Lew Paxton Price's Challenge to Mainstream Physics

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


Thank you. I welcome your participation.

I'm reading a slideshow on the Pure Energy Systems website "TESLA'S WIRELESS POWER TRANSMISSION - MARCH 24, 2011 © 2010 Steve Jackson."

Here's one of the slides:



I agree with that sentiment: Get your physics from an engineer. Tesla was an engineer. And he believed in an ether. He knew how to tap into it. That's what I want to see in my lifetime: Converting the ether to usable power.

I am fascinated to see that there is a website "Quantum AetherDynamics Institute - Home of the Aether Physics Model":

Why the Aether Physics Model is Needed

The Aether Physics Model fills a void in modern science. Whereas the physical matter of the Universe is tangible and quantifiable, the space that matter resides in is intangible and also quantifiable. Just because space is not physical matter does not mean space is unreal or unquantifiable. To properly understand the physics of black holes and how to harvest energy from space, an understanding of the physics of the Aether is essential.

Strengths and Validations

All science must be quantifiable. The Aether Physics Model (APM) provides the quantified explanations for unifying the forces, identifying the nature of space and the underlying physics of space using simple Newtonian style equations. The APM bases on the principles of Classical Mechanics and successfully predicts the 1s orbital binding energies of electrons from first principles. It demonstrates, mathematically, that there are two distinct and different types of charges; electric and magnetic. It mathematically demonstrates the notation of charge should always be distributed (squared) relative to linear mass.

The Aether Physics Model shows there is order in the Universe all the way down to the most primary elements of creation by using the simplest dimension-based mathematics.

(I had never heard of "1s orbital" but I see a Wikipedia article "Atomic orbital" does use that terminology.)

Anyway, Price is not alone in being a proponent of the aether.

Does Price agree that there are two types of charges: Electric and magnetic? I'll have to check that.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Quantum AetherDynamics Institute - Home of the Aether Physics Model"

For comparison to what Price is saying, "What the Aether is not":

The Aether is not a physical particle as Heinrich Hertz and others have thought. When looking at the geometry of the Aether, one is looking at the spin positions available to matter. The spin positions are like holes, but with reality. We may normally think of holes as the absence of matter, but in the Aether, holes are units of rotating magnetic field that act as containers for angular momentum. Further, these angular momenta must be exactly the same magnitude as the Aether spin positions, or they will wander between Aether units, unable to interact with the physical world (as in the case of neutrinos).

The Aether is not a wave. However, the Aether units can produce waves, even without photons traveling through them. In addition, these waves can carry real signals if the Aether is magnetically pulsed. The Aether waves are longitudinal waves of gaseous Aether movement, much as Nikola Tesla envisioned. Tesla also suggested that longitudinal waves in the Aether might travel faster than the speed of light. Sir Edmund Whittaker made similar observations:

Stokes’s explanation harmonises in a curious way with Fresnel’s hypothesis that the velocity of longitudinal waves in the Aether is indefinitely great compared with that of the transverse waves; for it is found by experiment with actual substances that the ratio of the velocity of propagation of longitudinal waves to that of transverse waves increases rapidly as the medium becomes softer and more plastic[1].

The Aether is not a fluid, although it behaves like one; just as sand is not a fluid, but can behave like a fluid when agitated. When the Aether is agitated, molecules and atoms rearrange without a direct effect on the binding forces of the atoms and molecules. In his experiments, John Hutchison rearranges molecules and atoms of aluminum by generating a high frequency rotating magnetic field with electrons[2].

An Aether unit is neither motionless, nor is it always in motion. Massive objects require more Aether units than low-density space. If the object is in motion, a certain amount of Aether will follow it[3]. This is possible due to the independent nature of Aether units.

Maybe this:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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?

and this:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

. . . When looking at the geometry of the Aether, one is looking at the spin positions available to matter. The spin positions are like holes, but with reality. We may normally think of holes as the absence of matter, but in the Aether, holes are units of rotating magnetic field that act as containers for angular momentum. Further, these angular momenta must be exactly the same magnitude as the Aether spin positions, or they will wander between Aether units, unable to interact with the physical world (as in the case of neutrinos). . . .

are describing something similar?

Interesting topic!!

Well Done!

When I've looked at the notes I've got... I see that the vortex is not of the electron, the vortex goes into the 'forever' now of the nuclei of the atom. The electron and even smaller parts of the nuclei actually follow the path of the Torus field around the nuclei of the atomic structure...

The maths works, even at this micro level.

Very interesting, thanks OP!

But there is a great problem with the theory of nether: it does not seem to give any different results than the current Physics, and so it seems we cannot really tell if it is true or not.

In the Nether model, everything is like in known Physics: the speed of light, relativty, relativistic effects, gravity, etc., although they work differently from the inside than the standard Physics.

There is nothing in the Nether physics that makes better or different observations than what we currently have.

Has this gentleman thought of any experiments to prove the Nether theory? he has not. But real science is done through experimentation.

reply to post by masterp


There is more to science than experimentation.

There is interpretation.

I think the interpretation is more important than the experimentation.

reply to post by Mary Rose


This is what Sid wrote:

A ray of light is a beam of photons, an electromagnetic wave. It can propagate for billions of years through the vastness of the Universe, at a velocity of 3 X 108 m/s, independent of photon frequency, and without an iota of attenuation, until it is absorbed by a material object. There is no way this is possible without an all-pervading aether carrier.

"There is no way". I see. What a compelling argument... A paragon of scientific logic and reasoning. Everyone should believe Sid because he said "there is no way"!

reply to post by buddhasystem


Yes, indeed, they should.

Good old fashioned common sense. Not ivory tower bull crap.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by masterp

 

There is more to science than experimentation.

There is interpretation.

I think the interpretation is more important than the experimentation.

Ok, let's say that mr Price's interpretation is correct. What then? how will his interpretation help us find solutions to problems not solved by the Standard Model?

reply to post by masterp


I believe that to make progress in technology, we need the concept of the ether. The ether is where the energy is which can be tapped for free energy devices.

Also, it is my understanding that, for some reason, mainstream physics is averse to the model of subatomic vortices. Maybe because the math is difficult. Instinctively, I like the model.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Yes, indeed, they should.

Good old fashioned common sense. Not ivory tower bull crap.

What does any sort of "ivory" have to do with experimental verification of a claim? If Sid says "no way", I would like it be shown why there is no way. If Sid is too thick, and he's uncomfortable with complex notions in science, that's not my problem. If he's too dumb to comprehend how fields work, that's not my problem either. Confer that video of Feynman:

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What does any sort of "ivory" have to do with experimental verification of a claim?

The ivory tower of academia vs. the boots on the ground of an engineer dealing with real-world projects was my point.

We have loads and loads of experimentation on record for all the world to analyze. The key is interpretation of what the experiments show.

That's the point of this thread. Reconsidering interpretations that have been accepted by mainstream science as fact.

That's the problem with interpretation, you can't account for the bias of the observer. Or, you can see what you want to see. Very interested in your thread, looking forward to more!

I like this stuff!

So, the way I interpret this aether stuff is that it is the breadboard/circuit board for all electrical connections in the universe? It provides the energy, and the plane for material particles to move about?

reply to post by xizd1


I think that's why we need to listen to each other respectfully and put our heads (and intuitions) together to correct each other's misperceptions and to make up for each other's strengths and weaknesses. Science is hard work and it "takes a village."

I am of the opinion that every "fact" that we have in science is really our opinion of what we think the facts are doing the best we can with what we have to work with at the time.

We have to keep a constant open mind about what the facts really are. And not make claims to authority to shut people up when they challenge "the facts."

reply to post by loveguy


Wow! Very interesting thought.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by masterp

 

I believe that to make progress in technology, we need the concept of the ether. The ether is where the energy is which can be tapped for free energy devices.

Also, it is my understanding that, for some reason, mainstream physics is averse to the model of subatomic vortices. Maybe because the math is difficult. Instinctively, I like the model.

Well, I like the model too. But my question is still unanswered: how can we tell if this model is better than the standard one? so far, there is nothing about that.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by masterp

 

I believe that to make progress in technology, we need the concept of the ether.

Why do you think the absence of this concept (which really isn't necessary, but OK) impedes the progress?

The ether is where the energy is which can be tapped for free energy devices.

Try and realize that this is completely unfounded and doesn't follow from mere existence of ether. From one non-sequitur you make a step to the next one, which is even more staggering.

Also, it is my understanding that, for some reason, mainstream physics is averse to the model of subatomic vortices. Maybe because the math is difficult. Instinctively, I like the model.

You have no idea how "difficult" the math can be in physics, and how well it is mastered nevertheless. Physics doesn't give a flying toss about your personal intuition. If a model has merits that link it to real world phenomena and give it predictive powers, you can bet your house it will be given attention. If its only merit is that it's esthetically more pleasing, well tough, it's still garbage.