Originally Posted by Kristophe

I wasn't sure whether this should go here, or in ATM, but since I'm asking about it, I thought I'd start here.

Originally Posted by antoniseb

Until we have someone on board who wants to defend Aether Physics, we can simply address it here in a mainstream context. If I understand correctly, Aether Physics doesn't really predict anything different at current observable energies... but I am no expert.

Originally Posted by antoniseb

Until we have someone on board who wants to defend Aether Physics, we can simply address it here in a mainstream context.

Originally Posted by volantis

It is true that mainstream publications will not allow an Aether theory to be published. This is not a fault of the Aether Physics Model, but of prejudice and bigotry in mainstream science.

Originally Posted by tusenfem

It seems like APM is already playing the underdog card, before seriously trying.

Originally Posted by volantis

I'm the author of the theory. I will gladly answer relevant questions as I have the time available.


The Aether Physics Model makes many predictions starting out with the nature of charge. According to the APM, all charge should always be notated with distributed charge (charge squared), not single dimension charge. Also, there are two distinctly different and quantifiable types of charges, the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic (strong) charge.

The Standard Model states that the electron does not experience the strong force. The Aether Physics Model predicts it does, and in fact, there is already evidence to prove it. The Casimir force equation transposes to the strong force law for the electron. If you would like a quick tutorial of the Aether Physics Model, you can read A New Foundation for Physics. This paper was presented to the PIRT 2006 conference held at Imperial College in London.

It is true that mainstream publications will not allow an Aether theory to be published. This is not a fault of the Aether Physics Model, but of prejudice and bigotry in mainstream science. The theory stands on its own. It is fully and properly quantified. The theory is induced from empirical constants and measured data. There are no presumed postulates.

The Aether Physics Model properly unifies all the forces, something Einstein could not do. As pointed out by others, the APM predicts the ground state electron binding energies of all elements from first principles (modern physics cannot do this). Now we have built a magnetic scalar wave detector, which detects gravitational waves. This is another area of science modern physics fails at. Gravitational waves can only be detected if you are looking at the medium (Aether) in which they travel. The interferometer experiments are doomed to fail because they assume that the fabric of space-time (Aether) does not ripple when the gravitational wave ripples the laser light beam. But, in fact, the Aether does ripple and therefore the deflection of the light beam is cancelled. It is like a stick figure on a sheet of paper trying to determine when the paper is being folded or curled.

Have at it. I'm always looking for the flaws in my work. Maybe you can help me find them.

Dave

Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz

Yeah, sure...

Using the word Aether might not have been the smart thing to do then.
Nowadays it just pushes the must-be-woo button with most physicists.

And for good reason.

Originally Posted by John Mendenhall

That's a strong position. Are you willing to defend your theory on ATM?

Be forewarned, there are a lot of good mainstream people on this forum. You might be wise, if you're willing to go to ATM, to introduce just a small piece at a time of your theory, to avoid being overwhelmed.

Originally Posted by volantis

If anybody is ready to talk science, I'm ready to engage. As I said, I'm always looking for the flaws in my research. One thing I don't have time for, though, are people who make no effort at all to examine the theory and just proselytize what they were taught in school or read in books.

Either the data and equations I used are flawed, or they are not. The theory I present is directly infered from the physics. Perhaps I infered the wrong thing, if so, let's discuss it.

In the meantime, I'm building up an arsenal of working experiments and unique physics formulas that adequately describe and measure the Universe.

Dave

Originally Posted by trinitree88

volantis. Section 8. The neutron is not a combination of a proton and an electron. Early experiments in the history of beta decay definitively showed that cloud chamber photographs failed to conserve linear momentum in the decay of free neutrons, and in beta decays in general. The neutrino and antineutrino were successfully postulated (Pauli) to explain the missing momentum, and were subsequently verified experimentally ~ 25 years later. Cowan, Rheines).

Originally Posted by volantis

I presume you mean section 11? The Neutron is quantified as a bound electron and proton with captured angular momentum, which is the anti-neutrino. Beta decay clearly shows a neutron decays to a proton and electron and releases a certain quantity of non-visible angular momentum. This non-visible angular momentum has been measured in the Kamiokande experiment in Japan. Reread section 11. It says exactly what you say. We are in agreement but you somehow think we are not.



The parity of matter and antimatter, in both its spin and time reversal modes, is included in the Aether Physics Model. The concept of quantum frequency applies to the frequency of forward-backward time and the frequency of right-left spin. The electrostatic charge dipoles of the Aether are a third frequency dimension, however, this third frequency dimension is static, rather than dynamic. The three frequency dimensions produce eight possible spin positions. Half of these spin positions occur in the backward time direction, which we never see. Of the remaining four forward time spin positions, two are left-spin and two are right-spin. Of the two left-spin spin positions, one is on the positive electrostatic half of the dipole and the other is on the negative electrostatic half of the dipole. The same for the right-spin spin positions. The Aether is constantly oscillating between forward and backward time and right and left spin.

As such, the Aether has three dimensions of length, two dimensions of frequency, and an electrostatic dipole meaning that the Aether has a five-dimensional spatial-temporal structure as opposed to the four-dimensional spatial-temporal structure the physical Universe experiences.

When the five dimensional Aether unit absorbs a quantity of primary angular momentum (dark matter), the primary angular momentum can only fill one of the four forward-time spin positions of the Aether.

The Aether is a flexible tubular construction. As long as the surface area of the Aether unit tubes remains constant, it can deform in to a range of shapes. Although the Aether would normally conserve parity, it is conceivable that under certain circumstances it could appear to violate that parity. Although, it is questionable as to whether the violation is real, or just an illusion caused by a deformed Aether unit. I have not investigated the experiment surrounding Lee and Yang's discoveries, so I cannot say for sure at this time how their observation ties in to the Aether Physics Model. All I can say for sure is that parity is definitely supported.

Each sphere of the Aether unit has one spin. There are two spin positions on each sphere, meaning that each spin position has half spin. Thus when a subatomic particle is formed (matter or antimatter), it can only fill one spin position and has half spin. It is the half-spin nature of the subatomic particle, which gives the physical Universe the illusion of forward time. Matter and antimatter only exist in the forward time component of the Aether oscillation.

Dave

Originally Posted by trinitree88

"In the Aether Physics Model, the neutron is a composite of a proton and electron" the quote marks are from section 8 as I said.

Originally Posted by astromark

So tell me Dave,...When did the passage of time become an illusion.?

Originally Posted by volantis

Then apparently you did not read to section 11, where you question was answered in detail. Please read section 11 and tell me if you can now understand how the neutron can be quantified as a bound electron and proton and be fully consistent with physical observations.

Originally Posted by John Mendenhall

...there are a lot of good mainstream people on this forum. You might be wise, if you're willing to go to ATM, to introduce just a small piece at a time of your theory, to avoid being overwhelmed.

Originally Posted by John Mendenhall

Section 11 of what?

Originally Posted by volantis

John, it isn't possible to introduce just a small piece of the APM at a time. Due to the change in charge notation from single dimension charge to distributed charge, the entire foundations of physics has to be reexamined. A new way of thinking has to be developed that incorporates distributed charge. This leads to a unification of the forces and the recognition that there are two types of charges, not just one. In case you haven't read the foundation paper, yet, that is exactly what the paper is about.

If you are still of the mind that the theory can be presented in small pieces, then it means you have not studied the theory.

Dave

Originally Posted by John Mendenhall

How about a link to the paper? Or a clue to where it is? Might want to check with a moderator first, you have to be careful about pushing your own site or products.

If you're a new member, read through the rules carefully. The folks in ATM are notoriously rough, be prepared to defend your ideas vigorously. Remember, a response is required, even if it is "I don't know." The important thing is a response.

Good luck, John M.

Originally Posted by tusenfem

John, I think you want this paper apparently known as "the white paper".