The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: WellRoundedIndividual on March 05, 2019, 12:54:31 PM
-
Found this interesting little tidbit.
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[17]
So, may it be that the existence of ether is simply a misunderstanding of frame of reference?
-
Ether = subquark waves (telluric currents)
Aether = medium through which these waves propagate
Subquark waves are transverse.
The subquark consists of some 14 billion bosons arranged in strings.
These bosons travel through the subquark waves as longitudinal waves.
-
Interesting. Thank you.
Do you have a source for that information that I can do further reading from?
-
Ether = subquark waves (telluric currents)
Aether = medium through which these waves propagate
Subquark waves are transverse.
The subquark consists of some 14 billion bosons arranged in strings.
These bosons travel through the subquark waves as longitudinal waves.
Interesting. Is there any direct experimental evidence of these subquarks or are they just hypothetical?
-
You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)
pages 4 + 16 of my AFET
-
To save someone looking, theoretical.
-
I think even Einstein called spacetime 'aether' at some point. It's a word, like 'atom,' atoms have little similarity to the Ancient Greek concept but there's no problem using it.
-
Wasn’t aether the 5th element or something? Earth, fire, water, air and Aether?
-
Wasn’t aether the 5th element or something? Earth, fire, water, air and Aether?
Yeah, something like that. I believe it was the Ptolemaic model where all the planets where surrounded by celestial crystal spheres made out of aether.
-
I think even Einstein called spacetime 'aether' at some point. It's a word, like 'atom,' atoms have little similarity to the Ancient Greek concept but there's no problem using it.
As I recall, Einstein's concept of aether was as the medium of space-time. However, as he worked on GR, he realized that aether wasn't necessary as a medium after all, so he dropped his support for it.
I could be wrong, but even when he did support it, I don't recall that Einstein ever suggested that aether could flow or drift like some FE models would require.
-
I think even Einstein called spacetime 'aether' at some point. It's a word, like 'atom,' atoms have little similarity to the Ancient Greek concept but there's no problem using it.
As I recall, Einstein's concept of aether was as the medium of space-time. However, as he worked on GR, he realized that aether wasn't necessary as a medium after all, so he dropped his support for it.
I could be wrong, but even when he did support it, I don't recall that Einstein ever suggested that aether could flow or drift like some FE models would require.
My understanding is that he just dropped the word. What he called aether was basically identical to spacetime.
It likely wouldn't be identical to any FE model, but what does that matter? What matters is the world, not one person's view.
-
Ether = subquark waves (telluric currents)
Aether = medium through which these waves propagate
Subquark waves are transverse.
The subquark consists of some 14 billion bosons arranged in strings.
These bosons travel through the subquark waves as longitudinal waves.
Hi sandokhan!
I am trying to understand telluric currents. Do you have any links to the formalism? In particular, I am seeking info for the following questions:
1. Regarding subquarks. Bosons have integer spin, hence so must subquarks. Do subquarks combine to form quarks? If so, how does a combination of bosons produce a fermion?
2. As bosons arranged in a string. Does this mean a bound state with a vanishing angular momentum? What force describes the bound state?
3. Longitudinal waves comprised of boson strings implies to me a percussion. This further seems to indicate that a force is needed - one with restorative properties. Is this the case?
Any info you might provide (or link to) is much appreciated! I have some background in quantum theories, so these topics are of particular interest to me.
-
Telluric currents = potential = scalar waves
One of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century proved mathematically the existence of ether/longitudinal waves which give rise to the vector fields:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059
Longitudinal boson strings within subquark waves, part I:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998110#msg1998110
Dr. Stephen Phillips (UCLA, Cambridge) on the subquark waves within the atom, one of the best lectures:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf
Longitudinal boson strings within subquark waves, part II:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998179#msg1998179
Chadwick (neutron), Pauli (neutrino), Gell-Mann (quarks), Higgs (boson), ALL of these physicists COPIED their "discoveries" from a single source.
The entire theory of strings was copied from the pages of this work.
Each and every element and isotope correctly described (in 1908) DECADES before they were even discovered: promethium (1945), astatine (1940), francium (1939), protactinium (1921), technetium (1937), deuterium, neon-22 nuclide (1913).
A clear description of strings, bosons, quarks, subquarks, positrons, DECADES before these concepts even came into existence.
Achievements of the Occult Chemistry treatise (subquark ether quantum physics):
Baryons, mesons, quarks and /subquarks/preons were described over 50 years before conventional science.
It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory.
It described the existence of positrons 30 years before they were detailed.
It reported the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs.
It presented the existence of isotopes 5 years before their discovery.
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.
A boson = a neutrino = a photon and does have mass.
Let us remember that in one extension to the Standard Model, left- and right-handed neutrinos exist. These Dirac neutrinos acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism but right-handed neutrinos interact much more weakly than any other particles.
Subquark atom:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101
-
Thanks man, I'll check these out!
I still don't quite understand how a boson can be a fermion. In the standard model, neutrino=fermion, not boson. A photon is a gauge boson, for certain, and acquires a non-zero mass whenever traveling through a medium. The statement that a neutrino is a photon is quite remarkable! Neutrinos have no gauge, so how can they transmit the electromagnetic force? I am familiar with right and left-handed neutrinos, but do not understand their relevance in the present discussion. Indeed, neutrino coupling constants are most distinct from photon interactions, hence their interaction in the higgs field would likewise be distinct and handled differently.
Anyway, these are just my initial reactions. I'm certain that the resources you provided will shed some light on these queries.
-
You are using the terminology and concepts invented by the physicists who copied the original source of their information (bosons, neutrinos, antimatter, fractional charge of an electron, string theory and much more).
It is not the fermions you have to worry about, but the fact that Schroedinger had no idea what he was doing, having just invented in an ad-hoc manner a wave equation which explains nothing.
For his wave equation, a multi-dimensional space is required: uranium needs 276 multi-dimensions.
Both Fermi and Dirac copied their information from the Occult Chemistry, Pauli discovered the existence of the neutrino from the same pages.
Why in the world would you follow a classification of quantum particles issued forth by Einstein, who had no idea or knowledge of the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations?
Higgs copied the concepts of the boson and the Higgs field right from the first chapter of the Occult Chemistry. But he did not understand the notion of the boson as it was being described in that work.
Modern science has no idea what electrons are or how they function.
-
Its spelled Schrodinger without an E. If you add the E, you have a cat or maybe you don't have a cat.
The Occult Chemistry??? You mean the fraudulent book that supposedly detailed the structure of the atomic universe by using clairvoyance?
The same people who claimed to have found the element they name Occultium - that turned out to be fake? Ok, sure.
Where is your evidence that those 4 scientists ever read that piece of trash of pseudoscience?
Please stop the word vomiting.
-
You mean the fraudulent book that supposedly detailed the structure of the atomic universe by using clairvoyance?
Let's put your word to the test.
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. 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.
Each and every element and isotope correctly described (in 1908) DECADES before they were even discovered: promethium (1945), astatine (1940), francium (1939), protactinium (1921), technetium (1937), deuterium, neon-22 nuclide (1913).
A clear description of strings, bosons, quarks, subquarks, positrons, DECADES before these concepts even came into existence.
(http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/images/reasons%20why%20Besant's%20&%20Leadbeater's%20claims%20are%20genuine.gif)
(http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/images/Comparison%20of%20micro-psi%20&%20scientific%20discoveries.gif)
"The processional motion (wobble) of hydrogen triangles was described in 1924 (The Theosophist, vol. 45) during a study of the hydroxyl group (atoms of hydrogen and oxygen bonded together) in the water molecule: It was said: "Each triangle rotates flat, and whilst rotating. sways a little up and down, as the lid of a pot rotates before it finally settles down" (Occult Chemistry, 3rd ed., p. 206). This is a description of Larmor precession, for the hydrogen triangles are protons endowed with a spin and a magnetic dipole moment (i.e., they are like a bar magnet, which aligns itself to a magnetic field). The remarkable significance of this is that Besant & Leadbeater described the spin precession of a proton in a magnetic field a year before George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit introduced the concept of 'electron spin,' which posits an intrinsic rotational angular momentum for this particle. The observation was made therefore before the proton was realised to possess a spin as well! Neither Besant & Leadbeater nor physicists could have known in 1924 that some electrically charged subatomic particles have an intrinsic spin that endows them with an intrinsic magnetic moment, causing them to wobble in a magnetic field. Here is clear and undeniable evidence of the objective nature of their micro-psi visions.
It was described earlier how the MPA of a second species of the inert gas neon with a number weight of 22.33 was described in 1908 by Besant & Leadbeater, about four years before the experimental physicist Francis Aston separated the neon-20 and neon-22 isotopes with his new mass spectrograph, although at the time he thought wrongly that he had discovered a new element. Aston, of course, got the scientific credit, winning the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1922. But, despite their error in assuming that they had paranormally observed atoms, Besant & Leadbeater were the first people to discover that neon had two forms, even publishing a number weight of 22.33 that was appropriate for the Ne-22 isotope."
Where is your evidence that those 4 scientists ever read that piece of trash of pseudoscience?
(http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/images/Dibaryon%20&%20Hydrogen%20MPA%20compared.gif)
https://phys.org/news/2011-07-unseen.html
"The image on the left, above, provided by the RIKEN scientific research institute in Japan depicts the six quarks making up the H dibaryon. The three coloured spheres denote the three colour states of a quark, labelled red, green & blue.
The image on the right can be interpreted as the deuteron (the nucleus of the stable isotope of hydrogen), created prior to observation by the micro-psi selection of a hydrogen molecule, which resulted in its two protons fusing together to form a deuteron after one of them changed into a neutron."
Using Jülich's accelerator COSY, German researchers confirmed in 2011 the possibility of dibaryons by discovering strong evidence for the existence of a short-lived resonance composed of six quarks.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140606102043.htm
http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/deuterium.html
"The description of Adyarium was published in 1932, which was the year when James Chadwick discovered the neutron and Heisenburg proposed that it is present in atomic nuclei. It would be another 32 years before physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig proposed the theory of quarks. The fact that Besant & Leadbeater reported Adyarium to break up into six positive triplets and six negative triplets, i.e., six up quarks and six d quarks — precisely what the quark model predicts for the composition of the two protons and two neutrons in two deuterons — is incontrovertible evidence that quarks were remote-viewed."
(http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/images/QCD%20calculation%20of%203-quark%20flux%20tube%20compared%20with%20hydrogen%20triplet.gif)
Results for so-called "lattice QCD" calculations of the energy density of the flux tubes connecting three quarks were discussed in 2003 at the International Conference on Color Confinement and Hadrons in Quantum Chromodynamics. They are shown below. The Y-shaped profile of the colour-coded density contours of the flux lines with quarks at their ends is strikingly similar to a diagram of a hydrogen triplet that appears in the 1908 edition of Occult Chemistry, in which Y-shaped lines of force "of a magnetic nature" terminate on UPAs.
http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/occult-chemistry-07.html
(https://image.ibb.co/b255ty/ochem.jpg)
"One of the central and crucial observations made by Besant and Leadbeater was that a hydrogen atom was composed of 18 subatomic particles which they christened as ‘Ultimate physical atoms’ or UPAs. Likewise they reported that the atoms of other elements also comprised of identical types of UPAs whose numbers increased in multiples of 18. Note that much of all this was done well before Rutherfords discovery of the atomic nucleus in 1911, in other words before the dawn of the ‘nuclear era’!. In the early 20s came the highly successful Bohr-Schrodinger model of the atom, according to which a hydrogen atom comprised of a single proton around which orbited a single electron.
During the mid 70's, a theoretical physicist from Cambridge University in England, by the name of Stephen Phillips who was carrying out PH.D. studies in 'particle physics' at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA), came across a copy of a book titled the 'Physics of the secret doctrine' by Kingsland wherein there was a diagram of the hydrogen atom as seen and recorded by Besant and Leadbeater. Physicists will recall that in 1963 a breakthrough in understanding elementary particles and nuclear structure came about through the postulation of a class of subnuclear particles called 'Quarks' independently by Gell‑Mann and Zweig. When Phillips saw Besant's diagram of the hydrogen atom he was astounded beyond belief as he realized that these clairvoyants had given out the 'quark' and indeed the 'subquark' structure of the nucleus as early as in 1895!
Phillips was so fascinated and overwhelmed by the exhaustive studies of Besant and Leadbeater, that he immediately embarked on a detailed analysis and interpretation of their findings, culminating in the publication of his 250 page book titled 'Extra sensory perception of quarks' in 1980.
Early on during their 'micro‑psi' investigations, Besant and Leadbeater observed that different specimens of the same element were composed of identical microscopic objects which they christened as 'Micro Psi Atoms' or MPAs. They presumed that MPAs were atoms of the particular element under study, in their normal state, undisturbed by the act of random selection and psychokinetic (PK) perturbation.
The MPAs of elements as they appeared to them during 'micro psi visualization' comprised of symmetrically arranged groups of particles or 'points of light’ bound together in such rapid complex orbital motion that they presented initially only a blurred unfocussed image. But with practice and using a'special form of will‑power' they could slow down their motion sufficiently enough to observe the details. Throughout the investigations Leadbeater specialized in the study of the geometrical arrangement of the constituents of the MPAs and in identifying and counting their number whilst Annie Besant examined the configuration of the 'lines of force' linking and holding together groups of particles. These investigators could tune the magnifying power of their micro‑psi vision over a wide range and thereby resolve the images of particles into clusters of 'points of light', each of which were discerned to be discrete three dimensional objects. As the structure and configuration of each of these ultimate objects were identical, independent of the element under study, they surmised that these were the fundamental building blocks of all matter, and called them as 'Ultimate Physical Atoms’ or UPAs.
At this point it is worth clearly distinguishing between MPAs and UPAs. Besant and Leadbeater presumably identified MPAs with 'What physicists now refer to as the 'nucleus' of the atom, although in 1895 when they first commenced their investigations Rutherford had not yet discovered the atomic nucleus. There were as many MPAs as there are elements. UPAs on the other hand are the sub nuclear particles of which all nuclear matter is made of. As observed by Besant and Leadbeater there is essentially only one type of UPA, but this occurs either as a 'male' (or positive) version or a 'female' (or negative) version, which are mirror images of each other.
The clairvoyant investigators found that the MPAs of different elements had different shapes. Interestingly, barring a few exceptions, the shape of an MPA was correlated with the position of the element in the 'periodic table' of elements. (The reader may refer to any elementary text book on atomic physics or physical chemistry to know more about the Periodic Table of Elements if they wish). Thus the MPAs of all elements belonging to a particular group of the periodic table and consequently possessing similar chemical properties have similar shapes. The seven shapes into which the MPAs were categorised are titled by them as: 'spike', 'dumb‑bell', 'tetrahedron', 'cube', 'octahedron', 'bar' and 'star'. The geometrical symmetry of the MPAs simplified Leadbeater's task of counting the number of UPAs in an MPA, considering that the heavier elements had several thousands of UPAs in their MPAs. By 1907 when the first edition of 'Occult chemistry' was published Besant and Leadbeater had examined nearly 60 elements and altogether by the end of their monumental research work spanning 38 years they had recorded for posterity the details of 111 MPAs.
As already mentioned Besant and Leadbeater counted 18 UPA particles in the Micro Physical Atoms (MPA) of Hydrogen gas. A striking feature of their observations was that the number of UPAs increased approximately in multiples of 18 as the atomic weight of the element increased. By the turn of the last century science had progressed sufficiently enough that the atomic weights of most of the elements of the periodic table had been determined on a scale normalized to unity for hydrogen. When Besant and Leadbeater found that for several elements the number of UPAs in an MPA was an integral multiple of 18, they divided the number of UPAs counted by them by 18 to obtain an estimate of the 'atomic weight' of the elements. The 1919 edition of 'Occult chemistry' compares the micro‑psi atomic weight so obtained (specified to the second decimal place!) with the scientific atomic weight, and points out the remarkable agreement between the two.
Besant and Leadbeater began studying the atoms of elements systematically in increasing order of atomic weight starting from Hydrogen. When they reached neon (element no. 10) they were rather puzzled to observe that there were two varieties of neon MPAs having slightly different number of UPAs each, namely 360 and 402. They called these as Neon and 'Meta‑Neon' and recorded their micro‑psi atomic weights as 20.00 and 22.33 by dividing the number of UPAs in the MPA by 18. Similar behaviour was noted in the MPAs of Argon, Krypton, Xenon and even Platinum.
The scientifically minded readers may have guessed by now that Besant and Leadbeater had essentially stumbled upon the phenomenon referred to by atomic science as 'isotopes', five years before Aston's discovery of the same in 1912 using his newly invented instrument known as mass spectrograph!
From the observed shapes of the MPAs and deduced micro‑psi atomic weights, these investigators were able to place the element under study properly in the periodic table of elements. In most cases, when the identity of the element was known to them already, the above method confirmed that their observations were accurate. In a few cases however the elements they investigated were not listed in the periodic table and in fact there were unfilled gaps in the table in the relevant locations. Thus these clairvoyant researchers accidentally discovered five elements which were unknown to science at the time of their work. These elements which have since been identified by science are: Promethium ('Illenium'), Astatine ('element no 85'), Francium ('element no 87), Protoactinium ('element no 91') and Technetium ('Masuroium'). The names in brackets are the names assigned by Besant and Leadbeater in their original publication. It is thus obvious that these clairvoyants were surprisingly accurate in their estimates of atomic weights and the proper Placement of the elements studied, in the periodic chart."
Occultium = Tritium
-
Yeah, except Leadbeater, et al stole their diagrams from Babbitt. Its a load of hogwash.
http://thenonist.com/index.php/thenonist/permalink/occult_chemistry/
-
E. Babbitt, Principles of Light and Colour:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/3277374/The-Principles-of-Light-and-Color-by-Edwin-D-Babbitt-1878
This is the work that physicists should be studying, and not the false information spread by Rutherford, Bohr and Heisenberg.
OCCULT CHEMISTRY, the best treatise on quantum mechanics ever written:
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/ocindex.htm
The first chapter, The Nature of Matter, was copied by each and every famous quantum physicist: you will find the Higgs boson/field, antimatter, string theory, quark theory, and much more.
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm
All of us have this ability, manifested in dreams, to view quantum particles; it is only that the researchers in field listed here have managed to display this aptitude during the day also.
The subquark, E. Babbitt:
(https://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter_files/image007.jpg)
Both the authors of the Occult Chemistry and Babbitt saw the same particle.
The subquark, Leadbeater and Besant:
(https://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter_files/image006.jpg)
There are researchers who were able to view the boson itself:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774536#msg1774536
ESP OF QUARKS AND STRINGS, Dr. Stephen Phillips (UCLA, Cambridge):
https://archive.org/details/ExtraSensoryPerceptionOfQuarks
https://esotericscience.org/article5a.htm
For many decades, scientists have been trying to devise a single unified theory to explain all known physical phenomena, but a model that appears to unite the seemingly incompatible String Theory and Standard Model has existed for 100 years. It described baryons, mesons, quarks and preons over 50 years before conventional science. It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory. It described the existence of anti-matter 30 years before conventional science. It described the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs. It described the existence of isotopes 5 years before conventional science.
-
Honestly was not expecting this discussion of Aether to lead to the occult. Straight-up magic.
More fool me, I guess.
-
You are a believer in pure magic.
Kepler faked each and every entry in Nova Astronomia to make it appear as if Mars was orbiting the Sun, in an elliptical path:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670 (two consecutive messages)
Four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere by PURE MAGIC.
Please explain how two gravitons attract each other.
How do two objects attract each other? Explain the mechanism.
By pure magic elements with mass higher than 5 and 8 were created:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1885780#msg1885780 (helium flash paradox)
Occult = simply the ability to see matter at a more infinitesimal level
The existence of ether longitudinal waves was proven long ago by E.T. Whittaker:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059
-
Four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere by PURE MAGIC.
Do you agree that there's something that keeps the moons of Jupiter in orbit around it? Do you agree that there's something that makes most celestial bodies spherical? Do you agree that black holes exist and there's something about them that captures light? Do you agree that there is something that bends light as it passes very close to objects with large mass, as can be observed during a total eclipse by measuring the shift in the position of stars? Do you agree that there's something that redirected the trajectory of asteroid 2011 CQ1 as it passed by Earth in 2011?
If gravity is magic, what is this "something"?
-
Do you agree that there's something that keeps the moons of Jupiter in orbit around it?
It can't be attractive gravity.
Here is the flux of gravitons paradox applied specifically to the Sun - Jupiter - Io system:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400 (second part of the message)
Do you agree that there's something that makes most celestial bodies spherical?
It can't be attractive gravity.
Here are the precise calculations using the Clayton equation applied to the Sun's chromosphere:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765
Do you agree that black holes exist and there's something about them that captures light?
Black Holes do not exist:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090729082308/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html (one of the best archives on black holes hoax)
http://web.archive.org/web/20090303083616/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bang.htm (black holes, fact or fiction?)
http://web.archive.org/web/20090318144723/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bol.htm#b2
http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Schreiber_black_holes.pdf
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/black-holes-tear-logic-apart/
Do you agree that there is something that bends light as it passes very close to objects with large mass, as can be observed during a total eclipse by measuring the shift in the position of stars?
The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:
http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)
Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.
Do you agree that there's something that redirected the trajectory of asteroid 2011 CQ1 as it passed by Earth in 2011?
It can't be attractive gravity.
Here are the calculations involving the solar radiation pressure and the solar wind for comet 17P/Holmes:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2066114#msg2066114
-
Ok, you’ve said a few times what it can’t be. So what is it? One again - I don’t have to understand the mechanism behind an effect to observe the effect exists. Rainbows existed and could be observed before we understood the way sunlight reflects and refracts through drops of water to cause the effect.
-
I don’t have to understand the mechanism behind an effect to observe the effect exists.
What you are telling your readers is that you simply DO NOT KNOW if gravity is attractive.
If you do not understand the mechanism, then listen to Euler:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032696#msg2032696
Or listen to Newton:
http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm (I. Newton letter to R. Boyle)
4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.
5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.
Let's see how Newton describes this force in the Principia:
“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”
the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A
PRESSURE = PUSHING FORCE
ATTRACTION = PULLING FORCE
Read Newton's clear description again:
the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail
How does body A strongy urge the obstacle to move to the right? If it is pulling the obstacle, it should be moving to the left, not to the right.
How is the pressure from body B exerted on the obstacle?
Newton says that the obstacle will move due to the pressure exerted by bodies A and B.
https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false
Rainbows existed and could be observed before we understood the way sunlight reflects and refracts through drops of water to cause the effect.
Rainbows do not claim that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere by pure magic.
-
What you are telling your readers is that you simply DO NOT KNOW if gravity is attractive.
It is observably attractive, as seen in the Cavendish experiment, observations about objects falling, moons orbiting etc.
I’ll ignore your word salad, suffice to say that it’s weird how the Nobel prize continues to elude you.
Rainbows do not claim that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere by pure magic.
Nor does gravity. It is one of the 4 fundamental forces in the universe, it’s effects are observable and remain so whether the mechanism behind it is understood or not.
-
The Cavendish experiment is much better explained by pressure gravity.
In fact here is the LAMOREAUX EXPERIMENT, in full vacuum:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616174#msg1616174
The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.
You have just been given quotes from Euler and Newton (right from the pages of the Principia), yet you dismiss them both with disdain.
Let's see how Newton describes this force in the Principia:
“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”
the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A
PRESSURE = PUSHING FORCE
ATTRACTION = PULLING FORCE
Read Newton's clear description again:
the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail
How does body A strongy urge the obstacle to move to the right? If it is pulling the obstacle, it should be moving to the left, not to the right.
How is the pressure from body B exerted on the obstacle?
Newton says that the obstacle will move due to the pressure exerted by bodies A and B.
-
You are using the terminology and concepts invented by the physicists who copied the original source of their information (bosons, neutrinos, antimatter, fractional charge of an electron, string theory and much more).
It is not the fermions you have to worry about, but the fact that Schroedinger had no idea what he was doing, having just invented in an ad-hoc manner a wave equation which explains nothing.
For his wave equation, a multi-dimensional space is required: uranium needs 276 multi-dimensions.
Both Fermi and Dirac copied their information from the Occult Chemistry, Pauli discovered the existence of the neutrino from the same pages.
Why in the world would you follow a classification of quantum particles issued forth by Einstein, who had no idea or knowledge of the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations?
Higgs copied the concepts of the boson and the Higgs field right from the first chapter of the Occult Chemistry. But he did not understand the notion of the boson as it was being described in that work.
Modern science has no idea what electrons are or how they function.
Well, yes, I am using those terms according to their current definitions. It sounds like you believe there exists evidence for new definitions for the terms, or would like to propose new definitions for them. That is okay with me, but it would be helpful if you included the new definitions to further the discussion.
For example, if I say "the sky is green," and you say: "no, it is blue." It is not really fair for me to reply with: "oh well I have a new definition for colors, and my green is your blue."
These words: bosons, neutrinos, antimatter, fractional charge of an electron, string theory, all have precise definitions and meanings. In order for us to produce accurate theories that are competitive, we need to either work within the understood framework of those definitions or clearly define new ones. I would recommend using entirely different words, since re-defining the boson (for example) will probably just cause confusion.
Does that make sense at all?
-
You are a believer in pure magic.
Kepler faked each and every entry in Nova Astronomia to make it appear as if Mars was orbiting the Sun, in an elliptical path:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670 (two consecutive messages)
Four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere by PURE MAGIC.
Please explain how two gravitons attract each other.
How do two objects attract each other? Explain the mechanism.
By pure magic elements with mass higher than 5 and 8 were created:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1885780#msg1885780 (helium flash paradox)
Occult = simply the ability to see matter at a more infinitesimal level
The existence of ether longitudinal waves was proven long ago by E.T. Whittaker:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059
Hi sandokhan,
I think I can help with these questions. These descriptions are of course from a RE perspective, so I do not necessarily claim to agree with them.
Please explain how two gravitons attract each other.
In QFT, a graviton would be a vector boson exchange between two massive particles. Hence, gravitons do not attract each other -- they are gauge bosons, so they mediate the force. Particle A emits a graviton, which is then absorbed by Particle B. The net 4-momentum change is that both particles mover close together (to be quite loose with the language). This is how it would work in QFT.
How do two objects attract each other? Explain the mechanism.
Please see above for a quantum description. For a geometrical description, we need to consider Einstein's field equations, which are 16 coupled tensor equations that describe how energy density impacts the geometry of space. The relevant objects in these equations are the stress-energy tensor, the Ricci tensor, and one's chosen metric. Upon solving these equations for a given situation, the result implies that a massive object warps space around it, and so another object's trajectory will be distorted as it traverses space near it.
This is not a quantum description, of course, and REers are unable to reconcile the difference.
By pure magic elements with mass higher than 5 and 8 were created:
These are made in stars. The triple alpha reaction produces carbon from 3 helium nuclei. Stellar environments are needed because of the high temperatures and pressure necessary to facilitate this reaction. The carbon can fuse with helium to make oxygen as well. Later, if the star is massive enough, then it can ignite carbon burning in its core, which produces magnesium and later silicon. The complete burning reaction networks are pretty complicated, with tons of reactions energetically possible during each burning phase.
Before the Universe created stars, I guess pure magic would have indeed been needed :)
-
For a geometrical description, we need to consider Einstein's field equations, which are 16 coupled tensor equations that describe how energy density impacts the geometry of space.
There is no such thing as TGR:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750
The triple alpha reaction produces carbon from 3 helium nuclei.
There is no such thing as the triple alpha process/helium flash:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1885776#msg1885776 (two consecutive messages)
In QFT, a graviton would be a vector boson exchange between two massive particles.
So, you are relying on Feynman's ideas on the subject.
Particle A emits a graviton, which is then absorbed by Particle B.
Where does this graviton originate from? HOW is it absorbed by particle B? How does the iron/nickel core emit these gravitons? Is it a one time affair, five billion years ago, or are they emitted continuously? How do these graviton strings, connecting the core to the objects/plants/animals on the surface, know how to anticipate the next move of a person? Does a person simply slide through these graviton strings, which then attach themselves to each atom of the body in no time at all, or do the original graviton strings simply travel along with the person on the surface?
What force permits these gravitons to travel along with the Earth on the 30km/s orbit around the Sun?
You see, by stating that particle B absorbs the graviton, you have just moved the original attractive paradox to a more infinitesimal level. Describe the absorption mechanism. Would object B (particle B) be attracted to object A through these vector exchange bosons? In effect, this means that there is huge number of vector exchange strings (made up of bosons) between any two objects.
However, we have the flux of gravitons paradox which casts a huge shadow (no pun intended) on this sort of mechanism.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400 (second part of the message)
Moreover, QFT is formulated in a 4-dimensional space time continuum which does not exist at all.
And the gravitons would have to be massless and have spin 2.
Hence, gravitons do not attract each other.
In the Feynman diagrams, the graviton is what is being exchanged for two particles to feel an attractive force.
Still, you have to explain the attractive mechanicsm at the quantum level.
And there are huge problems with the graviton imbedded in space time.
"The graviton particle is chosen with the right mathematical characteristic to quantizegravity in accordance with quantum field theory and general relativity. These attempts however, failto account for the origin of space-time curvature. Specifically, how does a graviton producecurvature when propagating from one mass to another? Does the graviton move in an alreadyexisting 4D space-time curvature? If it does, how is the space-time produced by the graviton? Ifnot, how is 4D space-time curvature produced? In other words, if the 4D space-time curvature isnot caused by the graviton exchanges, then what is the cause?"
Let us take a look at what we do definitely know about gravitons, as proven by E.T. Whittaker in 1903 and 1904.
"Whittaker figured out using partial differential equations what the waveform structure functions and dynamics of gravitational field effects are. And he demonstrated in his papers that gravitational field effect is a product of finer scale interactions. It has a waveform, it can be mitigated by the imposition of external forces, it is predictable and it operates according to certain rules."
"Whittaker’s decomposition of potentials and fields. In 1903 and 1904, E. T. Whittaker published two fundamental papers of interest to (i) the "infolding" of longitudinal wave (LW) electrodynamics inside the scalar potential, and also (ii) the expression of any EM field or wave as comprised of two potentials with appropriate differential functions applied.
For any EM field or wave: Suppose the two potentials are taken as scalar potentials (as advanced by Whittaker in 1904), and each of these two “basis potentials” is also first decomposed into longitudinal EM waves as shown by Whittaker in 1903, and then the appropriate differential functions are applied to each of the two decompositions, yielding the necessary EM field or wave pattern. Then all EM potentials, fields, and waves are shown (i) to be sets of ongoing EM energy flows in the form of longitudinal EM waves comprising the basis scalar potential(s), and (ii) to be comprised of internal longitudinal EM waves and strong internal structuring.
Scalar Interferometry: It follows that longitudinal EM wave interferometry (e.g., interfering the inner structures of two scalar potential beams in a distant interference zone in space), can create any known EM field or wave or pattern."
The hidden internal wave structures exist in all scalar potentials.
So, what Whittaker discovered is that QFT in Minkowski spacetime continuum NEEDS a region where the spacetime is flat to compute these states.
"Einstein unwittingly restricted general relativity to a subset of the theory he intended to write. This over-restriction was again an indirect result of the fundamental Heaviside/Gibbs error in electromagnetics.
Unfortunately, Einstein's view of electromagnetics approximated the classical view. In classical EM theory, EM and gravitation were mutually exclusive. That is, the strong EM force was not usable as an agent to curve spacetime.
Therefore, as a curvature agent, Einstein only considered the weak gravitational force due to the attraction of mass. Now the G-force is far, far weaker than the E-force. For two electrons, for example, the attractive G-force between them is on the order of only 10exp-42 times as strong as the electrical repulsion. The G-force is very, very weak! If only the weak G-force is considered for curving spacetime, then there will never be an observable spacetime curvature, except in the immediate vicinity of a very large mass - such as on the surface of the sun or a star.
Einstein reasoned that the laboratory, and the observer/scientist and instrument, would never be on the surface of the sun or of a star. Therefore, he reasoned, the local spacetime -- where the lab, the observer, and the instruments are -- would never be curved. The local spacetime would always be flat.
Unfortunately, Einstein then made a fundamental error. He overgeneralized his thought examination. He stated one of his fundamental postulates of general relativity as "The local spacetime is always flat." This is overly restrictive, and did not follow from his thought process. His postulate can be more accurately stated as follows "The local spacetime is always flat, whenever only the weak gravitational force is used for the agent of curvature and the local region of interest is not near a large collection of mass."
Notice the difference in the two statements of the postulate. Einstein's overstatement does not allow the far stronger EM force to be used for curvature. In effect, his own overstatement excluded electromagnetics from curvature unity with gravitation, in his own general relativity theory. Ironically Einstein then tried for the rest of his life to fit electromagnetics back in there - never realizing that his own too-strenuous statement of the flat local spacetime postulate doomed all his efforts to failure.
On the other hand, the corrected statement of his postulate admits the following corollary "When a very strong force such as the electromagnetic force is used for the agent of curvature, the local spacetime may be curved, even though the local region of interest is not near a large collection of mass."
As can be seen, Einstein unwittingly wrote only a subset of his intended theory. Correct restatement of his overstated postulate of uncurved spacetime dramatically extends general relativity, and unites it with electromagnetics in a unified field theory."
"Whittaker showed that a scalar EM potential is comprised of bidirectional EM wave pairs, where the pairs are harmonics and phase-locked together. In each coupled wave/antiwave pair, a true forward-time EM wave is coupled to a time-reversal of itself -- its phase conjugate replica antiwave.
To understand scalar EM, as we said, you must understand that there are actually two kinds of electromagnetics. One is -- so to speak -- only on the external "surface magnitude' of the vacuum potential, and the other is in the interior of the vacuum potential. The exterior kind is spatial in nature; the interior kind is hyperspatial in nature.
The exterior kind of EM is caused or due to the potential magnitudes and their gradients, interacting with charged particles (forcefields); that's the "normal" kind. In that kind the theoretical EM model's focus is on the forcefields as causes, with the potentials themselves just regarded as mathematical conveniences. Certainly that "normal" EM does not contain any sort of organized EM structure inside, and composing, the scalar EM potential. It just models the scalar potential at a point as a magnitude, and the vector potential at a point as a magnitude and direction. Notice it thus models only local action; it does not model any sort of action at a distance. The EM action is considered -- and described in the classical EM model -- as existing at a point in space and time. Further, the local spacetime itself is considered not to have any direct causative EM interaction there. In other words, there are assumed to be no local vacuum engines -- no Whittaker activation of mass or the local vacuum.
There's also an internal EM, normally completely inside the scalar potential, which exists as "infolded" harmonic sets of EM antiparallel wave/antiwave pairs. Whittaker 1903 describes that kind of EM. This internal EM was in Maxwell's original quaternion equations, hidden in the scalar component resultant that remained when the directional components of quaternions interacted to form directional zero resultants. The scalar component resultant of the interaction often still remained, and infolded inside itself (i.e., it then consisted of) scalar and vector functions of the yet-present-and-interacting component vectors.
Today that part of Maxwell's original theory just appears in classical EM Heaviside/Gibbs theory as a vector zero resultant, which is erroneously discarded as if it were a complete absence of EM. It is no such thing; it is merely the absence of EM translation of charged particles. It indeed is a patterned EM-induced gravitational stress in local spacetime, and it is a little "vacuum engine" capable of working directly on the atomic nucleus. If you want to know what all the fuss about the difference between Maxwell's 200-odd quaternion equations EM theory and the Heaviside/Gibbs four vector equations curtailment/subset, just look at the difference between a zero vector result and a quaternion resultant, in an interaction where the vector resultant is zero but the scalar component of the quaternion resultant remains. Specifically, look mathematically at the internal functional nature of that remaining scalar resultant -- the part that's thrown away in the present theory.
Note that the internal EM is more than just a model of conditions at a point. In addition to that, it prescribes a hyperspatial, bidirectional flow of EM transverse wave energy at the point, into and out of it, into it from afar and away from it back to afar, on an infinite number of phase-locked frequencies. In other words, the internal EM energetically connects conditions at a point with essentially all the other points in the universe. And when we interfere two such scalar potentials, we are actually interfering both of those sets of an infinite number of bidirectional EM waves. (See Whittaker's second paper, 1904). It doesn't matter where the interference zone occurs; it can be a million miles away, or a light-year away. The interference accomplishes "outfolding," and creates "normal" or "exterior" EM effects. Specifically, it creates force fields and patterns of them -- both static and dynamic -- on charged particle systems. The internal EM thus prescribes and models action at a distance, and incorporates the "normal" exterior EM as a special case of local scalar interferometry. Whittaker rigorously proved this mathematically.
To first order, the G-potential is a function of the trapped local EM energy density of the vacuum (bidirectional longitudinal waves).
Not only is the mass potential a scalar EM potential, but it is also a gravitational potential. Note that the concept of the mass potential is a unifying field concept, for unifying gravity and EM fields.
The beauty of the mass potential concept is fourfold: (1) Now mass has a universal kind of organized EM internal structure, given by Whittaker's 1903 paper, that comprises the mass in the first place, (2) the hidden internal EM structure of the mass potential can be changed and engineered at will, electromagnetically, by external means and directly, (3) we now have direct electrogravitation, opening up the vista of directly engineering antigravity."
-
Now, let us examine the most fundamental problem with QFT: faster than light particles.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00696109
Quantum field theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication
Phillippe H. Eberhard, Ronald R. Ross
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5604n7md
SUPERLUMINAL J.C. MAXWELL ETHER EQUATIONS:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058884#msg2058884
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701
Experimental proof of faster than light gravitational waves:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1943468#msg1943468
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1943625#msg1943625 (Walker-Dual experiment)
-
Hi sanokhan,
There is a lot to unpack here, so I won’t be able to address all of it at once.
TGR:
I am a bit uncertain how to be most helpful here. It sounds like you take issue with imaginary time coordinates. This originated from special relativity and one’s chosen metric. The coordinate has units of space, and it is really only the length element that is physically observable. The reason why time has been incorporated into a 4-vector is because SR claims that the two are coupled. I think what we need to maybe do is develop a theory which keeps them separate. Has this been started? I’d like to add to what is already there rather than re-inventing the wheel, as it were.
Gravitons:
Yes you are correct, this is QFT. So the theory states that gravitons are always emitted. But they remain “off-shell” unless absorbed by another particle. That is, no force is mediated unless the interaction occurs. The question of how exactly one particle “absorbs” the graviton doesn’t really have a good answer, because “absorb” is just a useful word to say but doesn’t describe what actually happens — according to the theory. The particles are local expirations of a quantum field. When two fields interact there is an interference (sort of like when two waves collide - but the fields are a bit different than classical waves).
Heavy elements:
I’ll need a bit more help from you on this one. I don’t get how the triple alpha process cannot occur. 4He+4He=8Be+4He=12C.
Since 8Be is unstable, it must combine with 4He quickly before it decays. The only place one can find the needed temperatures and densities for that is in stars.
Now for pop2 and later stars, which have heavy elements as part of their initial composition, uranium would indeed be processes in the star’s core and later supernova. Of course, more U would be produced in the explosion by the r-process. However, U in the envelope would not be processed, because there is not enough T and P there. Often, it is difficult to distinguish between the initial composition and the final one for these reasons.
The mass number bottlenecks 5 and 8 are not really a problem in RE theory. The problem lies in the very early universe, and our answers may be found there!
Oh, BTW, the maxwell equations you cite which are different than the ones Einstein used really are the same. Einstein used the equations for a vacuum, the other ones are how you adapt them for light through media, which also include a general gauge. In other words, you use one or the other depending on the situation. In fact, if you take the complete set, and use the context dielectric constants etc. For a vacuum, you recover the ones Einstein used.