Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Explain AWT Please
« on: September 26, 2014, 09:18:58 PM »
While I disagree that presenting evidence about a theory should not build on understanding that theory, I've complied with Ts's request.

Quote
The amount is so great as to destroy all credibility of AWT, more than a centillion joules
Preliminary results suggest otherwise.

Well, first of all most of the energy goes into acceleration. It is a fairly efficient process by virtue of the substance itself. One of the requirements of Aether is that it very easily and efficiently gain and lose energy. This is what I mean by 'delicate'. I've yet to come up with a better word for it.

In addition, the earth has several processes creating significant amounts of heat according to RET. The most notable are compaction and radiation. Preliminary results suggest that the heat imparted by Aether would logically be similar to the heat imparted by these RET phenomena.
So you solve the problem by fiat, again. I had hoped for more.
Please post your "preliminary results". I've already posted mine. I do recommend that you stay with SR, vice GR, formulation. You'll need to watch the tanh function's asymptote. You'll need high precision. I suggest Maple or Mathematica. For some help, see: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1592.msg30833#msg30833

Please verify my interpretation of what you described as the aether of AWT.

The aether is a fluid.
The aether has mass.
The aether has momentum.
The aether is composed of atoms.
The aether accelerates the FE to g and has since the creation of the FE.
The aether imparts its momentum to the FE by its atoms colliding with the FE's atoms.
The aether also balances the gear-controlled, rotating stellar objects, including the sun, moon, planets, and stars--regardless of their position over the FE.
Something else accelerates, or has accelerated, the aether.

Thanks!
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Ghost of V

Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2014, 09:21:08 PM »
Seems like you have most of it figured out. What is it that you're wanting to know exactly?


Some pointers. Aether is not a fluid. It is outside of the normal states of matter. It is closer to a plasma, but that is also wrong. It is very similar to what you know of as "dark matter". It was formed at the beginning of time, after the big bang when the universe started expanding infinitely.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2014, 09:24:44 PM by Vauxhall »

Ghost of V

Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2014, 09:39:07 PM »
I exactly want answers to my questions and the posting of the "preliminary" results showing that the aether would not greatly heat the FE.


I don't see any questions.

You do realize questions require question marks for adult conversations, yes?

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2014, 09:43:35 PM »
Fine, I'll respond for the sake of avoiding misinformation

Please verify my interpretation of what you described as the aether of AWT.

The aether is a fluid. It has fluid properties
The aether has mass.It interacts with mass
The aether has momentum. Presumably
The aether is composed of atoms. I don't know
The aether accelerates the FE to g and has since the creation of the FE. yes
The aether imparts its momentum to the FE by its atoms colliding with the FE's atoms. This is the most likely scenario, however I am not convinced that it is composed of atoms
The aether also balances the gear-controlled, rotating stellar objects, including the sun, moon, planets, and stars--regardless of their position over the FE. AWT does not require celestial gears, but otherwise yes
Something else accelerates, or has accelerated, the aether. Unknown

Thanks!

Also, I'm not going to most premature, valuable data at the demand of some random angry noob. That's not how the scientific process works.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2014, 10:06:16 PM by Tausami »
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Ghost of V

Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2014, 09:48:26 PM »
Ts called aether a superfluid, which is a fluid.


And I'm saying it's not a fluid. It has fluid properties, sure, but it's not a fluid.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2014, 10:06:05 PM »
Fine, I'll respond for the sake of avoiding misinformation

Please verify my interpretation of what you described as the aether of AWT.

The aether is a fluid. It has fluid properties
The aether has mass.It interacts with mass
The aether has momentum. Presumably
The aether is composed of atoms. I don't know
The aether accelerates the FE to g and has since the creation of the FE. yes
The aether imparts its momentum to the FE by its atoms colliding with the FE's atoms. This is the most likely scenario, however I am not convinced that it is composed of atoms
The aether also balances the gear-controlled, rotating stellar objects, including the sun, moon, planets, and stars--regardless of their position over the FE. AWT does not require celestial gears, but otherwise yes
Something else accelerates, or has accelerated, the aether. Unknown

Thanks!
Okay, thanks.

Is the aether matter?
Does the aether exhibit superfluidity when interacting with the FE or (broadly) stellar objects?
Constantly?
Does the aether have any properties that causes the motion of the stellar objects in lieu of other FETs's gears?
For example, why would the moon move faster than the sun?
Please do post those preliminary results about the energy the aether imparts to the FE and the (broadly) stellar objects. I'm rather sure that you face an impossible task to win any credibility against that problem. Giving up SR, giving up conservation of energy, or giving up conservation of momentum would be a deadly choice to the theory.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2014, 10:14:00 PM »
I just realized that this is a different topic from Rama's now. Good at this.

Fine, I'll respond for the sake of avoiding misinformation

Please verify my interpretation of what you described as the aether of AWT.

The aether is a fluid. It has fluid properties
The aether has mass.It interacts with mass
The aether has momentum. Presumably
The aether is composed of atoms. I don't know
The aether accelerates the FE to g and has since the creation of the FE. yes
The aether imparts its momentum to the FE by its atoms colliding with the FE's atoms. This is the most likely scenario, however I am not convinced that it is composed of atoms
The aether also balances the gear-controlled, rotating stellar objects, including the sun, moon, planets, and stars--regardless of their position over the FE. AWT does not require celestial gears, but otherwise yes
Something else accelerates, or has accelerated, the aether. Unknown

Thanks!
Okay, thanks.

Is the aether matter?
Does the aether exhibit superfluidity when interacting with the FE or (broadly) stellar objects?
Constantly?
Does the aether have any properties that causes the motion of the stellar objects in lieu of other FETs's gears?
For example, why would the moon move faster than the sun?
Please do post those preliminary results about the energy the aether imparts to the FE and the (broadly) stellar objects. I'm rather sure that you face an impossible task to win any credibility against that problem. Giving up SR, giving up conservation of energy, or giving up conservation of momentum would be a deadly choice to the theory.

1) I don't know if Aether is matter. I suspect that it is not.
2) It appears to act as a superfluid in these conditions. Otherwise there would be significant friction on the surface of the moon, which would result in a lack of cratering. Since the moon has craters, aether must not exert any significant friction upon it. Thus, it is likely superfluidic.

3) It has the aetheric whirlpool. Essentially, after hitting the earth the aether loses a lot of its energy and therefore cannot keep up its momentum relative to the earth. From our perspective this causes it to fall. It forms a (mathematically quite interesting) whirlpool as it falls, upon which sit the celestial bodies.

4) I'm not going to post valuable preliminary data at the behest of some guy on a forum. I'll release it when I'm done. And I rather resent your assumption that I'm going to forget how the laws of thermodynamics work.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2014, 10:36:57 PM »
1) I don't know if Aether is matter. I suspect that it is not.
2) It appears to act as a superfluid in these conditions. Otherwise there would be significant friction on the surface of the moon, which would result in a lack of cratering. Since the moon has craters, aether must not exert any significant friction upon it. Thus, it is likely superfluidic.

3) It has the aetheric whirlpool. Essentially, after hitting the earth the aether loses a lot of its energy and therefore cannot keep up its momentum relative to the earth. From our perspective this causes it to fall. It forms a (mathematically quite interesting) whirlpool as it falls, upon which sit the celestial bodies.

4) I'm not going to post valuable preliminary data at the behest of some guy on a forum. I'll release it when I'm done. And I rather resent your assumption that I'm going to forget how the laws of thermodynamics work.
1) I assume then you're going with bosons vice matter, but don't know yet.
2) I fear that won't work very well. Wouldn't the aether always, being superfluid, just flow around the moon and not be able to replace the work done by the gears of other FETs?
3) Can anything set on a superfluid? I doubt it.
4) Again, I have not requested any data. I made no assumption about what you're going to forget. I do honestly believe that you must be overlooking something in that you declared that the aether would not greatly heat the earth. You know that either mass or energy must strike the FE's atoms to impart momentum. You know that collision will average an angle of 45o, causing on average half of the energy to go into heat of the FE. You can see by the post I referenced that the energy that must be more than a centillion (10303) joules. So I'd like to suggest that you take advantage of this work, review it, integrate it, and determine for yourself whether AWT can be worth your time.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2014, 09:23:18 AM »
Aether = medium through which ETHER flows

Ether = scalar waves consisting of subquarks strings

The density of aether can vary.




Cymatics (sound activating aether and ether in a resonating cavity), Science of the Future:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_cymatics.htm



There is no such thing as AWT (Aetheric Wind Theory) in the context of an UA accelerator.

The two theories are absolutely mutually exclusive, as I wrote in the other thread.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2014, 05:40:14 PM »
...
Ether = scalar waves consisting of subquarks strings
...
Please do tell us how you determined that the "ether" are waves consisting of strings. How you seen one? Have you measure one? How you inferred its existence by its recorded interactions?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2014, 12:22:48 PM »
ETHER = SCALAR WAVE = SUBQUARK STRING


Existence of subquarks strings:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101


DAYTON MILLER ETHER DRIFT EXPERIMENTS


Dayton Miller proved long ago the existence of periodic waves of telluric currents (ether):



PERIODICITY OF GLOBAL ETHER-DRIFT, from Dayton Miller's Mount Wilson Ether-Drift Experiments, 1925-26. The Top Graph above plots data from four separate months or epochs, measured at different times of the year and organized by sidereal time, showing a definite periodic curve. The heavy line is the mean of all four epochs. The Bottom Graph (above) plots the same data organized by civil clock time coordinates; here, the plotted data spreads out along the graph, without apparent periodicity. This demonstrates, the detected axis and periodicity of ether drift is the same for different times of year, but can only be seen when the data is viewed within a cosmological, sidereal coordinate system. (From Miller 1928, p.362)

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.


As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein.


Full details: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)


Yuri Galaev's ether drift results:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_6.htm


"Miller's observations were also consistent through the long period of his measurements. He noted, when his data were plotted on sidereal time, they produced "...a very striking consistency of their principal characteristics...for azimuth and magnitude... as though they were related to a common cause... The observed effect is dependent upon sidereal time and is independent of diurnal and seasonal changes of temperature and other terrestrial causes, and...is a cosmical phenomenon." (Miller 1933, p.231)"

"The trouble with Prof. Einstein is that he knows
nothing about my results." Dr. Miller said. "He has
been saying for thirty years that the interferometer
experiments in Cleveland showed negative results. We
never said they gave negative results, and they did
not in fact give negative results. He ought to give
me credit for knowing that temperature differences
would affect the results. He wrote to me in November
suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no
allowance for temperature."
(Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, 27 Jan. 1926)



Dr. T. Henry Moray:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.


This is just the tip of the iceberg...we can go on to the Biefeld-Brown effect, the DePalma spinning ball experiment, the Kozyrev gyroscope experiments, and much more...

Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2014, 12:12:02 PM »
There are no problems with my answer.

You have a problem, obviously, given the superficiality of your answer.

You simply failed to read the bibliographical material.


I hope that your lack of knowledge is due to just sheer superficiality, and not to some other deeper problems...



Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real  objects and were not fabricated  ac-
cording  to their expectations?  Knowing which  groups of  the periodic  table
these  undiscovered  elements belong  to could  have  enabled them  to  deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups.


Can you read English Gulliver?



But the values of  the atomic weights of  these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for  these  elements  agree with  their  chemical atomic  weights  to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have  come about by  chance in  every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery.  These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.



Your incompetence in reading the work cited should worry you...no hallucinations at all.


Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements?  This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively,  1939  and  1940,  about seven years  after the deaths of  the two
Theosophists.  How, if  MPAs  are not atoms, could they have anticipated  in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of  atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in  1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.



This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles. It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected  as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted.  Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of  physics.




The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were  published  several  years  before  physicists even suspected  that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility  of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and  mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discovering  the  neutron  in  1932, twenty-four years  after  the first  edition  of  Occult Chemistry  appeared.  No normal or alternative paranormal explanation  of the correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old observations  of  subatomic  particles appears  to exist  other  than that  Besant  and Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of ESP.


As for the number of strings...you failed to do your homework.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

Read the sections: Superstrings, Compactification, UPA as Subquark State of Superstring


EDIT

As for the fact that Dr. Dayton Miller does mention a rotating earth, it is due to a misconception which was prevalent in the 1920s: ether and a rotating earth are mutually exclusive concepts, they cannot exist together.

Let me explain, so that even you can understand.


RE theory requires a full void, otherwise the equations which "describe" the orbits of the planets will have to include friction terms.


KEPLER MOTION

In an appropriate coordinate system, the motion of a planet around the sun (considered as fixed) with the attractive force being proportional to the inverse square of the distance /z/ of the planet from the sun is given by the solution of the second order conservative system with the potential function -/z/^-1 for z =/0.

A mechanical system without friction can be described in the Hamiltonian formulation.

References for Celestial Mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics:

V.I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, 1978

C.L. Siegel and J. Moser, Lectures on Celestial Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, 1971

J. Moser, Stable and Random Motions in Dynamical Systems, Princeton Univ. Press, 1973

Area Preserving Maps, Nonintegrable/Nearly Integrable Hamiltonians, KAM Theory:

http://www.math.rug.nl/~broer/pdf/kolmo100.pdf


Ether = Friction = End of the Hamiltonian formulation of the laws of Celestial Mechanics
« Last Edit: January 26, 2016, 01:37:30 PM by sandokhan »

Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2014, 12:57:56 PM »
Here is another famous example.

http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html


Geoffrey Hudson observing the Higgs boson in the 1950s...

G. Hudson was able to notice vortical motion around the basic units of matter of numerous, smaller particles filling all space as a "field" five years before physicists proposed this type of particle and decades before string theorists discovered vortex solutions in the Higgs field in their analysis of the confinement of quarks by the string model version of QCD. These vortices are the non-abelian counterparts of the magnetic flux vortices, or Abrikosov vortices, known to permeate Type II superconductors, forming a lattice.

The key phrases used by Hodson, namely (referring to UPAs) "They're surrounded by a field of spinning particles going around them" and "mist or field round it of at least half its own dimension, of particles spinning in the same direction much smaller than itself" are beyond dispute. The word "spinning," of course, refers here not to any intrinsic spin of these particles (Higgs bosons are spinless) but to the "mist or field" of these particles circulating around UPAs in the same sense that the latter spin on their axes (notice that his words "spinning rapidly" appear in parentheses before this phrase in the first quotation, clearly indicating that Hodson was referring not to individual particles but to a conglomerate of particles, which he aptly described as a "mist or field" that revolved rapidly around a UPA in the same direction that it was spinning.

Such collective, rotational excitations of the Higgs field were unknown to particle theorists in 1959 when this crucial observation was recorded by Dr Lyness. Indeed, the Higgs field had not even been proposed then! So nothing in the scientific literature of the time could have influenced Hodson to make his observation, just as Babbitt could not have been influenced by Lord Kelvin's model of atoms as vortex rings in the aether, which was published 11 years earlier in 1867 (see here), for he described UPAs not as such rings but as having a vortex of particles circulating around it — something that is conceptually entirely different.

It constitutes, therefore, irrefutable evidence that Hodson detected in a paranormal manner the Higgs particles pervading space years before they were postulated by physicists and 53 years before the Large Hadron Collider at CERN provided statistically significant data consistent with their existence, although not yet establishing it with certainty. Any alternative interpretation of the points of lights filling space that were visible to him "all the time" must be rejected as wrong because it cannot account for the way the particles change their motion in the vicinity of UPAs to a circulation around them indicative of vortices — a feature that only their identification as Higgs particles can explain in the context of the String Model.



Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2014, 01:14:20 PM »


« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 01:18:05 PM by sandokhan »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2014, 10:09:14 PM »
I'll take the time for one more response to your meaningless "walls of text".

First and foremost, the occult is not real. Your support of "micro-psi" is absurd.

Second, "micro-psi" demonstrated all by itself that it's wrong, and you've posted that here. No isotope of hydrogen has more than 10 strings in string theory (3 each for its at most two neutrons, 3 for its proton, and 1 for its electron). "Micro-psi" incorrectly predicted 18--as you posted. "Micro-psi" failed.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2014, 08:38:22 AM »
We all have the micro-psi abilities: they are exhibited, for example, in our dreams.

Besant had the ability to retain this faculty in consciousness: there is no "occultism" involved here.


"Micro-psi" incorrectly predicted 18

You have not bothered to read the work published by Dr. Stephen Phillips.

18 refers to the number of SUBQUARKS PRESENT IN AN ATOM OF HYDROGEN.


The strings are the boson coils/waves which do form a subquark.













The micro-psi investigation carried out by Besant is very real. In fact, it cannot be denied at all.

Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements?  This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively,  1939  and  1940,  about seven years  after the deaths of  the two
Theosophists.  How, if  MPAs  are not atoms, could they have anticipated  in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of  atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in  1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.



This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles. It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected  as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted.  Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of  physics.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2014, 08:51:56 AM »
We all have the micro-psi abilities: they are exhibited, for example, in our dreams.

Besant had the ability to retain this faculty in consciousness: there is no "occultism" involved here.


"Micro-psi" incorrectly predicted 18

You have not bothered to read the work published by Dr. Stephen Phillips.

18 refers to the number of SUBQUARKS PRESENT IN AN ATOM OF HYDROGEN.


The strings are the boson coils/waves which do form a subquark.
Do tell me what "Micro-psi" calls a "subquark". That's a prediction without a match if it means "string".

Do try to avoid these meaningless "walls of text". Just answer the challenge or go home.

Even your "wall of text" calls it "Occult Chemistry".
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #17 on: October 04, 2014, 09:10:35 AM »
We all have the micro-psi abilities: they are exhibited, for example, in our dreams.

Besant had the ability to retain this faculty in consciousness: there is no "occultism" involved here.


"Micro-psi" incorrectly predicted 18

You have not bothered to read the work published by Dr. Stephen Phillips.

18 refers to the number of SUBQUARKS PRESENT IN AN ATOM OF HYDROGEN.


The strings are the boson coils/waves which do form a subquark.













The micro-psi investigation carried out by Besant is very real. In fact, it cannot be denied at all.

Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements?  This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively,  1939  and  1940,  about seven years  after the deaths of  the two
Theosophists.  How, if  MPAs  are not atoms, could they have anticipated  in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of  atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in  1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.



This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles. It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected  as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted.  Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of  physics.


HYDROGEN ATOM: 18 SUBQUARKS - 9 LAEVOROTATORY AND 9 DEXTROROTATORY subquarks

A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.


TELLURIC CURRENTS are represented by double torsion waves of BOTH laevorotatory (antigravity) and dextrorotatory (terrestrial gravity) subquarks.


Second state of ether = mesons

Third state of ether = quarks

Fourth state of ether = subquarks

Fifth state of ether = aether, the very medium used by subquark strings to propagate/travel

Astral state of ether = bosons/antibosons


HERE IS WHAT A SINGLE SUBQUARK LOOKS LIKE:



The strings of the subquark are made up of coils of bosons.




Two kinds of subquarks: DEXTROROTATORY AND LAEVOROTATORY.


18 OF THESE SUBQUARKS (UPA, OMEGANS, PREONS) MAKE UP AN ATOM OF HYDROGEN.




Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #18 on: October 04, 2014, 09:13:14 AM »
Confirmation of the vortex/tachyon model of the atom:

Preons = quarkels

An advanced knowledge of Quantum Gravity indicated in 1995, quarks and *quarkels would be found to comprise of the electric particle energy of gravity photons. Robert Wood-Smith (RWS) discussed this with Albert Mantiziba who, in July 1995 and with indirect help from Max Planck, established:-
the proton comprised of 2.2674 x 10^23 gravity photons:
the neutron comprised of 2.2705 x 10^23 " "
the electron comprised of 1.2349 x 10^20 " " .
These combine to form respectively the quarks of the proton and neutron, and the quarkels of the electron.

[*Quarkels: the term is applied by the Partners to the components of the electron: which RWS predicted in 1994/95, together with their values. Note. The 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists for their discovery of "quasiparticles" that carry an impossible amount of charge: the reference was to the fractional charges of the electron.]

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.”


http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44784


http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1998/press.html

https://www.llnl.gov/str/Laughlin.html (fractional quantum effect)


Preon-quarkel structure of the electrons:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quarter-electrons-may-enable-quantum-computer


Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.html



http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v55/i5/pR2521_1




http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf

It can be taken as an exciting and already intriguing historical discovery of the substructure of quarks (and leptons), which has been long predicted, or as the first evidence for the composite model of quarks (and leptons), which has been long proposed since the middle of 1970’s [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. It may dramatically change not only the so-called “common sense” in physics or science but also that in philosophy, which often states that quarks (and leptons) are the smallest and most fundamental forms (or particles) of matter in the “mother nature”.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.3705.pdf

http://lss.fnal.gov/conf/C890928/p213.pdf



OCCULT = in the sense of obscure, hidden, deep, unrevealed, and NOT otherworldly...
« Last Edit: October 04, 2014, 09:21:07 AM by sandokhan »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Explain AWT Please
« Reply #19 on: October 04, 2014, 10:16:27 AM »
Let me just point out one obvious error:

Quote
the proton comprised of 2.2674 x 10^23 gravity photons

The term "gravity photons" has no acceptance anywhere. There is no reasonable current theory in which the proton is comprised of any type of photon. Oddly you don't provide a citation for that outlandish claim.

Best wishes on convincing anyone to take you or "Occcult Chemistry" seriously. I do see that you've earned a interesting comment about "crackpots" on a reputable forum over three years ago.

Quote from: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jan/13/tevatron-still-churning-out-exciting-physics#comment11599
It will probably be another few years before I am tempted to respond to a crackpot comment thread. But I don't want people who read this good article to think that any of the discussion above in the comments section has any scientific merit.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2014, 06:46:10 PM by pizaaplanet »
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.