Aether Physics Model (APM)

[Plasmatic]

Does not APM claim to be based on relativity and Quantum physics? Im quite sure Ive read that more than once. Help me if Im wrong.

[bboyer]

Does not APM claim to be based on relativity and Quantum physics? Im quite sure Ive read that more than once. Help me if Im wrong.

I only recall this. May be more, don't know. From this thread, which have you have also posted to so should have seen this (unless you're not reading for full context):

Yes, the Aether explains the non-material and higher dimensional aspects of existence, which particle physics chooses to ignore. As for the wave model, the wave models are Quantum Mechanics, the Aether Physics Model (as I have presented it) is Quantum Structure. The APM says the Aether is structured as two spheres (hence the 16pi^2 geometrical constant) and in five dimensions. The Wave Models describe the behavior of subatomic particles in terms of spherical dynamics. Now tell me, how hard is it to connect the dots from spherical dynamics to spherical structure? If spherical mechanics work for describing subatomic mechanics, then why would people not be interested in a theory that describes the structures that produce these mechanics?

It is only a matter of time before the APM and Spherical Wave Models are united into a single theory. Perhaps you will be the one to do that?

[Plasmatic]

I only recall this. May be more, don't know. From this thread, which have you have also posted to so should have seen this (unless you're not reading for full context):


Dave Thomson to junglelord wrote:
Yes, the Aether explains the non-material and higher dimensional aspects of existence, which particle physics chooses to ignore. As for the wave model, the wave models are Quantum Mechanics, the Aether Physics Model (as I have presented it) is Quantum Structure. The APM says the Aether is structured as two spheres (hence the 16pi^2 geometrical constant) and in five dimensions. The Wave Models describe the behavior of subatomic particles in terms of spherical dynamics. Now tell me, how hard is it to connect the dots from spherical dynamics to spherical structure? If spherical mechanics work for describing subatomic mechanics, then why would people not be interested in a theory that describes the structures that produce these mechanics?

It is only a matter of time before the APM and Spherical Wave Models are united into a single theory. Perhaps you will be the one to do that?

I cant see your point here Thompson states they will be "united into a single theory" .Which certainly involves accepting the validity of the thing married to and where said "dots" will "connect". Thanks for providing an example of my claim for me.

[bboyer]

I only recall this. May be more, don't know. From this thread, which have you have also posted to so should have seen this (unless you're not reading for full context):

Yes, the Aether explains the non-material and higher dimensional aspects of existence, which particle physics chooses to ignore. As for the wave model, the wave models are Quantum Mechanics, the Aether Physics Model (as I have presented it) is Quantum Structure. The APM says the Aether is structured as two spheres (hence the 16pi^2 geometrical constant) and in five dimensions. The Wave Models describe the behavior of subatomic particles in terms of spherical dynamics. Now tell me, how hard is it to connect the dots from spherical dynamics to spherical structure? If spherical mechanics work for describing subatomic mechanics, then why would people not be interested in a theory that describes the structures that produce these mechanics?

It is only a matter of time before the APM and Spherical Wave Models are united into a single theory. Perhaps you will be the one to do that?

I cant see your point here Thompson states they will be "united into a single theory" .Which certainly involves accepting the validity of the thing married to and where said "dots" will "connect". Thanks for providing an example of my claim for me.

I've highlighted the point above. I'm not saying it answers your question only that it was the only thing I recall that mentioned APM in the direct context of QM. Don't recall seeing anything about it being based on relativity theory. I don't think there's any claim that it's "based on" either one, but that it is intended to unify QM and classical physics starting with the redefinition of dimensions and units.

[Plasmatic]

Its a moot point anyway as the rest of the quote is relevent to the thread and discussion therin.

[bboyer]

<snip>

I believe that the whole issue is how does non material become material>
How does what a bucket cannot hold, make a bucket? That Is that the stumble block>
Correct?

Is that not the ultimate question?

<snip>

Dean, if you are genuinely interested in my take on this you can find much of it on pg 1 of this thread in The Human Question forum: Recovered: The Electricity of Life - a personal view. The 1st and 5th posts. If not, that's fine, too.

[junglelord]

Of course I am interested. I do have short term memory loss, everyone. Please understand I have a brain injury, I live in the now.


After review of your post I would agree with your premis. The dual symmetry of the universe and the dual poles. From where do the dual poles come?

Meyl is clear...and Thomson. No sub atomic particle is a single entity. It is a dipole construct, electron dual opposite vortex charge combination. In both models the innear charge is for all apparent viewers, hidden. We do see the outer 1/2 spin charge up front.

The triune universe is these two charges with the G Force of APM.

[David Talbott]

A Suggestion

Rarely have I ever wished so strongly that I had time to follow every nuance in a set of threads. This thread in particular is of great importance to us, whatever the outcome. I would ask everyone to honor one ground-rule. Let this thread be for those who want to understand the Aether Physics Model. If you've already decided against the model, this is not the thread for you.

Let arc-us serve as an example of one who wants to reconcile the use of words whose meaning may not be entirely self-evident.

Personally, I would never use the word "reality" in discussing the APM. In today's parlance, the meanings are too ambiguous. Only the rare visionary will use the word in its root sense, which is, "that which endures while all else changes." If we begin using the word "real" for atoms, subatomic particles, or even elementary forces, we're immediately in a hornets' nest.

Above all else, I'd urge participants to seek out the simplest statements of principle, with as little ambiguity as possible. I hear David Thomson saying that elementary forces act in a structured way to produce the appearance of charged particles. This structured behavior can be described geometrically, as can the results of that behavior, yielding a unification of the forces. Known constants, together with induced values, then combine to yield testable new constants.

It is only rational to ask if the world of our three-dimensional perception might arise from an interplay of forces more fundamental than "matter," including elementary forces that require less than three spatial dimensions for their expression. The worst mistake that one can make in meeting a new theory, is to simply judge it against ones own philosophical bias. If one merely assumes that mass or inertia is simply "a property of matter," then there can be no mass without the prior existence of an irreducible charged particle occupying a volume of space. But that is just an assumption, perhaps even a blind assumption. At the very least we should all be free to raise that assumption to doubt, to consider whether popular perception has either inverted the underlying relationship between mass and matter, or worse, equated the two.

Without inertia, our three dimensional world would disappear. But what drives this inertia? Is it possible that what we see is being driven by quantifiable, elementary forces prior to the appearance of "particle behavior." That possibility can only be answered by determining whether the model works, meeting the only test of a good theory, which is predictive ability. For example, what is the significance of the fact that Dave Thomson's model accurately predicts electron binding energies--no small feat? Perhaps you've heard me say this before: don't believe in coincidences.

Junglelord, you are a thing to behold. I can't say that I follow your every sentence, but your ability to assimilate ideas, combined with your openness and enthusiasm, could achieve wonders.

David Talbott

[Plasmatic]

I would ask everyone to honor one ground-rule. Let this thread be for those who want to understand the Aether Physics Mode. If you've already decided against the model, this is not the thread for you

I humbly ask how that is to be determined other than by ones self. It seems on this subject there is a desire to silence opposition. Or at least in this thread. Is it to be now necessary to start a "anti APM thread" where i post a link hear to my responses there? This would seem wastefull , as My comments are directly related to the model and they would be on the forum anyway.

[David Talbott]

I would ask everyone to honor one ground-rule. Let this thread be for those who want to understand the Aether Physics Mode. If you've already decided against the model, this is not the thread for you

I humbly ask how that is to be determined other than by ones self. It seems on this subject there is a desire to silence opposition. Or at least in this thread. Is it to be now necessary to start a "anti APM thread" where i post a link hear to my responses there? This would seem wastefull , as My comments are directly related to the model and they would be on the forum anyway.

Not to worry Plasmatic, there will be all the opportunity anyone could ask for to challenge the APM. But we are only being honest when we say that arguing, dismissing, misrepresenting, provoking exasperation are inevitable outcomes when people begin reacting before they understand a radical hypothesis. We've all seen this for years and should avoid such unnecessary confrontation like a plague.

We need at least one thread whose only purpose is to gain clarity on the nature of Dave Thomson's model. In fact there really is nothing to intelligently discuss until one grasps both the language and the observational underpinnings. I myself have watched discussion unravel in more than one forum due entirely to misunderstanding. One thread free from such debacles is not too much to ask.

David Talbott

[junglelord]

I would ask everyone to honor one ground-rule. Let this thread be for those who want to understand the Aether Physics Mode. If you've already decided against the model, this is not the thread for you

I humbly ask how that is to be determined other than by ones self. It seems on this subject there is a desire to silence opposition. Or at least in this thread. Is it to be now necessary to start a "anti APM thread" where i post a link hear to my responses there? This would seem wastefull , as My comments are directly related to the model and they would be on the forum anyway.

I have a vehicle for such an enterprise. We will I imagine have more TOE's to review. We can go reduction on wholistic threads right here. I have also tried to make individual threads to cover each thread of reality. I think with clear division we can take on the challenge.
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=10&t=500

[Plasmatic]

As you wish big Dave. I will reserve my comments to other threads. And i Intended no disrespect to your office.

[webolife]

The "non-material to material" problem for me really has to do with defining "material", ie matter.
It is actually a lot easier to talk about the non-material things, because they have to do with motion, force, space, time, things that we quantify all the time... our best quantization we have for matter is either weight, a force, or mass, defined by Newton as "inertia" and measured by means of a scale, ie a balancing of force, or my favorite, density, which I can relate to both pressure and field geometry... and our only tool for "realizing" any of these is "thought", a very non-material construct, regardless of one's description of neural activity. This leaves us with an open field for competitive theories about the universe... the things we experience most commonly either are the least "material" elements of existence, or are defined in terms of "non-materials". The viewpoint that matter is made of "waves" therefore, is just another way of renaming (or perhaps relegating) the material to a new non-material level. The APM aether is described in terms of non-material attributes, such as spin, wavishness, forces, fields, and charge, denoted as electrostatic or electromagnetic, and quantified geometrically... QM alternately relegates matter to mathematical probabilities. What we are looking for is a theory that actually is the best predictor of all of the observations of science, leaving the least amount of anomaly. As we study the APM and other theories, what we are hoping to discover is that the universe is, as Einstein mused, "comprehensible". What we may discover, but never fully comprehend is the wondrous way in which that which is visible is entirely comprised of that which is invisible.

[junglelord]

I can make it even more simple. Material is by definition electron, proton, neutron, neutrino.
Light is non material.

[webolife]

Honestly don't wish to be argumentative, but your statement begs the question,
"What is matter?" by simply relegating the forces, electrostatic or otherwise, to the subatomic level!
BTW, I'd like to reflect from myself Dave T.'s comments about how remarkable you are, Dean.