Hi Paul, > Can you understand the difference between my research focused on capturing
usable ambient temperature energy and your extensive Aether theory? Yes, my theory is based upon real math, your "research" is based upon dreams. That is not rhetoric, it is a fact. > Seriously, can you comprehend the simple concept that your extensive Aether theory needs to at least predict present experiments and effects? Apparently you missed the part in high school physics where the relative strengths of the fundamental forces were empirically measured, but nobody could provide a quantified theory to unify those forces. There was this guy, his name was Albert Einstein, and he spent the last half of his life trying to figure out how these forces unified. I solved the problem in just three weeks by taking a closer look at the foundations of physics, itself. It turns out that the forces are easily unified if the right dimensions of charges are used. This is mathematically verified through the experimentally proven Casimir effect. I realize your personal bias against the Aether prevents you from studying my work, but it is properly quantified, referenced, and agrees with empirical data. On the other hand, your dream project has no physical manifestation, no quantification, and it has been proven by the science you have faith in to be impossible, over one hundred years ago. > You need to learn the difference between theory and interpretation. You need to learn the difference between reality and dreams. > It's a simple fact that a measuring instrument such as an oscilloscope has input capacitance and when thermal voltage noise is measured you are seeing voltage stored in a capacitor caused by such thermal noise? There's nothing to dispute or theorize about that, unless one has the mind of a child. It is a simple fact that the Aether Physics Model correctly unifies the forces, correctly quantifies a quantum unit of space-time, and correctly predicts all the 1s orbital binding energies for all atoms, unless one has no inclination to check it out [no need to stoop to your level of ad hominem remarks]. >> Unless you can fully explain every known physics law and >> something new, nobody is going to take you seriously. > I make no such claims. :-) You claim to have "researched" a second law violation. > Let me know anytime you want to challenge the simple fact that thermal noise can charge a capacitor Dave. You don't need to prove anything to me, I don't care about your work, remember? It is the establishment you need to prove to. Where is the paper accepted by Nature or Science that supports your wild-eyed ideas? When was your Nobel Prize reception party? >> BTW, do you suppose your zero interest in the Aether Physics Model has >> anything to do with your long list of goals for me that will take years >> to flesh out? > Just trying to help you brother, as several other people here. Thanks, just trying to return the favor, bro. I hope you like my help as much as I like yours. > This is silly because you need to have basic concepts explained to you. Allow me to explain. I will have no interest in your Aether theory until you can at least claim your theory accurately predicts the small list provided. Yes, it is a small list in comparison to what you would need to predict. You are being disingenuous, again. You have absolutely no intention of investigating the Aether Physics Model. If you were truly trying to help me, bro, you would recognize and properly comment on the Unified Force Theory (conspicuously missing from your list), and the Casimir effect as already presented. If you had even tried to read my paper, you would realize the difference between quantum structure and quantum mechanics. What I present is quantum structure, which is something modern physics can't do at all. The Aether Physics Model does not inherently dispute quantum mechanics. The only dispute is in the interpretations given by QM for quantum structure, such as wave/particle duality theory, probability functions as subatomic particles, and force particle theory. Telling me that I need to explain quantum mechanics because I have a theory for quantum structure is like saying you have to break the first law of thermodynamics if you plan to break the second law. It is completely senseless and shows a complete lack of understanding of my physics contribution as well as a poor understanding of QM. > No, you are the one with the wide-eyed concept called an Aether theory in the year 2007. We are getting to the heart of the matter, at last. You were not interested in a scientific discussion from the beginning. This is all about your prejudice toward the Aether. You never wanted to read the paper, nor did you want to see Aether discussed here, so you tried to the dirty technique of playing mindless cynic in hopes of wearing me down. You have been grasping for any reason you could to derail the discussion, because you didn't want to see a mathematical proof for the Aether's existence and its practical applications for engineering free energy and "antigravity" devices. Despite your hidden hatred, you came right out with a feeble attempt at a conspiracy theory and bragged about your "research" into breaking a physics law that nobody has ever broken before (that can prove it.) > Can you not comprehend why physicists would want your Aether theory to at least equal QM? Can't you comprehend that quantum structure and quantum mechanics are two completely different subjects in physics? QM describes the motion and behavior of subatomic particles. The Aether Physics Model describes the subatomic particles themselves (along with the space-time in which they reside). Is this too alien of a concept for you? Why should a theory of quantum structure also have to provide a different theory of quantum mechanics, than which already exists? Has anybody ever questioned the validity of QM? Do you believe that I have? I am correct, this whole discussion about what I need to do to please you is based entirely upon your prejudice toward Aether. You are not a scientist, but somebody defending a belief, and using dirty techniques at that. Dave
