Secrets of the Aether, Questions and Answers

[junglelord]

Rotating Magnetic Fields

Experimental Evidence
A number of experiments have demonstrated antigravity effects.
The most notable of these, because of it's rigor and level of detail, is the Roschin & Godin device [1], itself a modified version of the Searl SEG machine [2].

It consists of sets of rapidly rotating magnets that have shown to significantly reduce the weight of the whole apparatus.
The self rotating magnets have to be slowed down to prevent a runaway situation occurring which would cause the device to fly into the air were it not for the fact that the centrifugal forces would damage the device.
Also, electromagnetic and temperature anomalies have been observed when the device is in operation.

Another example of rotating magnetic fields producing anti-gravitational effects is the Hamel device [3]. It consists of two counter rotating wheels of magnets stacked three levels high.
This is also reported to be a self spinning device which if allowed to rotate freely speeds up until it reaches a point where the whole unit shoots up into the air.
At the same time producing electromagnetic anomalies.

Another interesting gravity shielding effect was demonstrated by Eugene Podkletnov's rapidly rotating superconducting disk [4].
When the disk is spun at some 7000 rpm in the presence of an external magnetic field anything situated above the disk loses weight.

However, weight reduction has also been observed with simple rotation of objects.
Hideo Hayasaka and Sakeo Takeuchi have reported a weight reduction in rapidly rotating gyroscopes [5]. Interestingly the weight reduction occurs only for clockwise rotation.

It would seem that the strongest effects are produced by rotating magnetic fields.
This would make sense based on our aether model which assumes magnetic fields to be movements of the aether. Thus for a rotating magnet we would have a combination of two movements of the aether giving a more dynamic motion.

There have also been a number of experiments involving high voltages that have shown weight reduction, among other unusual effects.

Some examples of these are the Townsend Brown gravitor [6] and the Kowsky-Frost quartz crystal levitation experiment [7].
The most notable of these however is the work of John Hutchison who has demonstrated objects being raised into the air by using a combination of high voltages and radio frequency beams [8].


4D waves, Rotation, Magnetism and Antigravity
How do we explain these effects from the perspective of the aether model?
One of the more interesting clues in the above examples is that only clockwise rotation produces a weight loss.
The Roschin-Godin device clearly shows that a clockwise rotation produces a weight reduction and an anti-clockwise rotation a weight gain! Why should this be?
Standard theories are unable explain this difference.

According to the aether model presented here rotation generates an aether vortex into the 4th dimension (see Inertia). Given that gravity according to this model is essentially a 4D wave phenomenon it suggests that left/right spin difference is a 4th dimensional effect.

The most obvious variable of the 4th dimension is the direction of aether flow, negative to positive or vice versa along the 4D axis.

Therefore it is plausible that a clockwise rotation makes the aether flow in one direction along 4D and anti-clockwise in the opposite direction along 4D. Thereby producing opposite effects for the two spin directions.
There are a couple of ways in which an aether flow into the fourth dimension could cause a reduction in gravitational force.

The first involves the shift of 4D nodes that results from the aether movement.
Given that the aether is the carrier of the 4D waves a strong flow of aether will cause a phase shift in the wave fronts and therefore the pattern of high and low nodes of vibration.

It is conceivable that the aether flow would cause the gravitational nodes discussed in the first section to drift at a different rate towards the planetary body, and therefore to change the force of gravity. The nodes might not only slow down but be shifted sideways changing the force again.

Note that the force of gravity does not need to be completely cancelled in order for an object to be lifted into the air.
There is always present the centrifugal force due to the earth's rotation which is overshadowed by the stronger gravitational force. One need only reduce the gravitational influence below that of the centrifugal force and the slingshot action of the rotating earth will shoot an object into the air.

More generally, if a way could be found to manipulate the nodes one could maneuver a craft at high speed. That is, the craft could be accelerated or have it's direction changed without the occupants feeling any inertial forces. In the same way that a free falling object moving with the gravitational nodes will not experience any force even though it is accelerating.
Viewed from this perspective the stories one hears of UFO craft making rapid 90 degree turns don't seem so improbable.

One possible way of manipulating these nodes is through a concentrated mind.
We hear of stories about people who are able to move objects through mind power alone.
One of the best known examples is the russian Nina Kulagina who demonstrated this ability in scientific tests [9].
Esoteric teachings tell us that thoughts are real things - energetic vibrations that can interact with the surroundings.
Perhaps thoughts are 4 dimensional (or higher) vibrations which would explain why our instruments cannot normally detect them.

However a focused thought if it were a 4D vibration would cause a shift in the 4D nodes and therefore could give rise to forces that move objects.

The other way that an aether flow could cause a reduction in weight is by reducing the resistive forces that an atom feels when jumping nodes.

As discussed in the Gravity page the gravitational force according to our model results from the atoms jumping from one low aether vibration node to another, brought about by the nodal drift near a planetary body.
One would expect that the resistive force is determined by some form of interaction of the atoms with the surrounding aether.

It is therefore reasonable to expect that a moving aether, in particular a vortex, would change in some way the atom-aether interaction responsible for the gravitational force.
Furthermore, in our model the gravitational force and inertial resistance (see Inertia) are caused by the same mechanism of node jumping.

Therefore this model predicts that if this mechanism is involved in weight reduction one would also experience a reduction in the inertial force, or inertial mass, of the object.

There is evidence of this happening with the Marcus Hollingshead device. It consists of orthogonal spinning toroidal coils constructed from bifilar windings [10].

When the unit is in operation it not only causes weight reduction but loss of inertial resistance.


Antigravity and High Voltage
It has been shown by several experiments that high voltages, usually over 100kV, can create unusual gravitational and inertial effects.

Many unusual effects have been observed with the Townsend Brown 'gravitor' experiments [6].
One example of this was that the unit, a kind of electrified pendulum, motion was found to depend on the position of the major planets!

The Kowsky-Frost quartz levitation [7] and the Hutchison effect [8] both involve high DC voltages together with oscillating electromagnetic fields.

There are many examples on John Hutchison's website of all types of objects, including heavy ones, rising into the air.
Interestingly, one example involves water rising out of the cup that contained it. The cup did not get affected - suggesting that the RF waves only create the correct effect with materials whose internal processes are in resonance with the frequency of the RF oscillations.

From an aether model perspective we can perhaps begin to understand some of what is going on by resorting to the concept of charge being a 4D aether vortex.

A high voltage plate for example would contain many little vortices whose combined effect would be to produce a macroscopic region of aether flow into the 4th dimension.

Although a little different to the rotational and magnetic aether vortices discussed previously one would expect that this aether flow would also create a shift in the 4D wave patterns that are responsible for gravity. One would therefore expect high voltages to influence the gravitational force.

However, from the above two examples we see that the high DC voltage is not sufficient in itself to produce a strong anti-gravitational effect. The oscillating electromagnetic field is obviously an important component of this process.
One would imagine that the RF fields create, through some sort of resonance effect, a significant change in the electron orbitals of the substances it affects. That such a strong effect is possible is attested to by the fact that this process is able to cold melt metals [11].

We therefore theorize that this internal change also affects the aether resistance to atomic node jumping, as discussed in the previous section, thereby reducing the force of gravity.
This combined with the high voltage producing the desired effect.

One consequence of this argument is that if we were to apply strong electromagnetic fields of the correct frequency, or combination of frequencies, to an object we should be able to produce a weight reduction even without the DC voltages.

Alternatively, a combination of a strong static magnetic field and alternating electrostatic fields could achieve similar results.

There is a lot of scope here for further investigation.

References
[1] V. Roschin, S. Godin, "Antigravity Experiment", http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/godin-roschin.htm
[2] J. R. R. Searl, “Searl-Effect Generator", http://www.americanantigravity.com/searleffect.html
[3] Jean-Louis Naudin, "The Hamel Technologies", jnaudin.free.fr/html/hammnu.htm
[4] "The Podkletnov Gravitational-Shield", http://www.americanantigravity.com/podkletnov.html
[5] H. Hayasaka & S. Takeuchi, “Anomolous Weight Reduction on a Gyroscope's Right Rotations
around the Vertical Axis on the Earth", Phys Rev Lett Vol 12, No 25
[6] Townsend Brown, "How I Control Gravitation", http://www.rexresearch.com/gravitor/gravitor.htm
[7] "Kowsky-Frost Quartz Levitation", http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/KFrost.htm
[8] John Hutchison, http://www.americanantigravity.com/vide ... vy-Mix.wmv
[9] "Nina Kulagina - The Russian Psychic", http://www.mysteriouspeople.com/Nina_Kulagina.htm
[10] "The Marcus Device", http://www.americanantigravity.com/marcus.html
[11] John Hutchison, "Cold Melting of Metals",
http://www.americanantigravity.com/arti ... Page1.html


http://www.esotericscience.com/Antigravity.aspx

[altonhare]

In this 'Push' scenario based on Tesla's thoughts, the aether is particulate

It is also dynamic, with the aether particles vibrating, producing a constant state of aether flux. Normally this is expressed as a Brownian movement of random chaotic motion, similar to molecules in the atmosphere which are constantly bumping into one another with perfect elasticity, rebounding first one way then another

All movement is the result of a push, and the definition of terms such as attraction, suction, pull, etc. must reflect this.

You have made it clear that the aether is particulate i.e. it is composed of a bunch of discrete particles "similar to air" except aether particles engage in elastic collision (because they are, I assume, continuous objects). They only "push" each other like billiard balls. A discrete particle cannot pull on another discrete particle, it can only collide with it and push it away.

So please explain how push, a divergent force, can simulate pull, a convergent force. Particles just bounce off each other and inevitably move apart. Particles have to be connected to prevent this. How can a particulate aether justify pull/attraction? This is a very fair question. How does the structure of the aether (discrete corpuscles) justify attraction and pull?

[volantis]

I think I'm correct in saying that Tesla was familiar with the Indian Vedas.
The question which I ask myself at this point is: who or what is doing the pushing? Brahma breathing out? The Dao moving like a bellows? Philolaos' Central Sun?

Brahma in the Vedas would be equivalent to Gforce in the Aether Physics Model. The Gforce drives the physical Universe. It provides the pulsations and the beat to which all existence dances.

Dave

[Grey Cloud]

Volantis wrote:

Brahma in the Vedas would be equivalent to Gforce in the Aether Physics Model. The Gforce drives the physical Universe. It provides the pulsations and the beat to which all existence dances.

Works for me. Thanks.

[altonhare]

Volantis wrote:

Brahma in the Vedas would be equivalent to Gforce in the Aether Physics Model. The Gforce drives the physical Universe. It provides the pulsations and the beat to which all existence dances.

Works for me. Thanks.

What if I said:

"Bliggity in the Bloggity is the same as the Ciggity in the Celebrity-Endorsed-Word model. The Ciggity drives the physical universe. It provides the pulsations and the beat to which all existence dances.

On the other hand if I show you a link and a chain (objects I can point to instead of just abstractions) and make a movie or demonstration of how each object is attached, explaining why atoms aggregate, this makes sense.

[Grey Cloud]

Altonhare wrote:

What if I said:

"Bliggity in the Bloggity is the same as the Ciggity in the Celebrity-Endorsed-Word model. The Ciggity drives the physical universe. It provides the pulsations and the beat to which all existence dances.

Your prejudices are blinding you lad. 'Gods' are not super-people, they are the very same cosmic 'forces', 'energies', 'constants' or whatever science calls these things. The ancients didn't use our vocabulary, they had their own. They were a damned sight smarter than us.

[altonhare]

Altonhare wrote:

What if I said:

"Bliggity in the Bloggity is the same as the Ciggity in the Celebrity-Endorsed-Word model. The Ciggity drives the physical universe. It provides the pulsations and the beat to which all existence dances.

Your prejudices are blinding you lad. 'Gods' are not super-people, they are the very same cosmic 'forces', 'energies', 'constants' or whatever science calls these things. The ancients didn't use our vocabulary, they had their own. They were a damned sight smarter than us.

I would take the aether seriously if a single person could explain how its structure justifies its function. Since they cannot it is not "prejudice" of me to discard the aether, it is wise.

What do you mean when you say "aether" GC? What does this all-encompassing word refer to that we should accept it? What, in fact, are we accepting other than reference to supposed experts, authorities, celebrities, ancients, whatever you want to call them.

What exactly is the aether hypothesis? Other than "that which produces X, Y, Z, ... effects"? We already know what the effects are, we can observe them. We don't need a word, we need an explanation that we can understand and explain ourselves.

[junglelord]

A clear reading of APM shows a considerable accounting of Alpha, the fine structure constant of the electron.
This is very important and according to Feynman, all of physics may be wrapped up in 137, the fine structure constant.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=1267

According to alton I know nothing of structure.
Amazing since I have 15 years experience in Tensegrity, a Engineering Principle, and the way matter is created via the Aether. Not only do I fully comphrehend structure, I also know the engineering principle behind it.


This is in fact the only way to treat the human body for dysfunction, is with structure and function, via gravity.
Gravity is the tool, vectors are the device, active movement and isolated fasical restrictions fully released.
Every organ must move properly. Every joint must be aligned in gravity. The Integration of Structure and Function as a formula to correct chronic pain is 100% more effective then any drug or exercise program. Not a pain specialist in the world that can prove me wrong. I have over 15,000 proven results, hitting 100%.

[volantis]

I would take the aether seriously if a single person could explain how its structure justifies its function. Since they cannot it is not "prejudice" of me to discard the aether, it is wise.

If you want to see a properly quantified structure of the Aether, you can read my New Foundation for Physics paper here. If you would like to see how the proper quantification of the Aether structure leads to a proper Unified Force Theory, you can read this paper. If you would like to see how properly quantifying the Aether structure leads to useful equation predicting the ground state binding energies for electrons in atoms, you can read this paper. BTW, are you aware of what the title of this thread alludes to? It is about a book I wrote that goes into great detail explaining the precise structure of the Aether and how it interacts with matter.

BTW, I'll bet you won't keep to your word of taking the Aether seriously now that a single person has properly explained how the Aether's structure justifies its function.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

What do you mean when you say "aether" GC? What does this all-encompassing word refer to that we should accept it? What, in fact, are we accepting other than reference to supposed experts, authorities, celebrities, ancients, whatever you want to call them.

When I say aether I mean the thing which everything in the Universe is made from. You, your threads, your scientific instruments, stars, planets, 'space' - everything. Everything is the aether is one state or another. (State = way, shape or form).
Your second sentence would seem to suggest that we ignore all the great minds who have gone before us. Yet you arrived on this forum proselytising the work of Bill Gaede, who I for one had never heard of. But there again, I'm not a big fan of youtube.
Here is a prophesy for you, young man: In ten years time you will look back on your comments here and cringe at your arrogance and ignorance.
Don't feel too bad about it though - we were all young and foolish once.

[altonhare]

If you want to see a properly quantified structure of the Aether, you can read my New Foundation for Physics paper here.

What does quantification have to do with structure? All you need for structure is a picture/model i.e. shape.

BTW, I'll bet you won't keep to your word of taking the Aether seriously now that a single person has properly explained how the Aether's structure justifies its function.

Unfortunately APM's physical definitions are circular, evasive, and/or contradictory:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 170#p12402

A mathematical correlation is not a physical explanation.

When I say aether I mean the thing which everything in the Universe is made from. You, your threads, your scientific instruments, stars, planets, 'space' - everything. Everything is the aether is one state or another. (State = way, shape or form).

What does this teach us about physics? Me and everything are made of "insert word here". How does simply naming the fundamental constituent explain anything or teach us anything?

Your second sentence would seem to suggest that we ignore all the great minds who have gone before us.

Not ignore. Critically evaluate. There is nothing wrong with the word "aether", but what does this word really mean? The great minds before us have tried to solve this problem but have ultimately come up short.. I'm saying evaluate what they've said under some objective criteria. An objective criterion is consistency.

[Plasmatic]

Hi Volantis. Perhaps you would like to address the comments Alton has already made concerning your ideas which cite directly from your work.

Lets quit dancing around everything else and get to the point! You are proposing non-material causation. All of the arguments as far as I can tell will center around this problem. In every example ive encountered on NMC such as force models etc. every single example given by proponents involve a relationship amongst objects.This is done in spite of the fact that this invalidates the NMC argument. Indeed one cannot sensibly discuss dynamic concepts["anglular","transverse","waves"] without the entites in relationship. There are NO "magnetic fields" not connected to objects causing them.

Entities are causal primaries and relationships are derivitve thereof. To assert the opposite is to divorce concepts from the percepts that give rise to them in the chain of concept formation.

How do you justify divorcing actions from entities and making them causal primaries? [spin, etc]. This can only be done in spite of observation.

The other debate which is related is, exactly what is the task of physics, what is its subject matter.

Perhaps this time folks will be permitted to actually answer/debate your responses!

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

What does this teach us about physics?

Why should I limit myself to the limited concept of physics? How do you know that physics is the only, or even the best, way to understand the Universe? Your physics will, at best, only tell us the how of things; I'm more interested in the why.

Not ignore. Critically evaluate.

Your idea of critically evalute appears to be to measure everything against your very limited preconceptions of what is or is not permissible/admissible.
I have been known to critically evalute the odd thing or two myself over the last forty-odd years. Hell, I've even been known to critically evalute myself; have you?

[volantis]

Hi Volantis. Perhaps you would like to address the comments Alton has already made concerning your ideas which cite directly from your work.

Since Alton had nothing to say, I have nothing to respond to. However, I can address your comments.

Lets quit dancing around everything else and get to the point! You are proposing non-material causation. All of the arguments as far as I can tell will center around this problem. In every example ive encountered on NMC such as force models etc. every single example given by proponents involve a relationship amongst objects.

Just because a lot of people make the same mistake does not mean it is correct. Trying to understand the cause of creation by examining the created has its limitations. For example, we are told that protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. Why? Because when protons and neutrons are smashed in a collider they break into pieces. If we applied the same argument to understanding what water glasses are made from, we would slam a water glass against a brick wall and discover it is made from glass shards. Therefore, the conclusion is that there must be little shops of people busy gluing glass shards together to make water glasses.

But, of course, we know this is not true. Water glasses are made by melting silicon crystals and pouring the fluid into molds. Therefore, we cannot always rely on interpretations of experiments to give us the truth. Just as it is possible for scientists to draw the wrong conclusion about how water glasses are made if they have never visited a glass factory, it is possible for scientists to draw the wrong conclusions for the creation of protons and neutrons if they do not understand how nature makes them.

Entities are causal primaries and relationships are derivitve thereof. To assert the opposite is to divorce concepts from the percepts that give rise to them in the chain of concept formation.

Science is not about having a preconceived notion and then trying to prove it. Science is about discovering things that we didn't know before. Any scientist will admit there are major inconsistencies and flaws in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. What I did was discover a major flaw that originates in the very beginning of the Standard Model's development. I discovered that all charge should always be distributed, and not distributed in some units and single dimension in others. I also discovered there are two distinct manifestations of charges. When adjusting the equations of physics to correct these errors, we arrive at a meaningful Unified Force Theory, quantification of ground state binding energies from first principles, and a geometric (structural) understanding of Aether and the matter that resides in it.

It is from this fundamental understanding that we can see how the protons and neutrons and electrons are formed by nature. Further, we can deduce this creation process in ongoing because there is no reason for the physics to be limited to a Big Bang creation event. Further, we have abundance of evidence proving that matter is indeed being created constantly. This evidence is in the form of the Hubble constant, expanding Earth, expanding stars, constantly ejected matter from Saturn's moons, CERN verification that electrons are generated from "the vacuum," fusion reactions, and the Casimir experiments.

The physicists who still believe in the quark model (nearly all of them), refuse to believe the Universe is expanding by generating new matter. Yet, Halton Arp has provided abundant evidence that new galaxies are generated constantly without sucking matter from the host galaxy. This means most physicists are on the wrong track. I have provided a systematic, scientific approach to understanding how nature generates physical matter from non-physical cause (which is witnessed in the laboratory by the scientists at CERN). Prejudiced science nerds want to call the result "virtual photons" to hide the fact that photons have non-material cause, but that does not fool nature one bit.

How do you justify divorcing actions from entities and making them causal primaries? [spin, etc]. This can only be done in spite of observation.

Actually, abundant scientific observations support my view that matter has a non-material cause, and disproves the preconceived view that it does not. The fact that matter is observed to be created in a laboratory is proof that matter has a non-material cause.

The other debate which is related is, exactly what is the task of physics, what is its subject matter.

And who are you and others to determine what physics is and should be? If it turns out that matter is not the first level of existence, but has previous cause, then why would the previous cause not be a part of physics? Wouldn't it be irrational to deny matter has non-material cause when it is observed in the laboratory?

Physics is about measurements and equations. You are correct in that we start with matter and fully understand it as much as we can. And when the understanding takes us to the non-material causes of matter, then we expand our understanding to that level and do not ignore it.

The fact is subatomic particles have half spin. Half spin is not a property of macro matter. I have never seen a house or a jaw bone that exhibited the quantum property of half spin, have you? The fact is that subatomic particles behave as both a wave and a particle. I have never seen a house or a jaw bone that exhibited the quantum properties of waves and particles, have you? Whatever explanation there is for reality at the subatomic level, it must be able to explain why subatomic particles have half spin and why they can appear as both a particle and a wave. Mere common sense tells us that something with these bizarre properties cannot have a material cause, but must have a non-material cause.

The Aether Physics Model was not a conjecture, it was the logical fallout of correcting the misunderstandings of charge and extending the known laws and methods of physics to subatomic particles. By systematically analyzing the properties and constants of subatomic particles, and the properties and constants of space, it was very easy to interpolate how all the pieces fit together in nature.

The argument of the critics should not be, "but we always thought it was this way!" The argument of the critics has to address the scientific methods and conclusions used in the Aether Physics Model.

If nerds like AltonHare think they can read the titles of the paper and attack a few sentences they didn't understand and claim they have debunked the APM, they are foolish amateurs who are not worth the time to respond to. I'm still waiting for real scientists to come along who will systematically analyze my claim that the dimensions of charge were incorrectly notated from the beginning of physics and that there are two distinct manifestations of charges. That is where the scientific discussion must be focused. Either this claim is true, or it is not. If it is not true, the entire APM is useless. If it is true, then there is a basis for examining the rest of the theory to test its accuracy and usefulness.

[Plasmatic]

Just because a lot of people make the same mistake does not mean it is correct. Trying to understand the cause of creation by examining the created has its limitations.

"The cause of creation" is an invalid question. Creation has only one non contradictory meaning. The permutation of existents into new arrangements bringing new emergent identities. The idea of something from nothing is in the "not even wrong category" and the basis for the invalidity of NMC.

For example, we are told that protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. Why? Because when protons and neutrons are smashed in a collider they break into pieces. If we applied the same argument to understanding what water glasses are made from, we would slam a water glass against a brick wall and discover it is made from glass shards. Therefore, the conclusion is that there must be little shops of people busy gluing glass shards together to make water glasses.

But, of course, we know this is not true. Water glasses are made by melting silicon crystals and pouring the fluid into molds. Therefore, we cannot always rely on interpretations of experiments to give us the truth. Just as it is possible for scientists to draw the wrong conclusion about how water glasses are made if they have never visited a glass factory, it is possible for scientists to draw the wrong conclusions for the creation of protons and neutrons if they do not understand how nature makes them.

This is exactly what my statement contended. "every single example given by proponents involve a relationship amongst objects."

Every part of your example involves material objects [water glasses,silicon crystals,etc]. As I said ALL dynamic concepts involve material objects. This metaphysical status [secondary, derivative, dependant ,relationshipsis]the reason they are called verbs.

I said:

Entities are causal primaries and relationships are derivitve thereof. To assert the opposite is to divorce concepts from the percepts that give rise to them in the chain of concept formation.

Your response did not address my statement.

Science is not about having a preconceived notion and then trying to prove it. Science is about discovering things that we didn't know before. Any scientist will admit there are major inconsistencies and flaws in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. What I did was discover a major flaw that originates in the very beginning of the Standard Model's development.

By the way ,can we dispense with the obvious because everybody here knows the SM is flawed.It is my contention that you make the very same conceptual misintegrations that caused the SM error.


Example:

Further, we can deduce this creation process in ongoing because there is no reason for the physics to be limited to a Big Bang creation event.

Your proposed "creation" events have the exact fundamental misintegration of what "creation" is. Both usages involve ex nihilo propositions.

The physicists who still believe in the quark model

Not relevent here because Im not one of them.

refuse to believe the Universe is expanding by generating new matter. Yet, Halton Arp has provided abundant evidence that new galaxies are generated constantly without sucking matter from the host galaxy.

Would you be so kind as to direct me to where Arp ,makes such foolish claim.

This means most physicists are on the wrong track. .

Absolutely agree here!

I have provided a systematic, scientific approach to understanding how nature generates physical matter from non-physical cause (which is witnessed in the laboratory by the scientists at CERN).....

Actually, abundant scientific observations support my view that matter has a non-material cause, and disproves the preconceived view that it does not. The fact that matter is observed to be created in a laboratory is proof that matter has a non-material cause.

Can you describe one of these experiments that didnt involve material entities as causal primaries?

And who are you and others to determine what physics is and should be?

This is the very heart of the debate we are involved in! The debate over NMC and ID is precisly one that involves whether or not they qualify as physics. I contend you are NOT doing physics but making meaningless equations and attributing to them invalid concepts.

Physics is about measurements and equations.

Measurements of what? Equations referring to what? Your answer to this question is the foundation of your misintegrations.

Wouldn't it be irrational to deny matter has non-material cause when it is observed in the laboratory?

ALL of your "primary non-material structures" are secondary dynamic relationships divorced from the perceptual instances[entities interacting] needed to even form them in the first place. You then cite examples of entites interacting[material causation] in a specific way and declare it is an exaple of NMC.

Weve done this before as with your above example . You describe an experiment and Ill enumerate the material primaries causing the effects observed.

The fact is subatomic particles have half spin.Half spin is not a property of macro matter.

"half spin" is another "not even wrong" concept. A partially dynamic concept is nonsense.

The fact is that subatomic particles behave as both a wave and a particle....Whatever explanation there is for reality at the subatomic level, it must be able to explain why subatomic particles have half spin and why they can appear as both a particle and a wave. Mere common sense tells us that something with these bizarre properties cannot have a material cause, but must have a non-material cause.

I claim something is wrong with conception here ,not perception. The law of Identity and causality makes this nonsense.

and the properties and constants of space,

What would those be? Can you measure or observe these "properties" without entities in the picture?

The argument of the critics should not be, "but we always thought it was this way!" The argument of the critics has to address the scientific methods and conclusions used in the Aether Physics Model.

Your "method" doesnt pass the first stage of a hypothesis. Your definitions and concepts are all invalid meaningless sounds or dynamic relationships divorced from there perceptual origin of material primaries.

When squre-circles are in an abstract as primary structures,the rest of the paper is meaningless.

Prejudiced science nerds...If nerds like AltonHare think they can read the titles of the paper and attack a few sentences they didn't understand and claim they have debunked the APM, they are foolish amateurs who are not worth the time to respond to.

Ad hominem and an appeal to authority all in one place. I this necessary? Do you have a particular example of something Alton "didn't understand "?

I'm still waiting for real scientists to come along who will systematically analyze my claim that the dimensions of charge were incorrectly notated from the beginning of physics and that there are two distinct manifestations of charges. That is where the scientific discussion must be focused. Either this claim is true, or it is not. If it is not true, the entire APM is useless. If it is true, then there is a basis for examining the rest of the theory to test its accuracy and usefulness.

[/quote]

Your definitions of "dimension","charge",and "structure" need to be examined first! You havent passed this preliminary stage.But this is exactly the problem with those whom you claim to be correcting.