Lew Paxton Price's Challenge to Mainstream Physics

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I have discovered a website with a wealth of information that is the result of independent research which began in 1965, according to the website's “About Myself” page.

Price attended the Air Force Academy, Class of 1960. He states:


The instructors at the Air Force Academy were careful to explain to us that institutions of learning in the United Stated were flawed. Those who best subscribed to and parroted the instructor's theories were the ones retained as future instructors. Professors became professors by teaching only the "traditional" way of thinking. They retained their tenure only by teaching the "traditional" way of thinking.

As an Air Force navigator he gained valuable experience. Then, when he had some time to fill and ended up in the library doing independent research on the nature of light, the following happened:


While doing this research, it soon became apparent that a major flaw existed in scientific thought regarding the nature of the universe in general. This flaw was so obvious that I could not understand how it could have occurred or how it could have been tolerated for so long. Further research showed why it had occurred, why it was still there, and that Einstein had known about it.

The discovery of this flaw led to a valid understanding of the nature of matter, electromagnetism, electromagnetic radiation, time, and other questions and supposed paradoxes which still plague physics today. . . .

. . . After the mid-1960s, it seemed a waste of time to attempt to show the physics community my theory and I let it drop. The physics community was not willing to listen. However, Mart Gibson and I met at a party in New England and Mart was very interested in what I had to say. This interest continued through the years even though we were on opposite coasts.

When I left the Air Force in late 1965, I went to work for Pacific Telephone. . . . In the theory group I learned, while working, about basic telephone theory, open wire transposition, microwave radio, wave guides, underground and birdwire cable technology, grounding and grounding systems, earth resistivity, lightning, protection, toll and exchange carrier systems, frequency stacking, pulse-code modulation, and more. . . .

People have asked me why I never went back to school for a Ph.D. in physics. There were two reasons.

First, I had the equivalent of master's degree from my four years at the Academy, and the equivalent of a Ph.D. in telephone theory from the phone company. Second, I felt that it would be silly to learn outmoded physics . . .

Price is the author of a series of books entitled Behind Light's Illusion. The website provides the same information in abbreviated form. He is a proponent of a dynamic ether and details the mistakes of the past which removed the ether from mainstream physics. He offers an alternative view of gravity and the electron. He details the cause of spin in the electron.

Price has other interests that are included on his website – the menu for his challenge to mainstream physics is under “PHYSICS, MATH, and COSMOLOGY” here.




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
He details the cause of spin in the electron.

In the section "IS THERE A DYNAMIC ETHER?":


As an alternative to spin as currently presented, I propose that the electron energy source is due to the electron being a vortex rather than a particle. A vortex, such as a whirlwind, tornado, waterspout, hurricane, or whirlpool, has its own energy source in the form of a relative vacuum at its center and the pressure within the medium of which it is composed. The key is the medium of which it is composed. Could it be composed of the ether in a dynamic form?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
He offers an alternative view of gravity and the electron.

From the section "WHAT IS GRAVITY?":


Warning

Although this is not an "accepted" theory for gravity, it is the correct explanation for gravity and is more than a theory. Its straightforward simplicity and irrefutable logic, both visually and mathematically, have made it a thorn in the side of many physicists of high repute. Consequently, it is not something that should be used to pass a course in physics at any high school, college, or university.

The math and physics on this website, for the most part and including this section, should be viewed only if the reader prefers truth to fantasy.


Method of Proof of Gravity Theory

I. Assume that gravity is caused by nether (dynamic ether) flowing into a celestial body. Show why such an assumption is reasonable.

II. Show the necessary relationships to the radius, r, from the center of the celestial body.

III. Show that the math required for these relationships conforms to the Law of Nether Mass Equivalence and the Inverse Square Law.

I. Assumption of Gravity as Incoming Nether


I.A. The Electron


The electron is a vortex. This was conclusively proved to my satisfaction and to that of many others by the behavior of the electron in creating electricity, magnetism, light, inductance, etc. . . .


(Elsewhere on the website Paxton explains that the word "nether" for dynamic ether is referencing the use of the term by the Ancient Greeks in their mythology to signify underlying substance.)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Thanks for posting this info. I've bookmarked the page and look forward to investigating further!



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by xizd1
 


You're welcome. I don't think you'll be disappointed. I think the author has done thorough research and is an independent thinker capable of recognizing missteps and offering a better model that makes sense.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
The electron is not a vortex because it is a lepton. What IS a vortex is a magnetic monopole source of the SU(3) colour flux that is squeezed by the Meissner Effect into string-like vortices in the superconducting Higgs field (the theory of this has been mathematically analyzed during the past few decades by string theorists). These vortices were described with a form of remote viewing over a century ago by the Theosophists Annie Besant & Charles W. Leadbeater. A diagram was published 17 years earlier by the American color therapist Edwin Babbitt in his book "The Principles of Light and Color: the Healing Power of Color". It depicted the particles he (wrongly) assumed were atoms as vortices (notice the word "vortex" above the top of the image titled "Babbitt's 'atom'" on the right in the page:

smphillips.8m.com...

(scroll down below the videos). This form was confirmed by Besant & Leadbeater. Dr Phillips, a British theoretical physicist, has proved that this object is a superstring constituent of quarks (see his website linked to above). The "ether" is the Higgs field, which fills all space and the vortices in it are the strings that bind together superstrings in clusters of three to create quarks. This picture was confirmed 53 years by Geoffrey Hodson, an Australian clairvoyant with similar abilities. He described the particle seen by Besant, Leadbeater and Babbitt as surrounded by a field of points of light (Higgs bosons) that revolved around it (see his descriptions at the link above).

All subatomic particles that interact strongly with one another by the color force are the openings of vortices in the surrounding Type 2 superconductor that is the Higgs field. Electrons do not interact strongly and so they are not vortices. Price had a partially correct intuition about the ultimate nature of matter.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
The electron is not a vortex because it is a lepton.

Here is the page on the electron: "ELECTRONS AND POSITRONS - (Condensed Electron/Positron Theory) Copyright (C) 1999, 2004 by Lew Paxton Price and Herbert Martin Gibson":


The electron is not a particle. It is a vortex. Therefore, it has no shape such as we can produce on a two-dimensional piece of paper. The "shape" of the electron must be visualized within the mind. This is possible when, step-by-step one can see how the electron is constructed.

First of all, the electron is a hole into the fourth dimension. This hole can be visualized as a tiny round two-dimensional thing that is merely a gate into what one might think of as emptiness. Its backside as we would see it (if we could see it) is merely the dynamic ether of our three-dimensional space acting in its usual manner. Its front is a strong, sucking mouth that is pulling in our nether (dynamic ether) at the speed of light. . . .



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by micpsi
The electron is not a vortex because it is a lepton.

Here is the page on the electron: "ELECTRONS AND POSITRONS - (Condensed Electron/Positron Theory) Copyright (C) 1999, 2004 by Lew Paxton Price and Herbert Martin Gibson":


The electron is not a particle. It is a vortex. Therefore, it has no shape such as we can produce on a two-dimensional piece of paper. The "shape" of the electron must be visualized within the mind. This is possible when, step-by-step one can see how the electron is constructed.

First of all, the electron is a hole into the fourth dimension. This hole can be visualized as a tiny round two-dimensional thing that is merely a gate into what one might think of as emptiness. Its backside as we would see it (if we could see it) is merely the dynamic ether of our three-dimensional space acting in its usual manner. Its front is a strong, sucking mouth that is pulling in our nether (dynamic ether) at the speed of light. . . .


Blah blah blah blah, mouth, nether, "backside of the fourth dimensional vortex" whatever.

Please explain the utility and consequences of this "hole in the fourth dimension" and its Great Sucking Sound to compute the scattering of X-rays against electrons. (Compton effect) and compare quantitatively to experiment. For a more rigorous test, calculate the scattering of electrons against W at high velocities. How does the vortex explain the angular momentum addition?

Can't do that? Standard Model can. Lasers, semiconductors, plain old non-sucking no-vortex electrons gots them covered.

Oh yeah, and that little thing call "atomic structure" too.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Well it wasnt to long ago that we as a society murdered people who didnt agree with our religious beliefs.

Physics is an ever evolving field of science if has have something new to add then i would suggest he find some evidence to support it not just tossing out catch phrases. No one is stopping him.

Why wouldnt someone take these ideas that are so expertly defined in all this vague detail and produce something with it. It just doesnt make sense to have such strong convictions about the flaws in phsysics and then lose intrest in it.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 

I can tell you've taken offense by Price's initiative. Guess you're not going to be studying any of this. To each his or her own!



Originally posted by Wertdagf
Well it wasnt to long ago that we as a society murdered people who didnt agree with our religious beliefs.

Huh? Did you post that on the wrong thread?


Originally posted by Wertdagf
Physics is an ever evolving field of science if you have something new to add then i would suggest you find some evidence to support it not just tossing out catch phrases. No one is stopping you, or him

And what catch phrase is that?

Nevermind. I can tell you're not in the least interested either!

That's fine; I posted this thread for the seeker.
edit on 01/16/13 by Mary Rose because: Format
edit on 01/16/13 by Mary Rose because: Add



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 

Are you saying that the electron is point-like in shape?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Why is everything he claims as proof come from the late 1800's early 1900's

Is there really a massive coverup in physics to where no university would want the fame of debunking mainstream physics?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Why is everything he claims as proof come from the late 1800's early 1900's

I wouldn't say that. I would say that he has gone back in history and analyzed everything important in physics to determine for himself what is valid and what needs modification.


Originally posted by Wertdagf
Is there really a massive coverup in physics to where no university would want the fame of debunking mainstream physics?

I think the problem in universities is that the power structure that controls funding tailors what is taught in order to maintain that power structure for itself. There would be no fame in debunking mainstream physics; mainstream physics is the way it is because it suits those in control.

The internet is revolutionizing education in my opinion. Eventually there will be a renaissance of science and technology that will benefit the public, as opposed to private corporate and financial interests - the power structure - because there is academic freedom on the internet and where there is freedom the people thrive.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I cannot possibly post to this thread with any wisdom, this is all way above my noggin.

I did read your thread about two days ago and enjoyed the whole thing.
I read the blog in full and was very pleased I did so...

That is as far as I can go with this thread, I am however lurking and learning.

S&F from the day you posted this thread.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


How expensive could the experiments done in the late 1800's be?

How can you claim there is no fame in showing the flaws in modern physics? I dont see any evidence of that. In fact i see the exact opposite with millions being given to these obsure labs to do tests on absolutly idiotic things like remote-veiwing.

Maybe this mans ideas arent being recognised because he hasnt produced any evidence?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
There would be no fame in debunking mainstream physics;


Very wrong actually, if someone could actually do that by they world be assured of a Nobel prize, great recognition and money and staff to do more research into their claims.


The internet is revolutionizing education in my opinion.


It is dumbing down a lot of people, now anyone can make a crazy claim, publish a webpage or blog and then that page is quoted by other people who have very little understanding of science and think "I saw it on the internet so it must be true". That happens a lot here, there is even a example in this very thread....



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
How expensive could the experiments done in the late 1800's be?

You judge quality by expense?


Originally posted by Wertdagf
How can you claim there is no fame in showing the flaws in modern physics? I dont see any evidence of that. In fact i see the exact opposite with millions being given to these obsure labs to do tests on absolutly idiotic things like remote-veiwing.

Remote-viewing is not idiotic.


Originally posted by Wertdagf
Maybe this mans ideas arent being recognised because he hasnt produced any evidence?

He is challenging the status quo and he will be resisted because that's what he's doing. People's egos are at stake.

His contribution is in analyzing past interpretations and offering an alternative view. Have you done anything more that just scan this and that of his website?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce
Very wrong actually, if someone could actually do that by they world be assured of a Nobel prize, great recognition and money and staff to do more research into their claims.

No, Nobel prizes are dished out to serve the powers that be in their agenda.


Originally posted by hellobruce
It is dumbing down a lot of people, now anyone can make a crazy claim, publish a webpage or blog and then that page is quoted by other people who have very little understanding of science and think "I saw it on the internet so it must be true". That happens a lot here, there is even a example in this very thread....

No, there is not. A dumb statement to make on your part. See, I can just throw that out like you just did. Tit for tat. You're not saying anything.

People do have to be very careful what websites they spend their time on. They have to be selective.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
He is a proponent of a dynamic ether . . .

Price delineates the properties of his proposed ether in "IS THERE A DYNAMIC ETHER? - A NEW REALITY FOR 21ST CENTURY PHYSICS - (Pertinent History & Comprehensive Version of Gravity Theory):


Properties of Dynamic Ether

Dynamic ether is a perfect, non-particulate fluid. For this reason, it is without friction, completely frictionless. In Book Four of the series called Behind Light's Illusion, this is explained as part of the reason for lightwaves behaving as they do. . . .

Assuming that electrons are simple vortices and that all matter is made of some grouping or configuration of vortices, dynamic ether must have the property of inertia. A vortex is formed because of inertia and cannot form without it. . . .

Omnipresence must be a property of dynamic ether if everything in the known universe is composed of it.

Compressibility is one of the properties of dynamic ether . . .

Dynamic ether is energy-conscious. It reacts to any change in a manner that requires the least possible expenditure of energy. . . .

As a consequence of the foregoing properties, dynamic ether has variable density. . . .

Dynamic ether is constantly in motion. Its velocity cannot be detected by normal means. Its acceleration can be detected easily by the acceleration of matter within it. All energy is the consequence of motion within it. All energy is transmitted by means of motion within it.

I was already a believer in the ether from my other research before discovering this website. So his description of the ether is expanding on my understanding of it.

I had not seen a model of the electron as a vortex before, although I'm very familiar with the vortex as being a path that is prominent in nature and Marko Rodin's and Nassim Haramein's models for counter-rotating opposing vortices composing the torus model for the universe.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I have explored the web site a little and am impressed. Mr. Price has a myriad of interests beyond physics and provides some engaging web pages.
Some are so invested in present day theory that to open their minds and apply some critical thinking would cause a breakdown of their concept of reality. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Physics will come around to this new way of seeing the world, but will come to it only once there own avenues of exploration are exhausted. They have been led down the rosy path, and will take quite some time to come to these conclusions by their own methods.
Thanks again for the enlightening post. I hope there will be some positive and expanding input to this thread.
edit on 17-1-2013 by xizd1 because: to correct spelling





top topics
 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join