Lew Paxton Price's Challenge to Mainstream Physics

reply to post by buddhasystem


You know you can just say you dont know. Alot of these 'physics' topics are very closely related, in fact in a non new agey way, all fundamental physics phenomenon are extremely closely related and depend on one another to exist. A lot of my questions have been on topic, you like to deflect instead of admitting your ignorance or trying to think about what im asking you.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Some people think creatively and independently and some don't.

I think you're beating your head against the wall.

Its not about that; I just cant believe/it makes me so frustrated, someone so involved in the world of physics,someone who would call themselves a scientist, seems to hate to think and discuss and question the knowledge and understanding of the universe we exist in and of. there are so many questions they ignore and dismiss, they seem to be satisfied with their shallow understanding and ignorance, its just a shame and a pity..

The only sure thing in physics right now... is that the standard model is wrong, and the current geezers in charge will have to die off before we can do anything about it. As the current top QED is a rather special group of a$$ hats!

Originally posted by vind21
The only sure thing in physics right now... is that the standard model is wrong, and the current geezers in charge will have to die off before we can do anything about it.

Who was it that said that? Was it Max Planck?

Originally posted by vind21
As the current top QED is a rather special group of a$$ hats!

QED as in quantum electrodynamics?

Can you elaborate a little bit?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You know you can just say you dont know.

Why would I say that? My level of knowledge is on par with other people with good education. Your mileage will vary. If you need a person to READ A TEXTBOOK for you in order to get basic info, you have my sympathy.

you like to deflect instead of admitting your ignorance

admitting what? My reading skills are fine, thank you. Again, your mileage may vary.

Doesn't the fact that even main stream science agrees that space is not a total vaccuum and full of electricaly charged particles prove beyond any doubt there is some form of "eather" .....Just a thought

Originally posted by vind21
Doesn't the fact that even main stream science agrees that space is not a total vaccuum and full of electricaly charged particles prove beyond any doubt there is some form of "eather" .....Just a thought

...a post that's all typeset in bold seems pretty obnoxious... Just a thought.

And the answer to your thesis is well, NO.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by vind21
Doesn't the fact that even main stream science agrees that space is not a total vaccuum and full of electricaly charged particles prove beyond any doubt there is some form of "eather" .....Just a thought

...a post that's all typeset in bold seems pretty obnoxious... Just a thought.

And the answer to your thesis is well, NO.

What are the totality of atoms moving in relation to?

In the universe, where there are no atoms, no quantum particles, no energy, matter, what is there? are all atoms on earth as close to one another as possible or is there space in between them?

Does that space stay the same, or does it come from somewhere? meaning if there is space between atoms or even in atoms, is that a quantity of "space"/somethingness which is kept in tact, like water molecules surrounding air in an air bubble?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
In the universe, where there are no atoms

I'm afraid you are wrong, and not in a cute way.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
In the universe, where there are no atoms

I'm afraid you are wrong, and not in a cute way.

explain. Can you point out, what about my questions did not make sense to you, so I can fix them so you can answer?

I will start with what you quoted. " In the universe, where there are no atoms" ; since you seem to have a problem with this statement, I must ask: Is there any volume/s in the universe where there are no atoms?

ImaFungi,

Check out this website: Aether Force

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I can't help but notice that quite many of the pseudo-science articles, posts and web sites, including video, contain flashy graphics so as to create an illusion of content where there is none, and impress the less educated with the appearance of some force or item that's akin to magic. Very often, this tripe takes the form of the graphic of electric discharge (doesn't matter what topic), or an orb featuring a color scheme which is heavy on all hues of blue and some purple, maybe an electric arc (again regardless of the connection) and possibly a swirl.

Check.

Check.

Check.

Originally posted by vind21
The only sure thing in physics right now... is that the standard model is wrong, and the current geezers in charge will have to die off before we can do anything about it. As the current top QED is a rather special group of a$$ hats!

edit on 16-5-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)

It needs modification

reply to post by buddhasystem


I cant help but notice you cannot tell me what the gravitational field is composed of, what the magnetic and electric field are composed of, what fundamental space is/ is composed of, if there is area of the universe that contains no atoms and if so whats there (and area that contains no atoms, particles, radiation, dark energy etc. whats there?), and generally what you think the universe is. You also cant tell me why you are against the notion of an Aether existing besides your personal 'belief' that people who believe in the Aether didnt read the same textbook as you.

Checking out Paul LaViolette's website today, I see that Lew Paxton Price is not the only person challenging mainstream physics. "Some Rubbish in Physics that Needs to be Gotten Rid Of" is a succinct article.

A screenshot:



Keywords:

Retain the observations, but dispense with the flawed theories.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Checking out Paul LaViolette's website today, I see that Lew Paxton Price is not the only person challenging mainstream physics. "Some Rubbish in Physics that Needs to be Gotten Rid Of" is a succinct article.

It is indeed amazingly succinct, while it contains a rather amazing number of misconceptions and open falsehoods. That's some rubbish for you right there, indeed.

One example of LaViolette idiocy is what he thinks he knows about QED. Contrary to this moron's retarded notion, it's not equivalent to the technique of calculation known as Feynman's diagrams. And no, Mr. Moron LaViolette, the maglev train is not a proof of non-conservation of energy.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
One example of LaViolette idiocy is what he thinks he knows about QED. Contrary to this moron's retarded notion, it's not equivalent to the technique of calculation known as Feynman's diagrams.

Post the quote where he says that.

Here's a quote about quantum electrodynamics:

Quantum electrodynamics is entirely a conceptual construct. No one has proven that electrons continuously exchange virtual photons between themselves when they scatter. This concept may be replaced with the subquantum kinetics notion of ether concentration gradients causing dissipative solitons to accelerate.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
One example of LaViolette idiocy is what he thinks he knows about QED. Contrary to this moron's retarded notion, it's not equivalent to the technique of calculation known as Feynman's diagrams.

Post the quote where he says that.

Here's a quote about quantum electrodynamics:

Quantum electrodynamics is entirely a conceptual construct. No one has proven that electrons continuously exchange virtual photons between themselves when they scatter. This concept may be replaced with the subquantum kinetics notion of ether concentration gradients causing dissipative solitons to accelerate.

Thank you Mary. That's exactly the part I meant. Thanks for helping me make the point. The virtual photons, you see, is the construct coming from the Feynman technique. For one, there are other ways in QED to make the calculation. Also, "continuously exchange" does not make sense from absolutely any point of view. What's "continuum"?

Sheesh just how stupid it is.

What HAS been proven that QED is a remarkably precise theory which very accurately describes - in particular - scattering of electrons. If LaViolette is too thick to get it, that's his problem.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Also, "continuously exchange" does not make sense from absolutely any point of view. What's "continuum"?

Huh? Continuum?

Do you mean to say, "What's 'continuously exchange'"?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What HAS been proven that QED is a remarkably precise theory which very accurately describes - in particular - scattering of electrons.

Does it prove electron - virtual photon exchange?