#### NotEinstein

**Valued Senior Member**

From your text:We will try to keep the Algebra as simple as possible for you.

Starting from Fig. 1.3 on page 6, let the area of base(b) be equal to $$A_B (meter)^2$$.

To find the volume of Box B in Fig. 1.3 (which equals $$V_B$$) one must multiply the height (d) by the base ($$A_B$$).

Then:

$$V_B = d \cdot A_B$$

Where: $$d = s_y \cdot t$$

Then:

$$V_B = s_y \cdot t \cdot A_B$$

When: $$t=1 second$$ and $$A_B = 1 meter^2$$

Then:

$$V_B = s_y (\frac{meter}{second}) \cdot 1 (second) \cdot 1 (meter^2)$$

The units for second cancel out, and after simplifying:

$$V_B=s_y (meter^3)$$

As one can see from the proof above, our units are fine, there is no need to multiply by any other factor. Thank you for your concern.

$$d = s_y$$

$$V_B = s_y$$

where d is a length (distance), and V is a volume. You have just written: $$d = V_B$$, in other words: [meter] = [meter]^3. You are wrong; please check your maths again.

Until you define it, which is what you have done. I don't think ether per definition has to be undefined. Heck, the entire idea over a hundred years ago was to discover (and thus "define") it!For your information, an aether (ether) is an undefined substance.

Which doesn't preclude it from being an ether model.The Yaldon Particle Theory has a defined particle with properties that are implemented by using math and Newton's Laws.

So, no absolute reference frame, but an absolute observer? Really, are you going to drag religion into this?As we have stated before, starting from the first paragraph on page 2 of The Yaldon Particle Theory: "According to Newton's Second Law, there cannot be momentum, force, energy, or time without a mass in relative motion to other points of references in a bounded system."

Also, on page 40, in the second sentence of the first paragraph, we state: "...the observer is in motion." If you need us to repeat ourselves about this concept, we can add this statement again in more places of the book.

You do know that Newtonian physics can describe the motion of particles from any reference frame, so from infinitely many observers? In fact, perform a Galilean transformation so your observer isn't moving anymore. Your theory breaks down, Newtonian physics continues to operate just fine. Funny that...

I have demonstrated to have better knowledge than you, so yeah...The statement above makes "NotEinstein" act as a judge, jury, and executioner for matters in Physics and Math, without having full knowledge in the subject matter.

I think you've confused me and you... I will promise to read more carefully, if you promise to write more carefully.This is proven in the fact that we have shown him/her to be lacking basic Algebra skills.

Well, you haven't given any at the point I stopped reading your text, but you've violated basic Newtonian principles that I know to be a pretty good description of reality. But let's put this to the test: describe (or point me to the derivation of) the hydrogen spectrum using your theory. The perihelion of Mercury. The Michelson–Morley experiment. These are basic observations mainstream science can explain. Can your theory do that too?We are not violating any experimental data.

I have compare them, and found your model lacking. I in fact reject it based on the fact your cornerstone formula is wrong, and its results are incompatible with basic physical principles (such as the independence of your choice of observer).As we have stated before, we are merely providing another model to compare and contrast with current theories.

I'm sorry you wasted your time, but I wasn't around 10 months ago. But 10 months ago I would also have pointed out your cornerstone formula is wrong. And 10 months from now it'll still be wrong, unless you go and fix it.After all this work and effort placed into developing this model, we expect encouragement to continue our work. We find that the members here have the need to attack anything that seems foreign. Thank you.

In fact, I encourage you to go and fix it!