You completely missed the point that the core of what I'm presenting is quantum ******structure******. It is as though you can only see things moving, but cannot see what it is that is doing the movement. And apparently, you don't want to know, either. The foundation of the Aether Physics Model begins with "is" not "does." Why is that so difficult to pick up?
There's more to mainstream physics than just 'does', you're not presenting or considering any kind of notion which is alien to physics.
You are talking about mechanics (do), not structure (is). The present state of quantum physics has a very feeble model for quantum structure (probability functions, force particles, wave-particle duality, colors, up-down, relativity, etc.).
Again I ask you why you think you're in a position to evaluate current physics when you don't know any of it?
The Aether Physics Model demonstrates actual geometries, actual spin structures, actual force laws, or in other words, real "physics." (Physics in the sense of measurable phenomena and not poetic expressions.)
Ah yes, the "Current physics isn't 'real physics'" argument. You haven't taken the time to find out what current physics says and the pop science Wiki articles you've read you don't understand therefore you reach the conclusion that since you don't understand the concepts the concepts aren't 'real physics'.
Its an argument from ignorance.
I don't have to invent new mathematics. In fact, I can explain quantum structures in terms of very simple mathematics. All I had to do was dimensionally analyze the known physical constants and systems of units to realize an error was made in charge notation, and that there is a second quantifiable type of charge (magnetic charge) present in each subatomic particle.
Magnetic 'charge' is not a new concept. As I mentioned many posts ago Dirac considered magnetic charge more than 70 years ago. The concept likely goes back further because Maxwell's equations have a clear 'gap' in them in that they include electric charges but not magnetic charges, despite linking electric and magnetic phenomena. And not only is it considered in electromagnetism and quantum electrodynamics but the generalisation is common place in such things as Yang-Mills theory and string theory. Generalised Maxwell Lagrangians (ie including a magnetic charge) are invariant under the pair of exchanges $$e^{2} \leftrightarrow -\frac{1}{e^{2}}$$, $$F_{\mu\nu} \leftrightarrow \ast F_{\mu\nu}$$, its known as Seiberg duality, linking a weakly coupled theory to a strongly coupled one (if $$e^{2}$$ is small then its negative inverse is big or vice versa). This extended into a continuous symmetry in other gauge theories. It is extended even further into a string duality, linking the various kinds of string theory, known as S duality.
If you wish I can go into painfully detailed specifically, I have written two papers on the subject.
Since I am not describing the behavior of things, but rather their structures, I don't need to use calculus.
How do you describe the structure (ie the layout) of something if you can't describe locations? General relativity is the study of the
structure of space-time, as well as the motion of things in space-time. The entire issue of compact dimensions in string theory is about the structure the space-time takes on, never mind how things then move in it. All the stuff to do with Calabi-Yau manifolds is primarily to do with what structure such spaces have.
Everything can be expressed in terms of length, time, mass, charges, and curvature.
Define, precisely, what you mean by 'curvature' without using anything quantitative. I believe you're just spouting buzzwords you don't understand the origin of because 'curvature' is something which needs precise definition as there's many different ways you can talk about such a thing. Intrinsic curvature, extrinsic curvature, the Riemann curvature tensor, Gaussian curvature, all of them relate to the warping of something but if you don't pin down your definition you're just waving your arms.
String theory actually has a physical basis in reality according to the Aether Physics Model.
Citation needed.
The APM describes dark matter as strings of mass.
Citation needed.
There are real strings and they are not mathematical inventions.
Where does string theory say strings aren't real?
I haven't taken the time to follow String Theory in depth.
You haven't taken the time to follow
physics in depth. And even if you'd paid attention in physics class its next to impossible to follow string theory in anything more than the most superficial way without considerable knowledge of relativity and quantum field theory.
My focus is on quantum structure, not quantum mechanics.
My entire PhD thesis was on the structure of space-time on scales far smaller than any quantum mechanics can describe. That's what most string theory research is on! You're not presenting anything new on even a conceptual level and you're certainly not presenting anything on a quantitative level to justify your claims.
Stop being so defensive and hurt.
How am I 'hurt'? I don't take you seriously, I don't think you've got anything of merit to present. How can I be hurt by someone I consider a hack? You aren't shaking my foundations or making me question anything, you're just presenting unjustified naive assertions on things you then demonstrate you don't know.
. I'm trying to explain to you that I developed a model for quantum structure with very simple math.
How about you stop telling me what you've done and you actually show what you've done. Its easy to say "I've got the answer to that question", even when you don't.
Actually, there is room for calculus within the Aether unit since the Aether unit (and the Gforce driving it) are dynamic structures. I haven't gone there, yet.
Your comments about not needing calculus, as if its only used to describe 'mechanics' shows how little physics you've looked at.
Renewable energy has nothing to do with economics or science
Now you're just denying reality.
The viability of cold fusion is completely irrelevant in this discussion.
So you now admit its not viable, as a result of you now realising it hasn't been done?
Right, and if travel to Mars were possible, we would already be there, but we aren't, so travel to Mars is not possible.
Flawed logic. Cold fusion would economically be a gold mine. Why would large power companies be worrying about spending billions on huge power stations and future energy security if cold fusion was easily doable? Your analogy doesn't work, as we
do have the technology to go to Mars but it is so enormously expensive for so little gain its not going forward in any serious way. Money makes the world go around and if you could save an energy company
hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few decades they'd be beating a path to you. If the Navy could do cold fusion why build large, expensive, radioactive, environmentally dangerous power plants on their aircraft carriers? Why not make use of the technology to lower costs and allowing more room on the carriers for personnel and equipment? Or submarines, which are extremely cramped at the best of times. If you could build a comparable power plant even 20% smaller than the current ones which power nuclear subs the Navy would be all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake. But they aren't. So what does that tell you about the present state of cold fusion?
Nonsense. The physics underlying the hydrogen bomb are not fully understood
You should really read some textbooks, the fact you don't know doesn't mean others don't.
We can test our understanding of fusion processes in many ways. The most obvious being the fact we can build fusion weapons, though it is a little crude. The fusion processes in the Sun provide all kinds of ways to test our understanding such as the neutrino emissions from the core, the energy output, emission spectra across many different frequency bands, the electromagnetic fields (which also produce sunspots), nova stars, supernova stars, solar wind and plenty more. Models which aren't consistent with these observations are wrong and any model which can accurately describe these phenomena is thus very stringently tested. The understanding we've gained from doing experiments leads to models of the Sun which then dovetail with the observations of the Sun to a very high accuracy. Yes, this doesn't mean they are perfectly correct but they at least give us a very good understanding of how the Sun works. Certainly we understand the processes in fusion weapons, which are significantly simpler than the processes in stars.
otherwise we would have working hot fusion prototypes by now.
I told you before, its not that we don't understand the underlying processes but rather that we have insufficient technological know-how to artificially produce
and control the kinds of environments needed to fuse elements together on a large scale.
Knowing the principles and putting them into practice are two entirely different things.
Gasoline would do nothing to move the car if the carburetor, cylinder timing, cylinder volume, exhaust timing, exhaust pressure, and numerous other factors were not properly engineered.
Precisely my point, its the implementation of the principles which is the issue with fusion power, not the principles themselves. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Also, gasoline does not cause cars to explode. Exploding cars are a Hollywood stunt effect created with dynamite and other powerful explosives. Throw a match into a gas tank and it will ignite quickly and burn hot, for sure, but it will not blast the car to the other side of the parking lot or cause parts to otherwise leave the vehicle. I know this for a fact. I have been in a car that burned. It is just a muffled puff and an increase in heat. That is the way gasoline is designed to burn.
I didn't say 'blast to the other side of a parking lot'. An 'explosion' is a rapid combustion of a flammable material which produces significant quantities of highly pressured gas, which then expands rapidly. The point where the fuel tank ignites is an explosion, just not generally the kind you see in films.
Have you never heard the phrase "Newtonian type" before?
Newtonian type of what? Newtonian force? Newtonian mechanics? Newtonian principle? Newtonian polytope? The inverse square law isn't 'Newtonian', its a more general principle.
We have never seen an electric point charge, either! So what is your point?
You've heard of electrons, right?
Are you saying that because you don't know the physics for quantifying magnetic charge that it doesn't exist?
Where did I say physics can't quantify the notion of magnetic charge? I've said precisely the opposite on more than one occasion, the notion of magnetic charges is more than a century old.
And as for the quantification of the magnetic field being described as a moving charged particle, that is clearly insufficient. There are no moving electrons in a permanent magnet. If there were, we could tap permanent magnets for unlimited energy source.
The electrons don't have to 'flow' like in a conductor to produce a magnetic field. The origin of magnetism in things like iron is to do with the structure of the electron orbital energy levels. The electrons can be regarded, on a very superficial level, as moving in those orbitals and this produces the macroscopic effect of magnetism. Though they don't possess classical angular momentum (in the sense of spinning like a top) electrons possess quantum angular momentum and this has the same effect as the classical notion, it produces a magnetic field and thus the electron has a magnetic
moment (this is not the same as a magnetic charge).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism#Sources_of_magnetism
Also, the electron has magnetic moment, so what causes its magnetic field surrounding the electron if the electron is sitting still?
Ah, so you know about magnetic moments yet you still said what I just responded to? (I reply to posts one section at a time, so I typed the above response before reading the fact you've heard of magnetic moments)
Electrons don't sit still in their orbitals. Either you haven't bothered to find out what they do or you have and you misunderstood the fact quantum mechanics says the electron orbitals are time independent. The region in which an electron is to be found is time independent but the location of the electron is not.
Also, charge is not a point. It is a surface.
Citation needed.
which I had independently derived before analyzing Casimir's equation
So why didn't you show me your original derivation? That's what I wanted, to see you derive a result from your own set of initial postulates. Instead you skipped that and just said "I changed this equation someone else did".
Can you derive your result
without reference to anything in the mainstream?
Now you are expecting me to "plagiarize" Maxwell's equations?
If you can provide a completely new derivation of any known result like Maxwell's equations then its not plagiarism as you demonstrate you can accurately model electromagnetism. But you didn't do that, you just took someone else's result and changed it in an ad hoc manner.
String theory can derive the Einstein Field Equations in a way completely different to how general relativity does it, thus it is not only not plagiarism its a good motivation for thinking string theory might be viable. In fact any theory of everything must be able to construct, in some suitable limit, known results like electromagnetism or Newtonian gravity, as those models are known to be accurate descriptions of reality in certain domains so any new model of those domains must make the same predictions. In order for me to accept that your work can describe electromagnetism you must show a complete derivation, from postulate to prediction, and then demonstrate you have a result which is very very close to Maxwell's equations. If your result were different from Maxwell's equations by more than a tiny fraction the model is falsified as you'd not be able to accurately model electromagnetism.
Please note that I'm not saying "If your work differs in any way from any current models then you're wrong" but instead I'm saying "We know current model X explains phenomenon Y to an error of less than Z%. If your model disagrees with X about phenomenon Y by more than Z% then the model is wrong as you disagree with experiments."
But it is your job to attack my work with the silliest of nonsense with excessive rudeness?
When you demonstrate you've got more to say than naive ignorance then I'll stop treating you as naive and ignorant.
I'm looking for someone who doesn't have an agenda
Someone unlike yourself then? What you're really looking for is someone who doesn't know enough physics to know you don't know enough physics. That's why you went to your local congressman after competent research groups turned you down, you have failed to convince people whose business is science so you try to get in the back door.
Apparently, nobody has! If Casimir had written a paper showing how he derived his equation, then why isn't it in the public domain, or at the very least, an abstract explaining where the paper can be found?
Because journals from the 1940s and 1950s are hard to find, given they are not digitized and few universities have records going that far back.
As it happens though you can find it and its very very easy to find. The Wikipedia page on the Casimir force has as its first two references a paper by Casimir and Polder where they show classically there should be no force and the paper by Casimir where he derives the force quantum field theory says should exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Papers.2C_books_and_lectures
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v73/i4/p360_1
http://www.historyofscience.nl/search/detail.cfm?pubid=2642&view=image&startrow=1
First references on the first Google hit for 'Casimir'. You obviously didn't try very hard.
. You exhibit no behavior suggesting you are a real scientists, so I assume you are not a real scientist.
So because I don't suffer fools gladly and you have failed to justify your position and I'm willing to say as much then that makes me not a scientist? Unlike you there's more to my science research than a self made website or posts on internet forums. This thread (and this forum) is not a place I discuss my work, thus the fact you see nothing from me which resembles research is not a sign I do no science research. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the work I do and the things I post on forums are two entirely different things. Any serious scientist isn't going to do his work through the medium of forum discussion, I don't post my day to day results and work, I write them on paper, keep them in folders, type up results into papers or into documents for my employer. None of the other people on this forum who are postgrad or postdoc researchers post their day to day work here or even anything more than occasional points where its relevant to a pre-existing discussion or when they have specific queries about something. In fact someone who
does present his 'research' in the manner of forum posts I'd be very very suspicious of.