aetherwizard wrote:Vasa wrote:Dark Matter (WIMPs and MACHOs) only interact gravitationally by definition. They are also supposedly large as far as particles.go. Neutrinos in contrast are tiny and interact via gravity as well as the weak force. They have actually been detected in experiments. Dark Matter is not.detectable except via it's imagined gravitational effects, and has never been detected in experiments. How do.neutrinos prove dark matter?
Neutrinos only act gravitationally. There is no such thing as "the weak force." The EU folks talk about imaginary things in physics, well, they need to stop referring to "the weak force." If you know anything about this "force" it is not measured in newtons. In fact, it is dimensionless. It is just a number. I show it is actually a ratio. But it certainly is not a force.
Dark matter is matter that does not interact with the electric and magnetic forces. The neutrino fits the bill. It is a perfect example of dark matter.
As for the other imaginary "particles" of dark matter, we agree, they do not exist. Only the neutrinos exist. However, the neutrinos measured in labs are moving at high velocity and interacting with neutrons. It is quite likely that there is a great reservoir of neutrinos with low velocity, which sit in pools near regions of dense matter. Regardless of what they are called, the astrophysical calculations based upon dark matter may have substance.
Also, the Casimir effect demonstrates that angular momentum, and hence mass, can be generated from the Aether. That is, something is being converted into real visible matter. That something has mass and did not previously interact with the electric and magnetic forces. It is reasonable to conjecture that dark matter converts to visible matter in the Casimir effect. I propose that a similar process occurs in fusion reactions.
I know this flies in the face of many in the EU groups, but there is good evidence to support the existence of dark matter and I can quantify the conversion of dark matter to visible matter.
nick c wrote:All magnetic fields have their origins in an electric current. From where did the "two ceramic magnets" get their magnetic field? answer: from an electric current.
Permanent magnets are not 'permanent' but are rather a remnant magnetic field which has it's origin in an electric current.
You have made the issue more complicated than is necessary. What we are talking about is Lapoint's experiments. In this thread the point was made that his experiments using magnetic fields need an initial electric current (to create the magnetic field.) You then stated that his magnets were not electro magnets but rather permanent magnets that used no electric currents. I merely pointed out that permanent magnets are also created by electric currents. You can go on about static charges, static magnetic fields, or confusing charge with fields, but the bottom line is that the magnetic fields used in Lapoint's experiments are dependent upon electric currents.aetherwizard wrote:This is your personal belief and perspective. Using dimensional analysis we can see there are two distinct types of charges, the electrostatic charge and the magnetic charge. Both are static. Do not confuse charge with fields. There is also the electric and magnetic fields. Static magnetic charge has associated with it static magnetic fields and static electric charge has associated with it static electric fields. If you move a coiled wire through a static magnetic field, it generates electric currents. Also, as you like to focus on, if you put an electric current through a coil it will generate a static magnetic field. The two types of charges are reciprocal to each other and act upon each other.
This is all semantics. I have never seen neutrinos lumped in with dark matter before.
Perhaps there is no weak force. In fact, i have reason ti believe there isn't based upon a paper i read last night. However, 80 years of mainstream physics says there is a weak force. Unless you have convincing experimental evidence why this is false, we can't just take your word for it. We both agree that neutrinos may exist and the dark matter particles do not.
Again, you have a nice idea about the neutrinos being responsible for the gravitational anomalys that dark matter proposes to solve. However, until you can show a convincing argument for it's existence it's no different than dark matter. I also don't understand how neutrinos could solve the gravity anomalies on their own.
The dark matter particles were huge for a reason, whereas neutrinos are almost massless.
Your ideas are very good about the aether creating matter. Wal Thornhill espoused a similar idea that the aether was made of neutrinos. I think the two of you could agree here. However, both views need to be backed up experimentally.
In short, i think the argument is one of semantics. EU proponents do not believe in WIMPs and MACHOs. Neither do you. EU proponents seem to believe in neutrinos, as do you. I fail to see the argument here.
You have made the issue more complicated than is necessary. What we are talking about is Lapoint's experiments. In this thread the point was made that his experiments using magnetic fields need an initial electric current (to create the magnetic field.) You then stated that his magnets were not electro magnets but rather permanent magnets that used no electric currents. I merely pointed out that permanent magnets are also created by electric currents. You can go on about static charges, static magnetic fields, or confusing charge with fields, but the bottom line is that the magnetic fields used in Lapoint's experiments are dependent upon electric currents.
Vasa wrote:I hope that you will lay out your theory in another thread.
A search of your posts does not bring up any of the things you have claimed to have proved or demonstrated. A link to such would also suffice.
I may be wrong and feel free to correct me, but neutrinos were first postulated to conserve angular momentum when a neutron decayed. If, in your view, the neutron is actually an electeon-proton pair, no additional preservation of angular momentum is necessary. How does one reconcile this?
I hope you share your work with us, you seem to begoing in the right direction.
Sparky wrote:""""A string of mass is a real structure even if it is not visible matter.""""
For someone not well versed in maths, could you give an estimate of the size of the "quantum rotating magnetic field", and the string of mass?
aetherwizard wrote:Sparky wrote:""""A string of mass is a real structure even if it is not visible matter.""""
For someone not well versed in maths, could you give an estimate of the size of the "quantum rotating magnetic field", and the string of mass?
Each Aether unit (quantum rotating magnetic field) has a fixed surface area of one square Compton wavelength. This surface area is over a spring like structure, which can stretch and deform. Through all its deformations, the surface area must be conserved and always equal one square Compton wavelength.
The strings of mass that are not encapsulated by Aether units can have any length and any mass, but there is a constant length to mass ratio. I haven't looked at my notes in a few years, so I can't quote the exact ratio here. If you really want it, I can look it up.
Sparky wrote:what physical shape do you invision the Aether unit to take?
Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest