Secrets of the Aether, Questions and Answers

[Plasmatic]

There is no desire to "disqualify" you from discussing the topic. But if you are going to approach it within the specialized definitions and framework of Rand's philosophy then that should take place in the Objectivism thread. Otherwise you are simply proselytizing an esoteric philosophy based on the copyrighted works of an individual, for which an appropriate thread has been established, just as this one has for the discussion of the copyrighted work of D. Thomson.

Again this is not the task of the Moderator to delimit ones choice of definitions or philisophical frame work. One cannot
"proselytize" for something they have not brought up whatsoever. You are requiring others to follow your own ideas of what is an allowable "framework" of interpretation. There is no rule that even come close to subsuming this criticism.

[bboyer]

This topic is temporarily locked.

[davesmith_au]

Quite simply, I don't give a toss for how anyone else interprets given words or terms, except to say that in the spirit (if I may use that term without offending anyone) of cooperation and good 'netiquette' let's stop the constant bickering and nit-picking which has become the 'norm' in the last couple of weeks. The thing is, moderation of our forums, like most, is completely arbitrary and not a democratic undertaking in any way. It is a privelage, or perhaps a burden, bestowed upon those who are identified as having a reasonably fair minded way about them, regardless what their personal philosophy may involve. We at the Thunderbolts Project seek to facilitate scholarly and intelligent discussion into Electric Universe theory on the 'upper' boards as indicated, and friendly discourse about many topics which may or may not have a bearing on EU theory on the lower boards.

The best advice I can give ANYONE who wants to partake in discussion on our boards is to do so in an orderly and friendly manner. If you don't like what angle someone else is coming from, IGNORE IT! IF you can engage in PRODUCTIVE discourse about a topic and still be in disagreement (as many on this forum have to date WITHOUT moderators having to step in) then great. But NO ONE DIED and made Objectivism, Bhuddism, or even Calathumpianism the boss over all here. Quite frankly I'm finding the constant call to objective logic as unreasonable and unproductive as chanting around an altar or claiming the underpants gnome is responsible for everything in the universe. LET'S ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE DIFFERING VIEWS WITHOUT HAVING TO SHOW THEM CONSTANTLY WHERE AND WHY THEY'RE WRONG!!

If the recent spate of people jumping in on discussions with the clear intention of derailing them because they have a different viewpoint (which is of course the only correct viewpoint) doesn't stop then we'll start temporarily (or permenantly if need be) banning those responsible ARBITRARILY AND WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION. I don't care how unfair this may seem to those who will no-doubt like to respond that "I was only ....". The bottom line is that constantly taking on those who you disagree with because you are correct and they are not is both very presumptuous and quite irritating to the rest of us here. A small dose of "live and let live" is in order. I hope I've made myself clear. If anyone wants clarity of any definitions of any words I've used in this post, then LOOK THEM UP. But don't ask me to define my terms just for the sake of another damned argument.

Dave Smith.
Forum Administrator.

[bboyer]

And with that well-said, and in the spirit of honest and open INQUIRY and discussion the topic is reopened (but NOT for pushing a slanted or biased, endless argumentation centered around Rand's esoteric and redefined meaning for common words such as objective, existent(ence), entity, etc. As previously stated, that should be constrained to the "Objectivism" thread).

[Pfhoenix]

So, I can't post any disagreement to what is posted because I recognize the philosophy inherent in all discussion, and the philosophy I most identify with is one you don't like?

[altonhare]

Just a reminder; the topic is Q&A regarding the publication, Secrets of the Aether. It is not about thread theory, NOR ... in all fairness ... should it be about criticizing the work from an esoteric philosophic viewpoint such as Randian Objectivism with its own restrictive and specialized terminology and [re]definition of words.

Granted, I've gone off on a tangent with chain theory a bit much. I will return to the Q&A:

1) What is the structure of the aether?
2) How does material "come from" non material?

Plasm: I know there are a number of problems to address with the theory, and I identify with you, but let's stick to asking specific questions like the ones above. Let's evaluate the answers solely on if they contradict themselves and, to determine this, the speaker must provide their definition of the words they are using. Certainly the mods cannot see this as "proselytizing".

If the speaker cannot define his terms in a non-circular way then there is obviously a problem. If the speaker cannot define the terms in such a way that their claim does not invoke contradiction, obviously there is a problem. You don't have to be a Randian to agree with this. Someone who hands you a marshmellow and says "soft" then hands you a brick and says "hard", then says his table is both hard and soft will either need to clarify exactly what he means or admit he is wrong.

So, what is the structure of the aether and how does it "cause" material to "come from" non-material?

[altonhare]

Is the measurement of inertia the primary "evidence" for the "material from non material" claim?

[junglelord]

I NEVER said an sub atomic unit is a particle.


I ALWAYS say it IS NOT A PARTICLE.

Charge is Distributed.
Sub Atomic units are made from Charge.
They CANNOT be a point or a particle.
So you need to read the entire thread over.

This is what I Said.
Primary Angular Momentum
17. How can we best describe subatomic particles and Atoms?
Answer Page 40
Atoms are more like multilayered, discrete, shimmering clouds. Each layer contains proportionally enormous amounts of energy and shimmers at a different and precise electromagnetic frequency. Only when atoms interact with one another in large numbers do they behave as expected in their classical state, what scientists call the visible world. In APM these multilayered clouds are the angular momentum of individual onta. Since these onta are the smallest stable form of material existence, it is proper to the view the onta as primary angular momentum. When we take the literal dimension of primary angular momentum we find that there is a mass dimension, they are two length dimensions, and there is a frequency dimension. Expressed in terms of quantum measurements angular momentum is
h = m(e) x Lq^2 x Fq

[altonhare]

Since these onta are the smallest stable form of material existence, it is proper to the view the onta as primary angular momentum.

Expressed in terms of quantum measurements angular momentum is
h = m(e) x Lq^2 x Fq

This is not trolling, this is an honest critique. The fundamental constituent is not an equation. An equation expresses a relationship.

If I understand this correctly, JL is saying that whatever we refer to as atoms are themselves constituted of "charge". This charge, I understand from JL's post, is itself made of "onta" which themselves "are" angular momentum. Angular momentum, then is expressed as a relationship to charge (I presume q is a symbol for charge in the equation for angular momentum). This is circular. Let me break this down to make clear what I'm saying and also to make clear that this is not a troll or a shot at JL personally, but an honest analysis of the argument.

atom=charges

charges=onta

onta=angular momentum

angular momentum = a relationship including charge

charge = onta

... etc.

From what I see it appears that APM fails to pose a hypothesis of the universe's fundamental constituency because it defines its "fundamental constituent" h in terms of other constituents (one of which is charge), which is itself defined in terms of h.

If I have misunderstood the argument, which is entirely possible, could someone straighten me out? I imagine such a clarification post would not only benefit me personally, but anyone else reading this thread and trying to learn about APM.

[bboyer]

<snip>

If I have misunderstood the argument, which is entirely possible, could someone straighten me out? I imagine such a clarification post would not only benefit me personally, but anyone else reading this thread and trying to learn about APM.

Anyone who doesn't already have preconceived ideas about it and who are genuinely "trying to learn about APM" should read the book - the subject of this thread - should they not? Shouldn't a legitimate critique generally be founded upon well-versed familiarity with the subject matter?

[altonhare]

<snip>

If I have misunderstood the argument, which is entirely possible, could someone straighten me out? I imagine such a clarification post would not only benefit me personally, but anyone else reading this thread and trying to learn about APM.

Anyone who doesn't already have preconceived ideas about it and who are genuinely "trying to learn about APM" should read the book - the subject of this thread - should they not? Shouldn't a legitimate critique generally be founded upon well-versed familiarity with the subject matter?

JL has presented himself as a knowledgeable representative of APM and has also been acknowledged by the founder of APM itself. I suppose technically the book is the most authoritative source, but does this take away from my well-founded and cogent identification of the circularity presented by JL and, presumably, by the founder of APM?

Additionally, I have read APM papers, and commented extensively on them in a thread. Any "preconceived notions" I have are directly based on those primary sources.

[StefanR]

Personally, I think we got a genuine case of Prickles and Goo. Now nobody should feel offended by it, it's just the way it seems to work. It's fine to be prickly and fine to be goo. As long as we try to remember we are trying to describe the same universe from our own perspective. I usually seem to be goo, but I'm trying very hard to be prickly goo. As APM seems to have some good ideas so does Thread-theory. But when I take K. Meyl's book in hand, I seem to find ideas somewhat consistent with both. Imagine my schizophrenic dichotomy

[junglelord]

<snip>

If I have misunderstood the argument, which is entirely possible, could someone straighten me out? I imagine such a clarification post would not only benefit me personally, but anyone else reading this thread and trying to learn about APM.

Anyone who doesn't already have preconceived ideas about it and who are genuinely "trying to learn about APM" should read the book - the subject of this thread - should they not? Shouldn't a legitimate critique generally be founded upon well-versed familiarity with the subject matter?

You know what makes me laugh?

APM is SI units reorganized, THAT IS IT.

Dispite that fact and the web page and my exhaustive review, Alton is assigning attributes to Primary Angular Momentum that was never assigned to it, by asking questions with these attributes and PAM as one thing. I agree with arc-us. Dispite my efforts to clearly define all parameters, if you refuse those well known SI Units limitations, then you will assign these attributes to PAM, that are not assigned to PAM. In effect he cannot seperate the Aether from PAM and does not understand SI Units. Reread the information.

DO NOT assign attributes to PAM that has not been given to it. That is not reading the material, not remembering the material, or not understanding the information that is well laid out in physics via SI Units and algebra.

APM DOES NOT make new definitions. It reorganizes the data. THAT IS IT!
Remember that everytime you have a question on "definitions" LOOK UP THE SI UNIT DEFINITION.

By reoganizing the data we do redefine only four terms, and only in the sense of what the inital building block should be for those terms, Ie the quantum level is the beginning....not the macro level. How more simple could it be? No new definitions, no new measurements save the Conductance of the Aether and the Magnitute of the Gforce. PAM is not charged, PAM does not exist with charge in its primary state, SI Units never assigned charge to PAM, nor do we. Aether has charge.

[altonhare]

I usually seem to be goo, but I'm trying very hard to be prickly goo. As APM seems to have some good ideas so does Thread-theory.

I know what you're sayin' here. I've heard a good thing here and there too, but I see a lot of hand-waving also, in addition to some very specific problems. I would like to understand the explanation that APM offers, but I have not been able to get one yet. So far I see a modification on standard QFT. JL seems to be making it clear in his post that APM is not a "new theory" as much as a "reorganization" of the standard theory. If this is true I have no further inquiry since I know exactly where I stand on QFT and on quantum in general.

JL seems to be saying that the hypothesis of APM is really no different than QFT, other than tossing out point charges and instead treating particles as possessing a distribution of charge around them. If this is true, and the equations correlate what we see in the accelerator better than the old theory, that's great. If this is true, also, then you'll hear no further discussion about APM from me. It is my view that particles have zero physical explanatory power for light and gravity.

[junglelord]

Wrong again.
The if A then B assumptions you make come from the disorganized theory pushed at present.
You wrongly assume that the same problems come out with the re-organization.
You seem to miss the point over and over Alton.
APM is not a particle theory.
It soundly defeates any link to particle theory, or any support for any particle notion, theory or otherwise.

It has no particles, does not believe in particles, nor is it derived from a particle notion.
SI Units DO NOT say particles exist, modern physics did.
Remember that.

Infact SI Units show that particles are a man made idea, that is not even supported by SI Units.
I suggest you relearn the SI Unit without predjudice. I suggest that to everyone.

APM is not a replacement for QFT. QFT is based on the falsehoods of modern physics.
APM is a re-organization of the current information.
This destroys all faslehood held as truths.
This is where you err Alton.
When SI Units are re-organized based on Compton Wavelength, Plancks Constant, Coulombs Constant, c, the structure of space constants of Permeablity and Permittivity, Inductance, the Conductance of the Aether is right there. The Magnitutude of the Gforce is right there. The proper analysis of dimensional re organization based on the quantum constants I just laid out, will show that Mass is a dimension. The Mass of the e- and p+ never varies. Primary Angular Momentum is a circular string of Mass. That is all it is. It is a fundamental Dimension. If you do not want to re-organize the data, and want to object to the way the reorganization redefines the fundamental dimensions via the quantum constants as building blocks, instead of meters and kilograms, then you will never get it.

[MOD EDIT: deletion] But if your mind is capable of being re-opened, then what is the BIG DEAL in reconsidering the same SI Units with their own definitions of what is fundamental. Only your personal bias.

Personally the objections that are raised to this theory is all subjective limitations. I know that for a fact as I have looked at it without predjuice and have not found it wanting. Infact I can define Mass and Charge. Two sentence answer for both.

Unless you can do that, you do not understand the universe. [MOD EDIT:deletion] Thats right. Mr Feynman himself wants this answer above all answers. 137! Why is it 137! What is 137?

137 is the fine structure constant of the electron. Feynman understands that structure is everything. He says the person that can answer that question will hold the key to all physics. The reason for 137. A nobel prize answer for all humanity. Well I will tell you the reason 137 exists. The reason for 137 is because of the proportional relationship of ES Charge geometry to EM Charge geometry. Structure and Function cannot be seperated. If you know the structure then you control the function. This is clear, check it out. Dave Thomson has shown this to be infact the answer to Feynmans question. The Algebra and the SI Units show us that infact when reorganized so a e- is comprised of both ES Charge Geometry and EM Charge Geometry that 137 is the direct result. Infact Dave has also discovered the fine structure constant of the p+ and the n. So where is the Nobel Prize? Dave is deserving the Nobel Prize in several catagories.

Currently Dave is going line by line throught Maxwells papers with the knowledge of what the SI Units determine now that we have them all. Its perfectly clear that APM is a creation of the universe itself via a proper re-organization of SI Units.

Dave himself admits this. Yes he did the reorganization, but its really long overdue. However the SI Units reorganized tell you everything. It is not a creation of Dave save his reorganization, rather it is a blueprint from the SI Units themself. Dave has however shown that this does lead to many new understandings and new constants. These he has truly discovered.

Quantum SI Units are the standard that tells you what the universe has to say and how it builds everything via quantum structure.

Quantum Structure has no connection to QM OR QFT and vica versa.
So please no reference to particles, QM, QFT, etc.
APM stands alone.
It also stands apart.
You need to read the material and learn it from the SI Unit blueprint.
SI Units from quantum constants is the blueprint.
The universe has already laid out the blueprint, Dave however learned how to read it by organizing it properly.
It however reads itself, it is of course algebra.