WMAP troubles

[D_Archer]

Hi Lloyd,

Would you clarify for me please who do you mean by JL and APM?
Dont know any names for those abbreviations.

Regards,
Daniel

[KickLaBuka]

Would you clarify for me please who do you mean by JL and APM?

JungleLord is an avid poster on this forum. Aether Physics Model is a mathematical tool to guess at arrangements once Quantum Mechanics and quantum electrodynamics gets too messy. Unfortunately for JL and APM, this is outside the box but looking in thinking. Electromass replaces both. I have the mathematics.

[Lloyd]

Electromass replaces both. I have the mathematics.

* So how about explaining what's wrong with Planck's constant, quantum mechanics, APM etc?

[junglelord]

Lets put up on the screen what its all about again then, shall we?

Plancks Constant
Just like Coulombs constant, the Newton gravitational constant, speed of light constant, speed of light squared constant, permeability constant, and permittivity constant, The Standard Model of particle physics essentially claims that Planck's constant is a constant of convenience that happens to show up in many places.

The following quote from Lorentz in a book by James Murphy and Max Planck illustrates many of the areas were Planck's constant applies

we have now advanced so far this constant, Plancks universal constant, h, not only furnishes the basis for explaining the intensity of radiation in the wavelength for which it represents a maximum, but also for interpreting the quantitative relations existing and several other cases among the many physical qualities it determines. I shall mention only a few, namely, the specific heat of solids, the photochemical effects of light, the orbits of electrons in the atom, the wavelengths of the lines of the spectrum, the frequency of Roentgen rays which are produced by the impact of electrons of given velocity, the velocity with which gas molecules can rotate, and also the distances between the particles which make up a crystal. It is no exaggeration to say that our picture of nature nowadays is a quantum conditions that hold Matter together and prevent it from completely losing its energy by radiation. It is convincingly clear that we are here dealing with real relations because the value of H. is derived from the different phenomenon always agree, and these values differ only by slight shades from the number which Planck computed 25 years ago on the experimental data, which were then available.

According to Max Planck

the laws of thermodynamics are only of a summary and statistical nature and can only give summary results when applied to electronic processes to the atom. Now if the quantum of action has the significance which has come to be ascribe to it today In thermodynamics, it must make itself felt also and every single process within the atom, in every case of the emission and absorption of radiation and in the free dispersion of light radiation.

Action is an attribute of a real thing, not of convenience constants. If there is a quantum of action, then there is something doing the action. There are only three stable forms of distributed charge in the atom. They can be candidates for the quantum of action. These are the electron, proton, and neutron. Since all the phenomenon associated with Planck's constant are electronic processes, then the only logical candidate among these three is the electron. It is very reasonable postulate that Planck's constant directly quantifies the electron. Moreover, since Planck's constant is in the unit of angular momentum, it is reasonable to say further that Planck's constant refers directly to the angular momentum of the electron.

God did not design the Planck constant to just help Max Planck and Albert Einstein and Lewis de Broglie to convert energy to frequency in the equation
E = h x f

Further still, Einstein may have applied Max Planck's constant directly to the energy of photon radiation, but Einstein did not discover, nor did he quantify a quantum photon. Albert Einstein claimed to have quantified the photon, but what he called the photon was not quantum at all. Einstein merely stated what others had stated, that Planck's constant (angular momentum of the electron) times frequency yields the amount of work performed by the electron.

within a few years after its promulagation Einstein applied to quantum theory to explain the constituition of light and show that light follows the same process is heat radiation and is emitted in parcels or quantu, called photons.

Einstein also made the empirical observation that everyone else did, that light travels at the speed of light, but he never made the connection that the photon actually quantifies as Planck's constant times the speed of light. Nor did he realize that light was equal to the photon times frequency.

A look at the Planck constant in terms of quantum measurement reveals clearly that Planck's constant refers specifically to the angular momentum of the electron. The angular momentum of the electron is equal to the mass of the electron times its sweep.

In the Aether Physics Model, the photon and the electron closely relate to each other, just as evidenced shows.
The photon unit is equal to
phtn = h x c

What could be simpler and easier to understand? A photon is an electron angular momentum that is exploding outward at the speed of light. Light defines as photons produced at a given frequency

ligt = phtn x freq

In the Aether physics model, we are dealing with cause and effect. Electrons defined exactly as the data shows, as primary angular momentum. Photons mathematically defined from the electrons that produce them. Energy appears as a unit of work, not as an object equal to a dimension. Mass is seen as a dimension, and not as matter. All the functions within the Aether physics model are clean, mathematically and geometrically correct, and model precisely. With an accurate electron structure to work with, we may reasonably posit that the other form of stable matter, the proton, is similarly structured.

[Harry Costas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz


What do you think of this critic

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/wmap- ... itics.html

Has it any foundations?

[Lloyd]

What do you think of this critic - HC

* I think he's arrogant, and unscientific, since he calls doubters of the conventional view crackpots.

[Harry Costas]

G'day Lloyd

Arrogant is a good word.

That is being polite.

[Lloyd]

Plancks Constant - Just like Coulombs constant, the Newton gravitational constant, speed of light constant, speed of light squared constant, permeability constant, and permittivity constant, ... - JL

* What I was asking is, doesn't the article at http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -19-01.PDF show that Planck's constant isn't constant and that quantum theory therefore is wrong and, therefore, APM needs to be modified?
* Furthermore, if APM supports the gravitational constant as a universal constant, it's likely wrong on that count as well, as local EU theory considers the gravitational constant as merely local, not universal. What about that? Are you ready to modify APM?
* And even furthermore, how can a particle go forward and backward in time in a quasi-circular fashion? Seems like nonsense to me, even if it might satisfy some mathematical pattern.

[junglelord]

Not at all, and after a quick view of the PDF, I see no proof that Plancks constant does not specificly denote the angular momentum of an electron. APM states that gravity is a linear dimension, the same as mass is only linear. Matter and antimatter should repel. Charge is a distributed dimension. Dimensional analysis must remain properly defined. One does not mix and match linear and distributed dimensions. They are two sides of the same thing, but they cannot be exchanged.
Think of a stop sign, the front surface is charge (distributed), the side view is gravity and mass (linear). Its all the same stop sign, but the properties are distinct as far as dimensional analysis. Now that stop sign becomes our electron. The mass and charge of the electron never changes, it is a constant. Since h defines the angular momentum of an electron, it is always a constant, as every electron is equal in its angular momentum. Relativistic mass is not a real thing. Nothing ever happens to mass. I think that represents the proper APM view of things. Every electron has the same mass, charge, angular momentum and therefore h is a constant, since it denotes the angular momentum of the e-

[KickLaBuka]

Not at all, and after a quick view of the PDF, I see no proof that Plancks constant does not specificly denote the angular momentum of an electron

The fact that plank wasn't around in 1890 when the paper was cut to, should turn heads without honorable mention. I only say that because I met the author. Real selfish. Upon finishing the ET link...

Literary Review Recent Fantasy

Electric Matter is crap. Forty pages of scheming literary, undeciding garbage—and zero math; thick with alien innuendo. This guy is clearly a schizoaffective lunatic waving these uncertain posits: Neither Angular Momentum nor Energy can be quantized. A photon is a fundamental energy unit.

“Just five minutes, worm your honor”

[junglelord]

A photon is an electrons angular momentum expanding at the speed of light....Compton's Wavelength remains quantizied.

[Lloyd]

The fact that plank wasn't around in 1890 when the paper was cut to, should turn heads without honorable mention. I only say that because I met the author. Real selfish. - Kick

* Which author are you talking about? Robitaille?

“Just five minutes, worm your honor”

* Who are you quoting here and what does it mean? Can you speak any less clearly?

[flyingcloud]

Lloyd that's pink floyd lyrics, from "the trial" off "the wall"

[mharratsc]

Update: In order for me to demonstrate that these medieval anti-scientific attacks are indeed spreading like mosquitos, let me mention that Stephen Crothers has informed me about his/their protest against the funding of the Australian International Gravitational Observatory. His main objection is that he thinks that the Big Bang and the black holes are incompatible with General Relativity according to his understanding of physics summarized in this paper. Using dozens of equations, Stephen Crothers shows that all relativists have fatally erred in their analysis of the "Efcleethean" and "Reimannian" geometries.

That kid is an unadulterated mainstreamist fan boi

His article mentions Creationists, and the sarcastic, self-effacing cop-out: "everyone must agree by now that the scientists who rely on mathematical methods must be charlatans who are not even wrong"

He mentioned also "The real target are not just some details of the anisotropies: the target is the CMB itself. Why?"

He's an atypical product of the modern education system- the existing paradigm is Law... to dispute it is Heresy

Mike H.

[Lloyd]

Well, Mike, you're almost as hard to follow as Kick.