Can you back up that statement? Not all nuclear reactions give up more energy than what goes in, but some reactions do give up more energy than what goes in. Hence the LMFBR can produce more fuel than it consumes, the Universe is expanding, and CERN is producing real photons from the vacuum (not virtual photons).

Dave

Dave. That is not my statement...that's a copy and paste from your document...so it's not up to me to back it up. You are the one who has to back it up. Instead of doing so, you changed the content in your reply.You are the one who double tracked and changed it's content, and you are the one who must back it up, as you posted it on the link. pete


Who's on first? (Abbot & Costello)

__________________
A third rate theory forbids
A second rate theory explains after the fact
A first rate theory predicts...A. Lomonosov

Let me ask that again, in case you did not understand. Where did you quote that from? If it was something I wrote, it appears you have taken it out of context.

Dave

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

volantis. I took the quote from the summary of Ch 8 on the page that came up in your link in your first post in this thread. I followed the Ch by Ch summary pages to the end and read them. If your words are incomplete then your linked site contains an error. We all make them. (Everybody who makes zero errors is at the track making billions...the rest of us labor away) If so, admit the misconception in the wording and move on.
There is at present no experimental data that supports the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron, and an electron type neutrino, if that's what you imply. Group theory which led to the quark model of matter, and clearly delineates the families of mesons and baryons, with all their attendant properties, indicates that the difference between a proton and a neutron involves the flipping of a quark from up to down....fairly simple to envision and quite elegant physically. Confining an electron to the nucleus requires large energies....see:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../uncer.html#c3

note well that the energy to bind the electron in the nucleus exceeds the observed energies of typical nuclear reactions by about a factor of 1000.

__________________
A third rate theory forbids
A second rate theory explains after the fact
A first rate theory predicts...A. Lomonosov

From the Physical Review Online Archive:

T. G Zlosnik, P. G Ferreira, and G. D. Starkman, "Modifying gravity with the aether: An alternative to dark matter", Phys. Rev. D 75, 044017 (2007)

T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, " Gravity with a dynamical preferred frame", Phys. Rev. D 64, 024028 (2001)


Maybe you should drop the conspiracy theory.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

Did you think I wouldn't look? There is no such quote on that page.

Are you implying that you anticipate there will be such data? If so, that would make my theory a valid prediction, would it not? I don't know what you mean by "electron type neutrino." Neutrinos are merely blobs of primary angular momentum.

What does quark theory have to do with reality? Nobody has every made a proton or neutron out of a bunch of colored and strange quarks, some of which are supposed to be up and down. As far as quark theory goes, if you add the angular momenta of the various quarks, you still don't get the angular momentum of a proton or neutron. So your argument that electron and proton angular momentum do not add up to the angular momentum of a neutron has not been satisfied with quark theory, either.

The only evidence for quarks are streaks of light on photographic film. The cause of the streaks of light disappears after 10^-12 seconds and is never seen again. It is hardly scientific to "envision" particles that only exist for 10^-12 seconds to produce an entire Universe of protons, which exist for billions of years and have no discernible half life.
That is merely conjecture and is based on the assumption that the electron would be a free particle inside the nucleus. My theory does not predict the electron could exist as a free particle within the nucleus. The Aether Physics Model specifically provides a different physics involving binding due to the strong force, and which accounts for the effects of the Aether. Modern theory discounts the Aether out of hand, and therefore cannot account for the ability of the Aether to fold over upon itself.

Note that I have provided a logical and empirically based restructuring of the foundations of physics. You cannot use the Standard Model to judge the Aether Physics Model by, since the Standard Model is based upon the errors the Aether Physics Model corrects. It is well established within the physics community that the Standard Model is seriously flawed and everybody expects it will be replaced someday. My claim is that I have provided that replacement.

Instead of trying to adhere to the flaws of the Standard Model while evaluating a completely reworked paradigm, try understanding the new paradigm I have provided and see if it is self-consistent and capable of replacing the Standard Model.

As for whether or not beta decay has been observed to be a binding of an electron and proton, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory describes it that way:
http://lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/03/2.html

Dave

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

If "Neutrinos are merely blobs of primary angular momentum", then why are there three different kinds? Neutrinos from nuclear reactions have been allowed to hit targets and only electrons and/or positrons have ever been created. In other experiments muon type neutrinos are produced and only muons are seen when the neutrinos hit targets. I'm not sure if the tau neutrino has been detected in similar experiments yet, but the expectation is that any process that produces taus will also produce the corresponding tau neutrinos and if these neutrinos hit a target only taus will be seen.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

[quote=volantis;1255847]Did you think I wouldn't look? There is no such quote on that page.

SNIPPET. Dave. Your web page. Chapter 8 summary. Paragraph 6...here it comes..."In the Aether Physics Model, the neutron is a composite of a proton and electron".

Your writing, not mine, the first sentence in the paragraph. Does that not state that the "neutron is a composite of a proton and an electron?"

It is also not regarded as a trinity composite of those two plus the electron-type antineutrino...(a conceptual error I once held to). Neutron decay involves the creation of an electron and simultaneously the electron type antineutrino, as a W ^- particle decays. The W itself is created when the down quark flips to up. So the sequence is....quark flip, making neutron into proton.....short journey for massive W^-...W decay to two leptons (the electron and antineutrino).


Who's on second? pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids
A second rate theory explains after the fact
A first rate theory predicts...A. Lomonosov

The quote you took from his page was I think that is what he is refering to.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Um.... I don't see the relationship between the two quotes. In fact, I don't see the first quote anywhere on that page. If you are paraphrasing, you need to state that, and not claim you are quoting me.

We can explore this second concept if you wish, but let's first finish the first point of disagreement. Do you agree you were paraphrasing me, and not quoting me?

Dave

I have just received a reply from the NSF regarding my request for funding the gravitational wave detection experiment presently underway. I explained to them the necessity for acknowledging the Aether when detecting gravitational waves by monitoring magnetic flux density. Essentially, their reply was it was either their way, or the highway. Here is the full response I received:
As usual, my theory is not proved wrong, it is merely sidestepped because the mainstream is happy with what they have. The bar is set at convincing the experts, not at successful experiments with valid physics. Utlimately, and speaking from direct experience, it comes down to prejudiced and unwarranted views against the Aether.

Already, we are seeing the same mechanics in this thread. Not one person is engaging me on the presentation of the Aether Physics Model. Either people are saying, "I'm happy with the mainstream, no need for an Aether theory," or they are completely ignoring the successes of the Aether Physics Model and diverting attention toward meaningless distractions.

If I can't get a fair hearing with the folks here, why should anyone expect the "experts" with the NSF to be any better? I had a discussion with one of the "experts" who likely consults for NSF. The complete discussion is available online at:
http://www.16pi2.com/quack.htm

There is no conspiracy in speaking facts. You folks claim to be scientific and fair. I haven't seen any such indications, as of yet.

Dave

captain swoop. Yep. I took two quotes....this one from the Ch 10 summary paragraph 13...Thus, all nuclear reactions give up more energy than what goes into the reaction..............


and the other from the Ch 8 summary. We are not allowed to quote entire pages here, so if volantis has an issue with a partial quote, ...that's life. Both statements are untrue, physically.

The reasoning is ...at least some nuclear reactions are endothermic, hence cannot "give up more energy than what goes into the reaction"..., and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle forbids electrons from being confined to the nucleus. If he wants to dispute HUP ...well that's where Einstein made an international fool of himself before finally relenting to Bohr in the thirties at the Solvay Conferences.
To his credit, Einstein moved on. The physical intuition of Heisenberg is correct, and all humans have an imperfect sort of knowledge, but it's close enough for a baseball hitter to hit 340 with 40 HR's and 100 RBI's.
Volantis. Batter up. I may have missed a word, but did not misinterpret what you wrote. Don't take my comments too personally. The issue here is this:
1. You should be able to defend with data the position that all nuclear reactions are exothermic...give up more energy than goes into them....our mainstream point of view is that energy is produced by fusing light nuclei or fissioning massive ones but not vice versa . A valid defense would show a nuclear reaction...say fissioning of beryllium, or fusing of uranium to be exothermic. That'd be a hot topic in physics.
2. You should also be able to defend studies that show the neutron to be formed inverse style from pure protium shielded from cosmic ray showers...(possible initiators of an otherwise endothermic reaction) The cross-sections for underground neutrinos to do this is low.

If you can do that...people will notice. I got plenty of flak from plenty of people when I first posted here, but as the data keeps trickling in, the swells have subsided some.....and I take plenty of chances, risking big on new ideas, and putting my money where my mouth is regularly. I'll bet a hot fudge sundae that you won't be able to find any evidence for exothermic fission of beryllium.....and if Alnitak doesn't go supernova in the near future, I think I owe Antoniseb one. Cheers. pete.
pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids
A second rate theory explains after the fact
A first rate theory predicts...A. Lomonosov

I'm sure there is nothing against the forum rules for keeping quotes within context. Here is the context of your quote:
The phrase "nuclear reaction," like many other terms and phrases in physics, has multiple meanings and subtleties. A "nuclear reaction" could be a type of reaction: fusion, fission, or binding-unbinding of the neutron. A "nuclear reaction" could refer to a specific reaction such as the U235 fission reaction, the Li7 fusion reaction, or the neutron beta decay.

Fission reactors produce heat. As liquid metal fast breeder reactors demonstrate, a fission reactor can produce heat AND more fuel than it consumes. Fusion reactions also produce heat and fusion material also increases in a fusion reaction (stars increase in mass). When a neutron is formed by the binding of an electron and proton, angular momentum is trapped between the two, which contributes to the total angular momentum of the neutron, and hence its mass. Thus, in the sense of the different types of reactions, all the reactions are capable of producing more energy than what was put into the reaction.

However, there are many reactions that do not release more energy than what went into them. If lead is bombarded with protons to produce gold, it will take more energy to produce the gold than what would be available when the gold decays.

The reason some fusion and fission reactions can produce more energy than what is put into them is because there is sufficient movement between the protons of the nucleus. When a certain distance is reached between protons, the space between them oscillates and generates a proton-sized photon, which is easily captured and converted to a proton. It is also possible that the proton-sized photon can escape, thus contributing 1836 times more energy in radiation than an electron converted to a photon would.

There is an abundance of evidence showing that new matter is constantly being created all around us. The so-called "cold fusion" experiment is a low energy version of fusion, which generates new matter. There are higher energy versions of fusion, such as the so-called "thermal runaway" problem with Lithium cells. There are natural processes taking place within the Earth, which are generating new matter (and heat) all the time, which is why the Earth is expanding. Similar processes occur in stars and electrically active dust clouds (nebulae). The fact that new matter is constantly being created is witnessed by astronomers as the Hubble expansion constant.

Modern theory works from the premise that no new matter can be created. Yet modern theory also acknowledges the existence of both dark matter and visible matter. The creation of visible matter is possible by the conversion of dark matter into visible matter. The destruction of matter (black holes and particle collisions) is possible because visible matter is converted to dark matter. There is no violation of conservation of mass, energy, angular momentum, or anything else.

CERN recently admitted that real photons are generated from the "vacuum." This is possible because of the Casimir effect, which can convert dark matter into visible matter. The first form of existence for new visible matter is always a photon structure. The photons are then absorbed into atoms and convert to either electrons or protons via the photoelectric effect (for the electron) and a similar process for the proton.

Yet, there is an abundance of evidence to support the statements as being true. Nature agrees with what I'm saying, even if mainstream science does not.
I agree that some nuclear reactions (in the specific sense of "nuclear reaction") do not produce more heat than what goes into them. As for Einstein "making a fool of himself," that's ironic considering that Bohr's model of the atom was later proved false.

The HUP is not a physical entity or process. It is a mathematical theory that is acting as a placeholder until a physical theory can be presented. Despite its limited successes, the HUP is one of the incomplete theories holding science back from further progress.

You took my quote out of context and tried to make it look like I was attempting to explain a mainstream concept using the mainstream paradigm. You failed to present the point I was making or show any interest in the paradigm I was presenting. That is called a lot of things, but "science" is not one of them.

Dave

[quote=volantis;1256103]

volantis. Let's start with just one point. Perhaps you could elucidate the process by which dark matter is converted into visible matter.? You say this in your last post. pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids
A second rate theory explains after the fact
A first rate theory predicts...A. Lomonosov