Re: Aether
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2019, 10:28:13 AM »
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


Re: Aether
« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2019, 10:56:53 AM »
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"?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2019, 11:20:08 AM by Balls Dingo »

Re: Aether
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2019, 12:13:55 PM »
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


*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #23 on: March 09, 2019, 12:45:35 PM »
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.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Re: Aether
« Reply #24 on: March 09, 2019, 01:16:17 PM »
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.


*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2019, 01:35:09 PM »
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.

Quote
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.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Re: Aether
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2019, 01:41:37 PM »
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.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2019, 01:46:14 PM »
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?
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2019, 02:03:25 PM »
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  :)
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Re: Aether
« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2019, 03:22:33 PM »
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."

Re: Aether
« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2019, 04:01:50 PM »
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)

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #31 on: March 09, 2019, 04:14:56 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2019, 04:18:54 PM by QED »
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior