A New Foundation of Physics

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

colesakick

Guest
The follwoing was written by David Thomson<br /><br />The Aether Physics Model has numerous practical consequences not anticipated by conventional physics. The theory predicts that unlimited useable energy can be tapped from a vast sea of dark matter via the Casimir effect. The Casimir effect is shown to be a transposition of a strong force law for the electron. A similar law exists for the proton, which predicts that matter can also be produced from the sea of dark matter. It would appear that constantly growing stars are a manifestation of this Casimir equation for the proton. Some individuals have proposed a theory that the Earth is expanding, and provide convincing evidence. The APM provides the physics to back the theory of an expanding Earth. Most, if not all, fusion reactions appear to be a manifestation of generating visible matter from dark matter.<br /> <br />The APM predicts the Aether has conductance, and provides a solid conductance constant that modern physics has not identified. This conductance constant of the Aether interacts with the angular momentum of subatomic particles to produce strong charge. Each subatomic particle is shown to possess not only electrostatic charge, but a second quantifiable type of charge. This strong charge is shown to be the true carrier of the strong force. As such, the APM provides a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory, which is something that no other theory has done.<br /> <br />Neuroscientists have known for decades that emotions are directly measured through conductance, particularly of the skin. The former Princeton Global Consciousness Project has shown evidence that mass human emotions affect computers. Computer chips operate on the Hall effect, which is based upon the surface conductance of the chip's materials. It would appear that the conductance of the Aether is the medium that allows for the conductance of living organisms and seemingly inanimate objects to emotionally interact. I believe fur <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
C

colesakick

Guest
http://unamity.com<br /><br />if any one runs across any other researchers<br />who are publishing or distributing REAL electrodynamic<br />models of the atomic nuclei -- helium, lithium, berylium,<br />boron, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen -- please let me<br />know.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
C

colesakick

Guest
It really is elegant and applicable isn't it?! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
so what does this model say dark matter is. Cause right now, nobody has a really solid idea on what it actually is.<br /><br />So with that in mind...the claim for generating anything from dark matter rather dubious.<br /><br />It's to bad the theory predicts/supports an expanding earth...as there is no evidence for such a model.<br /><br />As for fusion reactions: They appear to be a manifestation of the energy released when binding particles into nuclei....as predicted by nuclear physics. This is really very well understood.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This conductance constant of the Aether interacts with the angular momentum of subatomic particles to produce strong charge<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Which is odd, since some particles, with spin (i.e. angular momentum) have no charge...so this also goes against the theory. And since the theory claims to show each particle has charge (when it is observed that they do not)...it's invalidated.<br /><br />and I stop reading there, I'm sleepy.<br /><br />Theory is bunk. It claims a lot (at least what you've posted) and isn't at all supported by what it says supports it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
This appears better suited for the Phenomenon forum. You'll find a lot more interesting responses there, as that is where out-of-the-mainstream theories are discussed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
C

colesakick

Guest
There is so evidence, but realize that this is a side issue<br /><br />http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/1.htm<br /><br />When looked at side by side, the only hold back for accepting an expanding earth is a mechanism to cause it, that mechanism is the Casimir effect from electrified plasma in our core <br /><br />http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm <br /><br />http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/3.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
C

colesakick

Guest
Clearly you did not read the white paper. Your objuctions are bunked in it <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
A

ag30476

Guest
> It would appear that constantly growing stars are a <br /> /> manifestation of this Casimir equation for the proton.<br /> /> Some individuals have proposed a theory that the <br /> /> Earth is expanding, and provide convincing evidence. <br />Very true! Recent studies show Americans are getting fatter along with the Earh and the stars. Proof positive of the BLATHER Physics Model.
 
V

volantis

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> so what does this model say dark matter is. Cause right now, nobody has a really solid idea on what it actually is. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />http://www.16pi2.com/dark_matter.htm<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> It's to bad the theory predicts/supports an expanding earth...as there is no evidence for such a model. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As for fusion reactions: They appear to be a manifestation of the energy released when binding particles into nuclei....as predicted by nuclear physics. This is really very well understood. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />If it was so well understood, then why is mass supposedly converted to energy in both fission and fusion reactions? One would think that if fission is an atom being torn apart and that mass is considered to be converted to energy in fission, then in fusion energy should be converted to mass, right? Yet, if both fission and fusion convert mass into energy, then the mass of the Universe should be shrinking, not expanding. <br /><br />Also, if both fission and fusion release energy, then what process puts the energy back into the form of mass? <br /><br />Fission and fusion are not as well understood as you might think.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> In reply to: "This conductance constant of the Aether interacts with the angular momentum of subatomic particles to produce strong charge"<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Which is odd, since some particles, with spin (i.e. angular momentum) have no charge...so this also goes against the theory. And since the theory claims to show each parti</p></blockquote>
 
C

chriscdc

Guest
Do you understand the concept of binding energy and its relevance to fission and fusion?
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<i>that mechanism is the Casimir effect from electrified plasma in our core </i><br /><br />*Shaking head and departing forum in profound disgust* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
C

colesakick

Guest
Did you look at the model chriscdc, really? Your question does not reflect that you even peaked at it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
C

colesakick

Guest
Yes, a closed mind is disgusting, seeee ya! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
As the Casimir effect has nothing whatsoever to do with, and I quote, "electrified plasma in the core," it's not even a matter of "non-believeing." You don't even have your concepts and terminology right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
T

thermionic

Guest
Chrisdc's question was a polite response to volantis' comment. From what volantis said, it is clear he's forgotten his nuclear physics.
 
V

volantis

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Do you understand the concept of binding energy and its relevance to fission and fusion? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I understand it very well, do you?
 
D

drwayne

Guest
"If it was so well understood, then why is mass supposedly converted to energy in both fission and fusion reactions? One would think that if fission is an atom being torn apart and that mass is considered to be converted to energy in fission, then in fusion energy should be converted to mass, right?"<br /><br />Actually, if you look at the binding enery per nucleon curve, you will see it increases as one goes up in atomic weight until you reach iron, when it comes back down again.<br /><br />Fusion occurs going up the left side of the curve, with the release of energy, fission occurs on the other side of the curve (heavier than iron), again, climbing the binding energy per nucleon curve.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
C

colesakick

Guest
Therm said "From what volantis said, it is clear he's forgotten his nuclear physics"<br /><br />I don't understand why you think he's forgotten it, do you not see that the model has reconsidered the whole of physics and rectified some standing issues in the current model? If you look at the model and see specific errors or impossibilities, state those. It’s useless to insinuate anyone has forgotten what WAS known when they are discussing what is NOW understood after taking all of the empirical data available to physicists into account. I didn’t see anything to complain about; you do but won’t say what exactly.<br /><br />As for my comment on the expanding core, I should have said the cause could be by what ever mechanism it is that causes the Casimir effect. It’s just a thought, I’m not married to it but it is logical. Stars grow, why not planets, they’re made of star stuff too. Since we are in Phenomenon, I may as well state that this idea is entirely consistent with the electric universe model. Before you go sticking your finger down your throat, try to appreciate that a holistic scientific model is emerging. Try to at least imagine it, and speak to the specific weak points you see, and I do mean be specific. Read the darn thing (the New Foundation of Physics) then bring specific issues to fore. Let’s noodle it around like we were charged with this as a project in class.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
this sounds alot like what einstein did with a certain constant in order to make his relativity theory work. <br /><br />its convenient, and unlike scientific study, it is introduced to support a theory based on assumption as apposed to observation.<br /><br /><br />you have to be able to define the dark matter before you can give it properties enough to solve equations, or be the missing link. much like einstein and later what he would call 'his biggest blunder.' <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
and this whole electron orbital jumps and the source of its exponential energy required to make them...thats already understood without dark matter. i don't want to put it here, but you can find it. for both jumping up and down in orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

volantis

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Actually, if you look at the binding enery per nucleon curve, you will see it increases as one goes up in atomic weight until you reach iron, when it comes back down again. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. Nuclear binding energies have absolutely nothing to do with fission or fusion *reactions*. The so-called "mass defect" occurs in *all* isotopes no matter whether they come before iron or after it. The mass defect is supposedly evidence that mass is converted to energy. But if mass is converted to energy in a nuclear binding, where is the energy? Energy is time dependent. If the nucleus remains bound for 15 billion years does it have more binding energy than something bound for five minutes? If so, why doesn't the mass become correspondingly larger the longer the isotope exists? If not, then how can mass be converted to energy?<br /><br />The fact is that nuclear fission and nuclear fusion have absolutely nothing to do with the so-called "mass defect". Fission and fusion reactions are fully explained without resorting to SR in any form. <br /><br />It is thought by some that when a nucleus binds mass is converted to energy. Well, if a nucleus unbinds, then energy should be converted to mass. If this was the case, then when a fission reaction occurs it would not release energy, it would absorb energy. Einstein's E=mc^2 thus clearly predicts the opposite of what happens in a fission reaction.<br /><br />Also, even if the fission reaction were considered to be a conversion of mass into energy, there is no evidence for this, either. All the mass of a fission reaction is accounted for in the form of smaller isotopes, alpha particles (helium nuclei), beta particles (electrons), and gamma rays (photons). Not only is the mass fully accounted for, but the particles are also imparted a velocity, which is where the energy comes in. So we end up with the full amoun
 
C

colesakick

Guest
This model is strictly emperical Nova, it uses all of known physics. <br /><br />APM solves dark matter issue http://www.16pi2.com/dark_matter.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
If you thought *that* was bad science, I advise you to *not* read the "Dark Matter" link just posted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY