Another thing. Why should your 'theory' be given any more consideration than any of the several others that are being put forward in the ATM forum at the moment? Their proponents all claim that theirs is the 'right one'

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

Ithink this quote taken from a post on the Aether Physics Model thread applies to this one as well.

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

And at his website, Mash says, among other things:

Did anyone else notice the irony here? Mash is complaining that ATMers are critiquing his theory without having bought and studied his self-published books, yet here and at his website he misrepresents one of the best established theories in science, our current gold standard theory of gravitation, general relativity, and decries another very well established theory, the standard Hot Big Bang theory (which is based in part upon gtr)--- which are both highly mathematical topics--- while admitting that his own speculations fail to employ mathematical reasoning. Indeed, it seems clear to me that Mash simply doesn't understand gtr or modern cosmology sufficiently well to be in a position to critique them, or ideas based upon them.

General relativity has been shown to be "compatible" with a "flowing aether model"? How odd--- that presumably important "fact" [sic] doesn't seem to be mentioned in such standard textbooks as MTW, Schutz, Stephani, Carroll, Weinberg, or in standard monographs such as Hawking & Ellis.

At a guess, Mash saw and misunderstood the last line of this abstract
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604088
but for reasons too numerous to go into here, one really can't understand papers like this without having first mastered standard gtr. BTW, someone at BAUT recently alluded in this or another thread to the fact that Ted Jacobson is one of the handful of researchers who have said something highly original and useful concerning the nature of the Einstein field equation itself, which is one quick and effective way to explain why his papers are taken much more seriously by habitual skeptics like myself than amateur speculations founded upon ignorance of past landmark achievements in theoretical physics!

But even supposing for the sake of argument that it were true that "flowing aether models" have been shown to be "compatible" with general relativity, read this sentence again:

As far as I can tell, Mash's "reasoning" here runs like this:

1. FET is a model of type T,

2. another model of type T, it has been claimed, is "compatible" with gtr,

3. therefore [sic] FET reproduces all the many successes of gtr.

This kind of "reasoning" makes one want to weep

"Clocks run at different rates in the presence of gravity"? That's not what gtr says, although someone who has only read popular books could easily get an incorrect impression. In fact, gtr of course posits that "ideal clocks" -by definition- run at the same rate regardless of how violently they are accelerated, what physical fields are present in their neighborhood, and so on. Mash is probably thinking of something like so-called "gravitational time dilation", but that is really an effect arising from the divergence of more or less radially outgoing null geodesics in the vacuum region surrounding a model of an isolated gravitating body.

Mash's claims appear to fit into a recognizable genre I call "simple physics". Authors writing in this genre (including several who have posted in ATM) share the conviction that mathematicians and physicists have spent the past few hundred years making physics appear "much more complicated than is really required" [sic]. Sometimes they decry what they view as an institutionalized "walled garden", darkly hinting that mathematicians feathering their own nest take care to keep "innumerates" from contributing to science.

(In fact, almost every professor of mathematics spends much of his/her time trying to -open- doors, e.g. by struggling to teach calculus to new generations of baffled undergraduates. No, math is not easy for everyone, but that's not -our- fault, and we do all we can to help as many as possible understand as much as possible as well as possible.)

Oddly enough, the kind of extended visionary description of "how physics really works", a kind of detailed visual fantasy--- physics as Hollywood special effects rather than mathematical reasoning, if you will--- in which Mash and other such authors indulge over hundreds of pages, harks back to pre-Newtonian notions of physics; see for example Descartes' nonmathematical description of "vortices". Voltaire was one of the first popular physics writers to stress the virtues of Newton's mathematical reasoning over such nonmathematical intuition, and the development of physics since Newton's time has only further proven, to my mind, the essential role played by mathematical reasoning in working toward deeper understanding of fundamental physical principles.

Or as someone else put it, making sweeping claims about physical principles without presenting valid mathematical reasoning to back up your arguments, amounts to merely writing a "Just So story" (without appending the customary moral.)

I have commented earlier today in another thread that ATMers seem to prefer prose and analogy over maths.

Also Jim Mash claims not to have maths at degree level but then claims to have studied at Graduate and Post Grad level at University and worked as a 'Research Physical Chemist' at a UK Govt Lab. I would have thought he would have picked up some Math.

Also I have a problem with this claim Rubbish. string is composed of fibres that are twisted together and are held in place by simple friction between themselves and the fibres around them. There is nothing 'atomic' about it.

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

Is your mind open enough to consider the possibility that you are wrong?




I rather have direct answers to direct questions.




What about "electromagnetic field" is not clear?



So far, no magnetic monopole has been observed.
As far as we can tell, magnetism is the result of either electric charges in motion, or the intrinsic magnetic moment of quantum particles (which is associated with a non-zero intrinsic angular momentum, the spin).

Electric current is per definition a flux of charge.




*cough* Maxwell equations *cough*




*cough* Cathode ray tubes and electron microscopes *cough*




Strawman: my question about insulators was not in the context of electric conduction, but of thermal conductivity.

Also, why are you ignoring my point about free electrons?




Word salad and handwaving are not explanations.



Meter-long extensions of electrons?
I guess you also failed to notice that electron have been used in single-particle interference experiments since, at least, the 70s....



So, are the electrons flying in the vacuum of the CRT and electron microscopes or not?




Electrons are smaller than that...



But in insulators electrons are not free to move, that's why they are electric insulators.



So, if its all photons, why does radiated heat behave differently form heat conducted through an insulator?




I am a trained physicist, and therefore I am well qualified to assess how much you know and understand of physics. And based on your posts here, that is very little.




It might help if you gave direct answers to my questions, instead of writing long word salad that misses half of my points.




Why would I want to read your books if you cannot even address properly my questions?

Let's see what you get wrong:

1. Free electrons as used in CRTs and electron microscopes, the possibility to measure their positions, and the fact that the Coulomb force between two electrons does not depende on some alignment parameter.

2. The difference in mass and size between protons and electrons (try searching for "mass spectrometry").

3. The confusion of the force between to current-carrying wires and the electrostatic force between two charged particles.

4. The fact that nuclear forces are not responsible for the bonding in atoms and molecules.

5. Confusion of Casimir effect, field of a monopole and field of a dipole.

6. Your ignorance of quantization, especially experimental results.

7. No explanation of the discrete lines in the spectra of atoms and molecules.

8. The existence of stable alpha particles (He nuclei).

9. Your apparent ignorance of Maxwell equations, which are the basis of Electromagnetic Theory.


This is a lot of things you are confused about or don't know, for somebody claiming to "have studied at graduate and postgraduate level at university and have spent many years looking at every aspect of physics, chemistry, cosmology and astronomy".

__________________
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)

Having worked in a prestigious scientific laboratory all of my life I have come to the conclusion that just like photons they come with a wide range of abilities.

At the bottom end are those that have become qualified by having good memories and learnt parrot fashion what has been put in front of them but not necessarily understood. These people do surprisingly well because they are often given glowing references by their colleagues just to get rid of them. I have come across many such instances where these people have risen fast to become administrators of science projects.

In the middle where most people fall are those who have grasped their subjects but have only made progress by applying the theories of those before them to their particular situations.

Then at the top we have the really brilliant people who have come up with new ideas. Some of these ideas have been proved correct such as the helical structure of DNA. Others though have explained an observation with a brilliant theory and associated mathematics that has not proved correct.

Take for example the situation when it was believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe and all heavenly bodies moved around it in circular orbits. The motions of the planets presented a problem because they occasionally appeared to move backward at times. But then brilliant thinkers and mathematicians came up with the theory of circles within circles that could explain these backward motions and they even managed to build machines that mimicked their motions.

But then this complicated theory was replaced by a much simpler solution where the planets moved around the sun in elliptical orbits. But was it greeted immediately with enthusiasm? No, because this idea clashed with the beliefs held by those with the power and they would not be swayed. The conclusion of this is that any observation can be mathematically explained even if the observation is totally misunderstood.

Would you put yourselves in the middle or the top range of abilities? Do you simply slog away at some project and simply apply the theories of others or can you claim to have come up with at least one original idea. If so please let me know what it is.

I do not expect my theory to be given any more consideration than any other. I always make time to read as much as possible about any new theory I come across. So far I have not found a single theory which can give an explanation equally as good as current theories for more than one or two observations.

FET is different in that it can provide an explanation (maybe not always correct) for every single observation that I have come across and what is more I have not had to change the principles first assumed by even the slightest. Every time I made a calculation based upon the FET approach eg. the size of a nuclear particle, the speed of a photon, the strength of the gravitational force, the acceleration due to gravity, the strength of the electromagnetic force, the red shift of starlight, the change in the rate of a clock ticking with speed or gravitational field, the intensity of the CMBR etc., every one gave the right answer first time with just a few minutes calculation.

Things such as dark matter and dark energy are shown by FET to be the result of failing to understand the significance of the centripetal force.

I know it is going to be hard to convince people that it is the theories they are using that are wrong and that FET is correct because it might imply that they are not clever enough to have discovered it themselves. However, this will only apply to those that have been given the opportunity to discover the truth but have made the conscious decision to reject it before giving it a fair chance.

I am getting increasing numbers of young graduates that are dissatisfied with current theories and are being enthused by FET. It will not be long before some of these could be presenting papers based upon the FET explanation of things.

Hillman says that theories such as gravitation, general relativity and the bb are the current gold standards. But how about inflation? The closer it is examined the more it is obvious that it could not have occurred. If that goes then so does bb, except that some body may come up with an equally unbelievable explanation.

And what about the CMBR? I believe that I can provide a very good explanation not only for its source but also its intensity. I notice that tusenfem has not yet come back to me on this point.

Whilst on the subject of the bb I have another couple of questions. The first is “how did the first stars form?”

It is impossible, absolutely impossible for hydrogen atoms to condense together under gravity to form a star unless the temperature is below 20K. And if helium is allowed for then the temperature has to be even lower. But it has been shown beyond all doubt that stars were shining brightly before the bb temperature had fallen to anywhere near this temperature.

Even today, new stars are being created and even these cannot be explained unless it is assumed that dust is present and a nearby supernova just happens to compress the gases. But these were not around when the first stars formed so how can you explain that?

FET can explain the formation of not only the first stars but that new atoms are still being created and being turned into new stars and why solar systems and galaxies are disc shaped.

My second question is how is it that the Earth has not cooled down by now after 4.5 billion years? You cannot seriously explain it with radioactivity because that would not explain why other planets give out much more heat than they receive from the sun. FET does explain these observations and also shows why the Earth undergoes a 130,000 year cycle of warming and cooling and why it will soon move into its next ice age.

If you cannot answer these simple questions then I do not see how you can defend the bb theory.

Captain swoop, I am surprised at you. I said that a piece of string is only held together by its atoms having overlapping electrons that create whirlpools that hold them together by their centripetal forces. You state that string consists of fibres that are held together by friction and there is nothing atomic about that. What on earth are the fibres supposed to be made from then?

Papageno says (by the way you should see a doctor about your cough before it results in something more serious) that so far no magnetic monopoles have been observed. There are millions of magnets around and if these monopoles exist then you should be falling over them. I will wager you that monopoles will never be found nor will Higgs particles or gravity waves. Of course there will be the occasional claim to have discovered something that hints at the existence of a Higgs particle and the champagne corks will be flying but it will soon be proved premature congratulations.

Papageno goes on to say that, as far as we can tell, magnetism is the result of either electric charges in motion or the intrinsic magnetic moment of quantum particles. Thousands of scientists have been looking at this problem for a very long time and yet they still cannot explain it. The FET explanation of magnetism is extremely simple and tells us exactly how it is created, where the forces will be felt, how the strength varies relative to the source, how it induces an electric current in a conductor, why it acts perpendicular to the electric force and it can all be pictured in one simple diagram so that even a child can understand it.

Papageno, I have explained the difference between thermal and electrical conductivity but you are still thinking in terms of free electrons and not as electrons being flows of fluid energy around cores of solid energy.

These electrons must be elongated when they absorb energy that cannot be absorbed as kinetic energy because the proton cores circulate their fluid energy at a constant rate.

This is how electrons can tunnel through electrically charged regions where theoretically it is impossible for them to do so. The same explanation for tunnelling applies to electrons and photons when they are passed singly through two separate holes simultaneously. FET explains how photons and electrons generate an interference pattern that disappears when either of the paths is monitored. Can current theory do that?

The difference between a conductor and an insulator is not due to electrons being free to move in one case and not the other but in the way that the electrons and nucleons interact within the nuclei. In conductors there is the high possibility of exchange between the electron energy of one atom with its neighbour but in an insulator there is little chance of an exchange and therefore any energy that is absorbed by the atoms at the surface of an insulator is returned to those surface atoms.

Please do not ask me to go into details of how nucleons are arranged in nuclei because that is explained in book 1 for a few atoms and in book 2 for some more complicated atoms and to reproduce that here would take too long.

By the way, in my career I have not only used mass spectrometers but have actually built one from scratch and it worked perfectly so do not jump to unfounded conclusions about my abilities.

Captain swoop asked me about predictions by FET.

I have made several predictions, some on my website others in my book. FET predicts that the speed of a photon is dependent upon the speed of its source. I have even shown how this can be experimentally tested in my book and look forward to having it proved or not. Are any of you willing to make the test?

So long for now

Jim

Actually, it's fairly simple. The earth does not emit much more heat than it receives from the sun - it's pretty close to equilibrium externally. As for the interior heat? The heat is residual from formation, and as the core is slowly solidifying, the latent heat of fusion released is keeping the area around it warm and convecting. It definitely does not require any radioactivity or other similar ideas to explain. As for the planets that are emitting significantly more heat than they receive (gas giants), they are still shrinking as they cool, with the slow compression keeping the interiors hot. Also, it takes a larger object longer to cool from the same initial temperature, as the radiating surface area goes up by diameter squared, while the volume (and therefore the amount of stuff to be cooled) goes up by the diameter cubed. All of the gas giants are very large. It makes sense that they would be farther from equilibrium than the smaller planets.

(I know it's only one of your points, but I don't have time to go over any more right now)

__________________
WANTED:

Schroedinger's Cat

Dead And Alive

Mash wrote a long post in which he really said nothing at all. Certainly he failed to respond directly to the objections which I raised (and I could raise more). I challenge him again to explain (for starters) this claim:

Does this mean that he believes that the successful predictions of gtr, for example the four classical solar system tests of gravitation theories (gravitational redshift, light bending, extra-Newtonian perihelion shift [of inner planets, asterioids, etc.], Shapiro time delay), are reproduced by FET? If so, he must show us the math! If not, what does he mean here? "Mathematics of gtr"?--- what math, precisely? List, please! "Compatible"?---in what sense, precisely? And hasn't Mash admitted (at his website) ignorance of the relevant mathematics? And/or lack of the skills needed to verify computations? If so, how can he claim to know anything about whether or not FET is "compatible" with gtr? Why should we not conclude that the quoted claim is vacuous? If he agrees, shouldn't he remove his apparent attempt to imply that he believes that FET reproduces all the many successes of gtr (and "quantum theory")?

See #26 at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html and add 20 points (maybe even 20 for each "book"?), plus I don't dare try to guess how many points for #2-6.

__________________
Chris Hillman

Read these PF posts. Avoid Wikipedia--- except for these versions. Read this and this suggested sticky. When asked for advice, I always say: never take advice!

What does the Big Bang Theory have to do with the evolution of the Solar System?



You said: "Electric currents are said to be derived from the movement of electrical charges and magnetic fields from monopoles."
I corrected your error: the "mainstream" explanation for magnetism is not based on monopoles.




Apparently I have to translate: "As far as we can tell..." = "Based on the experimental results and the theories that agree with them..."


Mainstream: charged particles in motion and with intrinsic angular momentum.


Mainstream: Maxwell equations.


Mainstream: Maxwell equations.


Mainstream: Maxwell equations.


Mainstream: Maxwell equations.


I am not holding my breath waiting for engineers to use your theory to design and build devices and machinery.




You still don't get my point.
If heat flow is due to this "fluid energy" why is the thermal transport so different in metals, insulators and vacuum? For example, can your theory provide the temperature dependence of metals and insulators, like mainstream theories do? (And I mean, actual equations, not handwaving.)




Of course it can. And much more than that.
The mainstream theory accounts for the single-particle interference experiments for all sorts of particles, from subatomic particles to molecules, in vacuum and in solid state.



Are you saying that nucleons are not in the nuclei?


So, why would insulator conduct heat at all? Why does the thermal conductivity depend so strongly on temperature?



So, you cannot even give a summary...



They are not unfounded: they are based on your posts, and the fact that you evaded most of my questions.
I wonder how you managed to build a mass spectrometer, considering the utter ignorance of Maxwell equation you displayed here...


Now, let me update my list:

1. Free electrons as used in CRTs and electron microscopes, the possibility to measure their positions, and the fact that the Coulomb force between two electrons does not depend on some alignment parameter.

2. The difference in mass and size between protons and electrons (try searching for "mass spectrometry").

3. The confusion of the force between to current-carrying wires and the electrostatic force between two charged particles.

4. The fact that nuclear forces are not responsible for the bonding in atoms and molecules.

5. Confusion of Casimir effect, field of a monopole and field of a dipole.

6. Your ignorance of quantization, especially experimental results.

7. No explanation of the discrete lines in the spectra of atoms and molecules.

8. The existence of stable alpha particles (He nuclei).

9. Your apparent ignorance of Maxwell equations, which are the basis of Electromagnetic Theory.

10. Confusion between Big Bang and Solar System.

11. No explanation why the same mechanism for heat transport yields a different thermal conductivity in metals and insulators, and why it is so different from thermal radiation in vacuum.

__________________
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)

I thought that forums were meant to be places where civilised people could get together to exchange ideas in a friendly way. It does not help when you find quotes like put up or shut up.

I am going to answer you for one last time unless you decide to discuss things in a more polite manner.

You seem to be obsessed with mathematics and could not care about the real scientific reasoning behind it. The purpose of a theory is meant to be a way to understand what is happening and to be able to predict and calculate further things from it.

So mathematics is important but understanding what a theory means is even more important.

Let us compare general relativity with FET and see what we can deduce from these two very different approaches to the understanding of gravity.

Consider a vehicle moving along a flat road at a constant speed and that there is no friction with the ground or any resistance from the atmosphere. Once the vehicle has reached its required speed we can switch off the engine and it will continue to move at this speed forever.

There are two ways that we can change its speed. We can apply a force either by starting the engine or applying the brakes and this will speed it up or slow it down. This is the mechanical way of achieving a change of speed.

Alternatively we can make the road slope down or up and again the vehicle will speed up or slow down and this time by the effect of gravity. The change in slope of the road can therefore be likened to the bending of space time by matter. If the road were made vertical then the speed would increase in the same way as free falling in a gravitational field. Simple enough so far?

Now this brings me to an interesting question; why can you feel the acceleration due to a mechanical force such as starting the engine or applying the brakes but not the effect of free falling?

General relativity fails completely here because it tells us nothing about what is really happening. Einstein claimed that inertia and gravitational acceleration were the same but could not say why. FET on the other hand tells us exactly why they are very different and yet are numerically identical as well as explain why we feel one force and not the other.

Let us look at what happens when we apply a mechanical force to an object according to FET. Fluid energy from the force (which may be derived from photons, electricity, magnetism, chemical energy etc. because all forces arise from the flow of fluid energy) flows into the outermost atoms of the vehicle where the two make contact. OK so far? These atoms absorb this fluid energy as kinetic energy via their electrons and this makes those atoms accelerate in the same direction as the flow of fluid energy applied in accordance with the conservation of momentum (just replace m for mass in the equation with E the amount of energy). Still with me? These atoms start to move off but then collide with the atoms in the next row. This stops the first row of atoms from moving and so they have to release their stored kinetic energy which continues in the same direction and is transferred via the electrons into the second row of atoms where it is again stored as kinetic energy and this makes them move in turn. Looking a bit complicated now? Meanwhile, more fluid energy is input from the source into the first row of atoms and these move forward again. This process is repeated until every atom in the vehicle has absorbed energy from the source and stored it as kinetic energy.

Hence the vehicle moves as a whole with a speed determined by the law of conservation of momentum and in the direction of the flow of fluid energy (surely that is simple enough to comprehend). If you were sitting in the vehicle the same amount of energy would have to flow into every one of the atoms in your body.

So acceleration by a mechanical force occurs by the sequential flow of energy through every atom and it is this flow through the atoms that we feel. We feel it first on our bottoms because the fluid energy gets to these atoms first before it works its way up to our head. Hence our bottoms move forward first followed by our heads.

Now let’s see what happens when we drop the car off of the edge of a cliff. First of all we have to understand that a solid according to FET consists of nuclei composed of solid energy with a density 10^39 times that of the continuum with electron energy having a spread of energy density from that of solid energy down to that of the continuum. There are no empty spaces in the solid because where there is no solid energy and no electron energy the rest is filled with continuum energy.

Now if the continuum energy is stationary then it has no effect upon a solid. But a gravitational filed is the flow of continuum energy brought about by the nucleons of the earth sucking it in. Have I lost you yet?

As this continuum energy flows through the atoms of our vehicle it is absorbed by every atom (via its electrons of course) but this time it is absorbed simultaneously by every atom and not sequentially. Consequently we do not experience any imbalance in the parts of our body and therefore we do not notice the acceleration. Poor old Einstein, if he had not confined himself to a windowless lift he might have worked this one out for himself (longer explanation in book 2 if you cannot see the connection).

Now when we are sat stationary upon the ground the continuum energy that is flowing as a result of the earth’s gravitational field is still flowing through us. Every atom in our body is absorbing that energy as before but this time because we are sat upon the ground we cannot be accelerated downwards. Hence the continuum energy cannot be absorbed as kinetic energy and therefore it has to keep being passed from atom to atom until it reaches those in our feet and then into the ground where it disappears and is converted into heat (see next posting). Because the energy is being passed between atoms we can feel it as our weight. This is inertia and is numerically equal to gravitational acceleration but with a completely different explanation, One is sequential the other is simultaneous.

All of this was deduced from FET and makes much more sense than to say mass distorts spacetime rather like the change of slope of the road but with no extra dimension to be distorted into.

GR only works because time is linked in with the spatial dimension and whereas these do not change with gravity, time does. FET shows how and why an atomic clock changes its tick rate when its speed is changed or when the strength of the gravitational field is changed.

The effect of the supposed distortion of spacetime affects a body in its vicinity in accordance with the inverse square law in just the same way as the flow of continuum energy into a body must also obey the inverse square law. Both differ though very slightly from the Newtonian gravitation by a small amount. The FET explana