The Aetherometry Model

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

upriver
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

The Aetherometry Model

Unread post by upriver » Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:44 pm

I'm not sure I understand the fascination with the APM model(one book), vs the Atherometry model(volumes of experimental data and text).

"The APM shows the electron and positron are directly linked to photons in all respects except that photons are equal to electrons times the speed of light.

Can someone explain what part of the electron can be multiplied by the speed of light?


Aetherometry on the photon.
Physically, this means that the structure of an electron is finite (has volume, temporal and undulatory characteristics), and that it is an electric structure. A short demonstration and formal proof of the assertion is that the same mass-energy can be written with reference to the elementary electrical charge q, as:

E = λe Wk Wv = q Wv

For inertial purposes, or with respect to the electromagnetic frame (or any such frame), this electrical structure is 'seen' as having the inertial property described by λe c2 = me c2. And likewise, whenever this rest energy is effectively transformed into an ionizing photon (by impact, to generate the limit X-ray, as in production of photoelectrons, or by pair-annihilation, to generate a gamma-ray), the electrical structure of that electron is dissolved, and its inertial or rest energy equivalent becomes effectively transformed into electromagnetic energy in conformity to the real conversion given by me c2 = hυ. This also serves as a demonstration that the 'rest' energy frame of a particle or a body is also its electromagnetic frame.

Furthermore, these new algebraic physical functions led aetherometric theory to claim that, likewise, the photon relation (E = m0 c2 = hυ) proposed by de Broglie has an equivalent that can be written as (E = λ0 c2 = hυ). This serves to highlight that, whereas the structure of electronic matter at a nanometric scale is electrical and forms a recognizable geometric object, a torus, the structure of a photon is what takes on the generic form of inertia, as per (λ0 c2 = hυ). Photons are the particles constituted by the structure c2, not elements of matter or electrons. The latter are only perceived as having an equivalent wave structure c2 when they are seized in their rest frame or their electromagnetic frame, or transformed into ionizing photons. But the structure of elements of matter while they remain such is electrical, described by the wave-product (Wk Wv), rather than c2. Hence, Aetherometry contends, the finite geometry of photons is globular, forming a quasi-sphere, and composed of two identical waves, whereas the finite geometry of electrons is toroidal and composed of two different waves, one truly electrical and the other truly magnetic. Accordingly, the waves of photons are only geometric product equivalents of the real electric and magnetic waves which compose either the rest mass of a material particle, or its kinetic energy. Therefore Aetherometry argues that photons do indeed possess two transverse fields, but the two fields or their vectors are organized such as to describe a local globularizing vortex, each relating a sine wave, and each wave being described by c in the fundamental derived or resultant relationship (E = m0 c2 = hυ).

Accordingly, Aetherometry explicitly argues that photons do not really have electrical or magnetic fields; this is in accordance with the fact that photons do not present electrical charge and that thus one does not mistake them for electrons! What possesses electrical and magnetic fields are charges, whether massfree or massbound. The latter, furthermore, possess such fields as are associated with their rest energy and also with the energy of their motion.

2.2. In accordance with the preceding, Aetherometry claims that solar radiation is electrical, not because it is composed of photons, but because it consists of propagating massfree charges. Unlike massbound charges, massfree charges have no fixed spin orientation with respect to forward propagation. They can be thought of as net spin 0 charges. But at any time, they may have an effective spin that is either -1/2 or +1/2 (actually, -1 and +1, as spin, in Aetherometry, is a number property of angular momentum, not of the number of 'hyperdimensions' attributed to states of polarization, as it is in Quantum Electrodynamics). They also have transverse, or near-transverse, electrical and magnetic fields, waves and field wave-vectors. But whereas the waves composing a photon are analogous to the transverse waves that propagate in water and limited to circularized motion, the waves composing a massfree charge are analogous to the longitudinal pressure waves responsible for the forward propagation of sound. Massfree charges cannot be described as occupying or forming a globular space, or even a toroidal one, but as occupying or forming a forward-moving cycloidal helix.

Both types of waves are involved in the propagation of the light stimulus and the generation of light: longitudinal electric waves with their transverse magnetic waves - in the propagation of the light-stimulus; and transverse vibrations in fragments of the kinetic energy released from massbound charges - ie, in the local production of blackbody photons. But these two sets of waves belong to two distinct physical objects - massfree charges and the photons formed when massbound charges decelerate.
It may be a larger paradigm shift but it is complete.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Aetherometry Model

Unread post by junglelord » Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:27 pm

My fascination is with a new model other then the current Standard Model. I am not trying to champion one persons theory but rather the relationships that appear in departures from the Standard Model.

I work with one theory at a time and currently I am comparing APM to others. I agree that the Correa view of light is not in agreement with APM but there is a common concensus amoungst the new paradigms concerning all key issues even the light issue and the take of the Correa's for example compared to Wilbert Smith agrees with the Correa's on that point.

Ie no one individual theory agrees in total and is the perfect fit but amoungst them all you can find agreement on every key item between them that seems to make a concensus possible. One theory or another is incomplete to each of us. I do not think any one theory has all the answers, but I do believe like Tom Bearden, Thornhill and Talbott that we are not blind to a new and radical view of Cosmology which is why we are all here and by necessity requires a new model I believe. Its out there, not complete in any form but if you gather the work and compare (starting to feel like Dave Talbott) that the key issues presented in the Aether model is much more in line with Plamsa Physics and Nature and the EU and what she is saying rather then the fairy tale of modern Cosmology and the Standard Model dominated by Gravity.

In fact I believe it was you and your link to Aethermetric that made me realize that Einstein was not the right direction after reading Meyl, Watching Zome 2,3,5 Infinity and mulling over Tesla and Tom Bearden for 10 years. I am in this for the love of Cosmology. Thats why I found the EU.

November 2007 I was watching Black Holes on the History Channel and loving it. (I always gagged on Dark Matter) But December 1 2007 everything changed! The light came on the day I found the EU on Coast to Coast then this website and the rest is history. After a 46 year life and a love affair with stars as far back as I can remember on the farm at night, and following Einstein and the Standard Model since I was 16 I can finally say that it all makes sense and my gut instinct about the Aether are finally getting some food and time to digest. Personally Meyl made the first modern approach that I read thanks to Stefan R. The Aether model and the work of the Correa's is very very comprehensive and in my opinion is far too well researched and related to pertanent yet hidden peer review papers that I am proud to be Canadian and in some small way related to them.
:D

In fact I make mention of them all the time and they are a huge resource that is untapped at present. I am working on that too.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The Aetherometry Model

Unread post by seasmith » Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:43 pm

~
Waves- Electrons, Photons, etc; vis Aetheromety:

Upriver quoted OF Aetherometry.com:
“Massfree charges cannot be described as occupying or forming a globular space, or even a toroidal one, but as occupying or forming a forward-moving cycloidal helix.”
River, Jungle,
Would the “cycloidal helix” correspond in any way to the “tubular cardioid” form referred to in the referential posting, in the thread from which it was extracted ?

:?:
:lol:
s

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Aetherometry Model

Unread post by junglelord » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:24 pm

Things are looking good. Its good to have divided the different Theory's into individual threads to examine them one at a time and the Wave thread is maybe a good place to examine their salient points. I am glad to see this thread dedicated to the work of the husband wife team of the Correa's and plan to do a lot of work here. Thanks team.
8-)
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Aetherometry Model

Unread post by junglelord » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:34 pm

Maybe I could put these two links to the information that applies to this thread.
Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge Plasma
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... ?f=8&t=175

A problem in Plasma Science
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... p?f=3&t=54

this gives us a good starting point to fill up this thread.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Forum Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:15 pm

Re: The Aetherometry Model

Unread post by Forum Moderator » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:43 pm

junglelord wrote:Things are looking good. Its good to have divided the different Theory's into individual threads to examine them one at a time and the Wave thread is maybe a good place to examine their salient points. I am glad to see this thread dedicated to the work of the husband wife team of the Correa's and plan to do a lot of work here. Thanks team.
8-)
Our pleasure.

Forum Moderators
(fmx)

upriver
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: The Aetherometry Model

Unread post by upriver » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:28 pm

seasmith wrote:~
Waves- Electrons, Photons, etc; vis Aetheromety:

Upriver quoted OF Aetherometry.com:
“Massfree charges cannot be described as occupying or forming a globular space, or even a toroidal one, but as occupying or forming a forward-moving cycloidal helix.”
River, Jungle,
Would the “cycloidal helix” correspond in any way to the “tubular cardioid” form referred to in the referential posting, in the thread from which it was extracted ?

:?:
:lol:
s

If you look at this Aetherometry and gravity page, they show what a straight line cycloid is in section 4.Image
"A trochoidal curve is one generated by a point anywhere on a straight line that passes through the centre of a rolling circle. For a cycloid (diagram A), this point (P) is located on the rim of the circle. The purple and red curves in diagram B are prolate and curtate cycloids respectively, the distance A-P1 being greater than the radius of the rolling circle, and A-P being shorter."
http://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometr ... r_grav.php


This page shows this cycloid drawn on the circumference of a circle.
Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardioid

So if you imagine the circle as a tube with the outer circle moving forward and rolling around the tube then yes I guess they are the same thing.

upriver
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

What is space....

Unread post by upriver » Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:19 pm

Aetherometry proposes that space is generated by, and in fact synonymous with, energy, rather than an empty nothingness that 'contains' energy. Massfree energy forms fluid lattices - composed not of a rigid, static grid of cells, but of energy events or fluxes which can interpenetrate and superimpose. When the fusion, or secondary superimposition, of two nonelectric aether energy units generates a massbound particle, an accompanying graviton is always formed as well. The massbound particle's 'gravitational mass' is equivalent to the wavelength of that quantum of graviton energy.

http://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometr ... r_grav.php

upriver
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: The Aetherometry Model

Unread post by upriver » Fri May 02, 2008 7:58 pm

AS3-II.11 The Gravitational Aether, Part II: Gravitational Aetherometry (9) - Quantum & Subquantum Aether (Anti)Gravity:
Fine Variation and Determinations of G

The present communication has an ambitious reach. It describes in detail the fine subquantum structure of the Aether lattice, and identifies its properties: the modal (or tendentially invariant) Planck's length, which is an actual wavelength (λPlanck) of subquantum ambipolar charges whose flux creates the lattice; the fundamental gyro-gravitational moment [mu sub e] 'of space' (ie of the lattice) and its relation to Planck's constant of moment in the world of the quantum; the frequency of the vacuum corresponding to the modal energy of the Aether lattice; and the ultra-high energy emissions from the lattice, which have been mistakenly assumed to be mass-bearing neutrinos or X-particles, and are shown to be massfree ambipolar charges in the range of 1015 to 1024 eV.

Thus, we are led to present a specifically aetherometric "cosmogenic production scenario". We suggest that these ultra-high energy, massfree ambipolar charges are the real cosmic primaries responsible for the ultra-high energy spectrum of cosmic rays (CR). We also indicate exactly how these tremendously energetic particles are released from the Aether lattice in the process of production of Matter and "cosmogenic radiation" (CBOR, mCBR and rCBR), by secondary superimposition of (2°) lattice elements derived from the energy of the (1°) ambipolar lattice constituents. Accordingly, our aetherometric model also explains how emission of gravitons from the Aether lattice accompanies the condensation of mass-energy and the emission of ultra-high energy ambipolar charges (CR primaries). Aside from the "production scenario", the outcome of this approach is a theory of the dual structure of gravitons (in phase-energy constructs and in "free transit"), the identification of their precise fine structure and geometry, and a model for the local, punctual variation of G.
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_ ... tAS3-II.11

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Aetherometry Model

Unread post by junglelord » Fri May 02, 2008 9:30 pm

Although the models of APM and Aetherometry are not identical, they are very much similar. Again to me that is a strength, not a weakness.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

upriver
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Quantavolution,Solaria Binaria,Homo Schizoid,Bicameral Mind

Unread post by upriver » Fri May 09, 2008 6:24 pm

Dr. Wilhelm Reich and Dr. Harold Aspden.

Again everybody is touching on the tip of the structure of the universe.
I know that sounds a bit pompous but after you read the work of Aetherometry you begin to see the connections.
Aetherometry is the best description of our universe I have found.

It is derived from Dr. Wilhelm Reich and Dr. Harold Aspden's work.

The aether is described as a massfree ambipolar medium. This description provide both for biophysical and electrical expression as well as a "UFT" if there is such a thing....

Aetherometry
http://www.aetherometry.com/
And as with any body of work of that size it takes a while to understand the deeper fundamentals.

Here's one you might find particularly interesting....
2. TO BE DONE WITH (AN)ORGONOMISTS
Introductory Note
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_ ... /demeo.php

To Be Done with (An)orgonomists
Conversations with (hopefully!) the last one:
A complete response to J. DeMeo's attack on Aetherometry (PDF, 0.3 MB)
http://www.aetherometry.com/publication ... ACT-01.pdf
I will say it again. After everything is said and done you will endup there reading about what they have experimentally discovered about the universe.

Brant

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Quantavolution,Solaria Binaria,Homo Schizoid,Bicameral Mind

Unread post by junglelord » Sat May 10, 2008 5:16 am

I am a firm believer in Atherometry. I concur with everything upriver said. I intend to review more of their work as time and money permitts. I do want at least one of their books at home for inspiration and reference.
:D

Since they do live only four hours from me, in Toronto, I hope one day, God willing, to meet them in person and maybe be allowed a personal interview for the EU.
8-)
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

upriver
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

What is Dark Energy, From an Aetherometric perspective...

Unread post by upriver » Sat May 10, 2008 5:11 pm

WHAT IS DARK ENERGY?
(WHAT IS, AND IS NOT, DARK MASSFREE ENERGY)
by Paulo N. Correa & Alexandra N. Correa


The so-called mystery of Dark Energy

Currently fashionable presentations of Dark Energy routinely begin with questions such as "how can we solve the mystery of Dark Energy?" One is seldom told why or how is Dark Energy a mystery, and is never really told what Dark Energy is.

There are very good reasons for this. The long and short of it is that Dark Energy - as conceived by our modern physicists - is a fanciful notion that would bring a Mona Lisa smile even to Einstein's lips. There is no proof that it exists, but it must exist, solely because it is universally agreed that: 1) the universe had a beginning; 2) the universe is expanding; 3) the known mass-energy of the universe cannot account for the supposed rate of expansion. Add to this that, somehow, by more recent so-called computations, this rate of expansion is accelerating, and one obtains all the ingredients for a modern scientific religion - a metaphysics of physics. Note that all of these requirements were Einstein's legacy (for all that he would have smiled!); but please remark further that, despite thousands of papers published on the subject, there is literally no experimental evidence for any of them. Hence, it is all a matter of credo quia absurdum est.

Indeed, the idea that the universe had a beginning is nothing more than an interpretation, and at that, one that is not legitimized by the First Law of Conservation of Energy. That the universe is expanding is not the result of any direct observation, but of yet another interpretation - of Redshifts and Blueshifts. And that the total measurement of mass-energy would have to account for the constraints of an interpretive model, is simply a self-validating requirement for which there can be no independent experimental proof. As for the acceleration of that expansion - well, it's all in the eyes of the beholders. All of this should have put Einstein's legacy into question. But it didn't. Instead, it produced yet another false problem: if there is not enough Matter in the universe, not enough Dark Matter, then there must be some Dark Energy.

The twists and turns of the argument are remarkable. And they indicate just how obstinate, desperate orthodoxies are - in their refusal to alter the parameters of a field of inquiry or investigation - and the extent to which they're willing to go on co-opting, patching, mending with sheer spit, models that have obviously outlived their usefulness.

Ask yourself - what would it mean to Albert Einstein to hear Dark Energy spoken of as distinct from Dark Matter or Dark Mass?? And why make the distinction when, by Dark Energy, physicists mean the most massive particle that supposedly exists? Albert undoubtedly would have exclaimed: "it's nothing more than a marketing gimmick!" And he wouldn't have been far from the truth, even if for the wrong reasons. For, indeed, according to Einstein, all energy is mass, carries mass, affects mass - and energy and mass interconvert. Mass, says Albert, is an intrinsic property of all energy. These authors happen to think he was wrong, but that is what Albert said. The mass-property of all energy was even supposed to apply to kinetic energy! - which is how DeBroglie got his Matter Waves going with a relativistic solution. There could never be Dark Energy without mass. And there could never be massless energy. Not, at least, according to Albert. Anyway, this is a minor detail, since the Dark Energy that our particle physicists talk about is only 'massless' for laughs - it was 'massless' in a distant past, but is supermassive today.

In truth, the import of uncertainty has been so abused in physics, by physicists, that they literally do not know what Dark Energy is. That is to say, they are not just uncertain about it, they are totally uncertain, ie completely confused. It's hardly surprising, then, that when they speak, they are inclined to say precisely nothing. Here, for example, is Rocky Kolb, of Fermilab, U. of Chicago:

"Recent measurements with telescopes and space probes have shown that a mysterious force-a dark energy-fills the vacuum of empty space, accelerating the universe's expansion. We don't know what dark energy is, or why it exists."

What a mysteriously tortuous presentation! The theory calls for the existence of a force (a force of expansion, as required by relativistic astrophysics); ergo an energy must exist, even if it has never been found! This is hardly surprising, of course, since particle physicists are still so ignorant of the actual physics of energy, not to mention, of massfree energy. But, apparently, to find their so-called proof of this force, we need not go very far. It suffices for them to simply point to particle theory, or quantum electrodynamics and chromodynamics, and to propose some sufficiently imposing magnitude for the energy of the so-called 'vacuum-state', and voilá the proof:

"On the other hand, particle theory tells us that, at the microscopic level, even a perfect vacuum bubbles with quantum particles that are a natural source of dark energy. But a naïve calculation of the dark energy generated from the vacuum yields a value 10120 times larger than the amount we observe. Some unknown physical process is required to eliminate most, but not all, of the vacuum energy, leaving enough left to drive the accelerating expansion of the universe. A new theory of particle physics is required to explain this physical process." (more R. Kolb)

This is not science. This is delusional self-fulfilling prophecy - a religious enterprise. One first assumes a beginning for the universe and postulates, by dint of sheer interpretation, that the universe expands. Then one assumes that sufficient quantities of Dark Matter are needed to satisfy the expansion; if there is not enough of this supposed Dark Matter, then one fills the gap with some appropriate quantity of Dark Energy and invokes the elucubrations of particle theory as supposed proof of the scientific correctness of this procedure. And then, to explain that which does not exist and to continue to chase after the elusive proof of its existence, trillions of taxpayer dollars must be consumed across the globe. If it were not the real and current state of Physics, and one prevalent worldwide, one might think it was just some lulu's idea. But maybe it is.

In the impoverished sense, therefore, in which Dark Energy is spoken about in the modern academia, there is no Dark Energy at all. It's a fiction. So it's hardly surprising no one knows what it is.

However, even though, after traversing the tortuous labyrinth of an "argument" such as Kolb's, one cannot but conclude that its subject is a fiction, a nothing - in need of never ending new fictions to prop it up - one is nevertheless told that it's a 'discovery'! Though it's unknown what Dark Energy is, the very need to have it, somehow, constitutes a discovery!:

"The dramatic discovery of dark energy showed that empty space is filled with a mysterious energy that increases as the universe expands."

And now there is space for every conceivable sort of mysticism and every demented idea of exotic bombs. Mass-energy could be converting into dark electromagnetic energy, and that is why the universe is both running down and expanding. A way might even be found to conciliate this with the Principle of Conservation of Energy (!?). After all, the proportion of total mass-energy must vary...
continued.....

http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_ ... energy.php

Plasmatic
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: The Aetherometry Model

Unread post by Plasmatic » Sat May 10, 2008 6:28 pm

And now there is space for every conceivable sort of mysticism and every demented idea of exotic bombs. Mass-energy could be converting into dark electromagnetic energy, and that is why the universe is both running down and expanding. A way might even be found to conciliate this with the Principle of Conservation of Energy (!?). After all, the proportion of total mass-energy must vary...

That was a great article Upriver. Thanks
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Aetherometry Model

Unread post by junglelord » Sat May 10, 2008 6:53 pm

The entire standard model is disorganized and a classical mess.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests