolated electrons, but charge is inseparable from a charged surface just as length is inseparable from a ruler.

Also, regarding point #2, the strong nuclear force doesn't affect electrons, does it, because electrons are leptons.

The strong nuclear force is a manifestation of magnetic charge of the proton (and neutron). The Casimir force is a manifestation of magnetic charge of the electron. Magnetic charge is the basis for both the Casimir force and also the strong nuclear force. Strong nuclear force specifically applies to the nuclei of the atom and naturally the electron is not a nuclei.

So mass is irrelevant in Aether Physics?

Mass is very relevant. So if you don't subscribe to my electrical view of General Relativity, does that mean charge is not relevant in the Standard Model?

[/QUOTE]I'm surprised this hasn't been widely reported.
Got a link to the relevant papers?[/QUOTE]
www dot lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm

 

[James R]

Aether Wizard:

If light moves one quantum length per quantum rate, then there has to be some kind of structure present to manifest the quanta.

And if light moves 1 light year per year then you conclude that there must be a structure, too? I'm asking where how you get quantisation from the bare fact of speed.

The dimensions of charge are the same whatever system of units you use. The equations of physics are not dependent on a particular system of units.

This is not true.

Yes it is.

If you want a good discussion of the two systems of units, you ought to refer to Jackson's Electrodynamics, which has a nice discussion of the issue in an appendix.

But resistivity is defined to be the reciprocal of conductance. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

That is correct. In modern physics, resistance is defined to be the reciprocal of conductance. However, the data does not support such a linear relationship. If you measure resistance and independently measure conductance, the plots are not reciprocals of each other.

You mean "resistivity", not "resistance", right?

Measuring resistivity is equivalent to measuring conductance since they are reciprocals of each other.

And no data is needed to support a definition.

There is no such thing as isolated charge of any kind. Charge is a property of something, such as an electron or proton. There can be isolated electrons, but charge is inseparable from a charged surface just as length is inseparable from a ruler.

Let me rephase once more. Do you believe that there are objects that have the magnetic property of only having a north or south magnetic pole, but not both?

The strong nuclear force is a manifestation magnetic charge of the proton (and neutron). The Casimir force is a manifestation of magnetic charge of the electron. Magnetic charge is the basis for both the Casimir force and also the strong nuclear force.

I can't comment on that without reviewing your theory in its entirety.

Thanks for the link to the page of US Navy papers on cold fusion. Which one do you recommend I read first for its proof of cold fusion?