Discussion with Warren Siegel

Aether Physics Model

The Aether Physics Model is solid science presented using the scientific method.  However, the scientific establishment seems not willing to use the scientific method for analyzing the Aether Physics Model.  Below is a discussion between David Thomson and Warren Siegel, a PhD physicist professor from CNY Institute for Theoretical Physics, SUNY.

In this discussion, the reader can see the logic presented by both sides and decide for themselves who the quacks are.  Prof. Siegel goes out of his way to ignore the theory and my responses, and then deflects the discussion to question my credibility, rather than the theory.

I started this discussion with Professor Siegel by asking him if I qualified as a quack, per his list of traits for quacks page.  To my surprise, he gave me an opportunity to present my views.  But like all other academics who seem to have sworn an oath to the Standard Model of Particle Physics, he completely ignored my views and responded as though I had never said a word about the APM.  This discussion demonstrates the “objectivity” we encounter with our trained scientists nearly everywhere we go. It also provides fertile material for psychology majors.  

Our complete, unedited discussion is provided below.

Hello,

I saw the quack page at:https://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

I just have to know if I qualify or not.  Could you give me the answer?  Maybe you could pass this around to your colleagues for humor?

  1. I have developed a new foundation for physics, based upon empirical constants and all mathematically correct. 
  2. The theory is geometrical in that it derives the geometry of quantum space-time as well as subatomic particles. 
  3. The theory produces a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory. 
  4. The theory mathematically demonstrates there are two distinctly different manifestations of charges in quantum structure and that all charges must be distributed (rather than single dimension as used in Classical physics).
  5. The theory agrees with Einstein’s General Relativity theory, except it derives the equivalent of his simplified field equation in terms of two types of charges (electrostatic and electromagnetic).
  6. The theory provides a new system of quantum units, demonstrating a specific quantum length and quantum frequency.
  7. The theory shows that at the quantum level of existence there are actually five dimensions (three length, two frequency) instead of the four dimensions (three length, one time) used by modern physics.
  8. The theory is based on the assumption that subatomic particles are neither particulate, nor waves, but have a unique form of existence described as “primary angular momentum”.  The primary angular momentum is a circular string of mass that moves perpendicular to its circumference.
  9. The theory provides a quantifiable basis for relating at least certain aspects of mind (emotions) to matter via the unit of conductance.
  10. The theory quantifies a fluid Aether.
    Also,
  11. I have no formal education passed high school (I even had to take a GED because I didn’t have enough P.E. credits).
  12. I developed this theory as a result of my interpretation of a Tesla coil experiment I performed.
  13. Although the theory does not nullify QM, it does provide a better interpretation of quantum structure that replaces wave/particle duality theory, force particle theories, QCD, and probability functions of particle structure (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).
  14. We have web sites where we promote the theory and sell a book about it.

Now, my understanding of the scientific method is that a theory must be empirically based, derived from observation of physical phenomena, provide a quantifiable hypothesis, be demonstrable to prove the truth or falseness, and to be capable of modifying or validating the hypothesis.  The theory below meets all these requirements, although it provides a new foundation for physics. 

The theory is presented as a paper at: https://aetherwizard.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

So I need to know.  Do I qualify as a quack for creating a new system for understanding quantum structure, even though this system meets all the requirements of the scientific method?

Response by Prof. Warren Siegel at SUNY

The concept of ether is in direct conflict with General Relativity. Modern experiments are in total agreement with GR, and thus disprove the ether theory. (Einstein died in 1955. A lot has happened since then.)

(2) Your equations of motion are nonrelativistic.

(3) The concept of a rigid sphere is incompatible with special relativity.

The rest of your theory seems to be numerology.

If you want to propose a new theory you must:

(a) Say where you agree with accepted theory: Maxwell’ equations, Einstein’s equations, QCD, Salam-Weinberg electroweak unification, etc.

(b) Say where you disagree, and what you are replacing with what: If not Einstein’s equations, then what? If you don’t know these equations, then you can’t replace them, much less disagree with them.

David Thomson’s Reply

Hello Warren,

Thank you for your reply.

(1) The concept of ether is in direct conflict with General Relativity.

There are two distinctly different Aether theories. One is the rigid Aether proposed by Albert Michelson, the other is the fluid Aether, first proposed by Rene Descartes and generally agreed upon by Clerk Maxwell, Augustin Fresnel, Albert Einstein, Dayton Miller, Charles Lorentz, and even recently by Renaud Parentani.

Modern experiments are in total agreement with GR, and thus disprove the ether theory.

Your logic is incorrect, as not only does GR agree with a fluid Aether, the Aether Physics Model derives the simplified field equation from first principles. However, instead of presenting GR in terms of space-time curvature and mass/energy tensors, it provides the theory in terms of two distinctly different types of quantifiable and observable charges.

(2) Your equations of motion are nonrelativistic.

My equations describe quantum structure, as opposed to quantum mechanics. The Lorentz transformations do not apply to the discrete structure of existence, only to the mechanics. Naturally, my equations are not relativistic since my theory of quantum structure is discrete. Notice, also, that despite being discrete, my theory also agrees with probability theory since it describes the structure of subatomic particles in five dimensions (three length, two frequency), instead of the four dimensions (three length, one time) upon which probability theory is based.

(3) The concept of a rigid sphere is incompatible with special relativity.

The concept of a rigid sphere is also alien to the Aether Physics Model. The geometry of charge pertains to the solid angle relationships of the two different types of charges, not a particulate or solid object.

The rest of your theory seems to be numerology. If you want to propose a new theory you must:

(a) Say where you agree with accepted theory: Maxwell’ equations, Einstein’s equations, QCD, Salam-Weinberg electroweak unification, etc.

(b) Say where you disagree, and what you are replacing with what: If not Einstein’s equations, then what?

I’m saying that I have provided a new branch of physics not previously discovered. Whereas the bulk of QM and its associated theories attempt to describe quantum behavior, my theory attempts to describe quantum structure. My theory modifies our understanding of wave/particle duality, probability structure of subatomic particles, and force particles. These theories are attempts at describing quantum structure in four dimensions, rather than the proper understanding of five dimensional structure.

Parallel theories, such as QCD, electroweak, single dimension charge, and GR are neither proven nor disproved. My theory simply provides an alternative view of the data, based upon a few corrections in understanding the data.

Other examples of incorrect understanding: the MKS units for charge express most units as single dimension charge. However, cgs units clearly show that charge dimensions should always be distributed. Another example is the quantification of the photon in the Aether Physics Model. According to the APM the photon is a true quantum of electromagnetic radiation and is exactly equal to the angular momentum of the electron times the speed of light.

phtn = h\cdot c

Light, itself, is equal to the photon times the frequency at which the photons are produced.

ligt = phtn\cdot freq

The amount of angular momentum from a light source depends on the distance between the light source and target, as well as the magnitude of the light source (how many atoms are emitting photons). When light is absorbed by a target:

\frac{ligt}{c} = enrg

the photons no longer travel at c, thus giving us what the Einstein called the photon energy packet. The APM clearly shows the photon and the energy packet are two completely different concepts with different quantities. This fact is born out in actual experiments where a high frequency light source is capable of liberating two or more electrons in a properly designed solar cell.

As for numerology, that is what happens in modern physics when the dimensions are dropped in calculus equations and normalization of the data (due to having the wrong paradigm) is performed. All my equations are Newtonian type expressions, always retaining complete information about the data. Dimensional analysis and algebra can hardly be labeled numerology.

If you don’t know these equations, then you can’t replace them, much less disagree with them.

As I said, I’m not replacing quantum mechanics. I’m replacing loose and ill-defined theories about quantum structure. I’m sure even you recognize that wave/particle duality theory cannot be the correct explanation of quantum structure, as it is presently given.

Anyways, thank you for taking the time to respond, although you didn’t directly answer my question. What I wanted to know was whether my theory fit your description of a quack theory.

Dave

Response by Prof. Warren Siegel at SUNY

On Jun 13, 2006, at 2:27 PM, David Thomson wrote:

There are two distinctly different Aether theories. One is the rigid Aether proposed by Albert Michelson, the other is the fluid Aether, first proposed by Rene Descartes and generally agreed upon by Clerk Maxwell, Augustin Fresnel, Albert Einstein, Dayton Miller, Charles Lorentz, and even recently by Renaud Parentani.

Those are exactly the same. Both experimentally refuted, long after Maxwell died.

Your logic is incorrect, as not only does GR agree with a fluid Aether, the Aether Physics Model derives the simplified field

Wrong. The ether defines a preferred reference frame. GR demands there is none.

equation from first principles. However, instead of presenting GR in terms of space-time curvature and mass/energy tensors, it provides the theory in terms of two distinctly different types of quantifiable and observable charges.

Charges are integrals of densities, so that is a specialization, not a difference.

Tests of the equivalence principle prove there are not 2 gravitational charges, only 1 (mass).

> (2) Your equations of motion are nonrelativistic.

My equations describe quantum structure, as opposed to quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with relativity.

The Lorentz transformations do not apply to the discrete structure of existence, only to the mechanics.

Lorentz transformations apply to everything. Again, proven by experiment.

Naturally, my equations are not relativistic since my theory of quantum structure is discrete.

There is no experimental evidence of discrete spacetime.

Notice, also, that despite being discrete, my theory also agrees with probability theory since it

Like I said, relativity has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

The concept of a rigid sphere is also alien to the Aether Physics Model. The geometry of charge pertains to the solid angle relationships of the two different types of charges, not a particulate or solid object.

Angles are not invariant under Lorentz transformations.

I’m saying that I have provided a new branch of physics not previously discovered. Whereas the bulk of QM and its associated theories attempt to describe quantum behavior, my theory attempts to describe quantum structure.

Semantics. Give an experimental difference.

Parallel theories, such as QCD, electroweak, single dimension charge, and GR are neither proven nor disproved. My theory

Wrong. There is a great wealth of evidence proving QCD, the electroweak theory, & GR.

Other examples of incorrect understanding: the MKS units for charge express most units as single dimension charge. However, cgs units clearly show that charge dimensions should always be distributed.

There is no physics in units. It is merely convention.

Another example is the quantification of the photon in the Aether Physics Model. According to the APM the photon is a true quantum of electromagnetic radiation and is exactly equal

Quantum of what quantity?

to the angular momentum of the electron times the speed of light.

That’s h-bar c/2. It has units mass length^3/time^2.

What quantity is that supposed to measure?

phtn = h\cdot c

What is “phtn” supposed to be? A photon is a particle. What does it mean to say a particle IS a quantity? A quantity of what?

Light, itself, is equal to the photon times the frequency at

What? Light IS photons!

The amount of angular momentum from a light source depends on the distance between the light source and target,

Wrong. Angular momentum is conserved. It doesn’t matter how far it travels.

even you recognize that wave/particle duality theory cannot be the correct explanation of quantum structure, as it is presently given.

Yet it is experimentally confirmed.

What I wanted to know was whether my theory fit your description of a quack theory.

It satisfies that description according to items 5,6,7,10,12,14,16,19 on my present page.

David Thomson’s Reply

Hi Warren,

> There are two distinctly different Aether theories. One is the rigid Aether proposed by Albert Michelson, the other is the fluid Aether, first proposed by Rene Descartes and generally agreed upon by Clerk Maxwell, Augustin Fresnel, Albert Einstein, Dayton Miller, Charles Lorentz, and even recently by Renaud Parentani.

Those are exactly the same. Both experimentally refuted, long after Maxwell died.

Do you have a reference for the fluid Aether being refuted? I have Whittaker’s Classical and Modern Theories of the Aether. From what I have read, the fluid Aether theory was not refuted, but simply dismissed.

> Your logic is incorrect, as not only does GR agree with a fluid Aether, the Aether Physics Model derives the simplified field

Wrong. The ether defines a preferred reference frame. GR demands there is none.

This is not what my model of the Aether defines. My model defines a quantum of space-time. The sum of all Aether quanta is the Aether fabric, or fabric of visible space-time. The individual Aether quanta move independently of each other (like a fluid), hence the preferred reference frame is only within the quantum Aether unit, and not in the Aether fabric. The Aether fabric is the domain of GR, not the quantum Aether unit. This is clearly seen in the theory I present.

> equation from first principles. However, instead of presenting GR in terms of space-time curvature and mass/energy tensors, it provides the theory in terms of two distinctly different types of quantifiable and observable charges.

Charges are integrals of densities, so that is a specialization, not a difference.

In the SM, you are correct. But as my paper states in the title, I have provided A New Foundation for Physics. This is literally true. In the SM, charge is merely a mathematical curiosity with no geometrical or other physical qualities. In the APM, charge is a dimension and the two types of charges have solid angle relationships to each other and have a difference in magnitude exactly equal to the fine structure.

It is premature for you to judge the Aether Physics Model based upon Standard Model assumptions. If the APM had the same foundational assumptions as the SM, it wouldn’t be a new foundation. Charge and mass have different definitions in the APM than they do in the SM. These definitions were determined by examining characteristics of mass and charges as they appear in quantum measurement units (also a new addition to physics in the APM).

To illustrate the subtlety of what I’m trying to convey, the French language and English language both describe the same human existence. However, the French have a different set of assumptions (culture) for framing their language structure than do the English. Hence, a literal translation is not always possible between the languages. The same thing is occurring here. I have provided a different paradigm for understanding quantum structure. The paradigm is solid and has practical use in both theoretical and practical physics. In order to benefit from this theory you need to understand its foundation, which is outlined in the paper. You cannot apply the foundation from another theory in judging it.

Now the bells go off, right? Think about it. Modern physics has met many dead ends and needs many patches to keep the theory together (virtual particles, wave/particle duality, etc.). Why is that? It must be because certain foundational assumptions in modern physics are wrong. How can you use physics to identify which assumptions are wrong when the wrong assumptions have been incorporated into the physics?

I had to reexamine the foundations of physics with a fresh mind, use the modern and accurate physics constants as a solid ground to begin, and factor out all the information I needed by comparing various known pieces of the puzzle to each other. This is a far more scientific approach than merely making pie-in-the-sky assumptions based upon our expectations of what the quantum realm should be like.

Tests of the equivalence principle prove there are not 2 gravitational charges, only 1 (mass).

The charges are not gravitational, they are electrical. My theory agrees with your understanding, there is only one type of gravitational mass. My theory also agrees with physical observation that there are two distinctly different manifestations of charges, the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic charge. Further, my theory demonstrates that the electromagnetic charge is exactly orthogonal to mass. Thus electromagnetic charge (carrier of the strong force) will always be exactly proportional to mass. Further, my theory quantifies the precise curvature of space-time by quantifying the quanta of space-time, Aether. My theory also demonstrates that electrostatic charge is inherent to the quantum Aether unit, not matter. Matter picks up electrostatic charge by inhabiting the Aether. However, in addition to inhabiting the Aether and picking up electrostatic charge, the angular momentum of matter also generates electromagnetic charge, which is why electromagnetic charge is orthogonal to mass. Thus, Einstein’s space-time curvature is identical to the Aether electrostatic charge and Einstein’s mass/energy is identical to the Aether electromagnetic charge.

The electrostatic force associated with space-time is balanced to the electromagnetic force associated with matter. This balance is the basis for the weak interaction.

What is the benefit of this view of GR? With this view of GR we can quantify the lift of an electrostatic lifter and scientifically engineer a system of propulsion that requires no physical thrust. This new view of GR is not without basis in cosmology, either. There has been a group of astrophysicists promoting the Electric Universe model for decades. Also, this electric view of GR provides a much more discrete understanding of plasma physics.

Notice that my theory does not nullify the gravitational view of GR, it merely provides its counterpart electrical view, which heretofore has not been known.

>> (2) Your equations of motion are nonrelativistic.

> My equations describe quantum structure, as opposed to quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with relativity.

That is a facetious statement. You know very well that the mass/energy equivalence principle figures prominently in QM. You may be confusing the Lorentz transformations with Einstein’s SR. Einstein is not the author of the time dilation equations, Charles Lorentz is. Einstein’s unique contribution in SR turned out to be the mass/energy equivalence principle, even though he didn’t see this when he first wrote his paper in 1905.

> The Lorentz transformations do not apply to the discrete structure of existence, only to the mechanics.

Lorentz transformations apply to everything. Again, proven by experiment.

Lorentz transformations only apply to relative motions. Quantum structure is what quantum structure is. There is no relative motion within quanta. That’s what I’m showing in this theory, the discrete structure of quanta.

> Naturally, my equations are not relativistic since my theory of quantum structure is discrete.

There is no experimental evidence of discrete spacetime.

There certainly is. The existence of a quantum particle can only take place in a quantum of space-time. A single subatomic particle cannot be in more than one place or one time, nor can it be in a fraction of a place or time. If a subatomic particle is real, then the space-time it occupies must also be real.

Further, if space-time were not discrete, there would be no such thing as a reliable measurement of length or time. Also, phonons, p-holes, and frames are direct evidence of discrete space-time.

There is an abundance of evidence for discrete space-time. What is lacking is the desire to see this abundance of evidence for what it is. The reason the desire is lacking to recognize discrete space-time (Aether) is because of the preconception that Einstein proved the Aether could not exist (which, according to Einstein’s writings, is a false premise to begin with).

> Notice, also, that despite being discrete, my theory also agrees with probability theory since it

Like I said, relativity has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

As I pointed out, it does.

> The concept of a rigid sphere is also alien to the Aether Physics Model. The geometry of charge pertains to the solid angle relationships of the two different types of charges, not a particulate or solid object.

Angles are not invariant under Lorentz transformations.

You obviously have not read my theory and are carrying on this discussion by making many of your own assumptions of what my theory is about. The solid angles of the charges occur within a single subatomic particle, not as relative motion between two separate particles. Lorentz transformations are completely irrelevant to the charge theory I have presented.

> I’m saying that I have provided a new branch of physics not previously discovered. Whereas the bulk of QM and its associated theories attempt to describe quantum behavior, my theory attempts to describe quantum structure.

Semantics. Give an experimental difference.

It is not a semantic difference, it is an objective difference. QM is looking at the behavior of subatomic particles (particle accelerators, nuclear mechanics), the APM is looking at the structure of subatomic particles (angular momentum, two types of charges, structure with regard to the space-time it inhabits, unified forces). The experiments that led to the APM are all the experiments that have resulted in high precision physics constants.

Presently, the physics constants sit idly as “convenience constants.” They are not thought to have any use other than providing a correct solution to an equation. I have used this neglected data of physics to discover the quantum structure.

> Parallel theories, such as QCD, electroweak, single dimension charge, and GR are neither proven nor disproved. My theory

Wrong. There is a great wealth of evidence proving QCD, the electroweak theory, & GR.

You must have misread what I said. I wasn’t talking about whether the theories of QCD, electroweak, and GR had strong evidence. I said that my theory neither proves nor disproves these theories. My theory provides a completely different paradigm from the same evidence. Once again, it is compared to languages. The SM has found a language that suits one culture, I have found a language that suits a different culture. Both languages describe the same physical reality with practical results. In some cases, such as GR, the SM has described a gravitational view, while my theory provides its corresponding electrical view. Since my theory clearly shows the orthogonality of mass and strong charge, I can scientifically provide an electrical view of GR.

> Other examples of incorrect understanding: the MKS units for charge express most units as single dimension charge. However, cgs units clearly show that charge dimensions should always be distributed.

There is no physics in units. It is merely convention.

This is another assumption. It is also an unfortunate and ill-considered assumption. If you study my work, you’ll find that units and dimensions are actually a part of physical existence, not a man-made invention for understanding physical existence. What is man-made is the arbitrary scales of the unit systems in use, today. My physics produces a physically based system of units, based upon empirical quantum measurements and verified through the analysis of highly accurate constants.

> Another example is the quantification of the photon in the Aether Physics Model. According to the APM the photon is a true quantum of electromagnetic radiation and is exactly equal

Quantum of what quantity?

The quantum photon has the quantum quantity equal to h * c, angular momentum times the speed of light.

> to the angular momentum of the electron times the speed of light.

That’s h-bar c/2.

No, h-bar is Neils Bohr’s mistake. Max Planck defined the quantum of action as h.

It has units mass length^3/time^2. What quantity is that supposed to measure?

Properly stated, the unit of photon has the dimensions of mass times length^3 times frequency^2. Those five space-time dimensions (length^3, frequency^2) are the five space-“time” dimensions of the quantum realm. Actually, it should be called space-resonance. The quantum photon is inertia applied through the fabric of Aether.

> phtn = h\cdot c

What is “phtn” supposed to be? A photon is a particle.

A photon is a quantum of action (h) ejected from an atom at the speed of light (c). A photon is thus angular momentum, not a particle (which is physically undefined) and not a wave (which is also physically undefined).

What does it mean to say a particle IS a quantity? A quantity of what?

An electron or proton is a quantity of primary angular momentum. Another assumption of modern physics is that quantum particles must be smaller versions of bigger particles. Yet, a physician does not describe human organs as smaller humans. Organs have a different order of reality than does a human, yet it is an essential component of a human. Similarly, subatomic particles have a different order of reality than atoms, although they are components of atoms. I have examined the actual physical constants and determined that subatomic particles have a different order of reality than anything mentioned in modern physics. Subatomic particles are a more fundamental form of existence. And get this, primary angular momentum is a circular string of mass moving perpendicular to its circumference. There are elements to String theory here. Strings, it would appear, are made directly from dimensions, which have non-material but real existence.

Further, I can quantify the anti-neutrino in terms of primary angular momentum caught between the strong force binding of an electron and proton (neutron). Thus there is a basis for quantifying dark matter as primary angular momentum, which is not encapsulated by an Aether unit, and quantifying visible matter as primary angular momentum, which is encapsulated by an Aether unit. No other theory in modern physics can provide a practical model quantifying the difference between dark matter and visible matter.

> Light, itself, is equal to the photon times the frequency at

What? Light IS photons!

Exactly! Light is photons, not a photon. You are correct! Light is exactly what I said it is, the production of photons at a given frequency. I can quantify exactly what light is, separate from its quantum component. Can you? You don’t speak of atoms as subatomic particles, or molecules as atoms, so why should you speak of light as photons? Light is a different quantifiable unit of existence from its quantum component, photons.

> The amount of angular momentum from a light source depends on the distance between the light source and target,

Wrong. Angular momentum is conserved. It doesn’t matter how far it travels.

This is what you say within a different physics model. Angular momentum of light is conserved within my model, too. It expands radially in all directions. Just because it all doesn’t go directly to the target doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. BTW, that is a problem with the model of light you presently use. How can you say that all the angular momentum from a source strikes a target? How does the photon packet know where to go?

> even you recognize that wave/particle duality theory cannot be the correct explanation of quantum structure, as it is presently given.

Yet it is experimentally confirmed.

The physical structure of the photon has not been confirmed to be both a wave and particle. In fact, nobody knows what the structure of the photon looks like in the SM. All that has been confirmed is that a wave equation will work in one situation, and a kinetic equation will work in a different situation. This in no way confirms the structure of the photon.

Besides, for an object to be its own wave is tantamount to saying there are special water molecules that makes tsunamis and other water molecules that make calm seas. Such a claim has never been verified.

> What I wanted to know was whether my theory fit your description of a quack theory.

It satisfies that description according to items 5,6,7,10,12,14,16,19 on my present page.

Thanks. That is what I wanted to know. I’m building up a record of comments that demonstrate the difficulty of scientists to understand new paradigms. It is amazing how simple this theory is, how accurate and practical it is, and yet, how difficult it is for someone established with a certain paradigm to see something new.

This is not a personal slight to you. But you fit neatly into a greater mold that is beyond your ability to control. I fully understand that most of the “new” theories you have shoved before you are a waste of your valuable time. And yet, like gold ore in sand, there are valuable insights that are needlessly missed, which can advance the survivability of the human species. We need a more refined scientific method. There needs to be a specific venue for new theories. This venue should consist of paid personnel whose sole purpose is to thoroughly examine and encourage new ideas. This would free up your time to pursue your special interests, but also nourishes the fertile minds of others who wish to contribute new ways of understanding.

Even if you did understand the theory I presented, as several PhD physicists and several others have so far, you would run against the same issues with your peers as I am running into with you.

Thank you for your time. I have taken too much of it already.

Dave

Response by Prof. Warren Siegel at SUNY

On Jun 14, 2006, at 10:52 AM, David Thomson wrote:

Do you have a reference for the fluid Aether being refuted? I have Whittaker’s Classical and Modern Theories of the Aether.

Just look for any prediction of the ether theory that differs from relativity. Then find any reference on recent tests of relativity. Relativity so far has stood the test of all experiments.

This is not what my model of the Aether defines. My model defines a quantum of space-time. The sum of all Aether quanta is the Aether fabric, or fabric of visible space-time. The individual Aether quanta move independently of each other (like a fluid), hence the preferred reference frame is only within the quantum Aether unit, and not in the Aether fabric. The Aether fabric is the domain of GR, not the quantum Aether unit. This is clearly seen in the theory I present.

I have no idea what that means. Can you detect the ether or not? If not, it might just as well be Santa Claus.

> Charges are integrals of densities, so that is a specialization, not a difference.

In the SM, you are correct. But as my paper states in the title, I have provided A New Foundation for Physics. This is literally true. In the SM, charge is merely a mathematical curiosity with no geometrical or other physical qualities.

It has plenty of physical properties. It appears in the equations of motion of charged particles.

In the APM, charge is a dimension and the two types of charges have solid angle relationships to each other and have a difference in magnitude exactly equal to the fine structure.

Just words. You can call anything a “dimension”. But if it doesn’t appear in the definition of length, it isn’t.

It is premature for you to judge the Aether Physics Model based upon Standard Model assumptions. If the APM had the same foundational assumptions as the SM, it wouldn’t be a new foundation. Charge and mass have different definitions in the APM than they do in the SM. These definitions were determined by examining characteristics of mass and charges as they appear in quantum measurement units (also a new addition to physics in the APM).

If it doesn’t differ in its predictions, it’s irrelevant.

To illustrate the subtlety of what I’m trying to convey, the French language and English language both describe the same human existence. However, the French have a different set of assumptions (culture) for framing their language structure than do the English. Hence, a literal translation is not always possible between the languages.

French & English scientists have no such problem communicating science. Common langauges are full of meaningless & biased terms, with no experimental significance. The language of science is precise. It can be tested. Similar remarks can be made about courts of law.

The same thing is occurring here. I have provided a different paradigm for understanding quantum structure. The paradigm is solid and has practical use in both theoretical and practical physics.

Where are the equations of motion?

How can you use physics to identify which assumptions are wrong when the wrong assumptions have been incorporated into the physics?

They have been proven right by experiment. Now you can add item 2 from my quack list. New unifying theories make new predictions. Where are yours?

The charges are not gravitational, they are electrical. My theory agrees with your understanding, there is only one type of gravitational mass. My theory also agrees with physical observation that there are two distinctly different manifestations of charges, the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic charge.

There are, in fact, more charges: The weak & strong nuclear forces couple to charges of their own.

Further, my theory demonstrates that the electromagnetic charge is exactly orthogonal to mass.

What does that mean? What “vector” are they elements of?

Thus electromagnetic charge (carrier of the strong force) will always be exactly proportional to mass.

But it isn’t. The proton doesn’t have the same mass as the electron. Mass is always positive, charge always comes in both signs.

The electrostatic force associated with space-time is balanced to the electromagnetic force associated with matter. This balance is the basis for the weak interaction.

Electromagnetic forces have infinite range (decay as a power of the distance). Weak forces have finite range (decay exponentially).

You know very well that the mass/energy equivalence principle figures prominently in QM.

I know it has nothing to do with it. E=mc^2 has no “h” in it. Schroedinger’s equation is nonrelativistic. Einstein’s original papers on special relativity had no quantum mechanics in them.

You may be confusing the Lorentz transformations with Einstein’s SR.

It’s not a confusion, it’s an identity.

Einstein is not the author of the time dilation equations, Charles Lorentz is.

Lorentz derived them from electromagnetism. At the time, they seems paradoxical, because Maxwell’s equations were invariant under them, but the dynamics of matter was thought not to be. Einstein realized they were universal, and applied to matter as well as electromagnetic fields.

Lorentz transformations only apply to relative motions.

They apply to everything. All equations of motion must be covariant under them, just as they must be rotationally covariant.

> There is no experimental evidence of discrete spacetime.

There certainly is.

Give an experiment.

The existence of a quantum particle can only take place in a quantum of space-time.

No, quantum mechanics works just fine with the continuum. Always has.

A single subatomic particle cannot be in more than one place or one time, nor can it be in a fraction of a place or time. If a subatomic particle is real, then the space-time it occupies must also be real.

Are you stating Zeno’s paradox?

Further, if space-time were not discrete, there would be no such thing as a reliable measurement of length or time.

There are plenty of reliable measurements, all derived from quantum mechanics in the continuum.

Also, phonons, p-holes, and frames are direct evidence of discrete space-time.

Phonons exist on a lattice. We can certainly measure positions between atoms.

There is an abundance of evidence for discrete space-time.

Zero.

What is lacking is the desire to see this abundance of evidence for what it is.

All physics is based on the continuum. It works fine experimentally. Therefore the assumptions are fine.

The reason the desire is lacking to recognize discrete space-time (Aether) is because of the preconception that Einstein proved the Aether could not exist (which, according to Einstein’s writings, is a false premise to begin with).

Einstein is dead. Stop using him as a scapegoat. (At least you stopped using Maxwell.) There is no desire, there is only fact. The assumption of no ether makes predictions in agreement with experiment. That’s all there is to physics.

> Angles are not invariant under Lorentz transformations.

You obviously have not read my theory and are carrying on this

I read it. There’s nothing to read. No equations of motion. Thus, no physics.

discussion by making many of your own assumptions of what my theory is about. The solid angles of the charges occur within a single subatomic particle, not as relative motion between two separate particles. Lorentz transformations are completely irrelevant to the charge theory I have presented.

Lorentz invariance is relevant to EVERYTHING. Predictions must be independent of your reference frame. That means, independent of your velocity with respect to what you’re measuring.

> Semantics. Give an experimental difference.

It is not a semantic difference, it is an objective difference. QM is looking at the behavior of subatomic particles (particle accelerators, nuclear mechanics), the APM is looking at the structure of subatomic particles (angular momentum, two types of charges, structure with regard to the space-time it inhabits, unified forces). The experiments that led to the APM are all the experiments that have resulted in high precision physics constants.

Still no experimental difference…

I said that my theory neither proves nor disproves these theories.

And therefore is useless. If it doesn’t differ, it isn’t new. And difference is determined by experimental predictions.

>> Another example is the quantification of the photon in the Aether Physics Model. According to the APM the photon is a true quantum of electromagnetic radiation and is exactly equal

> Quantum of what quantity?

The quantum photon has the quantum quantity equal to h * c, angular momentum times the speed of light.

Which is what quantity? I could just as well say that h^7 c^39 is a quantum. A photon is a particle, not a quantity.

No, h-bar is Neils Bohr’s mistake. Max Planck defined the quantum of action as h.

No, that was Planck’s convention, because he used frequency instead of angular frequency. If you predict the spin of the electron is h, you so disagree with experiment that you might as well stop right there.

> It has units mass length^3/time^2. What quantity is that supposed to measure?

Properly stated, the unit of photon has the dimensions of mass times length^3 times frequency^2. Those five space-time dimensions (length^3, frequency^2) are the five space-“time” dimensions of the quantum realm. Actually, it should be called space-resonance. The quantum photon is inertia applied through the fabric of Aether.

And what experiment measures such a quantity? By the way, a frequency is a rate, so measured in units of inverse time.

A photon is a quantum of action (h)

No, it’s a particle. It’s spin is quantized, h-bar.

ejected from an atom at the speed of light (c). A photon is thus angular momentum,

Angular momentum is a property, not a particle. You have angular momentum, I have angular momentum. But I am not angular momentum. Photons have angular momentum, momentum, and energy, just like any object does.

Another assumption of modern physics is that quantum particles must be smaller versions of bigger particles.

Huh? Who assumed that?

Strings, it would appear, are made directly from dimensions, which have non-material but real existence.

What does “made of dimensions” mean? Are you made of length?

Further, I can quantify the anti-neutrino in terms of primary angular momentum caught between the strong force binding of an electron and proton (neutron).

Neither electrons nor neutrinos couple to the strong interactions.

>> The amount of angular momentum from a light source depends on the distance between the light source and target,

> Wrong. Angular momentum is conserved. It doesn’t matter how far it travels.

This is what you say within a different physics model.

No, that is what experiment confirms.

The physical structure of the photon has not been confirmed to be both a wave and particle.

Yes. Experiments confirm both the wave (e.g., diffraction) & particle (e.g., photoelectric effect) nature of light.

In fact, nobody knows what the structure of the photon looks like in the SM.

Of course they do. It is described quite accurately (to several parts per billion) by quantum electrodynamics. What does your theory predict for the anaomalous magnetic moment of the electron?

All that has been confirmed is that a wave equation will work in one situation, and a kinetic equation will work in a different situation. This in no way confirms the structure of the photon.

Better than that, they both work in the same situation! E.g., one can measure the diffraction of light one photon at a time. As one adds more and more photons, the distribution gradually approaches the usual wave diffraction pattern.

>> What I wanted to know was whether my theory fit your description of a quack theory.

> It satisfies that description according to items 5,6,7,10,12,14,16,19 on my present page.

Thanks. That is what I wanted to know. I’m building up a record of comments that demonstrate the difficulty of scientists to understand new paradigms.

Ha! You can now add item 21.

It is amazing how simple this theory is, how accurate and practical it is, and yet, how difficult it is for someone established with a certain paradigm to see something new.

Probably also item 22. If you really want to get somewhere, you need to prove you have a theory at all. That means:

(1) Write specific equations of motion that you can actually use to make experimental predictions.

(2) Make some experimental predictions that differ from established theory. If it is impossible o prove your theory wrong, then it is also impossible to prove it right.

David Thomson’s Reply

Hi Warren,

> Do you have a reference for the fluid Aether being refuted? I have Whittaker’s Classical and Modern Theories of the Aether.

Just look for any prediction of the ether theory that differs from relativity. Then find any reference on recent tests of relativity. Relativity so far has stood the test of all experiments.

Why are you defending relativity theory? Did I claim SR is wrong? As I told you, my theory neither confirms nor denies other theories. My theory is a parallel theory. It is based upon a completely different paradigm, which is based upon the same empirical constants and data as other theories. Does it seem impossible to you that there could be more than one way to interpret the data?

I have no idea what that means. Can you detect the ether or not?

As I told you, yes. If you can detect phonons, p-holes, and frames, then you are directly detecting the Aether (although calling it something else).

If not, it might just as well be Santa Claus.

Why would you make a comment like that, unless you wanted to turn the discussion into a mud slinging contest? I have provided a quantified theory, based upon empirical evidence, which makes testable predictions. Is it not possible to have this discussion based upon the content of the theory, rather than on unrelated comments?

> In the SM, charge is merely a mathematical curiosity with no geometrical or other physical qualities.

It has plenty of physical properties. It appears in the equations of motion of charged particles.

Charged point particles, you mean? How can a point have geometry or any kind of physical property? Where would this property reside in a point? As I correctly stated, charge is treated in the SM as a mathematical curiosity, not an observable object. In order to be observable as a physical object, the object must have some kind of geometrical property to it. Reexamine your theories and ask yourself if they are physical models of reality, or mathematical models for discovering limited solutions to problems?

> In the APM, charge is a dimension and the two types of charges have solid angle relationships to each other and have a difference in magnitude exactly equal to the fine structure.

Just words. You can call anything a “dimension”.

Good observation, you can call anything a dimension in the SM. That is because modern physics is very sloppy with terminology. That is why I went through the trouble of clarifying the terminology in the APM. In this theory, you cannot call just anything a dimension. Dimensions are clearly defined in this theory, as they should have been in the SM, but were not.

> It is premature for you to judge the Aether Physics Model based upon Standard Model assumptions.

If it doesn’t differ in its predictions, it’s irrelevant.

It predicts things the SM does not, such as the structure of dark matter and visible matter, the geometry of visible matter and Aether, and the unification of the forces. The theory also predicts a few minor corrections to the SM, such as the Casimir equation, the neutron g-factor, and that all charge should be notated as distributed. These are all testable predictions.

> To illustrate the subtlety of what I’m trying to convey, the French language and English language both describe the same human existence. However, the French have a different set of assumptions (culture) for framing their language structure than do the English. Hence, a literal translation is not always possible between the languages.

French & English scientists have no such problem communicating science. Common langauges are full of meaningless & biased terms, with no experimental significance. The language of science is precise. It can be tested. Similar remarks can be made about courts of law.

My example did not specify the topic of science, but the topic of human existence. I was making an analogy for the purpose of conveying a subtlety, which apparently you chose to ignore. There is nothing I can do about that.

> The same thing is occurring here. I have provided a different paradigm for understanding quantum structure. The paradigm is solid and has practical use in both theoretical and practical physics.

Where are the equations of motion?

What does it matter? My theory does not claim to be QM or SR. The APM quantifies quantum structure. Motion is not a topic of quantum structure. Structure is the topic of quantum structure. Where are the QM and SR equations for quantum structure?

> How can you use physics to identify which assumptions are wrong when the wrong assumptions have been incorporated into the physics?

They have been proven right by experiment.

The physics of QM and SR are so sloppy they allow scientists to distort their own concepts. The dimensions and units are not clearly defined, and there is no precise quantification or definition of “matter” or an explanation as to how “energy” can be a separate object capable of its own motion.

When your physics are sloppy, you can prove just about anything you want. The fruits of this sloppiness shows up as patches, anomalies, and mysteries, which surround the theory.

Now you can add item 2 from my quack list. So noted. New unifying theories make new predictions. Where are yours?

Several are listed in the white paper. Did you read it?

> The charges are not gravitational, they are electrical. My theory agrees with your understanding, there is only one type of gravitational mass. My theory also agrees with physical observation that there are two distinctly different manifestations of charges, the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic charge.

There are, in fact, more charges: The weak & strong nuclear forces couple to charges of their own.

Obviously, you haven’t read the paper. We quantify the electromagnetic charge as the strong force and the weak interaction as the proportion of the electrostatic force to the electromagnetic force.

> Further, my theory demonstrates that the electromagnetic charge is exactly orthogonal to mass.

What does that mean? What “vector” are they elements of?

They are elements of the angular momentum vector within the Aether unit. It is clearly explained in the paper.

> Thus electromagnetic charge (carrier of the strong force) will always be exactly proportional to mass.

But it isn’t. The proton doesn’t have the same mass as the electron. Mass is always positive, charge always comes in both signs.

Once again, you are judging our theory of quantum structure according to a different paradigm, which you use to explain quantum mechanics. Electrostatic charge is different from electromagnetic charge. Also, mass does not exist separate from primary angular momentum. The spin parity determines whether a subatomic particle will be normal matter or antimatter, and time direction determines whether the mass will be positive or negative. Since we exist in a primarily left spin, and entirely forward time direction, we only see mass associated with normal, positive matter.

The magnitude of the electron and proton masses is completely irrelevant to your argument. The strong charge is directly proportional to the mass, so the electron strong charge will be proportionally weaker than the proton strong charge. And you are correct that charge always comes in both signs. The strong charge has a north and south sign, which applies to the same instance of strong charge. Hence, the neutron can have net electromagnetic charge even though it has net zero electrostatic charge.

> The electrostatic force associated with space-time is balanced to the electromagnetic force associated with matter. This balance is the basis for the weak interaction.

Electromagnetic forces have infinite range (decay as a power of the distance). Weak forces have finite range (decay exponentially).

Actually, you have it backwards. The electrostatic force has infinite range, the electromagnetic (strong) force has finite range. But the same logic applies. The weak interaction is the balance between these two forces.

In your understanding of physics, you loosely define the electrostatic force as the electromagnetic force. Yet, the force law governing what you consider to be the electromagnetic force is Coulomb’s electrostatic force law. What I have done is corrected this error and labeled the Coulomb force for what it is, electrostatic force. I have further quantified the strong force as true electromagnetism and properly labeled it the electromagnetic force. I have further quantified the weak interaction as the proportion of electrostatic force to electromagnetic force. The quantification of the orthogonality between the electromagnetic charge and mass completes the unification of all the force carriers, and hence the forces.

That, btw, is another “prediction” that our theory offers and which the SM does not, the proper unification of all the forces using Newtonian type force laws for each of the forces. This is not a minor accomplishment, nor is there any rational reason for blowing it off as “numerology.” It would seem that given the importance by Einstein for unifying the forces that any quantified unified force theory should get serious consideration.

> You know very well that the mass/energy equivalence principle figures prominently in QM.

I know it has nothing to do with it. E=mc^2 has no “h” in it.

The so-called “mass defect” formula for calculating the so-called “missing mass” in nuclear binding uses the mass/energy equivalence principle to explain the structure of atoms. Don’t tell me you have never heard of the mass defect formula? One of the most often stated “successes” of E=mc^2 is said to be its usefulness for harnessing nuclear energy (which is also the most inaccurate defense of E=mc^2).

> You may be confusing the Lorentz transformations with Einstein’s SR.

It’s not a confusion, it’s an identity.

When the “identity” doesn’t give credit to its original author, it is called plagiarism. Einstein didn’t give credit to Lorentz for his equation and tried to take credit for it, himself. There is nothing unique in Einstein’s SR paper other than his application of the Lorentz transformation to point out the extremely minute effect of time dilation. As I mentioned, the equivalence of mass and energy was not mentioned until much later.

> Einstein is not the author of the time dilation equations, Charles Lorentz is.

Lorentz derived them from electromagnetism.

And specifically for the purpose of explaining the smaller than expected Aether drift measured by Michelson and Morley. It is the Aether drift that would occur in a fluid Aether, since the experiment clearly proved the Aether was not rigid.

At the time, they seems paradoxical, because Maxwell’s equations were invariant under them, but the dynamics of matter was thought not to be.

You just provided an example of the loose and sloppy use of terminology in the SM. “Dynamics of matter,” matter is neither quantified nor defined in physics. You are specifically implying the perceived dynamics of mass, not matter. The m in E=mc^2 specifically refers to mass, not matter. But you can loosely exchange the terms of mass and matter to twist the argument any direction you choose. That is how E=mc^2 is “proved” by experiment, through loose and ill-defined terminology.

Einstein realized they were universal, and applied to matter as well as electromagnetic fields.

Einstein applied the Lorentz transforms to mass, not matter. See, you did it again. Nobody has ever applied SR to matter, because matter has never been quantified nor precisely defined as a physical entity. This is where our theory departs from the SM. The fundamental definitions of physical existence are much more precise and meaningful in the APM. We attempt to leave no stone unturned and leave no room for ambiguous and sloppy physics.

I can make the same argument for your use of “electromagnetic fields.” In your system, you do not precisely define the photon, nor its relationship to light. The APM does precisely define the photon and its relationship to light. Thus, the APM can truly discuss discrete electromagnetism, whereas all you can discuss is generalized “energy packets,” which have no meaningful structure. Yet, you speak of electromagnetic fields as though they were real, object things that have motion.

> Lorentz transformations only apply to relative motions.

They apply to everything. All equations of motion must be covariant under them, just as they must be rotationally covariant.

A quantum subatomic particle has no independent motion with regard to the quantum unit of space-time it occupies. The motion you seek to quantify is motion between two independent objects. The subatomic particle we quantify exists within a quantum of space-time. There are no relativistic equations involving the subatomic particle and the Aether unit it must occupy in order to exist.

>> There is no experimental evidence of discrete spacetime.

> There certainly is.

Give an experiment.

Why did you delete the list I gave you? Any experiment that quantifies a phonon, p-hole, or frame is an experiment that provides evidence of discrete space-time. Actually, a frame is a discrete condition of Aether fabric, but the phonons and p-holes are specifically discrete units of space-time. I’m sure you have heard of phonons and p-holes?

> The existence of a quantum particle can only take place in a quantum of space-time.

No, quantum mechanics works just fine with the continuum. Always has.

Fine, but I’m not presenting quantum mechanics, nor am I using quantum mechanics to explain quantum structure. I’m using the physics constants and measured data to derive quantum structure. However, I will state that if you better understood the five-dimensional quantum Aether unit you could produce a better quantum mechanics. We have already produced a nuclear binding energy equation that predicts the right range of nuclear binding energies for ALL isotopes, not just simple deuterium. Granted, the equation needs to be fine-tuned, but even in its present state (95% to 99% accuracy) it is strong evidence in favor of the Aether Physics Model.

> A single subatomic particle cannot be in more than one place or one time, nor can it be in a fraction of a place or time. If a subatomic particle is real, then the space-time it occupies must also be real.

Are you stating Zeno’s paradox?

No, nothing of the sort.

> Further, if space-time were not discrete, there would be no such thing as a reliable measurement of length or time.

There are plenty of reliable measurements, all derived from quantum mechanics in the continuum.

One’s ability to fumble and find the right answer is by no means a measure of success. My step brother once claimed he could open a combination lock without knowing the combination. So I gave him mine and, sure enough, he turned the dial just right and opened the lock! But it was just an amazing fluke. It is also an amazing fluke that you can model the quantum realm after macro coordinate systems and come in close enough to have a practical physics. That in no way implies the Aether Physics Model is not a better system for modeling quantum structure. If you want to prove the Aether Physics Model is wrong, you will need to do more than quote the successes of quantum mechanics. You will need to find an error in the math, the wrong use of data, or a prediction that is incorrect.

> Also, phonons, p-holes, and frames are direct evidence of discrete space-time.

Phonons exist on a lattice. We can certainly measure positions between atoms.

Exactly. There is nothing there, but yet you can precisely measure that “nothing.” Sounds like the Aether to me!

> What is lacking is the desire to see this abundance of evidence for what it is.

All physics is based on the continuum. It works fine experimentally. Therefore the assumptions are fine.

This is what I was talking about when I said the flawed physics is examining itself. I can state exactly the same thing, that all the APM is based upon a quantified Aether, it works fine experimentally, therefore the assumptions are fine. The APM is based entirely on empirical data, therefore it is already experimentally proved. None of your argument has been based on an examination of the APM, and all of your argument has been defensiveness. It is as though your own ego feels threatened by the introduction of a new quantified physics paradigm and is fighting for its life. I’m simply providing a really neat alternative view of the data, which has practical use to science, and you are running in fear as though it was going to eat you.

> The reason the desire is lacking to recognize discrete space-time (Aether) is because of the preconception that Einstein proved the Aether could not exist (which, according to Einstein’s writings, is a false premise to begin with).

Einstein is dead. Stop using him as a scapegoat.

Einstein’s writings are not dead, nor are they offended by being critiqued. And it wasn’t Einstein who denied the existence of the Aether, it is people like you who pretend that Einstein denied the Aether. It is very appropriate to point this out, especially since you brought up SR as proof that the Aether does not exist.

There is no desire, there is only fact. The assumption of no ether makes predictions in agreement with experiment. That’s all there is to physics.

No, that is not all there is to physics. The assumption that there is an Aether also makes predictions in agreement with experiment, and makes even more meaningful predictions than the non-existent Aether assumption. For example, by assuming no Aether, modern physics has failed to unify the forces despite the brain power of thousands of qualified physicists over a period of 100 years and billions of dollars in research funding. I single handedly unified the forces in only three weeks of investigation on an income of 300 per month, simply because I assumed the existence of the Aether. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Now, that is all there is to physics. Meaningful results! I have quantified the most elusive and the most important discoveries in all science, the unification of the forces and the geometrical modeling of quantum structure. From this knowledge a much more accurate system of physics can be developed. And what is your response? "Why bother? We're happy with what we already know." <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> You obviously have not read my theory and are carrying on this</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I read it. There's nothing to read. No equations of motion. Thus, no physics.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> I've read the SM and Relativity Theories. There is nothing to read. No equations of quantum structure, thus no physical physics. It's all a bunch of relativity, probability nonsense, regardless of how proud of it you are. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Lorentz invariance is relevant to EVERYTHING.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Not to quantum structure. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Predictions must be independent of your reference frame.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Only if you are dealing with the motion between two independent objects. The APM describes the objects themselves, not the mechanics between objects. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> I said that <em>my</em> theory neither proves nor disproves these theories.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">And therefore is useless.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Does SR predict who will win the next World Series game? Using your logic, if it doesn't, it is useless. The Aether Physics Model only has to prove the physics within its own scope. A theory about quantum structure does not have an obligation to prove or disprove someone else's theory. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Also, there is no dichotomy of theories here. The APM is not the opposite of, replacement for, or enemy of quantum mechanics. It is a completely different aspect of physics dealing with structure, as opposed to mechanics. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> The quantum photon has the quantum quantity equal to h * c, angular momentum times the speed of light.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Which is what quantity? I could just as well say that h^7 c^39 is a quantum. A photon is a particle, not a quantity.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> A photon is a quantum, exactly! If that is the case, why does Einstein's "quantum photon" have an infinite number of magnitudes? There is a different sized quantum photon for every frequency of EM. In my theory, there is a true quantum of light. It is exactly equal to the quantum of action times the speed of light. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> You are incorrect about the photon being a particle. The photon is angular momentum that has exploded away from its source. The angular momentum radiates, it is not ballistic. That is why it is called electromagnetic RADIATION and not electromagnetic BULLETS. If the photon were a ballistic particle, as you posit, then distant stars would pop in and out of our viewing area as the spaces between the photon particles widened over distance. If photons were particles, we could manipulate them with magnets, like we do electrons. If photons were particles, they would not have net zero mass. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Photons are clearly a manifestation of angular momentum, not of particles or waves. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> No, h-bar is Neils Bohr's mistake. Max Planck defined the quantum of action as h.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">No, that was Planck's convention, because he used frequency instead of angular frequency.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> No, you are wrong. Planck's constant is simply h. Neils Bohr brought in angular frequency when he posited that electrons were little balls that orbited a nucleus, like moons orbit a planet. He assumed that the electron position could not be everywhere along the orbit trajectory, hence its actual position had to be h/2pi. This constant has been erroneously stuck in physics ever since, even though the balls-in-orbit model has been disproved. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">If you predict the spin of the electron is h, you so disagree with experiment that you might as well stop right there.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> I didn't predict that the spin is h. The spin is 1/2. Spin 1/2 is a property of angular momentum, not the angular momentum itself. Actually, the spin is a property of the Aether, which is imparted to the angular momentum. The Aether, itself, has forward time spin of 2. I clearly point this out in the paper. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">>> It has units mass length^3/time^2. What quantity is that supposed to measure?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> Properly stated, the unit of photon has the dimensions of mass times length^3 times frequency^2. Those five space-time dimensions (length^3, frequency^2) are the five space-"time" dimensions of the quantum realm. Actually, it should be called space-resonance. The quantum photon is inertia applied through the fabric of Aether.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">And what experiment measures such a quantity?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Any experiment that yields Coulomb's constant, the permeability constant, the permittivity constant, or the speed of light constant. The extra dimension has to be calculated from the measured data. This is because all matter, including our measuring equipment, is made from half spin matter. (see next) <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">By the way, a frequency is a rate, so measured in units of inverse time.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Did you think I wasn't aware of that? The reason why I use frequency is because there are two frequency dimensions to the Aether, forward/backward time frequency and right/left spin frequency. Time is an illusion caused by matter (angular momentum) which can only move in one spin direction of any frequency axis. Thus subatomic particles act as "time diodes" and only spin in the forward direction of time. This, too, is the basis for half spin. Since angular momentum can only spin in the forward time direction, and not in the backward time direction, then it only spins through half the forward/backward frequency dimension of the Aether. What we see is pulsed forward linear time. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> A photon is a quantum of action (h) [times the speed of light (c)]</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Why did you delete half of my definition of the photon? Aren't you being overly selective of what you want to see? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> ejected from an atom at the speed of light (c). A photon is thus angular momentum,</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Angular momentum is a property, not a particle.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Mass is a property, not a particle. Energy is a property, not a particle. If mass and energy are properties, where does that leave your understanding of what a photon is? Not much different from mine, is it? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">You have angular momentum, I have angular momentum. But I am not angular momentum. Photons have angular momentum, momentum, and energy, just like any object does.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Exactly, so how does E=mc^2 prove that energy is converted or equivalent to mass when both energy and mass are properties? One might as well write an equation that equates length with resistance. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> But as it turns out, angular momentum is a property that can be described as a circular string of mass moving perpendicular to its circumference. When this angular momentum is encapsulated in an Aether unit, it produces strong charge and picks up electrostatic charge from the Aether. It is the combination of these factors which brings non-material existence into physical existence. The physical existence is further solidified as the subatomic particles bind to produce atoms, and atoms to produce molecules, and so on. This is why dimensions and units are real, and not some man-made invention to explain physics. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> Another assumption of modern physics is that quantum particles must be smaller versions of bigger particles.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Huh? Who assumed that?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Neils Bohr. Okay, his model was proved wrong, but as I pointed out, his use of h-bar persists to today. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> Strings, it would appear, are made directly from dimensions, which have non-material but real existence.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">What does "made of dimensions" mean? Are you made of length?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Yes, we are made of length, frequency, mass, and charge. These dimensions combine in various ways to produces the units. The units are properties, as are the dimensions. But when the property of angular momentum occurs within the Aether unit, it produces a subatomic particle with more characteristics than just the angular momentum. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> There is a reason why Max Planck called h the quantum of action. It is the first level of physical existence and it plays an important part in quantum mechanics. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> Further, I can quantify the anti-neutrino in terms of primary angular momentum caught between the strong force binding of an electron and proton (neutron).</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Neither electrons nor neutrinos couple to the strong interactions.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> That's what I hear all the time. Yet there are cooper pairs and electron plasmas. Go figure. As for a strong force for neutrinos, I didn't say neutrinos experience the strong force. They don't. Neutrinos do not exist within the Aether, which is necessary to pick up the strong charge property. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> The physical structure of the photon has not been confirmed to be both a wave and particle.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Yes. Experiments confirm both the wave (e.g., diffraction) & particle (e.g., photoelectric effect) nature of light.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> You are talking about <em>properties</em> of photons, not the actual photons. I'm talking about the actual structure of the photon, not its apparent properties. That's what you are not getting. The APM quantifies quantum structure, not the mechanics. The structure of the photon is two opposite spinning strings of mass that passes from one Aether unit to the next at the speed of the quantum length times quantum frequency. But this isn't going to make sense until you study the theory. You have to learn to think in terms of space-resonance to visualize the structure of the photon. Then you can see why the mechanics appear the way they do. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> In fact, nobody knows what the structure of the photon looks like in the SM.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Of course they do. It is described quite accurately (to several parts per billion) by quantum electrodynamics.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> You are discussing mechanics again, not structure. I have searched for 20 years for SM photon structure. It doesn't exist. Nobody can accurately model a photon that agrees with the physics of the photon as an energy packet. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">What does your theory predict for the anaomalous magnetic moment of the electron?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> The electron g-factor? It predicts the same as the SM, the same goes for the proton. But with the neutron, the neutron g-factor is predicted to be -3.831359. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Something of interest. I was able to independently calculate the electron g-factor from first principles, based upon the structures of the electron and Aether unit. Geometrically, the electron g-factor is about 2/sin(Phi) and the proton g-factor is about 2 Phi/sin(phi), where Phi and phi are the Golden ratio and its inverse. Can you top that? Let's see you calculate the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron and proton from first principles using your physics and see how close you get to empirical values. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Ha! You can now add item 21.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> It is amazing how simple this theory is, how accurate and practical it is, and yet, how difficult it is for someone established with a certain paradigm to see something new.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Probably also item 22.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> This is getting better. :-) <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">If you really want to get somewhere, you need to prove you have a theory at all. That means:</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">(1) Write specific equations of motion that you can actually use to make experimental predictions.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">(2) Make some experimental predictions that differ from established theory. If it is impossible o prove your theory wrong, then it is also impossible to prove it right.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> The equation of motion is moot for a single stationary object. I don't know why you can't understand that. As for the second, I have given you a paper that does just that. Skip toward the end of the paper if you want to read where my theory differs from present theory. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Dave <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:heading --> <h2>Response by Prof. Warren Siegel at SUNY</h2> <!-- /wp:heading -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:45 PM, David Thomson wrote: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">As I told you, my theory neither confirms nor denies other theories.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Then it is meaningless. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Does it seem impossible to you that there could be more than one way to interpret the data?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Interpretation is irrelevant. It is only prediction that matters. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">If you can detect phonons, p-holes, and frames, then you are directly detecting the Aether (although calling it something else).</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Again, if you can't tell the difference, it's meaningless. Science isn't about just changing names. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I have provided a quantified theory, based upon empirical evidence, which makes testable predictions.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Give one. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">How can a point have geometry or any kind of physical property?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> As described by the equations of motion. There is no other "how". <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Where would this property reside in a point?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> At the point. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">As I correctly stated, charge is treated in the SM as a mathematical curiosity, not an observable object.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> On the contrary, charge is often measured, using the equations of motion. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">In order to be observable as a physical object, the object must have some kind of geometrical property to it.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> The only geometrical property relevant to observation is position. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Reexamine your theories and ask yourself if they are physical models of reality, or mathematical models for discovering limited solutions to problems?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> What's the difference? That's science: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> (1) Propose a theory. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> (2) Make a prediction. That requires mathematics. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> (3) Test it experimentally. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> (4) Repeat. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Good observation, you can call anything a dimension in the SM.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> No, only position: That means space & time. Where is your location in frequency? What is your length in frequency? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">That is because modern physics is very sloppy with terminology.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Accurate enough to make predictions, which is more than you have done. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Dimensions are clearly defined in this theory, as they should have been in the SM, but were not.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Your problem is probably that you are defining it to be something other than in common use. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">It predicts things the SM does not, such as the structure of dark matter and visible matter,</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> What is an experimental test of your theory? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The theory also predicts a few minor corrections to the SM, such as the Casimir equation, the neutron g-factor,</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> You can't even predict that for the electron, much less the neutron. The SM predicts it for the electron to 9 decimal places. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> Where are the equations of motion?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">What does it matter?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> No equations of motion -> no predictions. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Motion is not a topic of quantum structure.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> And that is why you are nothing more than numerology. No one cares about a "theory" that can't reproduce experiment. Why would anybody dump the SM for yours when you can't predict anything? No equations of motion: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> (1) Can't replace GR -- can't check perihelion precession. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> (2) Can't replace electroweak/QCD -- can't check scattering cross sections. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Where are the QM and SR equations for quantum structure?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Structure of particles is measured through scattering experiments. That requires equations of motion. You have no way to measure your "structure". <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The physics of QM and SR are so sloppy they allow scientists to distort their own concepts.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> The predictions are unambiguous. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The dimensions and units are not clearly defined,</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Clear enough for measurements, which is all that has meaning. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">and there is no precise quantification or definition of "matter" or an explanation as to how "energy" can be a separate object capable of its own motion.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> It isn't separate. That's exactly what both SR & QM tell us. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> And is experimentally confirmed. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">When your physics are sloppy, you can prove just about anything you want.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Exactly. And since the SM is not sloppy, it has made predictions that have been compared with other models that were refuted. That is exactly how it became "Standard". <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> New unifying theories make new predictions. Where are yours?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Several are listed in the white paper. Did you read it?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Yes. Maybe they were not recognizable as predictions. Can you state one? (By prediction, I mean the result of an experiment. So state also the experiment.) Did you read any textbook on GR or the SM? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Obviously, you haven't read the paper. We quantify the electromagnetic charge as the strong force and the weak interaction as the proportion of the electrostatic force to the electromagnetic force.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Obviously you haven't read the SM. There are 3 charges for the strong force & 6 for the electroweak. They are all independent, so you can't get from just 2. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">>> Further, my theory demonstrates that the electromagnetic charge is exactly orthogonal to mass.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> What does that mean? What "vector" are they elements of?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">They are elements of the angular momentum vector within the Aether unit. It is clearly explained in the paper.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Your paper is no more clear than your emails. Angular momentum changes continuously as you rotate. Continuous values of charge & mass are not measured, & they don't change under rotations. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">>> Thus electromagnetic charge (carrier of the strong force) will always be exactly proportional to mass.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> But it isn't. The proton doesn't have the same mass as the electron. Mass is always positive, charge always comes in both signs.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Once again, you are judging our theory of quantum structure according to a different paradigm, which you use to explain quantum mechanics.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> I only use experiment. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Electrostatic charge is different from electromagnetic charge. Also, mass does not exist separate from primary angular momentum.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Sure it does. The pion has no spin, but does have mass. The photon has no mass, but does have spin. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The spin parity determines whether a subatomic particle will be normal matter or antimatter,</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> No, mesons are the same as their antiparticles. So is the photon. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">and time direction determines whether the mass will be positive or negative.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Mass is never negative. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Since we exist in a primarily left spin, and entirely forward time direction, we only see mass associated with normal, positive matter.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> No, antiprotons have been produced in particle accelerators, and observed to fall normally. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The magnitude of the electron and proton masses is completely irrelevant to your argument. The strong charge is directly proportional to the mass, so the electron strong charge will be proportionally weaker than the proton strong charge.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Electrons have mass, yet are unaffected by the strong force. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">And you are correct that charge always comes in both signs. The strong charge has a north and south sign, which applies to the same instance of strong charge. Hence, the neutron can have net electromagnetic charge even though it has net zero electrostatic charge.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> "Electromagnetic" & "electrostatic" charge are the same. They refer only to electromagnetism.That's what "electro" means. If you want to invent something new, don't appropriate a name that's already in use. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">In your understanding of physics, you loosely define the electrostatic force as the electromagnetic force.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> It isn't loose at all. "Electrostatic" mean electromagnetism for static objects. "Electromagnetic" means electric & magnetic, which Maxwell proved were the same. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Yet, the force law governing what you consider to be the electromagnetic force is Coulomb's electrostatic force law.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> No, it's Maxwell's equations. Coulomb's law is only a special case: a static point charge. But then, you don't understand equations of motion, do you? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">What I have done is corrected this error and labeled the Coulomb force for what it is, electrostatic force.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> That is the standard label. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I have further quantified the strong force as true electromagnetism and properly labeled it the electromagnetic force.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> That is incorrect. The strong force is stronger at short distances, and finite range, being mediated by massive particles. The electromagnetic force is weaker but longer range, being mediated by the massless photon. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I have further quantified the weak interaction as the proportion of electrostatic force to electromagnetic force.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> The weak force is even shorter range than the strong, being mediated by the W & Z bosons. For example, neutrinos interact through weak interactions, but not electromagnetic or strong. Gluons interact through strong, but electromagnetic or weak. Photons interact through electromagnetic, but not through weak or strong. So there is no correlation. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">That, btw, is another "prediction" that our theory offers and which the SM does not, the proper unification of all the forces using Newtonian type force laws for each of the forces.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Then your theory is already proven wrong. Newtonian type force laws were disproved by both Maxwell & Einstein. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">This is not a minor accomplishment, nor is there any rational reason for blowing it off as "numerology."</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Nope. It's worse -- just plain wrong. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">It would seem that given the importance by Einstein for unifying the forces that any quantified unified force theory should get serious consideration.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Except the wrong ones. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">>> You know very well that the mass/energy equivalence principle figures prominently in QM.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> I know it has nothing to do with it. E=mc^2 has no "h" in it.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The so-called "mass defect" formula for calculating the so-called "missing mass" in nuclear binding uses the mass/energy equivalence principle to explain the structure of atoms. Don't tell me you have never heard of the mass defect formula? One of the most often stated "successes" of E=mc^2 is said to be its usefulness for harnessing nuclear energy (which is also the most inaccurate defense of E=mc^2).</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Still no h. Still no QM. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">>> You may be confusing the Lorentz transformations with Einstein's SR.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> It's not a confusion, it's an identity.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">When the "identity" doesn't give credit to its original author, it is called plagiarism. Einstein didn't give credit to Lorentz for his equation and tried to take credit for it, himself.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Are we discussing theories or people? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">There is nothing unique in Einstein's SR paper other than his application of the Lorentz transformation to point out the extremely minute effect of time dilation.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> I already explained that. Lorentz thought his transformations didn't apply to matter. He wanted to combine Newtonian mechanics with Maxwell's electromagentism. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> At the time, they seems paradoxical, because Maxwell's equations were invariant under them, but the dynamics of matter was thought not to be.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">You just provided an example of the loose and sloppy use of terminology in the SM.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> No, Lorentz didn't know the SM. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">"Dynamics of matter," matter is neither quantified nor defined in physics. You are specifically implying the perceived dynamics of mass, not matter. The m in E=mc^2 specifically refers to mass, not matter. But you can loosely exchange the terms of mass and matter to twist the argument any direction you choose. That is how E=mc^2 is "proved" by experiment, through loose and ill-defined terminology.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> That was exactly Lorentz's problem, which Einstein solved. Einstein showed matter & energy were the same. This follows directly from SR, because Einstein applied Lorentz transformations to everything, while Lorentz believed matter & energy were distinct, so he didn't. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Einstein applied the Lorentz transforms to mass, not matter.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Which he realized were the same, but Lorentz didn't. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">See, you did it again. Nobody has ever applied SR to matter,</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Now you're arguing semantics. Einstein applied SR to what Lorentz called "matter". Clear enough? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I can make the same argument for your use of "electromagnetic fields." In your system, you do not precisely define the photon, nor its relationship to light.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> It is defined by the equations of motion, Maxwell's equations. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The APM does precisely define the photon and its relationship to light. Thus, the APM can truly discuss discrete electromagnetism, whereas all you can discuss is generalized "energy packets," which have no meaningful structure.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Enough to measure in experiments. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Yet, you speak of electromagnetic fields as though they were real, object things that have motion.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Yes, as described by Maxwell's equations of motion. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">>>> There is no experimental evidence of discrete spacetime. There certainly is.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> Give an experiment.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Why did you delete the list I gave you? Any experiment that quantifies a phonon, p-hole, or frame is an experiment that provides evidence of discrete space-time.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Give one example! Not just a name you made up. Do you know what an experiment is? You have to describe how to measure it. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I'm sure you have heard of phonons and p-holes?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Phonons exist only on lattices. I've heard of a-holes, but not p-holes. Do you mean a hole in the sense of a lattice? Particles exist independently of lattices. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Fine, but I'm not presenting quantum mechanics, nor am I using quantum mechanics to explain quantum structure. I'm using the physics constants and measured data to derive quantum structure.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Give an experimental definition of "quantum structure". And if it isn't quantum mechanics, why do you insist on calling it "quantum"? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">However, I will state that if you better understood the five-dimensional quantum Aether unit you could produce a better quantum mechanics.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Unfortunately, the only way you could possibly back up that claim is by doing it yourself. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> There are plenty of reliable measurements, all derived from quantum mechanics in the continuum.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">One's ability to fumble and find the right answer is by no means a measure of success.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Agreement with experiment is a measure of success. Nobody cares about the fumbling. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">My step brother once claimed he could open a combination lock without knowing the combination. So I gave him mine and, sure enough, he turned the dial just right and opened the lock! But it was just an amazing fluke. It is also an amazing fluke that you can model the quantum realm after macro coordinate systems and come in close enough to have a practical physics.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> To 9 decimal places?! <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">That in no way implies the Aether Physics Model is not a better system for modeling quantum structure.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Sure does. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">If you want to prove the Aether Physics Model is wrong, you will need to do more than quote the successes of quantum mechanics.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Nope. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">You will need to find an error in the math, the wrong use of data, or a prediction that is incorrect.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Finding a prediction is YOUR job. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Exactly. There is nothing there, but yet you can precisely measure that "nothing." Sounds like the Aether to me!</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Aether sounds like nothing to me, too. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> All physics is based on the continuum. It works fine experimentally. Therefore the assumptions are fine.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">This is what I was talking about when I said the flawed physics is examining itself. I can state exactly the same thing, that all the APM is based upon a quantified Aether, it works fine experimentally, therefore the assumptions are fine.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> But you would be lying, because you already admitted, <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">That, btw, is another "prediction" that our theory offers and which the SM does not, the proper unification of all the forces using Newtonian type force laws for each of the forces. The APM is based entirely on empirical data, therefore it is already experimentally proved.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> No that's "postdiction". You have to make a prediction for an experiment your theory isn't based on. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">None of your argument has been based on an examination of the APM, and all of your argument has been defensiveness. It is as though your own ego feels threatened by the introduction of a new quantified physics paradigm and is fighting for its life. I'm simply providing a really neat alternative view of the data, which has practical use to science, and you are running in fear as though it was going to eat you.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Now you are describing yourself. As with all quacks, you have degenerated into blaming others of your own faults. (Did I mention item 23 in my list?) <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Einstein's writings are not dead, nor are they offended by being critiqued. And it wasn't Einstein who denied the existence of the Aether, it is people like you who pretend that Einstein denied the Aether. It is very appropriate to point this out, especially since you brought up SR as proof that the Aether does not exist.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Which is exactly where Einstein was wrong. Just as he was wrong about QM. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I've read the SM and Relativity Theories. There is nothing to read. No equations of quantum structure, thus no physical physics. It's all a bunch of relativity, probability nonsense, regardless of how proud of it you are.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> So you read it, but didn't like it. Item 1. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Does SR predict who will win the next World Series game?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Does yours? Then why did you bring it up? Are we talking about subatomic particles or not? If so, you ned SR, because it's essential to how they are observed, by ultrarelativistic collisions. If your theory applies to the World Series, then you're emailing the wrong person. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Also, there is no dichotomy of theories here. The APM is not the opposite of, replacement for, or enemy of quantum mechanics. It is a completely different aspect of physics dealing with structure, as opposed to mechanics.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> There is absolutely no way to do particle physics without QM. So you must either use it or contradict it. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">A photon is a quantum, exactly! If that is the case, why does Einstein's "quantum photon" have an infinite number of magnitudes?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Magnitudes of what? A photon is a particle, not a number! <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">There is a different sized quantum photon for every frequency of EM. In my theory, there is a true quantum of light. It is exactly equal to the quantum of action times the speed of light.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> That is meaningless. There is no such quantity. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">You are incorrect about the photon being a particle.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Proven by experiment. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The photon is angular momentum</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> It has angular momentum. It isn't angular momentum. You have angular momentum. Are you angular momentum? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">that has exploded away from its source. The angular momentum radiates, it is not ballistic. That is why it is called electromagnetic RADIATION and not electromagnetic BULLETS.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> You're ballistic. Are you a bullet? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">If the photon were a ballistic particle, as you posit, then distant stars would pop in and out of our viewing area as the spaces between the photon particles widened over distance.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> If you knew QM, you'd know position & momentum aren't simultaneously measurable. However, individual photons from stars have been measured, so you can call that "popping" if you like. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">If photons were particles, we could manipulate them with magnets, like we do electrons.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> No, because photons have no charge. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">If photons were particles, they would not have net zero mass.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> They are massless. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Photons are clearly a manifestation of angular momentum, not of particles or waves.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Clearly all 3. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">No, you are wrong. Planck's constant is simply h. Neils Bohr brought in angular frequency when he posited that electrons were little balls that orbited a nucleus, like moons orbit a planet.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> No, it's just that the time dependence of a wave is e^(iwt), where w is the "angular frequency". If you use ordinary frequency instead, you need to stick in a 2 pi. That becomes very awkward when you write Schroedinger's equation, because then 2 pi's proliferate all over the place. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> If you predict the spin of the electron is h, you so disagree with experiment that you might as well stop right there.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I didn't predict that the spin is h. The spin is 1/2. Spin 1/2 is a property of angular momentum, not the angular momentum itself.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Spin is the angular momentum of a particle at rest (in analogy to a top). For an electron, that's h-bar/2. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> By the way, a frequency is a rate, so measured in units of inverse time.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Did you think I wasn't aware of that?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Well, you didn't know what spin was. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Something of interest. I was able to independently calculate the electron g-factor from first principles, based upon the structures of the electron and Aether unit. Geometrically, the electron g-factor is about 2/sin(Phi) and the proton g-factor is about 2 Phi/sin(phi), where Phi and phi are the Golden ratio and its inverse. Can you top that?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> What are you talking about? g/2 for the electron is about 1 + 1/861. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> [Just so the reader knows: 2/sin(Phi)  = 2(1+1/861) ]  <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> If you really want to get somewhere, you need to prove you have a theory at all. That means:</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> (1) Write specific equations of motion that you can actually use to make experimental predictions.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> (2) Make some experimental predictions that differ from established theory. If it is impossible o prove your theory wrong, then it is also impossible to prove it right.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The equation of motion is moot for a single stationary object. I don't know why you can't understand that.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> That is why you are dead in the water. If you never understand anything I have said, understand this one thing: Without equations of motion, your "theory" is useless. Everything in the SM, even going back to Maxwell, depends on it. No one is going to accept your theory without them, because without them it is useless. And the SM has them, so it can be used. The concepts in the SM are inseparable from the equations of motion. Every application of the SM needs those equations of motion, from electronics to satellites to particle accelerators. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Simply put, if you provide a theory without equations of motion, no one will care, because there are no applications. Static quantities are all just numbers, which is why your theory is numerology. Dynamic quantities are functions; they are harder to fudge than individual numbers. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Oh, and you might want to learn more physics first (items 18 & 19). (And don't pretend you know it & the problem is that other people don't know yours well enough, it'll never fool anybody.) <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:heading --> <h2>David Thomson's Reply</h2> <!-- /wp:heading -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Hi Warren, <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Your well-reasoned response to my emails and your sharp analysis of the Aether Physics Model has been very helpful to me. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> I wish you a nice 2006-2007 academic year. It will be interesting to see what new physics theories show up in the literature this fall. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Also, would you mind if I mention you by name as an objective dissenter of the Aether Physics Model? I think your views might help your peers in formulating a strategy for seeing the falsity in the Aether Physics Model. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Dave <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:heading --> <h2>Response by Prof. Warren Siegel at SUNY</h2> <!-- /wp:heading -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:28 AM, David Thomson wrote: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Your well-reasoned response to my emails and your sharp analysis of the Aether Physics Model has been very helpful to me.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Great! I hope it will at least provide you some new directions to look in. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Also, would you mind if I mention you by name as an objective dissenter of the Aether Physics Model? I think your views might help your peers in formulating a strategy for seeing the falsity in the Aether Physics Model.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> OK. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> [Apparently Prof. Siegel  was not satisfied with our discussion and wanted to make some more points. ] <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> I read your record of our discussion @ <a href="http://aetherwizard.com/16pi2/quack.htm">http://aetherwizard.com/16pi2/quack.htm</a> It was very complete, & took nothing out of context. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> However, a little below the clause "where Phi and phi are the Golden ratio and its inverse." you added the comment, "[Just so the reader knows: 2/sin(Phi) = 2(1+1/861) ]" According to my calculator, 1/sin(Phi) = 1 + 1/895.46629... 895 isn't very close to 861. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> To be a little more precise, 1/sin(Phi) = 1.00111673661... whereas g/2 for the electron is 1.00115965219, and for the muon is 1.01165916, so your guess is only good to 4 or 5 digits. (My "861" was only lowest-order QED, so only good to 6 digits.) QED has long passed your level of accuracy. So it seems even your numerology doesn't work. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> An interesting analog is Arthur Eddington, who proposed an exact value for the fine-structure constant (roughly 1/137, which is 2 pi times the roughly 1/861 above). Unfortunately, every time the experimental value became more accurate, he had to revise his theory as to what to add to the 137. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:heading --> <h2>David Thomson's Reply</h2> <!-- /wp:heading -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Hi Warren, <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I read your record of our discussion @ <a href="http://aetherwizard.com/16pi2/quack.htm">http://aetherwizard.com/16pi2/quack.htm</a> It was very complete, & took nothing out of context.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Thank you, I wanted to be fair about it. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">However, a little below the clause "where Phi and phi are the Golden ratio and its inverse." you added the comment, "[Just so the reader knows: 2/sin(Phi) = 2(1+1/861) ]" According to my calculator, 1/sin(Phi) = 1 + 1/895.46629... 895 isn't very close to 861. To be a little more precise, 1/sin(Phi) = 1.00111673661... whereas g/2 for the electron is 1.00115965219, and for the muon is 1.01165916, so your guess is only good to 4 or 5 digits.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> As I tried to point out to you, mine wasn't a guess. It was derived from first principles. Four or five digits is nothing to sneer at for a physical model that proposes to show the origin of the "anomalous" electron magnetic moment. It would seem like a wild guess at first, but then the proton g-factor is close to: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> \frac[g_{p}}{2} = \frac{Phi}{sin(phi)} <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> where phi is the reciprocal of Phi. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> What are the odds that both the electron and proton g-factors could be expressed in terms of the Golden Ratio to five significant digits for the electron and three for the proton? What are the odds that both g-factors are reflected in a geometrical model of a quantified Aether? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> It raises the issue of whether or not the experiments for determining the g-factors are being influenced by the materials of the measurement equipment. And even if the measurements are accurate, it may simply mean there is another very subtle physical effect that affects the Aether geometry. Regardless, the equations and geometrical model I produce deserves closer scrutiny than merely being blown off by someone's personal opinion that it is "numerology." <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">(My "861" was only lowest-order QED, so only good to 6 digits.) QED has long passed your level of accuracy. So it seems even your numerology doesn't work. An interesting analog is Arthur Eddington, who proposed an exact value for the fine-structure constant (roughly 1/137, which is 2 pi times the roughly 1/861 above). Unfortunately, every time the experimental value became more accurate, he had to revise his theory as to what to add to the 137.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Like I said, I proposed a valid, quantified theory that includes simple equations and a geometrical model. Modern physics provides no geometrical model as quantum mechanics are explained in terms of point particles and probability functions. I'm not asking for a Nobel prize, I'm asking for the scientific community to carefully consider my theory and test its validity. If necessary, this means we need to revisit the measurement techniques and see if they aren't affecting the outcome in some way. The difference between my first principles prediction and the presently accepted electron g-factor may seem like a large order of magnitude in numbers, but it is an extremely small measurement quantity. It is small enough that a slight error in measurement techniques, due to an incomplete understanding of quantum structure, may produce misleading results. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Not only do I provide only a slightly different theoretical result, but I also provide the physical model by which the measurement techniques can be re-evaluated. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> I'm not interested in your personal opinions, despite you exceedingly important and well-deserved credentials. I'm interested in science. I proposed a quantified, rational, logical theory, so I want a quantified, rational, and logical review. And I will patiently wait until I get it before abandoning the theory. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Dave <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:heading --> <h2>Warren Siegel's Reply</h2> <!-- /wp:heading -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:09 PM, David Thomson wrote: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">What are the odds that both the electron and proton g-factors could be expressed in terms of the Golden Ratio to five significant digits for the electron and three for the proton? What are the odds that both g-factors are reflected in a geometrical model of a quantified Aether?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> The point is that 5 digits is nowhere near as good as 9. So no one will be impressed. It is like a dog that can walk on his hind legs: It is amusing, but not as good as a human being. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">It raises the issue of whether or not the experiments for determining the g-factors are being influenced by the materials of the measurement equipment. And even if the measurements are accurate, it may simply mean there is another very subtle physical effect that affects the Aether geometry.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> The experiments have been verified by many different groups. And they are in almost perfect agreement with QED. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I'm not asking for a Nobel prize, I'm asking for the scientific community to carefully consider my theory and test its validity.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> As I said, no one will spend their time when you are still so far behind QED. QED agrees with experiment, yours doesn't. Why would anyone want to try to fix your theory when they already have one that works perfectly? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I'm not interested in your personal opinions, despite you exceedingly important and well-deserved credentials. I'm interested in science.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Exactly. And science means agreement with experiment. That is not an opinion, that's a definition. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I proposed a quantified, rational, logical theory, so I want a quantified, rational, and logical review. And I will patiently wait until I get it before abandoning the theory.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> A real scientist abandons a theory when it's proven wrong. He doesn't claim, without evidence, that all the experiments done on a subject in over 20 year are wrong. Contradicting reality, as defined by experiment, is neither rational nor logical. If you think demanding agreement with experiment is narrow-minded or irrational or paranoid, then you have no clue as to what science is. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:heading --> <h2>David Thomson's Reply</h2> <!-- /wp:heading -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Hi Warren, <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The point is that 5 digits is nowhere near as good as 9. So no one will be impressed.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> But the SM has no geometrical explanation for the values it touts. How can you be certain the measured value of the electron g-factor is reflecting only the electron g-factor and not also some physical attribute of the measurement equipment, if you don't have a geometrical model of the value you are measuring? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">It is like a dog that can walk on his hind legs: It is amusing, but not as good as a human being.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> QED is like a physicist who describes the physical world as a set of probabilities. It has usefulness, but obviously it is not the correct quantum structure. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The experiments have been verified by many different groups. And they are in almost perfect agreement with QED.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> What is the benefit of a thousand mistakes over one mistake? It only makes the illusion of being correct seem that much more real. I'm not saying QED is necessarily wrong, I'm just saying I can show you a valid paradigm that clearly shows much of what was thought was correct in physics, may be wrong. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> The fact that I can produce a viable physics using distributed charge, rather than single dimension charge, and that this physics easily reveals a Unified Force Theory, is very strong evidence that your physics may be based on wrong assumptions. The fact that charge is treated as a point particle in the SM, and a point has zero dimensions whereas the units containing charge are thought to have one dimension of charge, is itself very clear evidence there is something wrong with QED and the rest of modern physics. Single dimension charge is linear, not a point. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Yet, the APM treats all charge as distributed, provides a very lucid quantification of electrostatic charge as opposed to electromagnetic charge, and also provides a geometrical model not only for subatomic particles, but the space-time in which they exist. The APM has a solid basis for quantifying the electron g-factor from first principles, but QED has no basis at all for treating charge as a point particle and notating it as a linear dimension within units. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> How can you continue to rant about the "successes" of QED, when the physics method employed by it is an utter failure? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">As I said, no one will spend their time when you are still so far behind QED. QED agrees with experiment, yours doesn't.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> You need to have a sharper understanding of what you are saying. QED doesn't agree with experiment, it agrees with data. Data is derived from an experiment, and then normalized to fit a paradigm. Since you are only willing to entertain just one paradigm, you have no basis at all for eliminating systemic errors. And that is exactly what QED, QCD, SR, GR, and all the other independent and unrelated physics theories are based upon, a series of systemic errors. That is why you need several different systems of physics, whereas my system will allow for just one, completely unified system of physics, which also has a UNIFIED FORCE THEORY. I put that in caps in case you miss it again. You continually keep ignoring the fact that the APM provides important solutions that QED cannot, such as UNIFYING THE FORCES. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Why would anyone want to try to fix your theory when they already have one that works perfectly?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> You sound like someone who spends a lot of time in front of a mirror. Modern physics "works perfectly?" Where is your UNIFIED FORCE THEORY? Explain the "anomalous" electron magnetic moment from first principles. Quantify "space-time curvature" as a physical reality. Shall I go on with a long list of imperfections in modern physics? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">A real scientist abandons a theory when it's proven wrong.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Exactly. Prove the Aether Physics Model is wrong. Do something to prove that measuring equipment is not affecting the accuracy of the measurements. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">He doesn't claim, without evidence, that all the experiments done on a subject in over 20 year are wrong.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> A scientist always questions the prevailing theory, especially when a better, quantifiable theory is proposed. A true scientist does not blow off a new theory simply because it is not the old theory, neither does he or she automatically assume the old theory is 100% correct, especially when the new theory is as rich in detail and predictions as the Aether Physics Model. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Dave <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:heading --> <h2>Warren Siegel's Reply</h2> <!-- /wp:heading -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:54 PM, David Thomson wrote: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">But the SM has no geometrical explanation for the values it touts. If you get the wrong answers, nobody cares about the explanation. How can you be certain the measured value of the electron g-factor is reflecting only the electron g-factor and not also some physical attribute of the measurement equipment, if you don't have a geometrical model of the value you are measuring?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> By using different experimental setups. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> This has been done over a period of 60 years, with precise agreement between different experiments, as well as precise agreement with theory, and strong disagreement with your proposal. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">QED is like a physicist who describes the physical world as a set of probabilities. It has usefulness, but obviously it is not the correct quantum structure.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Useful = correct. Until you learn that, you will never understand what science is. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">What is the benefit of a thousand mistakes over one mistake?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> If you think thousands of different experimental groups have made exactly the same error, you are in serious denial. A real scientist can admit when he's wrong, and move on. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">How can you continue to rant about the "successes" of QED, when the physics method employed by it is an utter failure?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Experimental agreement = success. Denial of reality = ranting. You are living in a fantasy world. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> As I said, no one will spend their time when you are still so far behind QED. QED agrees with experiment, yours doesn't.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">You need to have a sharper understanding of what you are saying. QED doesn't agree with experiment, it agrees with data.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> They are identical. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Data is derived from an experiment, and then normalized to fit a paradigm.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Never. Paradigms are normalized to fit data. Quacks ignore data. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Since you are only willing to entertain just one paradigm,</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> I'm willing to entertain anything that agrees with experiment. That's why I exclude you. And it's the ONLY reason. But you can't accept that. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">And that is exactly what QED, QCD, SR, GR, and all the other independent and unrelated physics theories are based upon, a series of systemic errors.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> So all of physics is wrong, because they ignore you. Yet refrigerators continue to work, as do global positioning satellites, electronic devices, etc. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">UNIFIED FORCE THEORY. I put that in caps in case you miss it again. You continually keep ignoring the fact that the APM provides important solutions that QED cannot, such as UNIFYING THE FORCES.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Lots of CAPS: Item 4. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Explain the "anomalous" electron magnetic moment from first principles.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> 9 decimal places of correctness. You get only 5. 9 > 5. Also, nine > FIVE. Also, 9 > UNIFIED 5. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Exactly. Prove the Aether Physics Model is wrong.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Wrong @ the 6th decimal place, remember? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">neither does he or she automatically assume the old theory is 100% correct,</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> No, he proves it with experiment. Many, many experiments. For 60 years. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">especially when the new theory is as rich in detail and predictions as the Aether Physics Model.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Very, very poor: Not a single cross section. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:heading --> <h2>David Thomson's Reply</h2> <!-- /wp:heading -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Hi Warren, <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Quacks ignore data.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Quacks ignore science. Science is more than probabilities, and nonsensical theories like wave/particle duality. And who in their right mind really believes forces are mediated by particles? Real science looks at an observable world and produces geometrically correct paradigms that mirror the observations. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> You go ahead and continue to ignore the theory I'm proposing, without giving it due consideration. That is just fine by me. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> You have heard the old maxim, "Science progresses one death at a time?" Well, I hope you are enjoying the time you have. There are young physics students who are approaching the Aether Physics Model with much more interest than you are. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> BTW, here is a comment by a physics student who has read our exchange, "I read the dissection of your theory by Prof Siegel on the ``quackery'' section of your website, and feel that while in many ways the theory does indeed meet some of Siegel's standards for ``quackery'', these are merely Siegel's ideas of how science should and shouldn't be conducted, and his points touched very little on the actual validity of the AP model, but more, rather, on its context. Saying ``my theory says this but your theory says that, therefore your theory is wrong'' is not really a criticism, but an exercise in intellectual egotism." <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Dave <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:heading --> <h2>Warren Siegel's Reply</h2> <!-- /wp:heading -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> On Jun 29, 2006, at 4:51 PM, David Thomson wrote: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> Quacks ignore data.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Quacks ignore science.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Science is data, & its evaluation. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Science is more than probabilities, and nonsensical theories like wave/particle duality.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Yes, but it includes them, & you ignore them. You ignore 60 years of experimental data. That is not science, that is religion. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">And who in their right mind really believes forces are mediated by particles?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Nobody believes it, they know it. And every scientist knows it, because experiment confirms it. You believe it to be false, because your religion, like any religion, is based on belief, not data. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Real science looks at an observable world and produces geometrically correct paradigms that mirror the observations.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> "Geometry" doesn't apply to everything. "Paradigm" is your favorite catchword. No scientist ever uses it. I think you must define it in some way not understood to science. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">You go ahead and continue to ignore the theory I'm proposing, without giving it due consideration. That is just fine by me.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> I considered it, and found it: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> (1) Lacks all predictive power, because it has no equations of motion, and therefore can't be applied to scattering, orbits, electric circuits, or anything else of value. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> (2) Makes wrong predictions, such as the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron & muon. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> (3) Contradicts special relativity, which says there is no such thing as a rigid body. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> How much more do I have to consider it? How much more do I have to find wrong with it? I have not found a single thing right with it. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Do I have to show every single sentence is wrong? How much failure do you need? And whenever I find something wrong with it, instead of dealing with it, & trying to come up with a better theory, you just go into denial. What's the point of anybody reading your theory if you can't accept criticism? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Real physics has weathered much better critics than you, & responded. When real science meets with experimental disagreement, it adapts. It has always done so. But it only responds to facts -- data. Old theories are modified when they disagree with data. New theories are accepted only of they both agree with existing data and predict more. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">You have heard the old maxim, "Science progresses one death at a time?" Well, I hope you are enjoying the time you have. There are young physics students who are approaching the Aether Physics Model with much more interest than you are.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> There are some people foolish enough to believe the earth is flat. Science does not go forward by anecdotes. The people who invented QED are dead, but QED lives on. And it will still live after we're both dead. You disagree with 60 years of data -- that's long enough for plenty of deaths. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> And now you will tell me your "ether" religion has also stood the test of time, in spite of the fact that your definition of "ether" is unlike anyone else's, even though you use an archaic spelling to make it look old. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">BTW, here is a comment by a physics student who has read our exchange, "I read the dissection of your theory by Prof Siegel on the "quackery" section of your website, and feel that while in many ways the theory does indeed meet some of Siegel's standards for "quackery", these are merely Siegel's ideas of how science should and shouldn't be conducted, and his points touched very little on the actual validity of the AP model, but more, rather, on its context. Saying "my theory says this but your theory says that, therefore your theory is wrong" is not really a criticism, but an exercise in intellectual egotism."</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Misery loves company. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Saying "your theory gets the wrong answer, off by 10,000,000 standard deviations", is not egotism, it's fact. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> But then, you can't do arithmetic either, since you added the note to your web page of our discussion that implies 861 = 895. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> And the people who follow your religion obviously never even check your numbers (your only predictions), so what good are those people? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> You are not looking for a critical evaluation of your proposal, only for pats on the back. So why bother even talking to scientists, when you know that any one of them who seriously looks at it will only say things that you will ignore? Does it give you satisfaction to lie to people? Are you looking for disapproval so that you can claim to be a prophet? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Maybe if you learned some real physics, & saw how well it applies to everyday life numerically, you would accept it more easily, instead of denying successful theories, & pretending all experiments are wrong. The one most important fact of any theory is that it can be proven wrong. But your "theory" can never be proven wrong, because you declare all physical data to be wrong. And you declare all science that agrees with data to be "nonsense". But your definition of "sense" disagrees with all data, & therefore can only be religion. You are the kind of person who welshes on bets, because you deny that facts prove you wrong. When your beliefs disagree with proven theories, you say your belief is misunderstood, and say, "look @ my numbers". Then when your numbers are also proven to disagree with data, you deny all data. So, you are left with nothing. Only a cry that everything but your religion is "nonsense". And the world will continue to go around, satisfying the equations of motion that modern science understands, but you deny. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> David Thomson's Reply <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Hi Warren, <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">You ignore 60 years of experimental data. That is not science, that is religion.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> You can tell a lot about a person's reasoning ability when they automatically talk in absolutes. You make it sound as though the entire Aether Physics Model ignores all scientific data. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> And who in their right mind really believes forces are mediated by particles?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Nobody believes it, they know it. And every scientist knows it, because experiment confirms it.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Experiments don't confirm anything, they only provide data. Scientists do the interpretation of the data, and the interpretation is called a theory. It is the interpretation of data (especially when the data has to be renormalized) that provides "confirmation" of the theory, which is circular reasoning. Not only do you deal in absolutes, you are also very sloppy with language such that you can use it to prove whatever you want to believe. The Aether Physics Model is very specific with physics definitions so that such sloppiness is avoided. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">You believe it to be false, because your religion, like any religion, is based on belief, not data.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> That is such a great example of hypocrisy. <em>Your</em> religion is based upon belief, which you have conveniently hidden in your sloppy terminology. You make it sound like the experiment does the interpretation for you, thus removing the scientist from the interpretation of the data. You can <em>pretend</em> your belief has nothing to do with your interpretation of the data, but that only reduces your religion to a cult. Now you are incapable of seeing the flaws in your own interpretation, because you have declined responsibility for making the interpretation. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> Real science looks at an observable world and produces geometrically correct paradigms that mirror the observations. "Geometry" doesn't apply to everything.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> It most certainly does. Anything that is observable must have a distance from the observer, and must also have surface area. We are incapable of seeing one dimensional objects, and point particles do not exist. Further, if an object has geometry, then its actions must reflect that geometry. Geometry is unavoidable. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">"Paradigm" is your favorite catchword.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Paradigm is a word with a specific meaning, like "religion," "belief," and "quack," which seem to be your favorite catchwords. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">No scientist ever uses it.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> That doesn't surprise me since no other paradigm is allowed in "mainstream" science other than the one sanctioned by the High Priests of Academia. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I think you must define it in some way not understood to science.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> par·a·digm n. One that serves as a pattern or model. ...A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> I have a very good understanding, and I properly use the word. If you use the word in any other way, it is likely you who are the one who has misunderstood it. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> You go ahead and continue to ignore the theory I'm proposing, without giving it due consideration. That is just fine by me.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I considered it, and found it: (1) Lacks all predictive power,</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> That is a bald-faced lie and shows your intentional disregard for the scientific method. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">because it has no equations of motion, and therefore can't be applied to scattering, orbits, electric circuits, or anything else of value.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> The theory shows the structure of quantum existence. Prior to an object having motion it must have structure in order to exist. The rules of motion will be mitigated by the structure of the existence. Whales move differently than humans. If you don't take into account the different geometries of whales and humans, as well as the structures of the environment in which they exist, your equations for motion are meaningless. They are sterile and apply to nothing, except by chance. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">(2) Makes wrong predictions, such as the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron & muon.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> My theory provides a possible explanation for the structure that leads to the g-factors. I didn't claim it was anything other than a theory for just that purpose. For you to simply dismiss the theory, without considering the new mitigating factors presented by the theory, is a sign of bigotry, which goes well with your hypocrisy, cultish behavior, need for intentionally misrepresenting others, and absolutist views. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">(3) Contradicts special relativity, which says there is no such thing as a rigid body.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> There you go again with your intentional misrepresentation. Who said anything about a rigid body? Did you read the theory, or not? Just because an object has geometry does not mean it is rigid. And even when an object is rigid, that does not mean a fabric made out of the rigid objects will be rigid. Sand is rigid, yet it flows like a fluid in an hourglass. Water molecules are rigid, yet their combined macro structure provides an excellent example of fluidity at certain temperatures. The quantum Aether theory clearly shows how toroidal geometry allows for flexibility of strong charge geometry, while conserving angular momentum. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">How much more do I have to consider it?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> A lot. You haven't even taken the time to understand it, yet. You just spout off with all kinds of prejudicial statements, none of which are scientific or serve any practical purpose in evaluating the theory. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">How much more do I have to find wrong with it?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> You haven't found anything wrong with the theory at all. All you have done is point out your own expectations and how the theory does not meet your expectations. It is as though you believe you are the author of the Universe, and you alone have the authority to determine what science should and should not be like. It is you who behave religiously, here, not me. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">I have not found a single thing right with it.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> That is because you haven't taken the time to understand it. You still have no concept of "quantum structure." In your mind, quantum structure is irrelevant and quantum mechanics is all there is to quantum existence. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Do I have to show every single sentence is wrong?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Just show me one! Don't make up your own idea of what my theory should present and then attack that. No, look at the theory I present and attack it directly. Point out an error in the math, a place where the wrong constant was used, a wrong definition, or something about the actual theory that you think is wrong. Your irrational argument that equations of motion are required in a theory of structure exemplifies ignorance. Apparently your cries for equations of motion when Watson and Crick identified the structure of DNA when unnoticed! <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">How much failure do you need? And whenever I find something wrong with it, instead of dealing with it, & trying to come up with a better theory, you just go into denial.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> There is nothing in your arguments to deny. Your arguments are empty and completely unrelated to the theory. Only in your mind could equations of motion be required for a theory of structure. Certainly, it is not a requirement of nature. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">What's the point of anybody reading your theory if you can't accept criticism?</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Are you now admitting that you have not read the theory? Is there no wonder why your criticism of the theory is meaningless? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">> You have heard the old maxim, "Science progresses one death at a time?" Well, I hope you are enjoying the time you have. There are young physics students who are approaching the Aether Physics Model with much more interest than you are.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">There are some people foolish enough to believe the earth is flat.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Just as there are people who are foolish enough to believe force is a particle, a particle can be its own wave, and that quantum structure is really a mathematical probability. The world is full of fools, but what does that have to do with the scientific validity of the Aether Physics Model? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Science does not go forward by anecdotes. The people who invented QED are dead, but QED lives on. And it will still live after we're both dead.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> My statement about "one death at a time" was not about QED, it was about the people who believe in wave/particle duality, force particles, and probability functions as quantum structure. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">You disagree with 60 years of data</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> There you are intentionally misrepresenting me, again. I do not disagree with the data, I disagree with certain interpretations of the data. The data is what it is. Renormalization and lack of understanding about quantum structure could easily lead to an incorrect view of the data. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">And now you will tell me your "ether" religion has also stood the test of time, in spite of the fact that your definition of "ether" is unlike anyone else's, even though you use an archaic spelling to make it look old.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> And the purpose of that statement was?... Are you putting words into my mouth, again? <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">Misery loves company. Saying "your theory gets the wrong answer, off by 10,000,000 standard deviations", is not egotism, it's fact.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Your egotism comes from seeing only your own view, and intentionally misrepresenting the views of others. And your wild statement of 10,000,000 deviations is unfounded. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:quote --> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote">But then, you can't do arithmetic either, since you added the note to your web page of our discussion that implies 861 = 895.</blockquote> <!-- /wp:quote -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Let's see just how confused and mathematically challenged you really are, okay? I'll stick entirely to the facts and let you determine for yourself where the problem is here. On the web page, I stated: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> [Just so the reader knows: 2/sin(Phi) = 2(1+1/861) ] <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> I provided a completely different equation structure than you did. Also, I have no clue where you got "895." The expression "sin(Phi) is equal to 0.998884509094885 (to 15 decimal places). My equation does not have the structure of <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> 1 + 1/x <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> My equation was a trigonometric function. I don't know where you got "861," other than as a wild approximation derived empirically, but my trigonometric function is based upon the actual geometry of a quantified Aether unit (quantum of space-time). I can show a hypothesis for why the electron and proton have an "anomalous" magnetic moment to begin with. All you can show is that the g-factor value was squeezed out of some measurements. You don't know why the electron has a g-factor, which is why you call it "anomalous." <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> The value I present is within reasonable limits of agreement for a theory working from first principles, and is further supported by the fact that the proton g-factor also shows similar structure as a reasonable function of the Golden Ratio. <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> Further, your expression of 2(1+1/861) is only accurate to five decimal places, while mine is accurate to four decimal places (insignificant since you are claiming the actual value is precisely known to 9 decimal places). This means that for all intents and purposes when discussing your approximation compared to my approximation: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  <!-- wp:paragraph --> \frac{2}{sin(Phi)} = 2(1+1/861)&

Which was my statement.

And the people who follow your religion obviously never even check your numbers (your only predictions), so what good are those people?

Obviously, people of your cult can use sloppy language and double standards to make your point, but the opposing view is not allowed the same degree of sloppiness and confusion.

You are not looking for a critical evaluation of your proposal, only for pats on the back. So why bother even talking to scientists, when you know that any one of them who seriously looks at it will only say things that you will ignore? Does it give you satisfaction to lie to people? Are you looking for disapproval so that you can claim to be a prophet?

Is this the reasoning of a scientist? The very accusations you project onto others are reflected in your own behavior and methods. BTW, a religious person looking for disapproval would be a martyr, not a prophet.

Maybe if you learned some real physics, & saw how well it applies to everyday life numerically,

Early on you accused me of being a numerologist, and now you are espousing numerology. The Aether Physics Model is discrete, not numerological. The APM represents true science, not poetic descriptions of data, as your numerology does.

you would accept it more easily, instead of denying successful theories, & pretending all experiments are wrong.

There you go, again, intentionally misrepresenting me. Methods of deception have been deeply engrained into your psyche. Intentional misrepresentation has become your primary defense against new physics paradigms. You are not capable of applying the scientific method to a theory about quantum structure, because you have already convinced yourself that quantum structure does not exist except as metaphysical concepts of wave/particle duality, force particles, and probability functions. If you could transcend your prejudice, bigotry, sloppy physics terminology, intentional misrepresentation, and your religious devotion to your own intellectual superiority, you might actually benefit from the Aether Physics Model. Not only would you learn new insights into quantum existence, but it would help you to better understand the paradigms within quantum mechanics, which do work.

The one most important fact of any theory is that it can be proven wrong. But your “theory” can never be proven wrong, because you declare all physical data to be wrong. And you declare all science that agrees with data to be “nonsense”. But your definition of “sense” disagrees with all data, and therefore can only be religion.

Your reasoning is highly deluded. The theory I present is founded upon the existing physical and empirically derived constants and data. When the Aether Physics Model disagrees with your interpretation of the data, it is doing just that, disagreeing with your interpretation. You are incapable of seeing your investment as the interpreter of the data and mistakenly believe that because the data exists, your interpretation and renormalization procedures must be correct.

As for the APM being proven wrong, it is entirely mathematical and geometrical in structure. All you need to do to prove the theory wrong is show that math is wrong, or that I used the wrong data to derive the theory. I have witnessed the weakness in your math skills already, but you probably have a Mathematics department at your University. You might try asking a mathematician to look at the theory and see if the math is right or wrong. A mathematician will also be able to help you through the geometry. If you have a Philosophy department, you might also take the theory to them to see if the logic of the theory is correct or not.

I can see it is difficult for you to understand the difference between quantum structure and quantum mechanics. Perhaps if you have an English Language department, they may be able to assist you in this regard.

You are the kind of person who welshes on bets, because you deny that facts prove you wrong. When your beliefs disagree with proven theories, you say your belief is misunderstood, and say, “look @ my numbers”. Then when your numbers are also proven to disagree with data, you deny all data. So, you are left with nothing. Only a cry that everything but your religion is “nonsense”. And the world will continue to go around, satisfying the equations of motion that modern science understands, but you deny.

Don’t you find it disconcerting that your own numbers didn’t agree with measured values? Your “861” is way off the mark. But it is okay for you to provide an approximation based upon wild guessing, right? It’s just not okay for me to provide an approximation due to first principles. Did I mention “hypocrisy?”

You know, this is making great material for the world to see. You are doing us a great favor by offering your “scientific” rebuttal to the theory. It is one thing for me to have this kind of discussion with physicist “wannabes” and people who have no recourse except to quote the available literature, but to have this discussion with a physics professor who claims to know a quack when he sees one is just precious.

Dave

Leave a Reply