Disagreement is not derailing. But drawing conclusions about who is confused before having a discussion sets the tone for confrontation. Step back a bit and be willing to question your own beliefs, just as you expect me to question mine.

Thinking that my discussion of dimensions and units is clumsy is a fair position to enter the discussion with, but again, the assumption that you are right and anybody challenging you or the mainstream is wrong only sets the tone for needless stress. If you are truly certain you are right, you can wait with patience to make your clear and decisive argument. Checkmate doesn't come at the beginning of the game, you have to demonstrate your skill, first.

You are missing the point. Planck's constant is NOT a conversion constant except to someone who wants to convert mass to length, which is absurd. Planck's constant is an empirically induced constant related to the real world. It should be the goal of the physicist to identify the actual mechanism that produced Planck's constant, not invent word salad physics where mass is converted to length. Just because physicists went astray one hundred years ago due to a lack of understanding does not mean the present generation has to repeat their mistakes.

You just revealed your prejudiced and bigoted view. You are admitting that you have drawn your negative conclusion before properly analyzing the paper. Tell me, will you be wearing white sheets at this meeting? Are you planning to put a burning cross on my web site?

I suggest a different approach. Why not test the predictions of the theory and see if they work? If they do, try to find out why the Standard Model could not produce the same results. I think that would be more true to the scientific method.

__________________
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.

The error was in copying the information from the spreadsheet to the web page. Since it occurred over a year ago, I can't recall exactly how it happened. One column of numbers was apparently copied from the wrong column of the spreadsheet to the web page table. The 4.02% value was correctly copied, as is evident by looking at the table in the PDF paper.

It may have been that I found this error earlier and corrected it, but then when I had to reload a backup copy to the web a few weeks ago, I may have copied the uncorrected backup. The point is, you identified the error and I fixed it. It is also evident from the PDF paper that the math was calculated properly. If you setup your own spreadsheet, you can verify it for yourself.

__________________
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.

No point in having a discussion with you if the scope of your scientific knowledge is to judge a paper by its title. Keep this up and you'll end up on my ignore list just like swoop.

I'm here to discuss the Aether Physics Model, since that is what this thread was started for. I await an intelligent discussion from you.

__________________
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.

Agreed. I am interested to hear more from Volantis, but thus far he is being forced to defend against continual sniping. It's all rather pathetic and childish.

I admire Volantis for his patience, but there are many more productive arenas for intelligent conversation than here. I will investigate his work elsewhere...

Hi 37, thanks for your openmindedness. I wouldn't dare post a link to lists I post on, but you can do a search for my name and "Aether Physics Model" to find them.

Don't give up on these people too soon, though. Pete and Fortis seem to be giving the papers some real thought, as is Celestial. It is difficult for scientists to accept a new theory, and for good reason. I never expected a warm welcome, but as many other people have discovered, if you actually look into the theory you see that it really does work and has real value beyond other theories.

Since this forum requires people to finish their arguments, and these people are regulars, I expect to see some progress here soon.

Dave

__________________
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.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to acknowledge your errors about the Standard Model.

__________________
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)

There you go again insulting the people you are trying to convince. As if that is going to work. [/sarcasm]

(And neither will a I-was-banned-from-BAUT badge. Read the bloody rules.)

__________________
Join the Illuminati

Aether Physics Model -- Part One

A new and very stinky example of what Chris Hillman calls "Simple Physics" has just turned up at BAUTForum. Virginia and Jimmy K are back in Milwaukee for the summer, and my old friends from grad school days, BH and DB are here for coffee and physics. And Tensor was kind enough to send over some doughnuts! Hmmm, doughnuts ...

Celestial Mechanic: "Anyway, you've all read the PDFs I've sent you of 'A New Foundation for Physics' by David W. Thomson III and Jim D. Bourassa. What are your initial impressions?"

DB: "One of my thoughts was, 'how 1935!' They seem stuck in a time-warp to that year when the only particles known were the proton, neutron, electron (and their antiparticles) plus the photon. Pions and gluons are mentioned only once and very dismissively. Seventy years of particle physics is ignored as if it never really happened."

BH: "Something seems to be wrong with their use of the English language. With a name like 'Thomson' among the authors I expect reasonably good, formal, idiomatic English, but, there's just too many examples of unclear writing. We'll run into them soon enough."

Virginia: "I suspect it comes from an effort to sound formal and scientific, but they just couldn't pull it off."

CM: "It is unfortunate that a portion of our criticism will concern the writing style of this work, because it will seem nitpicky and vindictive to some. But a scientific paper has an obligation to communicate precisely what it is about in a language that is concise, uses the proper vocabulary for the subject, and accurately reflects the subject and its context within the wider realm of discourse. I agree, BH, we're going to see a lot of examples where the authors fail at this task."

Jimmy K.: "Well, that's OK, the authors and their supporters will just say that we're being close-minded and that we need to question our assumptions about the standard model."

DB: "As if the standard model of physics hasn't been questioned every step of the way!"

CM: "Indeed. Well, let's start questioning the Aether Physics Model the way the Standard Model has been questioned. First let's look at the abstract of the white paper."
BH: "Right there the use of the word 'quantify' bothers me. Do they mean by it to assign quantities and take measurements of them? Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do? Or are they referring to quantization? But go on to the next paragraph, it gets worse."
CM: "Well, it had better be 'mathematically correct', otherwise it's just a great big waste of time! Let's skip ahead to the next paragraph."
DB: "There's that misused word quantify again. But why do the authors distinguish between electromagnetic, electrostatic and magnetic? Didn't Maxwell unify electricity and magnetism a long time ago?"

CM: "Yes, Maxwell did. Unfortunately, magnetism has a kind of aura about it that invites mindless mysticism, as does energy. All you have to do is say 'energy' and some people will start going all mystical and begin blabbering about 'spiritual energy' and 'chakras'. You never see any new-agey types go ga-ga over momentum, do you?"

JK: "I don't see anything particularly new age or mystical in this paper."

CM: "Thankfully not, but the fact that they distinguish electrostatic from electromagnetism and wrap everything in a 'fabric' of 'quantum rotating magnetic fields' is a warning sign that the authors do not understand electromagnetism at all. They use it as some sort of catch-all explanation for everything, which it is not."

BH: "They speak of gravitational dipoles. I thought there weren't any!"

CM: "That's true. It comes from the fact that gravitation results from a field theory of a symmetric rank two tensor, and in such a theory radiation originates from quadrupole and higher moments."

DB: "So right there in just the abstract alone we have a series of howlers."

CM: "True. Let's get on to an analysis of the white paper's structure. Here are the top-level entries in the table of contents:"
CM: "The table of contents does not list the references at the end. Let's start with a look at the Summary:"
CM: "Many of these points will be challenged in these dialogues, but look at the next sentence:"
CM: "I'm sure the two of you can postulate, so why don't you? And 'composes from' is awkward and unidiomatic. Much better would have been:"
BH: "And that's just one sentence out of many."

CM: "Unfortunately that's true. We will not attempt to correct every such example."

JK: "That's a relief!"

CM: "There's more, but we will be deconstructing it when we get to the body of the work. I just want to draw your attention to this:"
CM: "This reminds me too much of the sort of people who suggest that 'understanding is more important than equations' and then go off on some philosophical/mystical/new age tangent. I will leave the question of what the Universe "is" to philosophers and other charlatans. I prefer to know how it works and whether we can turn it to our advantage to make our lives a little better.

CM: "The second section is entitled 'A Quick History of the Aether'. I don't wish to debate its accuracy, it's not really that important a section, just intended as background. But there is one unintentional laugh to be found in it:"
CM: "I'm not sure how Einstein could do this, I mean him being dead and all and his brain in a jar in Wichita, Kansas ..."

BH: "'Night of the Undead Einstein'!"

V: "That's horrible."

CM: "Not really. How about 'Night of the Undead Einstein -- On Ice'?"

DB: "You can always be counted upon to make a bad thing really horrid!"

CM: "I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

CM: "But I see that our cups need refilling, so let's take care of that."

To be continued ...

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

----------------------------------------------

Well, the posts above are just what this thread needed. Not! Zero scientific analysis, but no lack of grammatical dissection and more petty sniping.

Granted, there is one allusion to science -- the 1935 snipe -- but that is predictable at best. Yes, the aether was popular back then, but I'm happy to take a step back in the short term if necessary, especially if it will help us progress past the current crisis in cosmology.

I really appreciate you and your friends taking the time to read through the paper, regardless of your comments.

I don't hear anybody complaining about 2500 years of Aether theory being ignored by 20th Century physics. Four hundred years of this time was devoted to quantifying the Aether using modern scientific methods.

The only thing wrong with it is that you don't like it. It is a correct use of vocabulary and grammar, even if it is not the style you would write.

We didn't seek to put out flowery or savvy language. All we sought was to quantify the Aether and arrange the known physical constants in a better and more useful paradigm. If you want, you can write about the same concepts using your own writing style.

Yes, exactly. I'm not going to respond to any more criticisms about the grammar. I will respond to criticisms with regard to the vocabulary and physics, though.

"We quantify the existence of Aether..." because mainstream science fails to do so. If you have already read the paper, then you know we quantify the Aether unit as a quantum rotating magnetic field with a specific value. The Aether unit is exactly that, a dimensional unit with a quantity.

I chose the phrase "mathematically correct" as it was used in SOTA. Mainstream science is not always mathematically correct. For example, the equivalence of mass and energy is explained by making c=1, but only on one side of the equation.

E=mc^2

if c=1, then

E=m

However, if c is made one on one side of the equation, it must be made one on the other side, too. Since by definition E is equal to mc^2, then:

mc^2 = mc^2

if c=1, then

m = m

The equivalence principle explanation is mathematically incorrect.

We distinguished between electrostatic and electromagnetic because of the two distinctly different types of charge we quantify later in the paper. The APM is a new paradigm based upon distributed charge and two types of charges. Maxwell's work was presented in a paradigm based upon mixed charge dimensions and only recognizes elementary charge.

Actually, your statement is a warning sign that you are prejudiced and refuse (or are incapable of) understanding of a new concept. All of these concepts are explained in the paper. Make an effort to understand them before judging them. You would not judge QM based upon Relativity theory, so don't judge the APM based upon other theories.

Modern theory says there are no gravitational dipoles, the APM says there are. Fermi labs and CERN are presently working on an experiment to see if antimatter is gravitationally repulsive to normal matter, or not. Make your prediction, but save your judgment until the experiment has been performed. It will be a significant blow to the APM if antimatter is gravitationally attracted to normal matter. Likewise, it will be a signficant blow to GR if they repel each other.

This paper is strong on equations, which are based upon well-known constants and data. And as a matter of fact, I did not allow anything into the theory that was purely philosophical and did not have an empirical basis.

You and your friend's ignorance about the history of physics is showing. Check the references given in the paper. I did not make that situation up, Shankland clearly stated it in his paper, which was published in Science.

I look forward to your continued comments.

__________________
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.

You missed the point of my reference to 1935. Aether was not popular back then, it had pretty much been buried and forgotten and even Einstein's half-hearted attempt at resurrecting an aether that he could live with could not bring it back. The point about 1935 is that only a few particles were known then. The discoveries of the muon, pion, Lambda, Sigma, Delta resonance, Cascade (Xi), kappa and so forth were still more than a decade away and they would ultimately blow the lid off of any "theory of everything" (such as Eddington's Fundamental Theory) that only allowed for and explained the electron, proton, neutron and photon.

Needless to say, APM does not explain (or attempt to explain) pions, Lambda hyperons, etc. and is thus not only far from complete, it is inadequate as a "new foundation for physics."

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

The APM does explain pions, and it is right in front of you. You just aren't sophisticated enough, yet, to understand it. I'll give you a clue, "Strong Force Law."

Also, since no other paper has ever been written that explains everything in the Universe, I don't see how you can now place that burden upon me. The Foundation paper explains what the Foundation paper explains. This paper is meant exactly as the title suggests, it is a foundation for a new physics. It is not the complete Encyclopedia Aether with all the solutions to all the questions anybody could ever ask.

The Aether was scientific fact in 1900. Joseph Larmor, who held the Lucasian Professorship at that time, wrote an exhaustive book about the Aether. I don't hear you saying about Einstein's papers, "Because his paper didn't quantify the Aether it is inadequate." Einstein presented a new paradigm. I am presenting a new paradigm (two types of distributed charges) based upon the well-established concept of Aether.

Just stick to the physics of the paper as it is presented, and not as you would like to see it. So far, you have made a big deal out of reading the abstract and introduction of the Foundation paper. Until you start getting to the physics, you haven't said anything worthy at all.

__________________
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.

This seems common among ATM proponents, almost as if all these 'new' particals aren't real and have been invented to make 'modern' theories work.

__________________
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 ►

I want to develop on this further. When we say we are quantifying what the Universe is, we are referring to its structure, as opposed to its mechanics.

You somehow think that the structure of things is a topic for charlatans. I disagree. In order to understand what the Universe is doing, it is very helpful to understand the structure that is doing it.

Therefore, the Aether Physics Model provides a structure for not only subatomic particles, but also for the environment, and even the forces that work in that environment. Quantum Mechanics is extremely crippled in this respect. Although QM can calculate what something is doing, the science is incapable of telling us anything about what it is that is doing it.

For example, scientists speak of subatomic particles as being probability functions and having wave-particle duality (along with photons). Talk about word salad, metaphysical philosophy and charlatanism all in one package! We are supposed to accept on faith that there is something doing the action, but QM is not capable of telling us what it is that is doing it.

The APM provides a solution for the structures that do things. The APM quantifies the structures of the subatomic particles, the structure of the environment the subatomic particles exist in, and the structures of the forces acting between subatomic particles through the environment.

__________________
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.

So does APM provide a "hidden variables" description of the statistical properties of QM? If so, how does it square with Bell's inequality?

What a nonsence.
The book was written in order to make some money.
DT&JB presented their book probably in the entry hall before the PIRT 2006, not at the conference and certanly not after (someone might claim money back).
I bet that the 'picture above' was not taken at that conference.
Neither the first sentence is true (logicaly false) neither there is logical connection to the second. Hence: nonsence
Untrue (read : lie) Einsten never expressed that the aether is a source of curved geometry.
Curved Geometry? Curved geometry of what? Aether?
What a heck is that? Units?

So, what is mass of an neutrino based upon these measuarments?
Clicking on the link detecs scalar waves we can read:
Nonsence. What is similar between claim that the seizmometer is well known and
incorrect definition of acoustics? Does acoustics really, I mean really, deals with the mechanical waves only in molecules? Who or what deals with sound in atomic H etc..?
So, the longitudal waves are measured in meters while transverse are measured in squaremeters? Or in (a,b) pairs?
Nonsence. Never heard that someone is able to measure waves.
Maybe amplitude, frequency, phase, but waves themselves?
As from the sudden claim without proof, that the longitudal waves are scalar waves, which group is larger, what is relation between to sets? Please (yeah , right) provide the reference with definitions, theorem and proof)
Let's say that they are scalar waves meaning they can be measured by 3^0 properties, which is length as postulated by the author(s). So, the longitudal (or scalar waves) can be expressed like i.e. 300 m ?
What does it mean? What do the authors mean it means?
Which well known wave detector measures the waves that way?
I would say: nonsence.
What about transversal waves? They are not scalars as stated, nor vectors, since you don't measure them by 3^1 properties, and certainly not tensors. More nonsence.
Nonsence according to previous statements. It creates electromagnetic wave.
It's transversal and both of its components are transversal waves.
Nonsence in any case.
Well, we call it electromagnetic waves.
What is the meaning of saying: 'Even modern technology' ? You see what I mean, don't you?

I will gladly entertain anybody's questions about how the APM might interface with any other theory, however, I ask the courtesy of you first learning the simple foundation of the APM, first.

I know there is a lot of new ideas and information in the white paper. I doubt the entire foundation of QM could be written starting with definitions of terms and explanations of math and geometrical theory in 25 pages or less. I know the paper causes the brain to go numb on the first few readings.

However, just like it was possible to eventually learn the foundations for understanding QM, it is also possible to understand the foundations for understanding the APM. Please, let's stick to getting a common foundation in the very simple APM before exploring its relationship to other physics theories.

If you don't do this, you will be stuck in judging the APM based upon SM concepts, many of which are changed by necessity in the APM. New paradigms are difficult to learn, but most particularly for people who already have a paradigm that they think applies to the same situation.

I will not shirk my responsibility to show the various commonalities and differences with other physics concepts. I promise. If I don't know an answer, I will tell you. But first, it is essential to fully understand the APM and what it presents. You have undoubtedly discovered by now that the math is all legitimate. Now it is a matter of understanding what the math is revealing to us (dimensional analysis). Then we can apply this revealed knowledge to understanding why this theory seems to work and why it seems to disagree with certain aspects of other theories. If you study the APM, you will find that it is in agreement far more than it first appears. And if you learn the APM, you will see that where it doesn't exactly agree, it is because of a different perspective that you didn't realize existed.

Is this an unreasonable proposition? Can you first focus on the topic of this thread and apply yourself to learning something new? Believe me, I really do want to have a discussion about why the HUP works mathematically, but does not describe quantum structure. It has to do with understanding the five-dimensional paradigm of the Aether Physics Model and how our four-dimensional perspective causes a distortion in observing the Aether. The theory is all very logical and understandable, but you first need to understand the structures of Aether, subatomic particles, and the forces.

__________________
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.

I have a master's degree in physics. Try me. Does your theory account for the three charge states of the pion? Does your theory predict the masses of these particles any better than the standard model does? Lifetimes? Decay modes and branching ratios? Please, no references to your book.
But we do expect a lot from a paper that purports to be a "foundation" for physics.
It is what is is when it was what it was.
Well, whoop-tee-doo! And phlogiston was "scientific fact" in 1750. What's your point?
Einstein pretty much rendered luminiferous aether superfluous. The various "aethers" attributed to him later serve as a vehicle for metric fields, not electromagnetic fields.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice. Learn physics as it has been found to be in countless experiments, and not as you would like to see it.
One thing at a time. Your white paper is so full of error it will take a bit of time to discuss it all. Fortunately my friends and I have lots of coffee, not to mention the doughnuts so kindly provided by Tensor!

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

You are a squabbling idiot. Check your facts before making accusations about people.

__________________
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.

If indeed you were referring to structure, why did you use the word "is" instead of the word "structure"? Write what you mean and maybe we'll understand what you mean!
As if APM with its "fabric of quantum rotating magnetic fields with electromagnetic, electrostatic, and gravitational dipole structures" tells us anything.
You demonstrate your misunderstanding of QM. You do not have to accept QM on faith; thousands of observations and experiments show that it works. You really need to learn physics as it is, not as you want it to be.

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

You have a master's degree in the Standard Model. The Standard Model is a different paradigm from the Aether Physics Model. The two share similarities, but there are fundamental differences. You may be an expert in the SM, but I'm the expert in the APM. This thread is not about the SM, it is about the APM. Please, try to expand your knowledge, rather that defend yourself against new knowledge.

You expect it to be identical in nature to what you already know. But if it was, it wouldn't be a "new foundation," would it?

Empty words until backed up with substance. I look forward to your continued analysis.

__________________
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.

I agree that I should have clarified that the APM describes structure better than I did. But since this paper has already been published, I can't go back and rewrite it. But I did make this distinction clear on the web site and it is clear in the book.

It tells us a lot. The problem is with the preconceived belief that Aether does not exist. If you believe something is wrong before you investigate it (prejudge), then you will not understand what it was you have denied. BTW, I'm not the first person to suggest the Aether is composed of dipoles. This was understood by scientists far greater than you or I. There are still many theories, today, which describe the Aether (vacuum, quantum foam, p-holes, whatever) in terms of dipoles.

You demonstrate your own weakness when you constantly ignore the fact that I have never claimed to present an understanding of QM. The APM is independent of QM. This thread is not about QM. It is YOU who constantly try to compare the APM to QM. It is YOU who cannot stay on topic and discuss the APM as it is presented. It is only because of your very narrow focus that you can only see what I'm presenting in terms of QM. If the APM depended upon QM, I would address it. However, the APM does not depend upon QM. Mechanics is about what things do. Structure is about what things are. I'm describing quantum structure, not quantum mechanics.

Hopefully, once you understand the structure I'm describing, you'll be better able to understand why the mechanics are the way they are, or appear to be.

I do not question that QM works. My statement was, "QM is not capable of telling us what it is that is doing it." There is not one observation in all of physics that can tell us what the structure of an electron is, or what the structure of the environment is. QM works from the premise that quantum structure cannot be known. And QM is right insofar as it only looks at quantum matter and environment from a four-dimensional, half-spin perspective. However, by learning the proper five-dimensional structure of the Aether, we can learn to see how the nature of primary angular momentum causes four-dimensional, half-spin matter.

There is a lot more to this theory than you are capable of understanding without it. You think I'm some simpleton who hasn't got a clue (and mysteriously developed a mathematical theory that works but makes no sense). However, I'm so far ahead of you in understanding the nature of reality that I look upon you as but a poor, ignorant child who has yet to enter kindergarten. You keep throwing your temper tantrums and I have to constantly apply patience and guidance to get you through your ignorance.

Put a stopper in your squabbling ways. Just read the paper and work your way through it.

Excellent advice! Live by 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.

And I suspect that you will not be the last, either.
All of which are quantum mechanical descriptions, I might add.
How can APM be independent of QM if it is, as you and your co-author say, it is the "foundation of a new physics"?
Your paper purports to be a "new foundation for physics". As such it must include QM, but every time QM is mentioned you recoil in horror and tell us how QM does not tell us anything yet APM does. Many of the things described in your paper are about particles subject to the laws of quantum mechanics. How does APM explain the successes of quantum mechanics?
No, structure is about what things are made of and how they are put together. That is what I understand structure to mean. An unqualified "is" is just mere philosophy.
An artificial distinction that no one else makes.
But APM can't either. Just what is this "fabric" you keep speaking of?
Wrong. Observations show the electron to be point-like down to (if memory serves me correctly) about 10^-18m. Below that scale it polarizes the vacuum. All of this has been observed in scattering experiments carried out at accelerators. You and Jim really ought to do a bit more reading. Look up "structure functions" and electrons.
Again, QM does a nice job of explaining the structure of the hydrogen atom. How does APM handle hyperfine structure? (This question has been asked by papageno several times.) How about the Lamb-Retherford shift?
Not a simpleton, but naive nonetheless. You really do need to study some of the physics that you are attempting to replace.
Try not to get a swollen head.
This attitude will do you no good. Get thee to a library! (And thy friend Jim as well.)

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

There is nothing in your reply that I haven't addressed earlier or that has not been addressed in the paper. I await your further analysis of the physics I presented in the 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.

Let's see facts, indeed.
You charge 61.95$ for your book.

So are we informed on your web site, remember?
I still bet. Time to earn some money.

What facts are you talking about?

What about other things I marked as nonsence? Any comments?
And finally, do you think that there is slightly chance that you might have been actually ... wrong?

play nice

__________________
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 ►

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

As the proponent of the OP of this thread (theres a mouthful!) is away for a weekshould it be locked so he doesn't lose a chunk of his 28 days?

__________________
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 ►

My understanding is that locking/unlocking has no effect on the "turkey timer".

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom