luminiferous aether - Is it natural?

'Cold fusion' has received research attention, particularly after a claim in the mid 1980s by two people who claimed to have managed it. They claimed it was done using electrodes, using a process which was basically electrolysis. Interesting methods other have tried include using sound waves in a fluid to produce microbubbles which then collapse at high speed and might produce fusion.

In all cases attempts to repeat the claimed results have failed and in the case of the 1980s claim it was realised that if true the neutron emissions would kill the two people doing the experiment.

The government finds a lot of crazy things, there's plenty of stuff from the 50s and 60s when nuclear technology or space technology was funded to insane levels. People proposed nuclear powered planes. Space based laser anti-ICBM projects like 'Star Wars' were taken seriously.

Can you provide a peer reviewed article in a serious, reputable scientific journal which has verified (by an independent research group) evidence of cold fusion. Your link does not suffice.

No, I said that the object which had temperatures up to a billion degrees was easily noticeable in the day time sky. The Sun's surface temperature being 5,000~10,000K I'm aware of. If you're having to paraphrase me to the point of a strawman it might suggest you're clutching at straws, trying to avoid justifying your own claims.

Yes, I made a mistake. Does me being mistaken negate the fact you claimed fusion happens at all temperature? No. Does it negate your burden of proof for your claims? No. Does it mean you aren't an armchair physicist? No.

Yes, why do I keep making a statement of fact. Why would that be?

So I'm not allowed an opinion?

You didn't derive any result, you just lifted someone else's. If you truly have got a justification for this equation in your work you should have provided it. You haven't demonstrated your own work is capable of concluding that result, you just took someone else's and said "Mine does this". Your claiming the result of someone else's work to be your own.

Since when does that nullify what I've been saying? Do I have to read the original derivation of Newton to know that if you said "I invented calculus" that you'd be a liar? You said "This is someone else's result, I'm going to shuffle it around and proclaim it follows from my work". Do I need to see Casamir's original derivation to know you took his equation? You admit it!

I think you should find out what plagiarism means. It's more than just a copy and paste, its about ideas and results. Relabelling doesn't negate plagiarism. You have taken a result someone else did, in work utterly unconnected to aether, and said "Aether produces this result". That's at best dishonest and at worst plagiarism. Neither one of which would allow you to pass peer review.

Special relativity demonstrated how the work of Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincare and Maxwell all could be put into a single formulation, which Minkowski then put into a geometric context. It is sometimes said that 'special relativity was in the air', in that if Einstein hadn't done it someone else (likely one of the people I just mentioned) would have before the decade was out. What was really the work of Einstein's genius was general relativity, which took the physics community by shock and was something which might have taken another 10 or 20 years for someone else to develop.

And Einstein actually mentioned aether after special relativity was published, including after general relativity was published. It didn't leave his work until some time later, so your claim that its Einstein killing aether is not true. I know you want it to be true but I want to be a billionaire but wishing doesn't make it so.

Yes, yes, there's a huge conspiracy against people who believed as you do not. Tell you what, how about you provide some evidence for your claims or evidence they presented for their claims being valid. Conspiracies are easy to whine about but if you and they couldn't provide evidence, logic and reasoned argument then even without a conspiracy you'd get nowhere.

I love it when hacks like you say things like that. Am I here claiming I'm the greatest physicist ever? Nope. Am I claiming to have a theory of everything? Nope. A theory of even one force? Nope. Do I claim there's a huge technological advantage to be gained from my work? Nope (though I do now work in the realms of applying highly mathematical concepts to technological problems my PhD was in string theory). You're here claiming to have a ToE with high technological potentials.

So which of us has the more inflated view of himself?

Why is it that hacks have an issue with accepting scientists, including physicists and mathematicians, can have strong opinions? We're not robots or on the day of getting a degree or doctorate sworn to be pleasant to everyone. My opinions are my own and I voice them as I see fit. Now if I step over a particular line a moderator steps in and I get a warning. I've had 3 over the time I've been here, including one which doesn't expire for another month or two. Clearly I skim close to the line of what this forum allows but the fact I have been a member here for quite a while and moderators (like JamesR above this post) have been reading this thread, for which I haven't been told to cool it, I'd say I'm operating within the bounds of acceptability. I tone it down in other forums but this is pseudoscience. In pseudo hacks are allowed to post crap which wouldn't be acceptable in the maths/physics forum but then their responders are also allowed to be a bit blunter.

The day you provide reason and evidence for your position and claims, demonstrating your results follow from your assumptions, not someone else's, is the day I play nicer. You want to be taken seriously by the science community you have to earn it. Whether or not you think I'm part of said community is irrelevant. Whether or not I know the temperature required to fusion Silicon into Iron within a star is irrelevant. Whether I have a PhD in theoretical physics or failed to get a GED is irrelevant to your claims. The progression of your work relies on you presenting a good argument for it. Everything else is ultimately immaterial.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some just brought this article to my attention:
www dot nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7300/full/nature09124.html

the above article was linked to from this article:
www dot nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7300/full/465846a.html

I know you'll say this is a crank magazine, but it is interesting to see that other scientists have also been exploring the geometrical structures and spin structures of space since the late 1950s.

The article also puts into perspective your continued ignorance concerning the amount of research done with regard to spin structures and their relationships to space. Without a spin structure with spatial characteristics, the spins would not be able to align themselves parallel, anti-parallel, or in any other configuration relative to each other.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not that it will change your mind or cause you to become an honorable person, but you can read the evidence for yourself in this article:

Robert S. Shankland, Science, New Series, Vol. 176, No. 4035 (May 12, 1972), 652-653 ​

At the strong encouragement of Albert Einstein, the Miller data was re-examined posthumously and judged to be questionable due to the claim that Miller’s results correlated with the temperature gradient across the interferometer table. For all of Miller’s extensive experience, it seems highly suspect that Miller did not notice what should have been an obvious flaw in the results, were it true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The quantization comes from the quantum, measurable nature of the Compton wavelength. The Earth's orbit is not a quantum measurement; it is a random duration of time.

Also, it isn't the value of the speed that is important, but that it is the maximum speed anything can move in a linear trajectory across space. There must be a physical cause for this maximum speed (regardless of its value), unless you believe the limits of the Universe are arbitrarily put in place and maintained by some kind of overseeing entity.

No, I meant the unit of resistance, which in MKS units is notated as:

\(\Omega = \frac{{kg \cdot {m^2}}}{{sec \cdot cou{l^2}}}\)

That isn't true in the neurosciences.

Stefan Schmidt and Harald Walach, "Electrodermal Activity (Eda) -- State-of-the-Art Measurement and Techniques for Parapsychological Purposes," The Journal of Parapsychology 64.2 (2000): 139​

Do you know what the word "monopole" means? It may be possible to engineer macro objects to exhibit monopole-like characteristics, but at the quantum level there are no monopoles. The electrostatic and magnetic charges are both dipoles.

Also, the Aether Physics Model reveals the left-right spin characteristic of space is another type of dipole. So that even gravity is not a monopole at the quantum level. But that is obviously not the case at the macro level where antimatter generally is excluded from existence. Subatomic particles have half spin because they exclude the opposite spin direction (and also only move in the forward time direction) with regard to left-right spin (and forward-backward spin).

To be more specific, the Aether provides only dipole structures. In the case of matter, the mass dimension acts as if it is a monopole relative to gravity because normal matter subatomic particles lack the antimatter spin direction. Aether is the environment in which matter resides. Aether is a dipole with regard to mass, but matter is still only a monopole with regard to mass.

At the quantum level, electrostatic charge always belongs to the Aether, and it is always a dipole. An electron only resides on the negative electrostatic side of the Aether unit, so it exhibits a monopole negative electrostatic charge, whereas the proton exhibits a monopole positive electrostatic charge because it always exists on the other half of the dipole Aether unit.

Further, at the quantum level, the Aether generates magnetic charge in proportion to the mass associated with the subatomic particle's angular momentum. All subatomic particles always possess both north and south magnetic poles, which makes it possible for the numerous types of magnetic-related forces (Casimir force, strong nuclear force, Van der Wals force, macro magnetic forces, diamagnetic force, and paramagnetic force).

You really shouldn't be judging any of the theory without reviewing the theory in its entirety. Otherwise, you are like a freshman college student judging mainstream theories of physics on his first day of class. Whether a theory exists in the mainstream or on the fringe, it should be reviewed in its entirety before passing judgment.

Generally, it is better to start with questions before proceeding to comments.

Proof? You won't get proof of anything, anywhere, when it comes to physics. What you will get is evidence. Proofs are mathematical analyses of mathematical equations.

The evidence is present in all the papers, otherwise, they wouldn't have been written and posted there.

 

Where did you imagine I said the electron's electrostatic charge is a dipole?

I'm not here to change your mind about anything. You can think however you choose to think. If you ever decide to investigate the Aether Physics Model further, let me know.

 

You are not a physicist, are you? Apparently my words are too big for you.

A "macro object" is an object made of molecules in complex forms, like nanotubes. Some people claim to have developed monopoles in macro objects, or at least the appearance of monopoles.
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48630634d2591

But at the quantum level (i.e. aether units and electrons) there are no monopoles.

If you take the time to read what I have written, instead of projecting your own thoughts, you will see that I said the Aether is the domain where electrostatic dipoles exist. The electron electrostatic charge monopole occurs because the electron exists on only one side of an Aether unit. Thus the electrostatic charge of the electron is a monopole (despite the fact the Aether possesses an electrostatic dipole. And, in fact, electrons can be physically arranged such that an electrostatic dipole can be created between the negative charge side of the Aether unit occupied by the electron, and the remaining positively charged empty side of the Aether unit, and this is called the electron dipole moment:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100720101349.htm

However, your question concerned the magnetic charge of the electron, not the electrostatic charge. And as I clearly explained, the electron is measured to have a magnetic moment and technology routinely harnesses the magnetic dipole of the electron, such as in cathode ray tubes where electrons are deflected by magnetic fields. The magnetic charge of the electron is always a dipole in that it always has both north and south magnetic poles.

duh!

 

For someone to post this question:

and then give this link
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48630634d2591
as support seems rather silly.
You do know that Orion's Arm is a science-fiction site, don't you?

Oh wait, you thought the accompanying illustration was a genuine photo...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You do know that magnetic monopoles are science fiction, don't you? James was asking about magnetic monopoles. The topic of magnetic monopoles has been entertained by the mainstream because they developed math that treats the magnetic dipole forces as two separate monopoles. Physicists have been looking for physical manifestations of magnetic monopoles ever since, but cannot find them.

Every now and then someone claims to be right on the verge of finding magnetic monopoles. That is why I said, "It may be possible to engineer macro objects to exhibit monopole-like characteristics, but at the quantum level there are no monopoles."

Orion's Arm is an independent web site that produces science fiction, but official sites for CERN, LIGO, JPL, and other nationally funded labs also produce science fiction in the form of Higgs bosons, interferometer-based gravitational wave detectors, and imaginary force particles such as gluons.

Check out this science fiction from Caltech:

The crucial difference between the two theories is that while the photons of QED carry no charge of their own, the gluons of QCD are themselves colored particles. A quark is surrounded by a sea of "virtual" gluons that arise due to quantum fluctuations, and the color of the virtual gluons enhances the quark's own color. A probe coming closer and closer to the quark is influenced less and less by the virtual gluons, so that the effective color charge of the quark seems to weaken; this is asymptotic freedom. ​

Why invent all this fairy tale nonsense when the forces between protons and neutrons can be expressed with a simple Newtonian force equation acting on the magnetic charges of the particles?

For reasons previously mentioned, quarks are merely temporary debris caused by destroying perfectly good subatomic particles in collisions. The visible matter of the protons and neutrons loses its stability because the Aether unit (quantum rotating magnetic field) shatters and the particle's angular momentum once again is released as dark matter. The transition is brief, but noticeable, and is erroneously named a quark. To say that protons and neutrons build from quarks is like saying a wine glass builds from glass shards, and then prove it by slamming the glass against a brick wall. And then claiming the glass shards must have been once held together by "virtual" glue. And then claiming that the glue cannot be found because the closer you get to seeing it, the more invisible it becomes, and then call this "asymptotic freedom" to make it sound official.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, there is a lot of science fiction on the web. Unfortunately, a large portion of it is maintained on mainstream science web sites.

 

Where did I say otherwise? Your reply is a complete non-sequitor. And I know that research has been done on the geometric and spin structure of space-time, my PhD topic was on the structure of the fields which parametrise the deformations of compact dimensions in string theory and the properties of gauge fields living on branes which deform space-time.

My comment was about how quantum spin is not the same as angular spin. Quantum spin is associated to the way a field changes under a representation of the Lorentz group. The Lorentz group is associated to space-time but this doesn't mean there's a direct relationship between space-time and quantum spin. For instance a gauge field \(A_{\mu}\) is spin 1 because it has 1 Lorentz index. The dimensionality of space-time is then how many values the index can take. Then there's another kind of spin which is more closely linked to space-time, the spin connection. Its difficult to put spinors into curved space-time, as their index doesn't transform under the Lorentz group in the way a gauge field does, its got a spinorial index. In order to couple the spinor to space-time properly you have to use vierbeins and in doing this you end up with a spin connection in the same way coupling a spinor to a gauge field gives you a gauge connection.

This isn't high level stuff, its something anyone whose done a course in quantum field theory and a course in GR should know about. It's required knowledge to even get onto a PhD, never mind complete one. I know you have to go to Google to find your information but some of us have books and lecture notes and can either recall this stuff on demand or know precisely where to find it.

I'll be happy to provide you with a pdf copy of the 4th year lecture notes on black holes I transcribed from when I was doing the course, so you can actually try to learn something of this area.

The claimed result of cold fusion has not been confirmed by other research groups, at any point. People tried to do cold fusion and failed. No doubt people are working on it now and will do so in the future but the fact remains there's no example of it being produced and then the results repeated by others. If cold fusion were a well documented reality there'd not be any need to spend billions on hot fusion technology, there'd be no need to worry about global warming as we'd have a carbon-less practically limitless supply of energy.

But anyway, this is besides the point. I'm still waiting for you to derive even one result yourself from clearly stated postulates and in such a way to demonstrate (or even define) aether.

 

Okay, but I'm saying I can show a direct relationship between space-time and quantum spin through dimensional analysis.

I'm sure this makes perfect sense to you because you have been taught to think of physics in terms of probability theory and matrices. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this approach. And, in fact, I expect the Lorentz gauge, spinors, matrices, Lagrangians, and Hamiltonians will apply also to the Aether structures I have identified.

The Aether Physics Model does not involve Lorentz gauges, spinors, and matrices because it is a theory of structure, not a theory of mechanics. The Aether Physics Model is a dimensional analysis of the known physical constants, which led to a correction in the notation of charge and the identification of a second type of quantum charge. The Aether Physics Model has several unique innovations for understanding quantum physical structures, as differentiated from quantum physical mechanics.

I agree the various forms of calculus as functions over time, rotations, and the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian perspectives are helpful for predicting behaviors. By the same token, the skills of mainstream physicists for understanding quantum structures through dimensional analysis are wanting because they have the wrong foundations in their units and do not understand the two quantifiable types of quantum charges. What I am proposing is that the same equations for mechanics should also be applicable to the quantum structures I have identified. This, in theory, could give rise to a far more productive physics than the present systems.

You are expecting me to use the calculus developed for quantum mechanics to describe quantum structures. I'm trying to explain that quantum structures are understood in terms of dimensions and units, not calculus. The quantification of movement requires calculus and matrices, but the quantification of structure requires a proper understanding of dimensions and units.

Great. This is truly more than I know about quantum mechanics. But if you are going to understand the quantum structure I'm trying to convey, you will need to set this aside for the time being and go back to simple dimensional analysis. Not because I don't understand calculus as well as you do, but because quantum structure does not require calculus to understand.

Thanks, but I probably have those notes already in Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. This is truly a topic I intend to study further later on. Right now, I'm spending far more time that I had hoped in finding someone who understands simple dimensional analysis who could help verify and further extend the basic principles of the theory.

I do not claim to be a cold fusion expert. I read the news like most others. Here is a fairly recent article.

LOL.
We have spent billions of dollars on hot fusion and it still is not a documented reality, whether well done or not. Despite people pointing to the Sun and their chalkboards and saying, "look, it works," nobody knows how it works. Several very expensive prototypes have been built and basically the only result has been very expensive welders.

I'm still waiting for you to show the slightest bit of interest in my work rather than tempt me to provide you with targets for shooting practice.

If you learned anything while getting your PhD, I would hope it would be how to analyze a theory and test it. Your nonsense about me plagiarizing Casimir's work because I provided a necessary correction and transposed it into a Newtonian type magnetic force equation, which I derived previously on my own is hardly encouraging. And if you really are a physicist and have access to science libraries, please find me a copy of Hendrick Casimir's work where he derived his famous Casimir force equation. It would be instructive to see how he predicted the existence of the force several decades before we had the technology to prove it.

When you are ready to come down to Earth and engage me like a gentleman, I would be willing to show my calculation of the anti-neutrino angular momentum based upon the electron and proton angular momenta, or showing my 1s electron orbital binding energy equation for all elements from lithium to uranium, or my calculated correction of the neutron magnetic moment, or my new analysis of what a photon energy packet really is, my quantification of the Aether unit, my predictions for the angular momenta of the proton and neutron (surprisingly missing from NIST) or one of several other original works.

 

So do it.

You're showing your ignorance.

Lagrangians, Hamiltonians, variational principles, they all pre-date quantum mechanics. The fact they bear the names of Lagrange and Hamilton, who lived before quantum theory, might have given you a clue. You can phrase much of classical mechanics in terms of them. In fact the first course I met Lagrangians in was titled 'Classical Dynamics'. If you want to compute the motion of a spinning top its vastly simplified using a Lagrangian method than trying to solve Newtonian force equations of motion. And matrices are not something restricted to quantum theory. Rotations, translations, boosts, all of them can be written in terms of matrices. Inner products can be given a matrix representation. The very notion of distance can be phrased in terms of a matrix, that's what a metric is usually written as.

Thinking of things in terms of matrices and vectors and the like isn't narrowing ones views, its a powerful tool. If you grasp Lagrangian methods than you can apply them to both classical and quantum systems, that's their power. Classical mechanics has things like {x,p} = 1, where { , } is the Poisson bracket, quantum mechanics has [x,p] = i, [ , ] is the commutator. The quantum world has a formalism very like that of the classical one, your unwillingness (and I imagine inability) to grasp this doesn't negate their usefulness.

This is your way of saying "I haven't formalised anything but if I claim that all the complicated stuff seen in actual physics can be explained by my work maybe someone will believe me". You want people to think your work has value but you're unwilling or unable to show it.

You keep saying what your 'model' (which cannot model anything and is thus not a model) is or isn't but you never demonstrate the validity of what you say. Rather than saying "Aether can do X" please show aether doing X.

If I said "String theory can do everything and explain everything" you'd no doubt say "Prove it, where's your evidence? Show me!". I'm asking you to do the same (and I'm not making that claim about string theory).

How do you know what current quantum physicists can or can't do when you don't know what the current state of quantum physics is?

As I just commented, quantum systems can be phrased in much the same way as classical ones, the same methodologies often apply.

No, you're welcome to invent a new kind of mathematics. That's partly what physics, particularly theoretical physics, is about. For instance, string theory required (and continues to require) new mathematics to be developed. The major motivating factor in the development of generalised geometry and structures in particular kinds of 7 dimensional manifolds has been the fact that they are the kinds of spaces string theory says would exist in our universe but when people first realised this there were no known examples, no tools for the job, it was next to impossible to even define them properly. Now we're a little closer thanks to the absolute genius of people like Hitchin and Joyce, but work continues.

If you find the mathematical methods present in current research lacking then invent your own. Of course you'll have to prove them consistent and viable, which can be a lifetime of work in itself.

What I said was in relation to general relativity actually.

Unlikely, as half of the notes cover things done in the 1973 publication of MTW. Not to mention the fact you obviously haven't read MTW or even introductory books suggested as prerequisites for such a book. For instance, the lecture notes include the proof of the positive energy theorem due to Witten, which itself involves spinors in curved space-time and thus uses vierbeins. Given you were completely unfamiliar with my previous comment on them its clear there's major holes in your knowledge on things you tend to try to preach about.

Just to make it clear that negative comment about you is not because you're claiming to put forth new work but because you're trying to pass yourself off as knowledgeable on subjects you aren't. Though I can't guarantee I'll be 100% pleasant I'm more likely to be nice to people who are honest when they pitch their pet theories than those who aren't.

I'm familiar with dimensional analysis, as should anyone who didn't sleep through high school physics. It gets used in mainstream physics all the time, such as when you want to convert from 'natural units' to SI units in quantum field theory or relativity or if you want to derive the form of Newtonian gravitational force.

The issue isn't that people fail to meet your intellectual requirements, it is rather the reverse.

If cold fusion were a practical reality the US wouldn't be so worried about oil security. The world wouldn't be pouring money into renewable energy sources. There wouldn't be issues with building new generation fission reactors in the UK. There wouldn't be a crisis about global warming. A clean unlimited (for all intents and purposes) concentrated energy supply would solve our energy needs and as a result our recycling issues. Part of the issue with recycling certain types of materials is that while its possible in principle it takes a huge amount of energy. Then there's water, its predicted at least 1/3 of the Earth's population will be experiencing water scarcity by 2050. Desalination is possible but it has huge energy requirements. Slap a cold fusion reactor in your desalination plant and you'd have no problems at all and all the water you need.

If cold fusion were a reality, ie achievable (and achieved) with current technology, it would change the world economically, politically and environmentally. It would solve quite a few of the reasons people go to war, resources like oil, water and many minerals, and while that wouldn't rid us of war it'd certainly stabilise a lot of the issues various regions have. The fact this isn't already happening is reason enough to deduce your claims are false, without having to even search the nuclear physics research literature.

We know how hot fusion works. The hydrogen nuclear weapon is an example of what goes on in the Sun every second of every day, but on a much larger scale. Uncontrolled hot fusion is ease but it tends to destroy everything within a few miles. To generate power the energy has to be released in a controlled way, which means you have to maintain high temperatures and pressures over long periods of time in a controlled manner.

Its the same with petrol. Your car burns petrol in a controlled manner, allowing the steady release of energy which drives the wheels. Release the energy too quickly and the car explodes. People knew oil burns easily and strongly in the time of the Ancient Greeks but it wasn't until the industrial revolution people managed to do it in a controlled fashion.

I cannot show interest in something you do not present.

Firstly Newton didn't do anything with electromagnetism. Secondly the \(\frac{1}{r^{2}}\) nature of the electric field is not synonymous with the \(\frac{1}{r^{2}}\) nature of the magnetic field. You'd need magnetic point charges for that and we've never seen such things, magnetic fields are created by moving electric charges, ala Maxwell's equations. And the standard force equation involving magnetic fields is Lorentz's force, \(\mathbf{F} = q(\mathbf{E} + \mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B})\) (where \(\times\) is the vector cross product). That's not what you presented.

I work for a private research company, which doesn't have access to online journals (we occasionally buy specific articles though). One does not need to be in a university to do science. And its not my job to justify your arguments, the onus is on you. You claimed Casimir was mistaken in his work but by your own admission you haven't read his original work! You simply disagree with the form of the result, though you cannot present your own derivation, only say "I'm going to change this in an ad hoc way". That isn't justification. That is not science.

He paid attention in school, read a lot, thought a lot, discussed ideas with other people, was willing to correct himself when he made mistakes and he was intellectually honest. Give that a try.

Tell you what, I'll do that when you practice what you preach. I disagreed with you and you call me an 'armchair physicist' which was both untrue and hypocritical. You can't whine about my tone when you have no qualms about simply making things up about people and being a hypocrite.

Don't you have all this written up already? Why can't you just provide a link? If I'm wrong about you then the best way thing to do is put me in my place by providing all the things I don't believe you have. That's all any crank has to do to shut me up and thus far not one has managed it.

 

You completely missed what I said, and you are talking to yourself.

You completely missed the point that the core of what I'm presenting is quantum ******structure******. It is as though you can only see things moving, but cannot see what it is that is doing the movement. And apparently, you don't want to know, either. The foundation of the Aether Physics Model begins with "is" not "does." Why is that so difficult to pick up?

Read carefully your own choice of words. You are talking about mechanics (do), not structure (is). The present state of quantum physics has a very feeble model for quantum structure (probability functions, force particles, wave-particle duality, colors, up-down, relativity, etc.).

The Aether Physics Model demonstrates actual geometries, actual spin structures, actual force laws, or in other words, real "physics." (Physics in the sense of measurable phenomena and not poetic expressions.)

I don't have to invent new mathematics. In fact, I can explain quantum structures in terms of very simple mathematics. All I had to do was dimensionally analyze the known physical constants and systems of units to realize an error was made in charge notation, and that there is a second quantifiable type of charge (magnetic charge) present in each subatomic particle.

Since I am not describing the behavior of things, but rather their structures, I don't need to use calculus. Everything can be expressed in terms of length, time, mass, charges, and curvature.

This does not in any way suggest calculus is not needed. These structures do move and calculus is necessary to describe their motions. But I'm not concerned about motions, I'm concerned about structures.

String theory actually has a physical basis in reality according to the Aether Physics Model. The APM describes dark matter as strings of mass. The subatomic particle describes as dark matter captured within a quantum rotating magnetic field, thus strings are truly the basis for all physical existence. There are real strings and they are not mathematical inventions.

I haven't taken the time to follow String Theory in depth. My focus is on quantum structure, not quantum mechanics. I'm familiar with the names because I have read the generalized articles describing in layman's terms what the theory proposes to do. Mostly, I have read the editorials of Brian Greene (sp?).

Stop being so defensive and hurt. I'm not attacking you or the present math. I'm trying to explain to you that I developed a model for quantum structure with very simple math. I have filled in a major void in physics by mathematically (geometrically and dimensionally) describing the quantum structures underlying the physical Universe.

You are not hurting my feelings at all. I ignore the pissing stuff and stay focused on the science. Your perceptions of dishonesty have nothing to do with me, but are strictly a result of what you want to see in others. It reflects your own character.

I am sure you are. If we can focus on dimensional analysis, and not wander off into the calculus of motions and probabilities, then we can systematically work through the Aether Physics Model and see if it makes any sense.

Actually, there is room for calculus within the Aether unit since the Aether unit (and the Gforce driving it) are dynamic structures. I haven't gone there, yet.

Who really knows what the US thinks? It isn't even clear who is in charge. Forget cold fusion as an energy source, thorium reactors are the way to go.

Yes they would. Renewable energy has nothing to do with economics or science, it is what is deemed to be politically correct at the time. We even have environmentalists who want to install solar power in the deserts and other environmentalists who are preventing solar power because of turtle habitat.

The viability of cold fusion is completely irrelevant in this discussion. We are discussing the physics of the Universe, whether they are economically viable, politically correct, or whatever.

Right, and if travel to Mars were possible, we would already be there, but we aren't, so travel to Mars is not possible. Physics has nothing to do with the decisions people make regarding which physical processes to develop and which to use. Physics is pure science about how the Universe works. Thorium technology was discovered before uranium and plutonium technology, but because it didn't produce weapons grade materials, it was scrubbed. Now there is so much investment in uranium technology that presently operating plants are not ready to convert to the much cleaner and safer thorium technology.

Nonsense. The physics underlying the hydrogen bomb are not fully understood, otherwise we would have working hot fusion prototypes by now. It is one thing to throw a little tritium and/or deuterium into a fission reaction and get fusion, it is a different thing to understand and control that fusion reaction. We simply do not yet know how fusion reactions work, even if we know what ingredients to throw into the pot.

This is not an accurate description, either. The chemical structure of the gasoline is important, but so also is the technology for containing the explosion. Gasoline would do nothing to move the car if the carburetor, cylinder timing, cylinder volume, exhaust timing, exhaust pressure, and numerous other factors were not properly engineered.

Also, gasoline does not cause cars to explode. Exploding cars are a Hollywood stunt effect created with dynamite and other powerful explosives. Throw a match into a gas tank and it will ignite quickly and burn hot, for sure, but it will not blast the car to the other side of the parking lot or cause parts to otherwise leave the vehicle. I know this for a fact. I have been in a car that burned. It is just a muffled puff and an increase in heat. That is the way gasoline is designed to burn.

And I will not spend time presenting something you do not show a genuine interest in, because it is already available in print form on the Internet whenever you decide to read it.

Secrets of the Aether
Electron Binding Energy
Unified Force Theory

Did I say he did? Have you never heard the phrase "Newtonian type" before?

We have never seen an electric point charge, either! So what is your point?

Are you saying that because you don't know the physics for quantifying magnetic charge that it doesn't exist? And as for the quantification of the magnetic field being described as a moving charged particle, that is clearly insufficient. There are no moving electrons in a permanent magnet. If there were, we could tap permanent magnets for unlimited energy source.

Also, the electron has magnetic moment, so what causes its magnetic field surrounding the electron if the electron is sitting still?

Also, charge is not a point. It is a surface. Electrons might be called point particles relative to macro objects, but electrons have surface, which is where the charge is. You charge up a sphere and then look on the surface for gaps between charges... there aren't any gaps. The charge may have a gradient, but it is a smooth gradient... no gaps.

That is very disingenuous of you. You called me a liar and plagiarist when I transposed Casimir's force equation to the strong force law for the electron (which I had independently derived before analyzing Casimir's equation). Now you are expecting me to "plagiarize" Maxwell's equations?

But it is your job to attack my work with the silliest of nonsense with excessive rudeness? That's why I keep my eye out for a serious scientist. I'm looking for someone who doesn't have an agenda and who can see past personalities and look directly at the science. A real scientist (whether they have a PhD or not) would look at my work and see whether the theory agrees with the data and whether the theory can be put to practical use.

I don't feel it. I offer what I have to offer. If you don't want to look at it, then don't.

Apparently, nobody has! If Casimir had written a paper showing how he derived his equation, then why isn't it in the public domain, or at the very least, an abstract explaining where the paper can be found?

Like you have said, I merely reported the facts as they were presented to me. You exhibit no behavior suggesting you are a real scientists, so I assume you are not a real scientist. What is good for you, is good for me.

I provided the links in a previous message, and again in this message. At least now I can post the whole unbroken link because I have posted more than 20 times to this forum. And for that, I thank you!

 

There's more to mainstream physics than just 'does', you're not presenting or considering any kind of notion which is alien to physics.

Again I ask you why you think you're in a position to evaluate current physics when you don't know any of it?

Ah yes, the "Current physics isn't 'real physics'" argument. You haven't taken the time to find out what current physics says and the pop science Wiki articles you've read you don't understand therefore you reach the conclusion that since you don't understand the concepts the concepts aren't 'real physics'.

Its an argument from ignorance.

Magnetic 'charge' is not a new concept. As I mentioned many posts ago Dirac considered magnetic charge more than 70 years ago. The concept likely goes back further because Maxwell's equations have a clear 'gap' in them in that they include electric charges but not magnetic charges, despite linking electric and magnetic phenomena. And not only is it considered in electromagnetism and quantum electrodynamics but the generalisation is common place in such things as Yang-Mills theory and string theory. Generalised Maxwell Lagrangians (ie including a magnetic charge) are invariant under the pair of exchanges \(e^{2} \leftrightarrow -\frac{1}{e^{2}}\), \(F_{\mu\nu} \leftrightarrow \ast F_{\mu\nu}\), its known as Seiberg duality, linking a weakly coupled theory to a strongly coupled one (if \(e^{2}\) is small then its negative inverse is big or vice versa). This extended into a continuous symmetry in other gauge theories. It is extended even further into a string duality, linking the various kinds of string theory, known as S duality.

If you wish I can go into painfully detailed specifically, I have written two papers on the subject.

How do you describe the structure (ie the layout) of something if you can't describe locations? General relativity is the study of the structure of space-time, as well as the motion of things in space-time. The entire issue of compact dimensions in string theory is about the structure the space-time takes on, never mind how things then move in it. All the stuff to do with Calabi-Yau manifolds is primarily to do with what structure such spaces have.

Define, precisely, what you mean by 'curvature' without using anything quantitative. I believe you're just spouting buzzwords you don't understand the origin of because 'curvature' is something which needs precise definition as there's many different ways you can talk about such a thing. Intrinsic curvature, extrinsic curvature, the Riemann curvature tensor, Gaussian curvature, all of them relate to the warping of something but if you don't pin down your definition you're just waving your arms.

Citation needed.

Citation needed.

Where does string theory say strings aren't real?

You haven't taken the time to follow physics in depth. And even if you'd paid attention in physics class its next to impossible to follow string theory in anything more than the most superficial way without considerable knowledge of relativity and quantum field theory.

My entire PhD thesis was on the structure of space-time on scales far smaller than any quantum mechanics can describe. That's what most string theory research is on! You're not presenting anything new on even a conceptual level and you're certainly not presenting anything on a quantitative level to justify your claims.

How am I 'hurt'? I don't take you seriously, I don't think you've got anything of merit to present. How can I be hurt by someone I consider a hack? You aren't shaking my foundations or making me question anything, you're just presenting unjustified naive assertions on things you then demonstrate you don't know.

How about you stop telling me what you've done and you actually show what you've done. Its easy to say "I've got the answer to that question", even when you don't.

Your comments about not needing calculus, as if its only used to describe 'mechanics' shows how little physics you've looked at.

Now you're just denying reality.

So you now admit its not viable, as a result of you now realising it hasn't been done?

Flawed logic. Cold fusion would economically be a gold mine. Why would large power companies be worrying about spending billions on huge power stations and future energy security if cold fusion was easily doable? Your analogy doesn't work, as we do have the technology to go to Mars but it is so enormously expensive for so little gain its not going forward in any serious way. Money makes the world go around and if you could save an energy company hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few decades they'd be beating a path to you. If the Navy could do cold fusion why build large, expensive, radioactive, environmentally dangerous power plants on their aircraft carriers? Why not make use of the technology to lower costs and allowing more room on the carriers for personnel and equipment? Or submarines, which are extremely cramped at the best of times. If you could build a comparable power plant even 20% smaller than the current ones which power nuclear subs the Navy would be all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake. But they aren't. So what does that tell you about the present state of cold fusion?

You should really read some textbooks, the fact you don't know doesn't mean others don't.

We can test our understanding of fusion processes in many ways. The most obvious being the fact we can build fusion weapons, though it is a little crude. The fusion processes in the Sun provide all kinds of ways to test our understanding such as the neutrino emissions from the core, the energy output, emission spectra across many different frequency bands, the electromagnetic fields (which also produce sunspots), nova stars, supernova stars, solar wind and plenty more. Models which aren't consistent with these observations are wrong and any model which can accurately describe these phenomena is thus very stringently tested. The understanding we've gained from doing experiments leads to models of the Sun which then dovetail with the observations of the Sun to a very high accuracy. Yes, this doesn't mean they are perfectly correct but they at least give us a very good understanding of how the Sun works. Certainly we understand the processes in fusion weapons, which are significantly simpler than the processes in stars.

I told you before, its not that we don't understand the underlying processes but rather that we have insufficient technological know-how to artificially produce and control the kinds of environments needed to fuse elements together on a large scale.

Knowing the principles and putting them into practice are two entirely different things.

Precisely my point, its the implementation of the principles which is the issue with fusion power, not the principles themselves. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I didn't say 'blast to the other side of a parking lot'. An 'explosion' is a rapid combustion of a flammable material which produces significant quantities of highly pressured gas, which then expands rapidly. The point where the fuel tank ignites is an explosion, just not generally the kind you see in films.

Newtonian type of what? Newtonian force? Newtonian mechanics? Newtonian principle? Newtonian polytope? The inverse square law isn't 'Newtonian', its a more general principle.

You've heard of electrons, right?

Where did I say physics can't quantify the notion of magnetic charge? I've said precisely the opposite on more than one occasion, the notion of magnetic charges is more than a century old.

The electrons don't have to 'flow' like in a conductor to produce a magnetic field. The origin of magnetism in things like iron is to do with the structure of the electron orbital energy levels. The electrons can be regarded, on a very superficial level, as moving in those orbitals and this produces the macroscopic effect of magnetism. Though they don't possess classical angular momentum (in the sense of spinning like a top) electrons possess quantum angular momentum and this has the same effect as the classical notion, it produces a magnetic field and thus the electron has a magnetic moment (this is not the same as a magnetic charge).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism#Sources_of_magnetism

Ah, so you know about magnetic moments yet you still said what I just responded to? (I reply to posts one section at a time, so I typed the above response before reading the fact you've heard of magnetic moments)

Electrons don't sit still in their orbitals. Either you haven't bothered to find out what they do or you have and you misunderstood the fact quantum mechanics says the electron orbitals are time independent. The region in which an electron is to be found is time independent but the location of the electron is not.

Citation needed.

So why didn't you show me your original derivation? That's what I wanted, to see you derive a result from your own set of initial postulates. Instead you skipped that and just said "I changed this equation someone else did".

Can you derive your result without reference to anything in the mainstream?

If you can provide a completely new derivation of any known result like Maxwell's equations then its not plagiarism as you demonstrate you can accurately model electromagnetism. But you didn't do that, you just took someone else's result and changed it in an ad hoc manner.

String theory can derive the Einstein Field Equations in a way completely different to how general relativity does it, thus it is not only not plagiarism its a good motivation for thinking string theory might be viable. In fact any theory of everything must be able to construct, in some suitable limit, known results like electromagnetism or Newtonian gravity, as those models are known to be accurate descriptions of reality in certain domains so any new model of those domains must make the same predictions. In order for me to accept that your work can describe electromagnetism you must show a complete derivation, from postulate to prediction, and then demonstrate you have a result which is very very close to Maxwell's equations. If your result were different from Maxwell's equations by more than a tiny fraction the model is falsified as you'd not be able to accurately model electromagnetism.

Please note that I'm not saying "If your work differs in any way from any current models then you're wrong" but instead I'm saying "We know current model X explains phenomenon Y to an error of less than Z%. If your model disagrees with X about phenomenon Y by more than Z% then the model is wrong as you disagree with experiments."

When you demonstrate you've got more to say than naive ignorance then I'll stop treating you as naive and ignorant.

Someone unlike yourself then? What you're really looking for is someone who doesn't know enough physics to know you don't know enough physics. That's why you went to your local congressman after competent research groups turned you down, you have failed to convince people whose business is science so you try to get in the back door.

Because journals from the 1940s and 1950s are hard to find, given they are not digitized and few universities have records going that far back.

As it happens though you can find it and its very very easy to find. The Wikipedia page on the Casimir force has as its first two references a paper by Casimir and Polder where they show classically there should be no force and the paper by Casimir where he derives the force quantum field theory says should exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Papers.2C_books_and_lectures
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v73/i4/p360_1
http://www.historyofscience.nl/search/detail.cfm?pubid=2642&view=image&startrow=1

First references on the first Google hit for 'Casimir'. You obviously didn't try very hard.

So because I don't suffer fools gladly and you have failed to justify your position and I'm willing to say as much then that makes me not a scientist? Unlike you there's more to my science research than a self made website or posts on internet forums. This thread (and this forum) is not a place I discuss my work, thus the fact you see nothing from me which resembles research is not a sign I do no science research. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the work I do and the things I post on forums are two entirely different things. Any serious scientist isn't going to do his work through the medium of forum discussion, I don't post my day to day results and work, I write them on paper, keep them in folders, type up results into papers or into documents for my employer. None of the other people on this forum who are postgrad or postdoc researchers post their day to day work here or even anything more than occasional points where its relevant to a pre-existing discussion or when they have specific queries about something. In fact someone who does present his 'research' in the manner of forum posts I'd be very very suspicious of.

 

I don't do wickedpedia for physics. In fact, I completely avoid the site altogether.

Thanks for these links. It was exactly what I was looking for, but wasn't able to find in 2002, when I was doing the research. Apparently, this information has been made available online since then. BTW, the complete Phys Rev article can be found at:
Casimir Article

After reading the paper, it appears the reason Casimir's equation was slightly off was because he only calculated the perturbation energy to the fourth order, which is still a good approximation.

The whole concept of "perturbation energy" is another way of saying, "there is more affecting the plates than electrostatic charge dipoles." And that is exactly what I am saying. The charge affecting the plates is not the electrostatic dipole, but rather the magnetic dipole of the electrons.

Here is the last paragraph of Casimir's article:

"The very simple form of eq (56) and the analogous formula (25) suggest that it might be possible to derive these expressions, perhaps apart from the numerical factors, by more elementary considerations. This would be desirable since it would also give a more physical background to our result, a result which in our opinion is rather remarkable. So far we have not been able to find such a simple argument."​

Well, sir know-it-all with the PhD, I have found the simple argument Casimir was looking for. Does that open your eyes any?

 

And how quantitatively good is it? Anyone whose done quantum field theory will know that 4th order is a pretty good calculation. You have changed his result by more than 1% which is of lower order, ie contradicts the accuracy he's determined. The expansion parameter is \(e^{2}\), which when you do the usual reformulation into the fine structure constant is known as \(\alpha\). His calculation goes to order \(\alpha^{2}\) and since \(\alpha \sim \frac{1}{137}\) the result is roughly accurate to parts per thousand. You changed his result by parts per hundred so your results are not consistent with his as he's gone to higher accuracy. You originally claims he might have made a mistake or not calculated to the precise value but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Furthermore, as I originally suspected, the factors of \(\pi\) are due to standard integral arguments and this even if your numerical value was not outside the accuracy of Casimir's calculation your result is entirely incompatible with the geometric construction of the result. No doubt you fail to grasp this as you're likely completely unfamiliar with such things as spherical integrals.

Once again you attempt to have the appearance of understanding but you really don't.

Perturbative methods are common place throughout the entirety of physics, they are based on the same principle as a Taylor expansion in calculus. Its often possible to compute the value of something like energy at a particular place in space-time or value of a coupling (like zero coupling) and then the value of the energy for non-zero couplings can be obtained by doing a Taylor expansion in terms of the coupling. This is also the principle used in the Feynman diagram construction of many quantum field theory processes. Doing an expansion in a given coupling and truncating it at a specified order is not going to be exactly right but that doesn't mean the bit you left out was due to some other kind of coupling. Other types of couplings would have entirely different perturbative energy expansions, as any sort of multi-variable function would.

You haven't provided your own derivation though, you just took his result and changed it. That isn't providing a new derivation or a simpler argument, its just cheating and dishonest.

The paper only weakens your argument, as it contradicts your numerical 'result' and the algebraic factorisation you put forth.

I take it from your lack of reply to my previous post that you concede that magnetic charges are not new concept, that cold fusion isn't a practical reality, that structure is an important concept in physics, that fusion models have undergone a lot of experimental testing, that magnetism in ferromagnetic materials doesn't need magnetic charges and that you can't justify any of your flat assertions about what APM says about string theory or dark matter?

I just want to clarify that before you change the subject again.

 

When you consider Steve Lamoreaux tested the theory and found the equation to be accurate to within 5% of measured values, and my equation is accurate to within 2% of measured value, then that suggests there is room for error in Casimir's equation. Whether I am correct or not can only be determined through further examination by qualified scientists. Since you choose not to properly examine my work, you are not qualified to judge my work and I will keep waiting until I get my fair hearing.

That is exactly why I don't trust calculus in physics. You make it sound like physical reality depends upon numerical math tools, that somehow the Universe won't otherwise function.

The simplicity of my equation, which was derived directly from the symmetrical analysis of the gravitational and electrostatic force equations, shows a physical basis for the Casimir force, which is what Casimir was hoping to find. Further, my equation shows the Casimir force is a fundamental force and is not based upon the electrostatic charge, which Casimir used as a basis for his equations.

Naturally, perturbative methods would be common-place since all of modern physics are based upon the incorrect notation of charges, and the error of not identifying the magnetic charge as a separate quantum dimension of subatomic particles (which is different from the electrostatic charge). When the foundations of physics are corrected, many of the normalization, statistical, and perturbative methods will no longer be necessary.

The real dishonesty is in your not taking the time to read the principles behind my presentation of the Unified Force Theory. If you had, you would see how the force affecting magnetic charge is applied to the electron and how it could be transformed into the Casimir equation.

Actually, it is me keeping to my word not to join you in your pissing contest. Since you lack integrity as a practicing scientist, and even though you may well have a paper degree, it is not worth responding to your immature and off-topic rants.

For the record, it is my quantification of the magnetic charge as a dimension which is missing in modern physics. I fully agree that magnetic charge as a concept has been discussed ever since Coulomb devised the electrostatic force law and suspected there was a similar law for magnetic force. Also, various scientists through the past couple centuries have used the phrase "magnetic charge" in a general sense, but none of them ever figured out how to quantify it as a dimension for use in units. Again, this quantification of magnetic charge is my unique contribution.

Also, your discussion about the viability of cold fusion is off topic. It is a topic for politics. What we are discussing is physics. The question is, "Is cold fusion a natural process of nature?" Since it is being produced and replicated in reputable laboratories, it is clear that cold fusion is indeed a natural process of nature.

Also, it is not a question of whether the scientists need magnetic charges to quantify magnetism, the question is whether or not magnetic charge is a natural phenomenon in nature, and, if so, how is it quantified and used in physics? You are satisfied to get approximate results by using relativistic electrostatic charge equations (which are dimensionally incorrect). It's a free world (for now), you can do what you want. Does your ignorance of magnetic charge mean that magnetic charge does not exist? No. It just means you choose to be ignorant. Go for it.

And yes, I can justify my assertion about the APM supporting the existence of strings of matter as being the structure of dark matter and one of the basic ingredients of visible matter. How to interpret strings of matter using dimensional analysis is explained in my book, Secrets of the Aether. But is it worth reposting here? Not if you are the one I'm posting it for. Despite your paper degree, you have demonstrated only that you have serious communications challenges and are scientifically dysfunctional.

I haven't changed the subject. I'm staying on topic. You started by asking me to provide just one example of my work. I presented the example of how my strong force equation for the electron transposed to the Casimir equation and was more accurate than Casimir's derivation.

 

That isn't what I was referring to. You say that fourth order is a good approximation but you don't make any attempt to consider how good. As I explained, typical 4th order (or second order in \(\alpha\)) corrections are into the parts per thousand.

You seem to be misunderstanding what the 5% means. It doesn't mean that Casimir was close but not exact, it means that the current error bars in the experimental measurements are about 5%. For instance, if a measurement comes out to be 100 with 5% error then it means (typically) that the statistical analysis of results lead to a 95% confidence that the true exact value of what it being measured is between 95 and 105.

Your 'result' (which I have already explained isn't your result so you can't claim its a verification of aether's viability) isn't superior to Casimir's, as its not possible to check predictions to a sufficient accuracy.

There isn't room to just change Casimir's result as you did. As I originally commented, the factors of pi come from specific arguments involving spherical integrals and thus even if Casimir's result isn't exact you can only alter it in such a way as to maintain the structure of the pi factors, unless you can provide a full, from the ground up, derivation of your result. Casimir's derivation doesn't allow for your arbitrary change, you are going to have to derive your result properly.

I clearly am, you just dismiss me because I'm not telling you what you want to hear.

Then you're just ignorant of the role is plays. Furthermore I suspect you're just trying to make excuses, to yourself more than anyone else, as to why you don't know any calculus.

No, I'm not saying that. Your comment betrays how little physics reading you've actually done, as you don't even understand the ethos and position of mathematics in physics.

Except that neither forces really obey the \(\frac{1}{r^{2}}\) law exactly, its just a simplification for people who don't want to or can't do the details. Its common for hacks to cling to high school level concepts, as its easier for them to understand, while ignoring that high school physics or science in general is only a first approximation to actual physics.

GR is superior to Newtonian gravity in every say and its not expressed as an inverse square gravitational force. Same goes for QED and electromagnetism. And certainly for the strong force, which doesn't exhibit an inverse square law as even a simple approximation.

Every physicists wants to find simpler more elegant approaches, doesn't mean you've provided one.

Perturbation methods exist in ALL physics, its a general principle used to simplify things like non-linear dynamics. Name an area of physics and there'll be instances of perturbation methods relating to it. You demonstrate again you've done no reading on the matter as you'd not have said that if you had.

Navier-Stokes equations are non-linear and govern the behaviour of fluids. They are the equations which govern fluid flow so no rewriting of quantum theory will get rid of non-linear fluid behaviour and the fact some instances can be solved using perturbative methods.

How does asking you to back up your extraordinary claims with evidence mean I lack integrity? You're the one failing to do his research. I get paid to do research, clearly there's other researchers who think my work is worth spending money on, the same can't be said for you.

Magnetic charges have been considered for more than a century, you're not doing anything new. Dirac considered magnetic charges and their interplay with electric charges long ago. By making claims without checking the facts you're just digging yourself in deeper.

You said it occurred at all temperatures. I asked you to provide evidence. You couldn't.

Its a demonstration you'll state things as fact when you have no basis for them. If you fail on some irrelevant point then it calls into question all the other claims about your work. Claims you have yet to justify either.

Maxwell's equations are dimensionally consistent. You should look up what 'dimensional analysis' is, its a standard method for checking the inconsistency of an equation because if the units don't match the equation is wrong. For instance, the equation \(E=mc^{2}\) has units of energy on both sides (or kilograms metres squared per second squared) so is dimensionally consistent. \(E=mc^{2} + v^{2}t\) is inconsistent as the units of \(v^{2}t\) are not kilograms metres squared per second squared.

I told you that Dirac considered this stuff in the 1930s, clearly I know about the concept. The electric <-> magnetic charge symmetry is of fundamental importance in string theory, its something I have personal experience with.

You're equating the fact I disagree with you with somehow me disagreeing or not knowing about magnetic charges in mainstream physics. Magnetic charges are not unknown to mainstream physics.

Out of wittier responses are you? You haven't seen me do any physics and you've got my ability to do research all figured out? How can you judge my research when you know nothing of it and when you have demonstrated you fail to grasp even mainstream physics and that no one else considers your work 'scientific'. You've been turned down by everyone and rather than accepting it might be your fault you're trying to convince yourself its everyone else. Who are you to judge people's scientific abilities when you have none of your own? Clearly its not just me who thinks your work is crap, so even if I were 'scientifically dysfunctional' that wouldn't do anything to make your work more viable.

If I'm 'scientifically dysfunctional' then what does that say about you, given you've failed to do anything science related even remotely comparable. Now you're just down to 'weasel words' like "paper degree". As it happens my degree is from Cambridge (the British one), about as 'unpaper-like' as you're going to find.

Vanity publishing, the refuge of the self deluded.

As I've explained, you didn't do anything of the sort. But if you don't trust my 'dysfunctional' opinion submit it to a journal for review by people who you can't deny the qualifications of. Oh wait, you did. It failed to pass anyone's analysis.

Maybe its a conspiracy by people with 'paper degrees' to keep you down? Or maybe its just because your work is rubbish.