Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > The Proving Grounds > Against the Mainstream
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 13-June-2008, 06:08 PM
John Mendenhall John Mendenhall is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New Castle DE
Posts: 1,715
Default ?

[QUOTE=volantis;1259815]

Subatomic particles exist in a two-dimensional surface over curved space (Aether).

/QUOTE]

Pete, Grav, et al., you have displayed remarable restraint. My turn.

Dave, could you please explain and supply some supporting hard physical evidence for the above statement. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no such observations.

Regards, John M.
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 13-June-2008, 07:26 PM
trinitree88 trinitree88 is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,162
Cool Lep

John. I'll try this, too, but feel free.

from volantis.."Subatomic "particles" are a misnomer since they are not particles at all. Even mainstream science knows subatomic particles have a cloud-like structure. "

Actually, mainstream science measures positrons and electrons to be point-like, not cloud-like in structure. Yet they are in our view, parts of atoms, so they are sub-atomic in nature.There is at present no experimental evidence to the contrary.
Neither is there evidence that quarks or gluons have a further level of complexity. They too, behave in the manner of point-like entities. They, too are sub-atomic in nature.
So, I'd have too take issue with your quote. The terminology one uses must be internally consistent. It matters less that identical terminology is used in a paradigm, than it does that expressions are defined consistently.
Scattering studies, at high energies, hence, very short wavelengths, of intersecting, colliding beams of electrons and positrons, probe very tiny regions of space. The statistics, which is all we have as scientists, say...point-like. pete

see:http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~klei...feynman&page=2
__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

Last edited by trinitree88; 13-June-2008 at 07:38 PM.. Reason: link
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 12:23 AM
volantis's Avatar
volantis volantis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alma, IL
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post

Subatomic particles exist in a two-dimensional surface over curved space (Aether).
Pete, Grav, et al., you have displayed remarable restraint. My turn.
Does this imply you are going to start a fight? Or does it mean you plan to equal the restraint of Pete and Grav?

Quote:
Dave, could you please explain and supply some supporting hard physical evidence for the above statement. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no such observations.
Perhaps there have been numerous such observations, but they were not recognized for what they are.

Planck (and many others since) have observed a quantum of action in atoms. Since neither the proton nor neutron leave stable atoms (as used in the experiments determining Planck's constant), we can safely assume that the quantum of action refers directly to the electron, since it is the only other thing that can be doing the acting.

We can examine Planck's constant and find that it is exactly equal to the mass of the electron times the Compton wavelength times the speed of light. That is rather remarkable. When the body of physics data is thoroughly analyzed, we can clearly see that Planck's constant not only quantifies a quantum of action, but it specifically quantifies the quantum of action of the electron (and positron). And since, at the quantum level, a thing is what it does, Planck's constant IS the electron.

The Aether Physics Model (as presented in the white paper) structurally confirms that Planck's constant shares the geometry of the Aether unit.

Planck's constant is equal to the mass of the electron times the Compton wavelength (string of mass), which moves a velocity through the Aether unit (speed of light).

Has anybody ever observed the electron as a two-dimensional cloud-like structure? Most certainly! That is exactly how the HUP describes the electron, in so many words.

As was pointed out earlier, a free electron cannot coexist in the nucleus of an atom. Also, electrons in the 1s orbital position cover the entire surface of the atom. Since the electron cannot be inside the nucleus of the atom, the electron cannot inhabit a solid sphere. It must be limited to a two-dimensional sphere. And since there is no angular momentum at the poles of a sphere, and angular momentum has only one vector, the electron must have the appearance of a band, rather than a sphere.

As Pete points out somewhat correctly in the next post, the electron is modeled in the Standard Model as a point (when it is convenient). Yet, the HUP tells us the electron cannot exist as a point on an atom, but must exist as multiple points. Of course, HUP is not a physical theory, it is a mathematical theory. It is useful for generating numbers, but it has no authority when determining actual physical structure.

The concept of the "point" comes into play when looking at electrons from a macro perspective. Rarely does anybody need to know what the actual shape of the electron looks like, they mainly need to know where it is going. So points work in most cases. But again, just because there are situations that adequately describe an electron as a point does not mean they have proved the structure of the electron is a point. A cannon ball can be modeled as a point and still the trajectory can be accurately calculated.

As for experiments that have proved the structure of the electron, the Compton scattering experiment is the most important. Compton scattering shows electrons will scatter in a given pattern. Don't quote me, but as I recall the Compton function describing this pattern is 1-cos(theta). This happens to be the same shape of the electron predicted by the Aether Physics Model when seen from a four-dimensional perspective (down the time axis). Although the prevailing interpretation of the Compton scattering is a probability interpretation, one could just as easily interpret Compton scattering as a geometrical collision interpretation from the Aether Physics Model perspective.

It isn't that there is anything particularly wrong about the probability interpretation of the electron, especially from an engineering perspective. But the usefulness of the probability perspective of the electron does not prove the lack of a structural perspective of the electron. There can be, and are, multiple views of just about everything.

The Aether Physics Model, as described clearly in the paper, is a "STRUCTURAL MODEL" of quantum existence. It is not a probabilistic model, and hence it makes no sense to judge the Aether Physics Model from the perspective of probability theories (Standard Model). As Pete correctly points out, the theory must be consistent within itself. When you read the white paper, and follow exactly what the theory is laying out, you will find that it is not only entirely self-consistent, it is also quite useful for solving a number of physics problems, which the Standard Model cannot.
__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 05:00 AM
Celestial Mechanic's Avatar
Celestial Mechanic Celestial Mechanic is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 4,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post
[Snip!] We can examine Planck's constant and find that it is exactly equal to the mass of the electron times the Compton wavelength times the speed of light. That is rather remarkable.
Actually, no, it is not remarkable. The Compton wavelength is not a fundamental entity, it is defined in terms of more fundamental things: Planck's constant, the speed of light in vacuo and the electron mass. Compton wavelengths can be defined for any particle, just plug in the mass. Doesn't even have to be a particle, you and I have "Compton wavelengths", although it is utterly irrelevant at our scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post
When the body of physics data is thoroughly analyzed, we can clearly see that Planck's constant not only quantifies a quantum of action, but it specifically quantifies the quantum of action of the electron (and positron). And since, at the quantum level, a thing is what it does, Planck's constant IS the electron.
It is nothing of the sort. Planck's constant is a conversion constant between mass and length just as c is a conversion constant between length and time. (Actually, mass and inverse length or inverse mass and length.) It is also the unit of orbital angular momentum (which also has the same "engineering dimensions" as action).
__________________
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.
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 11:11 AM
papageno's Avatar
papageno papageno is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greater London
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via MSN to papageno
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post
As was pointed out earlier, a free electron cannot coexist in the nucleus of an atom. Also, electrons in the 1s orbital position cover the entire surface of the atom. Since the electron cannot be inside the nucleus of the atom, the electron cannot inhabit a solid sphere.
So, hyperfine structure is just an illusion?
__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 01:11 PM
volantis's Avatar
volantis volantis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alma, IL
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic View Post
Snip!
That is the key right there, isn't it? Just ignore the white paper, ignore my post, but find an irrelevant point to attack and derail the conversation.

Only in the Standard Model is Planck's constant a stupid conversion constant between mass and length. In the Aether Physics Model, Planck's constant is defined as the quantification of the electron. In the Standard Model, there is no quantification of quantum structure.

The Aether Physics Model is a theory of quantum structure, not some meaningless and obscure theory about converting mass into length, mass into energy, or a number of other imaginary concepts. The Aether Physics Model is discrete and applies to the real world. Your fairy tales have no place in my work.

If you want me to respond to your further posts, then you will need to first respond to my theory and not waste our time proselytizing your irrelevant knowledge of the Standard Model. I am not presenting the Standard Model. I am presenting the Aether Physics Model, which is a very different paradigm, yet which is based upon the same empirical constants and data as the Standard Model. Learn to think! Stop preaching!
__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.

Last edited by volantis; 14-June-2008 at 01:45 PM.. Reason: Clearer language
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 01:35 PM
volantis's Avatar
volantis volantis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alma, IL
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno View Post
So, hyperfine structure is just an illusion?
The description I gave for the distribution of the electron was based upon the Standard Model, not the Aether Physics Model. My purpose was to show that existing observations, when logic is applied to them, supports the Aether Physics Model view of quantum structure. As for the hyperfine structure, the fine structure constant, electron and proton g-factors, and magnetic moments of the electron, proton, and neutron are precisely quantified from first principles in the Aether Physics Model. Check it out.
__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 01:47 PM
papageno's Avatar
papageno papageno is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greater London
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via MSN to papageno
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
The description I gave for the distribution of the electron was based upon the Standard Model, not the Aether Physics Model.
In the Standard Model, the s-orbitals in atoms have non-zero values on the nucleus. And that goes into the explanation of the hyperfine structure.
Obviously you don't actually know much of the current theories...



Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
My purpose was to show that existing observations, when logic is applied to them, supports the Aether Physics Model view of quantum structure. As for the hyperfine structure, the fine structure constant, electron and proton g-factors, and magnetic moments of the electron, proton, and neutron are precisely quantified from first principles in the Aether Physics Model. Check it out.
You better learn the current theories first.
__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 02:00 PM
volantis's Avatar
volantis volantis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alma, IL
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno View Post
Obviously you don't actually know much of the current theories...
Obviously, that is all you are concerned about, the current theories. I didn't come here as an expert on current theories. What was your reason for joining this thread? Was it to analyze the Aether Physics Model, or preach your beloved Standard Model?
__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 05:39 PM
papageno's Avatar
papageno papageno is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greater London
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via MSN to papageno
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post
Obviously, that is all you are concerned about, the current theories. I didn't come here as an expert on current theories. What was your reason for joining this thread? Was it to analyze the Aether Physics Model, or preach your beloved Standard Model?
If you want to claim that your pet theory is better than the current theories, at least you could show a good understanding of them. Something you failed to do so far.
__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)
  #71 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 05:40 PM
Halcyon Dayz's Avatar
Halcyon Dayz Halcyon Dayz is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nederland - Sol III
Posts: 1,699
Default

If your model is to replace the current one it will have to be better.

Meaning it will have to explain all observations as accurately as the Standard Model does, as well as make testable predictions that are different then those from the Standard Model.

(And then of cause do the experiments.)
__________________
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. - Don Marquis
Join the Illuminati
  #72 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 07:57 PM
captain swoop's Avatar
captain swoop captain swoop is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 8,675
Default

How can you say your theory is a replacement if you don't know what you are replacing?

It's your job in ATM to answer questions about your theory.
__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice
  #73 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 08:05 PM
volantis's Avatar
volantis volantis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alma, IL
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz View Post
If your model is to replace the current one it will have to be better.
Nonsense. Special Relativity is not any better than Quantum Mechanics, so why do you have them both? For that matter, why do you have QED if you have QM?
Quote:
Meaning it will have to explain all observations as accurately as the Standard Model does, as well as make testable predictions that are different then those from the Standard Model.
More meaningless babble! Let's see Special Relativity do everything QM does, and then back it up with experiments.

I can't believe how dense all you folks are. I'm presenting a new paradigm and a whole new branch of physics called "QUANTUM STRUCTURE." My theory unifies all the fundamental forces, no theory in the Standard Model unifies all the forces. My theory predicts all the electron ground state binding energies from first principles with a single formula, no theory in the Standard Model does this. My theory quantifies the structure of subatomic particles and Aether from empirical constants and data, no theory in the Standard Model does this.

Hello? Is anybody home?
__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.
  #74 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 08:15 PM
Fortis Fortis is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post
I can't believe how dense all you folks are. I'm presenting a new paradigm and a whole new branch of physics called "QUANTUM STRUCTURE." My theory unifies all the fundamental forces, no theory in the Standard Model unifies all the forces. My theory predicts all the electron ground state binding energies from first principles with a single formula, no theory in the Standard Model does this. My theory quantifies the structure of subatomic particles and Aether from empirical constants and data, no theory in the Standard Model does this.
Show me the math.

(Given your confusion about Planck's constant and the Compton wavelength I am not expecting much, but prove me wrong...)
  #75 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 08:27 PM
volantis's Avatar
volantis volantis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alma, IL
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
How can you say your theory is a replacement if you don't know what you are replacing? It's your job in ATM to answer questions about your theory.
How can you say the Standard Model is a perfect physics that answers every question in the Universe if you haven't mastered chess? It's your job on BAUT to know all the answers before you accuse someone else of being wrong.

Clue: I'm being facetious to match your silliness. I didn't come here to replace the Standard Model, nor did I say that I did. I was more or less invited here to explain the Aether Physics Model.

Trying to present the Aether Physics Model to this group is like trying to explain Buddhism to a Christian. No matter what the Buddhist says, the Christian replies, "but the Bible says..." You aren't even making a meager effort to analyze the physics I have presented in the white paper. Every time I answer someone else's question, someone from the peanut gallery has to proselytize the Standard Model. Learn to think! Stop preaching!

Read the white paper and see if the physics are self-consistent, see if the theory makes meaningful predictions, and check my constants with the known constants and data. Do some real science.

Am I to understand that nobody on this list is capable of understanding simple algebra and checking the values of constants? Does anybody here know simple geometry? Is nobody impressed that I can unify the fundamental forces and provide a previously unknown force law for the strong force? Is nobody impressed by the quantum measurements analysis that helped me to find a predicted error in the NIST value of the neutron magnetic moment equations? Is nobody impressed that I have shown the Casimir force equation to be identical to the strong force law for the electron, thus providing significant evidence that the electron experiences the strong force? All of these claims and discoveries in the white paper are unique and new. No other theory has made these claims and discoveries. Are you not capable of discussing these claims and discoveries and either verifying them or proving them wrong?

Get off your BAUTs and engage me. Don't roll over and play stupid, as though you are incapable of analyzing this very simple theory. Show the world just how smart you can be. And if I have succeeded in producing some new and useful physics, be mature enough to give me credit for it.
__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.
  #76 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 08:33 PM
volantis's Avatar
volantis volantis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alma, IL
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
Show me the math.
It's in the white paper. You're going to get me in trouble for advertising my web site if you keep asking me to post the link for you. I also have papers that clearly spell out the math for the Unified Force Theory and Electron Binding Energy equation.

http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
http://www.16pi2.com/files/Calculations_UFT.pdf
http://www.16pi2.com/files/Electron_...y_equation.pdf
__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.
  #77 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 09:14 PM
papageno's Avatar
papageno papageno is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greater London
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via MSN to papageno
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
Nonsense. Special Relativity is not any better than Quantum Mechanics, so why do you have them both?
For the same reason we keep using Classical Mechanics. We know where they work and their limitations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
For that matter, why do you have QED if you have QM?
Because QED is a relativistic QM.


Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
More meaningless babble! Let's see Special Relativity do everything QM does, and then back it up with experiments.
SR and QM do not cover the same range. That's why QED was developed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
I can't believe how dense all you folks are. I'm presenting a new paradigm and a whole new branch of physics called "QUANTUM STRUCTURE." My theory unifies all the fundamental forces, no theory in the Standard Model unifies all the forces.
The Standard Model has unified three out of the four known fundamental interactions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
My theory predicts all the electron ground state binding energies from first principles with a single formula, no theory in the Standard Model does this.
You mean, apart from QM and QED?


Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
My theory quantifies the structure of subatomic particles and Aether from empirical constants and data, no theory in the Standard Model does this.
Empty blustering...


Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
How can you say the Standard Model is a perfect physics that answers every question in the Universe ... [SNIP!]
Strawman: nobody said that the current theories are perfect.



Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
Show the world just how smart you can be. And if I have succeeded in producing some new and useful physics, be mature enough to give me credit for it.
I don't remember you admitting your error about the s-orbitals...
__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)
  #78 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 09:37 PM
volantis's Avatar
volantis volantis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alma, IL
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno View Post
For the same reason we keep using Classical Mechanics. We know where they work and their limitations.
Exactly. Now you are catching on. It is not necessary to throw out every other theory just because a new theory comes along. It is possible to use them all within their limitations.

Quote:
Because QED is a relativistic QM.
Nonsense, if QED was a relativistic QM to any reasonable extent, QM and Relativity would not be predicting opposite outcomes.

Quote:
SR and QM do not cover the same range. That's why QED was developed.
Remember that.

Quote:
The Standard Model has unified three out of the four known fundamental interactions.
As far as unification theories go, the Standard Model has therefore failed to unify all the fundamental forces.

Quote:
Strawman: nobody said that the current theories are perfect.
Exactly. And I didn't say my theory replaced current theories, either. See, facetiousness can teach people things. Just apply the same rules to me that you apply to you and the others on this forum and we will start making progress. Don't put words in my mouth and I won't put them in yours.

Quote:
I don't remember you admitting your error about the s-orbitals...
That is because I didn't make any errors concerning the s orbitals. As a matter of fact, I correctly predicted the binding energies of ALL the 1s orbitals as outlined in my paper, which is the only claim regarding s orbitals that I have made on this forum. The strawman lies with you, which is verifiable if you go back and read our posts. BTW, did you check the math in my EBE paper to see if it is right or not?
__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.
  #79 (permalink)  
Old 14-June-2008, 10:37 PM
captain swoop's Avatar
captain swoop captain swoop is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 8,675
Default

Quote:
Are you not capable of discussing these claims and discoveries and either verifying them or proving them wrong?
Shifting the Burden, and science doesn't deal in 'proof. Your theory, it's up to you to answer the questions of those that have them.
__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice
  #80 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2008, 12:12 AM
Fortis Fortis is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post
Nonsense, if QED was a relativistic QM to any reasonable extent, QM and Relativity would not be predicting opposite outcomes.
Please elaborate.
  #81 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2008, 12:31 AM
Fortis Fortis is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post
It's in the white paper. You're going to get me in trouble for advertising my web site if you keep asking me to post the link for you. I also have papers that clearly spell out the math for the Unified Force Theory and Electron Binding Energy equation.

http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
http://www.16pi2.com/files/Calculations_UFT.pdf
http://www.16pi2.com/files/Electron_...y_equation.pdf
After a quick skim through this page it appears that you don't know how to calculate percentages. For example you claim to have calculated (table 2) the binding energy for lithium as 43.71 compared to a measured value of 54.7. This should be a percentage error of

100%x(54.7-43.71)/43.71 = 25%

You claim that the error is in fact 4.02%.

What is happening, and why should we trust the rest of your calculations?
  #82 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2008, 12:37 AM
volantis's Avatar
volantis volantis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alma, IL
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
After a quick skim through this page it appears that you don't know how to calculate percentages. For example you claim to have calculated (table 2) the binding energy for lithium as 43.71 compared to a measured value of 54.7. This should be a percentage error of

100%x(54.7-43.71)/43.71 = 25%

You claim that the error is in fact 4.02%.

What is happening, and why should we trust the rest of your calculations?
Thank you for pointing out a spreadsheet error that ended up on the web page. I will fix it. In the meantime, you can see the correct table as Table 2 in the PDF paper.
__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.
  #83 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2008, 12:39 AM
captain swoop's Avatar
captain swoop captain swoop is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 8,675
Default

Quote:
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics
For someone who claims he doesn't want to overthrow or replace the mainstream this is a bold statement you are using as a Sig.
__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice
  #84 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2008, 12:46 AM
colesakick's Avatar
colesakick colesakick is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1
Default This needs to get real

Come on guys, surely you can do better than this. I know that the anonymity of the Internet allows people to act out of character and not feel the least bit embarrassed about it but this is absurd behavior going on here.

Whether you like it or not, Volantis hasn't said anything wrong. Very different from expected around here but not wrong. No one is making a concerted effort to really absorb with this guy is saying.

Volantis called it dead-on when he predicted that you folks would simply wait for him to write something you know a thing or two about so you could show off your own personal prowess. What childishness!

Somebody, anybody, show some class and actually give the paper your full attention and ask a pointed question about it. Stop trouncing it out of hand and stop showing off.

BTW, Volantis never said he isn't well versed in SM or any of its cousins. He said he studied physics so well he discovered it had serious flaws that could be corrected which then led him to this very intriguing physical model. Which one of you can unravel the problems and devise a Unified Force Theory? Have some respect for just how sophisticated this guys level of understanding must be to pen a physical model with the predictive powers he’s laid claim to here.

If he really can, “from first principles” of his model predict the binding energies of electrons, just imagine the level of exotic materials we can produce by feeding this model into a computer and letting her rip.

I’m impressed and really hope one of you people here can help him dissect this further so I can get an idea of what else it might be good for (a gravity detector? Aren’t you just the least bit interested in how the devil he made one of those and how he can know that’s what the little gizmo is measuring?)
  #85 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2008, 01:07 AM
volantis's Avatar
volantis volantis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alma, IL
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
You claim that the error is in fact 4.02%. What is happening, and why should we trust the rest of your calculations?
The error is in fact 4.02% and the table has been corrected to reflect that fact. You will notice the percentages may still be off by .01%. This is due to the spreadsheet carrying the decimal to six places while the table only allowed space for two places.

The web pages were put up as live notes and announcements while I was developing the theory. It would not surprise me if my notes had other errors. However, when I write my papers I give them a lot more scrutiny before publishing them. A prominent mathematician suggested I write the Calculations of UFT and EBE papers. I presented them for his proofing before releasing them.

Again, thanks for pointing out the spreadsheet error on the web page.
__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.
  #86 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2008, 01:16 AM
volantis's Avatar
volantis volantis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alma, IL
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by colesakick View Post
BTW, Volantis never said he isn't well versed in SM or any of its cousins. He said he studied physics so well he discovered it had serious flaws that could be corrected which then led him to this very intriguing physical model.
Thanks for your strong words of support. Although there is nothing inherently biased in what you said, it is only fair to let people know you have devoted your time and resources to promoting the APM and that we have worked together for the past couple years.

Quote:
(a gravity detector? Aren’t you just the least bit interested in how the devil he made one of those and how he can know that’s what the little gizmo is measuring?)
A gravity detector could be an apple falling from a tree. I know you meant "gravitational wave detector," but others might not.
__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.
  #87 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2008, 05:05 AM
Celestial Mechanic's Avatar
Celestial Mechanic Celestial Mechanic is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 4,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
Snip!
That is the key right there, isn't it? Just ignore the white paper, ignore my post, but find an irrelevant point to attack and derail the conversation.
I have not "ignored" the white paper, I've downloaded it (after much trouble, I might add) and have given it some study. I do consider your confusion over the relative importance of the Compton wavelength to be worthy of discussion; it is not intended to "derail" the conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post
Only in the Standard Model is Planck's constant a stupid conversion constant between mass and length.
Well, you may think it's "stupid", but frankly I find your discussion of dimensions/units to be quite clumsy and lacking in understanding of the issues involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post
In the Aether Physics Model, Planck's constant is defined as the quantification of the electron. In the Standard Model, there is no quantification of quantum structure.
Word salad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post
The Aether Physics Model is a theory of quantum structure, not some meaningless and obscure theory about converting mass into length, mass into energy, or a number of other imaginary concepts. The Aether Physics Model is discrete and applies to the real world. Your fairy tales have no place in my work.
The above shows your misunderstanding of rationalized units if you think that the conversion of units of measurements is some actual, physical converstion of one thing into something else. Time remains time even if we measure it in meters or inverse kilograms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post
If you want me to respond to your further posts, then you will need to first respond to my theory and not waste our time proselytizing your irrelevant knowledge of the Standard Model. I am not presenting the Standard Model. I am presenting the Aether Physics Model, which is a very different paradigm, yet which is based upon the same empirical constants and data as the Standard Model. Learn to think! Stop preaching!
Don't worry, I'm having some of my friends over for coffee and there will be a series of dialogues analyzing your "white paper". We haven't seen such a putrid mass of gross misunderstanding and word salad in a long, long time.

Edited to add: Just so you know what I'm talking about, here is the beginning of a recent expository thread, From Kepler to Newton. For an example of my deconstruction of Zanket's "Fix" to general relativity, see here. Just so you know.
__________________
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.

Last edited by Celestial Mechanic; 15-June-2008 at 06:08 AM..
  #88 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2008, 06:01 AM
Tensor Tensor is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sarasota Fl
Posts: 3,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic View Post
Don't worry, I'm having some of my friends over for coffee and there will be a series of dialogues analyzing your "white paper". We haven't seen such a putrid mass of gross misunderstanding and word salad in a long, long time.
Sounds like it's gonna be a long session, I'll get the donuts again.
__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth
  #89 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2008, 11:02 AM
Fortis Fortis is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis View Post
The error is in fact 4.02% and the table has been corrected to reflect that fact.
So was the error in the original page in your value for the theoretical value or in the measured value (as if they were both correct then you could not have obtained 4.02%)?
  #90 (permalink)  
Old 15-June-2008, 11:15 AM
papageno's Avatar
papageno papageno is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greater London
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via MSN to papageno
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
For the same reason we keep using Classical Mechanics. We know where they work and their limitations.
Exactly. Now you are catching on. It is not necessary to throw out every other theory just because a new theory comes along. It is possible to use them all within their limitations.
Since one of your papers has the title "New Foundations of Physics", it looks like you are indeed considering to replace current theories...




Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
Because QED is a relativistic QM.
Nonsense, if QED was a relativistic QM to any reasonable extent, QM and Relativity would not be predicting opposite outcomes.
So, you don't even know that SR and QM were merged into QED?
Dirac developed developed the first relativistic quantum theory for the electron, which predicted the existence of the positron. Since then physics has gone much further.




Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
SR and QM do not cover the same range. That's why QED was developed.
Remember that.
Remember what? That you don't even understand the nature of the QED theory?




Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
The Standard Model has unified three out of the four known fundamental interactions.
As far as unification theories go, the Standard Model has therefore failed to unify all the fundamental forces.
Translation: "The mainstream is not perfect, therefore my pet theory rules!!!"




Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
You mean, apart from QM and QED?
...
Exactly: no comment from you on the fact that QM and QED do indeed predict electron binding energy, refuting your claim: "My theory predicts all the electron ground state binding energies from first principles with a single formula, no theory in the Standard Model does this.".
Why can't you admit your mistakes?



Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
Strawman: nobody said that the current theories are perfect.
Exactly. And I didn't say my theory replaced current theories, either.
Evading the point. You said: "How can you say the Standard Model is a perfect physics that answers every question in the Universe ...?"
I called you on your putting words into other people's mouth.



Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
See, facetiousness can teach people things. Just apply the same rules to me that you apply to you and the others on this forum and we will start making progress. Don't put words in my mouth and I won't put them in yours.
You already did put words into other people's mouth.




Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
Quote:
Originally Posted by papageno
I don't remember you admitting your error about the s-orbitals...
That is because I didn't make any errors concerning the s orbitals. As a matter of fact, I correctly predicted the binding energies of ALL the 1s orbitals as outlined in my paper, which is the only claim regarding s orbitals that I have made on this forum.
Really?
Let's see: "Also, electrons in the 1s orbital position cover the entire surface of the atom. Since the electron cannot be inside the nucleus of the atom, the electron cannot inhabit a solid sphere." together with "The description I gave for the distribution of the electron was based upon the Standard Model, not the Aether Physics Model."
So, you attributed an incorrect statement to the standard model, and I called you on it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
The strawman lies with you, which is verifiable if you go back and read our posts.
As you can see above, I did.
It turns out that you made a claim about s-orbitals in the standard model which is incorrect, as anybody can see from the function describing the s-orbitals in QM.



Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
BTW, did you check the math in my EBE paper to see if it is right or not?
Have you checked a book on QM to see if your claim about s-orbitals is right?
__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gravity tommac Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers 60 10-May-2008 03:06 AM
Discussion: New Estimate For The Mass Of ... Fraser Universe Today Story Comments 12 03-May-2008 05:36 AM
Strange emails from NASA Fraser Off-Topic Babbling 22 25-July-2007 03:45 PM
A Canadian take on 9/11/Strange Lie? Sticks Conspiracy Theories 883 16-January-2007 03:26 PM
Selbrede on Dog Ed/Stahl re Sagnac/Geocentricity Mifletz Against the Mainstream 12 31-October-2001 07:27 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today