Attached Files

NewFoundation.doc (3.93 MB, 156 views)

Permit me to critique your paper. I found some questionable content which tend to detract from the inspired insight that led you to conclude that space is not made of nothing.

Why do we assume that the universe is a closed system just because the Gforce as you describe it is constant? Is there some physical law which makes it so?

Contrary to your stated claim that Michelson and Morley detected an ether drift I refer you to the following link...


Not only is there no reference to an ether drift, but it can be seen that Einstein's idea of space-time contraction supersedes Lorentz's length contraction equation to justify the "null" result obtained by the Michelson-Morley experiment. The equation, while valid, is innaplicable to Aether theory of the day.

An advanced Google search for Albert P. Carmen and ether or aether returns only two links: your TOEquest article, and your home page article in .pdf format whch I am currently critiquing. I have never heard of Carmen and have never read his statement anywhere else.

Einstein ended up disowning the idea of the cosmological constant not because of its conflicting nature with general relativity theory but with its conflicting nature with reality, ie. that the universe is not static. In fact, he introduced the constant into his relativity equations to satisfy the requirement for a static universe that did not contract due to the effects of gravity.

I am of the idea that there are more than three particles that can "act" at the quantum level. In fact, quarks have been observed to "act" at the quantum level, and if one accepts my boson field theory for the behaviour of objects in space occupying volume as a function of their shape resulting in "gravity" then we have another...


this is a response which extends my theory of gravity. Particles for force can then be said to "act" at the quantum level.



I don't know how to interpret this. Remember that the mass of the electron has been measured as being 1/1840 of the mass of the proton. You also make some pretty far-fetched analogies and then postulate strange theory complemented by the universal scapegoat, mathematics. Since I can't agree with your derivation of your compton wavelength I therefore cannot accept any further mathematical justifications using it to describe a "quantum frequency" or any extensions of your Aether theory.

You are assuming that dark matter exists. Thus far it has only been inferred, not observed to exist because of the anomolous behaviour of matter that we do observe to exist which predict its existence. However, the anomolous behaviour of matter which we can observe might be explained by my discussion of the creation wave yielding the physical shape of the universe as I have described it. You can find it here:



it is post #37 of my personal TOE theory.



I don't know how to interpret this. Resistance is opposition to current flow measured in units called ohms. Inductive reactance, or XL in engineering circles, creates magnetic flux and is measured in units called Henry's (L). There is no such thing as "magnetic flux per charge" because the degree of flux is dependent on the inductive reactance of a component as a function of its dimensions, the frequency, and the intensity of the charge, as current.

I am discouraged from further reading because you are using made up mathematical premises utilizing your constants with which I disagree. The overall theory becomes too much an application of unrealistic mathematics to ontological premises without adequately merging philosophy with reality. Having said all that, I do believe that you are onto something with your ether concept because in effect you are saying that space is indeed something or, as I like to put it, as much a creation as the matter which occupies it. That is in essence what you are trying to prove and I will not dispute it because I agree.

Thanks, I invite criticisms and the opportunity to respond to them.

Existence, as a whole, is not closed. The APM shows how non-material existence evolves to physical existance. Since our everyday physics are focused on physical existence, we can mark the boundaries of physical existence. Within this physical existence, matter is neither created nor destroyed during its normal function; the same goes for energy and angular momentum. The conservation laws set the boundaries of the physical Universe. Although the physical Universe is a closed system within itself, that does not prevent the closed system from expanding or shrinking.

Quote:

"In the autumn of 1905, Morley and Miller removed the interferometer from the laboratory basement to a site on Euclid Heights, Cleveland, free from ob­struction by buildings, and having an altitude of about three hundred feet above Lake Erie and about eight hundred and seventy feet above sea-level. Five sets of observations were made in 1905-1906, which give a definite positive effect of about one tenth of the then "expected" drift."

Quote:

"The complete study of the ether-drift experiments of 1925, at Mount Wilson, leads to the conclusion that there is a systematic displacement of the inter­ference fringes of the interferometer corresponding to a constant relative motion of the earth and the ether at this observatory of ten kilometers per sec­ond; and that the variations in the direction and mag­nitude of the indicated motion are exactly such as would be produced by a constant motion of the solar system in space, with a velocity of two hundred kilo­meters, or more, per second, towards an apex in the constellation Draco, near the pole of the elliptic,..."

You need to go direct to the sources and not rely on second-hand, and probably less-informed opinions. I can email you the referenced paper if you are interested.
The reference for Albert P. Carmen was given in the paper. If you want, I can email you this article, too.
My paper is not about Albert Einstein or the logic he used in his theories.
Do you have a reference? Quarks have only been observed during high energy neutron and proton collisions. Quarks have a life span that does not exceed about 10^-12 seconds, after which the quark is never again observed. Electrons and protons have never been observed to decay, as such, they are true quantum particles. All other "particles" either decay or completely disappear. The neutron has been observed to decay into its constituent electron and proton, while the other "particles" only appear as collision effects.

I certainly encourage independent research. However, the presentation of another theory is not a refutation of the theory under discussion.

Even still, the primary angular momentum described in the Aether Physics Model is fully quantified and physical evidence is quoted for the existence of the primary angular momentum. How can you quantify "two overriding sine waves" and "gravity boson cones?" Where is the empirical data that shows the construction of these features in reality?

Your math may very well apply to the true solution, but it must be applied through real objects. One cannot make up things like gravity boson cones without have physical evidence for their existence.

I have noticed the equations of String theory produce the same structures as the Aether Physics Model. So it would appear the equations of the String theory are valid with respect to the APM, although the String paradigm in which the equations are used are not empirically supported.


Since when is mathematics a scapegoat? Also, my mathematics does not involve calculus and never drops the dimensions in the calculations. In the APM, the data begins with empirically measured quantities and dimensions, is calculated with quantities and dimensions, and the result is expressed in quantities and dimensions. There is no opportunity for the equations to be distorted into a false conclusion, as happens when entirely numerical solutions are employed.

Is this a personal opinion, or did you find a problem with the data and equations I used?

Yes, I assume dark matter exists because the data suggests it exists. Dark matter, by definition, will never be directly observed. But that is not evidence of its non-existence. The fact that its effects can be observed is strong evidence in favor of its existence.

Dark matter is quantifiable, as I have quantified it as primary angular momentum. I quantify the process by which this angular momentum develops an associated charge when it is absorbed into a quantum Aether unit, and thus becomes physical matter. How can you quantify the existence of a wave before there is something which can do the waving? The wave/particle duality nonsense has no physical meaning. An object cannot be a thing and its own wave at the same time. It's like proposing a tsunami of one water molecule.

Also, you discuss "matter." I quantify matter as primary angular momentum encapsulated by Aether. How do you quantify matter such that it agrees with your theory?

This is completely philosophical. It is clear that your disdain for mathematics is rooted in the fact you present a theory that has none.


You make claims concerning the APM based upon your understanding of physics as it is currently understood. You seem not to have picked up that I quantify two distinctly different types of charges. Each type of charge has a different geometry from the other. Also, the charges are distributed, rather than single dimensions. These are very important points to understand, and they are fully quantified.

Certain units, such as resistance, are compound units. That is, they involve the dimensions from two different objects interacting. With resistance, this must be obvious, as how can resistance be quantified unless the dimension it is working against is also quantified? Thus the extra dimensions of charge in resistance reflects the fact that there are two different objects being quantified. The same goes for the units of friction and eddy current, which are also quantified in the APM.

Also, in the APM, inductive reactance does not create magnetic flux, it is magnetic flux. How can inductive reactance create anything?

Actually, I'm glad you didn't go any further while you had the wrong interpretation of the concepts presented in the paper. You cannot just brush over the points made in the beginning of the paper, because they represent important foundations for the rest of the paper. If you don't make the effort to understand these foundations, you will make the mistake of interpreting the latter concepts with the wrong paradigms in mind.

The mathematics are very realistic in that they maintain the dimensions properly all throughout the calculations. It is our preconceived ideas of what physics should be that is unrealistic and interferes with the learning process. We must learn to trust the mathematics and data of the Universe and learn to listen to what they are telling us, rather than to what we would like to hear.

Thanks, but the whole theory is consistent from one end to the other. All the math works and it is entirely based upon empirical data. If you can accept one part of the theory, the rest of it is logically correct as well.

I realize it is very difficult to read a new theory, which in some cases refutes accepted theory, and still be able to put enough faith into it to understand it. But that is exactly what you need to do. You must give the theory a chance and read what it actually says, rather than impose upon it your own preconceived ideas.

Reference:
1. Dayton Miller, SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ETHER-DRIFT EXPERIMENTS OF 1925 AT MOUNT WILSON, SCIENCE,VOL. LXIII, No. 1635, APRIL 30, 1926

Thank you,

I appreciate your timely response. It is refreshing to read from an articulate and coherent writer.

My personal views on the fundamental nature of reality are fairly well settled in my mind and particularly with respect to the ongoing process of creation ocurring at the periphery of the Universe. This of course, implies that one cannot calculate a single value for the mass of the aether, since I maintain that this Universe is constantly growing and creating more space and more matter as we speak, so perhaps it would be better to exact a ratio of proportions than a definitive value. As for the empirical evidence, the fact is that this Universe is accellerating and that it had a beginning and that this is the characteristic of a process which is in perpetual motion so we can derive the one unknown thereby without using mathematics.

I attribute the very slight "drift" of the aether observed by Miller to be the result of the hysteresis effects of the residual components, including space, of the creation front. I agree that my post #37 is highly theoretical (I don't at all see the philosphical implications, perhaps you can enlighten me) but as a matter of fact the inference is that there were (are) many big bangs by virtue of this description and as evidenced by the photographic evidence of colliding galaxis and perhaps soon by recently extrapolated data from the background radiation studies done by COBE and others which curiously thus far do not seem to support the currently accepted model of a Big Bang Universe.

My one big question is this, and it is directed at all theoretical physicists:

How does one use the value of c in an equation? Einstein's E=mc² is given to symbolize the huge amount of energy represented by matter and should not be taken too literally. When one does the actual calculation of the exothermic reaction of the ideal fusion of enough hydrogen and enough neutrons to yield one gram of helium the experiment generates enough force to acellerate a one million kilogram mass at the rate of approximately seven million kilometres/sec²! Highly improbable. Furthermore, a new constant for the speed of light should be developed to more accurately complement physical theory, since what it actually refers to is the rate of the like polar repulsive force of atomic interaction and this should be represented by a temporal value. It is not represented by the velocity of a photon streaking across space because that just doesn't happen, and couldn't be constant for vaccuum, 1G, or water at 1G at any rate.

Again, I appreciate the attention that you are giving my posts.

"Brothers in TOE's"

The mass associated with the Aether in my model is for a quantum unit of Aether, not the total of the entire Universe. The Aether is fluid because it is composed of quantum units. The Universe is both constantly expanding and contracting, depending upon where you look. This is why galaxies spiral inward. Matter and Aether are being produced in the out periphery of the galaxy and are collapsing primarily at the center. It is like pulling the plug in the bathtub with the water running at the same time.

Without quantification, it is just a guess. The guess might be right, but there cannot be any proof.
Philosophy is what science would be without the math.
It is not a "slight" drift. It is 10 kilometers per second. The Earth is moving with respect to a fluid Aether at the speed of 22,369 mph.

The APM shows that there are many "slow bangs" and black holes. I agree that there is no solid evidence for a single Big Bang event. It is likely that the Universe has always existed and will continue to do so through eternity. There are expansions and contractions going on all the time, depending upon where you look.

Einstein's equation is not an equation at all, it is a formula. Most people don't comprehend this. And you are correct, it shouldn't be taken seriously. Matter is never converted to energy. There is no such physical thing as energy, thus there is nothing that matter can be converted to. Matter always remains matter while it exists in the physical Universe. Energy is a property of matter, just as waves are a property of matter.

Dave

That's debatable for a number of reasons. First, it turns out that spiral galaxies are rarer than it was once thought so they should be considered local events. Second, continual references to comparisons of the expanding Universe to the surface of an expanding balloon describes exactly how it is expanding. Compare it to a rubber band that is snipped and has points of reference drawn on it where the center point is one inch to the right of the left point and three inches to the left of the right point stretched uniformly to twice its size and which will then have the first point two inches from the center point and the other point six inches from the center point. Any where you stand in the Universe the analogy applies, that the expansion acellerates faster the farther you are away from a point of reference. Think farther away from the box that is this Universe.

Nonsense. If there isn't any proof then we're both wrong. The proof is in the logic.

It is a slight drift, relatively speaking considering that extremely far objects are acellerating away at near light propagation speeds. Also this value would depend on what point in the Universe you are using for a frame of reference.


Math is what the science would be without the philosophy. When we understand the truth, philosophy and science merge. Math can be as far from the truth as the farthest shoots from the spreading branches of the trunk of true knowledge of that tree. You know, that tree?

.

Very unlikely since that is an untenable and a wholly impractical and shamefully unscientific concept.

It's an equation. A formula leads to a product. A baby formula is the finished product of some ingredients. A recipe is a formula. The product of E=mc² is the atom bomb. We're arguing semantics anyway but I won't stop if you won't.

This is fun.

Here is the inherent flaw in your theory. If you keep encapsulating things in Aether you stop short of defining the Aether itself, quantification (using math) aside.

The fact is that you imply that space is comprised of matter particles that comprise the Aether. I will agree with you because I believe pretty much the same thing. To maintain the integrity of my theory I would not encapsulate these matter particles by more Aether, as you are doing. You seem to be unable to swallow the idea that space is matter, ie. this Aether which you speak of, which I will suggest for the sake of discussion could very well be comprised of new type Boson particles of force. I can give them an arbitrary yet logical shape, ie. that of a cone, sort of a reverse spiral vortex that has a limit of forward and expanding dimension until its temporal "spec" sinks into itself to continue vortexing outward from the point that it is making and then into itself ad infinitum, because it has to define volumetric dimension to space. This Boson can be stretched into a long cone or contracted into a compressed hemisphere. Either way, the shape is a function of its relationship, which considers most importantly its proximity to objects in space and the proximity of those same objects to other objects in space, with other "Aether" Bosons. The amount of volume that the Bosons occupy, which are dependent, define the volume of space and therefore the intensity of space-time. Either way, the energy of each Boson is constant, their shape is variable, and that defines the variable space-time continuum wherein objects have a static relationship with one another because they are made of particles with different characteristics than gravity Bosons, or Gravitons. These objecs maintain a consistent space-time continuum within a variable space-time continuum made up of Gravitons, and that explains Relativity. As I said in an earlier post, gravity is defined by the kinetic energy and momentum of static objects in a mutable space time continuum having a reduced effective volume of the space which they occupy because of the interaction of Bosons which are essentially out of phase causing the reduction of the spatial volume therefore bringing objects closer together as a matter of course.

That's all there is to the Aether and to Gravity.

Actually I was quite interested in the book. The one concern I have is that the length and written by two and more authors leaves some doubt about the time of discovery. That is all.

theunify