New Unified Force Theory Predicts Measured Values of Physics

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

colesakick

Guest
United Press International posted a press release from an AAAS site; EurekAlert that posted last Monday announcing the acceptance of the white paper titled "A New Foundation of Physics" for publication in the September issue of Infinate Energy Magazine (of Eugene Mallove fame). http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060607-022017-5865r<br /><br />Full release read:<br /><br />New Unified Force Theory Predicts Measured Values of Physics<br />Monday June 5, 7:55 am ET <br /><br /><br />GILBERTS, Ill., June 5 /PRNewswire/ -- David Thomson and Jim Bourassa of the Quantum AetherDynamics Institute (QADI) released a new theory which mathematically predicts and explains the measured values of physics with striking precision. Their Aether Physics Model includes the "Holy Grail" of physics sought by Albert Einstein: the Unified Force Theory. "Our model shows the forces are unified by a simple set of general laws explainable as the fabric of space-time itself, which is a dynamic, quantum-scale Aether," said Bourassa.<br />ADVERTISEMENT<br /> <br /> <br />In February 2002, Thomson was observing a peculiar setup of a Tesla coil and noticed what appeared to be two distinctly different manifestations of charges. Not finding an adequate explanation for why charge should take on two different forms, Thomson decided to re-examine the foundations of quantum physics. Within three weeks, he discovered the simple, empirically based equations, which produce the Unified Force Theory. "This new model of quantum existence does not change the laws of Quantum Mechanics, it merely changes our view of quantum structure," Thomson said.<br /><br />"I placed an ad on my website for someone to develop the mathematics for a Unified Field Theory based upon the Aether," said Bourassa. "David said he not only could do it, but already had." Since then, they joined together to form QADI, a registered 501(c)3 non-pro <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
I hope it all works out for you guys. <br /><br />Who will be perfoming the tests to validate the experiment that set things in motion for you- the two distinct set of charges?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

dragon04

Guest
Interesting article. However, I'm not trained enough to be conversant at the peer level.<br /><br />However, this aether thing feels wrong. The "simple equations" part in Newtonian terms as the article states is the hook. At least for those of us in the lay public.<br /><br />Unfortunately, and from what I <b>do</b> know, gravity can't likely be reconciled with the other forces in the context of a GUT in Newtonian mathematics and terms.<br /><br />Were that so, Einstein could have reconciled Relativity in Newtonian terms rather than a mathematical expression different although based on Newton by adding some magical force to make the math less complicated.<br /><br />Perhaps the equations that describe a GUT <b>are</b> (and I lean towards thinking so) "simple". But what are the properties of this aether, and how can it be observed, measured, and/or quantified. Or even implied as current theory does with respect to 11 dimensions?<br /><br />Okay. Officially in over my head. I'll be quiet now. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Utter nonsense. <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>
 
D

dragon04

Guest
Yeah yeah yeah.. I understand what you're saying.. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I was looking for an "educational response" from the original poster that would provide defense and explanations for my points of view and questions. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Lotsa luck. <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>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">More accurate experiments should confirm which values are correct, which could verify the validity of the Aether Physics Model.</font><br /><br />Validity doesn't make a Theory of Everything, no sir.
 
C

colesakick

Guest
Actually, it was started in free space, I'm sure it was moved here specifically to cause the reaction you just voiced. <br /><br />Free space is supposed to be open to anything on our minds, not so with these guys. If I were the conspiracy type, I’d be wondering if such calculated measures to disgrace the model is evidence that this site exists solely to filter information in ways to protect the petroleum industry’s hold on the world economy. There are an awful lot of power brokers out there trying to protect huge interests. In the past 20 years more than twenty men working toward over unity power technology have died under highly suspicious circumstances. Makes ya wanna go, hmmmm. Is there a powerful family tied to oil funding Imaginova, with minions called Moderators doing their dirty work on public perception of legitimate science tied to cold fusion and other such fields of research? <br /><br />The APM clears up some problems; it does not scrap what we’ve been working with all along. It explains dark matter in terms of the Aether (but is more than semantics), big deal. Its only sin for oil companies is that it allows for clearer thinking about the Casimir effect and provides concrete ways of visualizing what is taking place. When someone here has actually poured over the model sufficiently to form a truly pointed and informed question, I’ll see that you get an answer from Volantis himself. The knee jerk stuff above is not worth troubling him for.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
You always assume that people didn't "pore over" these sort of posts and links thereof. We actually do, you know. I read the paper in it's entirety. Some points:<br /><br />For one, they make the following claim: that Michaelson Morley did in fact detect a generalized Aether drift. No they did not, nor did Michaelson in his further experiments, nor have any other researcher up to this day.<br /><br />The point about Mass versus Cardinal and Ordinal numbers is sheer nonsense. They don't even utilize the terms properly.<br /><br />They refer to particle "spin" in a manner which clearly shows that they don't even understand what spin <i>is</i>.<br /><br />They state that heat differentials are "implausible" as a driving mechanism for a Crooke's Radiometer to operate, yet this has already been tested and shown to be precisely why it <i>does</i> work.<br /><br />They state that until their paper, no idea was known about the Strong Force: no data, no measurements, no clue. A gross misstatement.<br /><br />Finally, looking at their Bibliography, they use self-reference to a vast degree: fully 16 out of 51 references as "proofs" of their "hypothesis" are to their own book. <br /><br />Eight further "proofs" go back to prior to 1950 (many of them to the 1920's or earlier). Many of the remainder is merely definitions of standards from the NIST. And they even throw in a "proof" from the "New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy," which has absolutely *zero* place in a purported scientific document.<br /><br />It is not peer-reviewed, no legitimate scientist has agreed with it, and it's only real appearance is either for-profit books they have written, or as a minor news article.<br /><br />And you refer to our commentary as "knee jerk."<br /><br />Fini. <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
I was being tongue in cheek. I'm no conspiracy buff, I was just miffed that even free space if off limits to freethinking announcements, which is absurd. I was making an absurd case to address the absurd. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
K

kevymetal

Guest
To fully understand the realms of physics a person has to under stand that each humanbeing is possible of breaking the realm of physics, as we know it with the level of intelligence the human race (us) are at.
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
Aether Model does not predict chemistry.<br /><br />Theory of everything must explain chemistry - Period.<br /><br />Calculated Bond Energies in Closed Form Solutions<br />http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/350Table%20601306Sb.pdf <br /><br /><font color="yellow">...is the theory that physical laws (Maxwell's Equations, Newton's Laws, Special and General Relativity) must hold on all scales. The theory is based on an often overlooked result of Maxwell's Equations, that an extended distribution of charge may, under certain conditions, accelerate without radiating. This "condition of no radiation" is invoked to solve the physical structure of subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules.<br /><br />In exact closed-form equations with physical constants only, solutions to thousands of known experimental values arise that were beyond the reach of previous theory. These include the electron spin, g-factor, multi-electron atoms, excited states, polyatomic molecules, wave-particle duality and the nature of the photon, the masses and families of fundamental particles, and the relationships between fundamental laws of the universe that reveal why the universe is accelerating as it expands. ...is successful over 85 orders of magnitude, from the level of quarks to the cosmos.<br /><br />Recently, the major functional groups of organic molecules were solved theoretically that seamlessly give the closed-form solutions of molecules of infinite length and complexity! View the background material of molecules in chapters 11, 13 and 14 of the book, view summary tables of molecular parameters, computations in excel format, or 3D animations of molecular structures.</font><br /><br />http://www...com/theory/theory.shtml <br /><br />Do not confuse thier use of the phrase "sec" with "secant". The ... theory's use of "sec" in equat
 
C

colesakick

Guest
It does predict chemistry, perfectly in fact. Clearly you did not read the book or the white paper. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">It does predict chemistry, perfectly in fact. Clearly you did not read the book or the white paper.</font><br /><br />I did not. However, I have severe doubts that it is able to predict the bond energies. When I said "predict chemistry" I didn't mean just the periodic table. If it can't predict the bond energies of every molecule -correctly-, then it cannot have possibly predicted chemistry in any perfect sense. Aether Physics Model does not predict bond energies. And here's the proof:<br /><br />http://www.google.com/search?q="bond+energy"+"aether+physics+model"<br />http://www.google.com/search?q="bond+energies"+"aether+physics+model"<br />http://www.google.com/search?q="chemical+bond"+"aether+physics+model"<br />http://www.google.com/search?q="molecular+bond"+"aether+physics+model"<br /><br />"bond energy" "aether physics model"<br />"bond energies" "aether physics model"<br />"chemical bond" "aether physics model"<br />"molecular bond" "aether physics model"<br /><br />The only page listed from this search on google at this time, is the very thread you're looking at right now.<br /><br />http://www.google.com/search?q=kmarinas86<br />http://www.google.com/search?q="aether+physics+model"<br /><br />Stupendously, kmarinas86 is more notable on Google than is the Aether Physics Model.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY