What is "Ether"?

What is "Ether"?

One of the various wonder drugs Art Deco's Parents were on or were
encouraged to use on an impossible Growing Deco!:

http://rivernymph.blogspot.com/2005_06_05_archive.html

TheBookman

2008-05-05 16:14:01 UTC

Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?

Maybe you should go slap him around.

Just goes to show, a bad 'theory' magically becomes 'good', with the
'correct' label.

http://www.river.org/~jerry/telling.htm

When a Mass moves arround does (the spatial medium) produce any >
Resistance?

When you accelerate an object in space, the resistance you feel
(inertia) is *literally* the resistance of space itself to the
acceleration.

But the Magical Spcae Fluid (MSF) somehow stops 'resisting', once the
accelleration phase ceases. Very convenient.

Conversely, when a spatial flow is accelerating (as in a gravitational
field), any object embedded in the flow is pushed (as it is in
freefall). Or if the object is sitting on the ground, the flow of
space through it gives it 'weight'.

Word salad.

Indeed. MSF is very handy, isn't it?

Is (the spatial medium) also present in Vaccume?

There is no place the spatial medium "isn't".

What are the Laws that say (the spatial medium) Exists?

1. Newton's laws of inertia and conservation of momentum

No.

But it's a _beautiful_ story. 'An object at rest will remain at rest /due
to the resistance of the MSF/, and an object in motion will remain in
motion /due to the *lack of* resistance of the MSF/ (to paraphrase).
The magic of teh MSF is magical!

2. Einstein's law of gravity-acceleration equivalence

No.

3. The invariance of the speed of light independant of the speed of
the emitter

No.

4. The fixed propagation speed of light

No.

5. The fact that there is _no perceptable upper limit to amplitude of
EM radiation_, demonstrating a *carrier medium* of even greater energy
density than the most energetic wave it carries.

Word salad.

6. The behavior of gravity as a pressure-driven, accelerating flow
into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink (or pressure drain).

So you claim.

7. The ability of the spatial medium to crush a massive star down to a
black hole, often popping off a supernova in the process.

You need to learn stellar mechanics.

What, you have a problem with the MSF wandering around, magically crushing
random stars? Hey, maybe the MSF is /intelligent/, ya think?

8. The relativistic laws described by special relativity - mass
increase, time dilation, and foreshortening of rods

You need to put down the sci-fi and learn physics.

But, but...the Cylons have taught him /so much/ about 'reality'!

And Which Laws say (the spatial medium) do not Exist?

There are no "laws" to that effect, only an edict of pure caprice and
fiat, enacted 80 - 85 years ago proclaiming there is 'no medium' in
the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

Bullshit.

Is there any Experiment to show (the spatial medium) is present in World?

Jump off the roof.

Wow, you sure convinced him about the TRVTH of flowing space goo.

Yeah, with an "experiment" that does _nothing_ to differentiate between
gravity and tah MSF. _Real_ 'intelligent'.

ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
BARBARA WOODHOUSE MEMORIAL DOG-WHISTLE AWARD
MIKE "MIGUEL" CRANSTON, TRAINED BY BOOKMAN
COOSN-266-06-89425
#14 People ruining UseNet lits
#9 Top Assholes on the Net lits
#11 Most hated Usenetizens of all time lits
#11 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine

"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely

"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."

"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes

Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler.
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.

WWFSMD?

Art Deco

2008-05-08 01:21:03 UTC

Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?

Maybe you should go slap him around.

Just goes to show, a bad 'theory' magically becomes 'good', with the
'correct' label.

http://www.river.org/~jerry/telling.htm

When a Mass moves arround does (the spatial medium) produce any >
Resistance?

When you accelerate an object in space, the resistance you feel
(inertia) is *literally* the resistance of space itself to the
acceleration.

But the Magical Spcae Fluid (MSF) somehow stops 'resisting', once the
accelleration phase ceases. Very convenient.

Word salad.

Indeed. MSF is very handy, isn't it?

Is (the spatial medium) also present in Vaccume?

There is no place the spatial medium "isn't".

What are the Laws that say (the spatial medium) Exists?

1. Newton's laws of inertia and conservation of momentum

No.

Somehow it knows to resist motion when it needs to resist motion, and
allow unimpeded motion when it needs to allow unimpeded motion.
Amazing.

2. Einstein's law of gravity-acceleration equivalence

No.

3. The invariance of the speed of light independant of the speed of
the emitter

No.

4. The fixed propagation speed of light

No.

5. The fact that there is _no perceptable upper limit to amplitude of
EM radiation_, demonstrating a *carrier medium* of even greater energy
density than the most energetic wave it carries.

Word salad.

6. The behavior of gravity as a pressure-driven, accelerating flow
into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink (or pressure drain).

So you claim.

7. The ability of the spatial medium to crush a massive star down to a
black hole, often popping off a supernova in the process.

You need to learn stellar mechanics.

What, you have a problem with the MSF wandering around, magically crushing
random stars? Hey, maybe the MSF is /intelligent/, ya think?

Absolutely, see above.

8. The relativistic laws described by special relativity - mass
increase, time dilation, and foreshortening of rods

You need to put down the sci-fi and learn physics.

But, but...the Cylons have taught him /so much/ about 'reality'!

The red LEDs are scanning back-and-forth as I type.

And Which Laws say (the spatial medium) do not Exist?

There are no "laws" to that effect, only an edict of pure caprice and
fiat, enacted 80 - 85 years ago proclaiming there is 'no medium' in
the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

Bullshit.

Is there any Experiment to show (the spatial medium) is present in World?

Jump off the roof.

Wow, you sure convinced him about the TRVTH of flowing space goo.

Yeah, with an "experiment" that does _nothing_ to differentiate between
gravity and tah MSF. _Real_ 'intelligent'.

It neatly solves his problem, however.

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen

Art Deco

2008-05-08 01:27:49 UTC

Photons travel through empty space. No medium is necessary.

"Phonons" travel through a bar of steel at 'X' velocity. Now remove
the bar of steel. Do phonons still travel through "nothing",
unattenuated, and at 'X' velocity? Apparently so, to the "no medium"
crowd.

Incorrect; phonons are quantized vibrations of the atoms in a crystal
lattice. Photons are quantized electromagnetic wave packets.

This entrenched "no medium" dogma defies all rational thought in
otherwise-normal and intelligent people, reflecting a deep
intellectual disconnect.

Where is the law that says the universe must behave as humans think it
should?

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen

Art Deco

2008-05-08 01:31:26 UTC

Quantum mechanics is pretty much in a basic state now.
There are many things we use right now that we owe to
quantum theory. But instead of particle physicists
busting butt to understand and explain the details about
it...

abdication of
any predeliction to _understand and explain cause_. *Descriptions of
effects* are surrogate for _explaining the mechanism_ causing the
effects.

Incorrect; physics theories are proposed to quantify observed
phenomena. If the quantifications do not match observations, the
theory is rejected.

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen

Painius

2008-05-08 02:06:27 UTC

abdication of
any predeliction to _understand and explain cause_. *Descriptions of
effects* are surrogate for _explaining the mechanism_ causing the
effects.

Incorrect; physics theories are proposed to quantify observed
phenomena. If the quantifications do not match observations, the
theory is rejected.

That's certainly what is hoped for, Mother, but it's not
always true. For example, i have read that several of
the "quantifications" that resulted from testing relativity
theory fell outside the windows of expectation, and yet
the testers felt that they were "close enough" anyway,
so they were not justification to reject relativity.

Also, one of the truly enigmatic aspects of quantum
physics is that the quantifications are often surprises
and unexpectedly waay outside the expected windows.

So what REALLY matters when it comes to such things
is not so much the quantifications and how well they
match expected windows of observation or experiment.
What REALLY keeps such theories alive is practicality.
Quantum mechanics would have been rejected long ago
if it wasn't so gol-darn useful on a practical level.

And oc's right. Physicists are far too busy focusing upon
descriptive elements of theory rather than trying to get
to the root cause of things like gravity. It's as if they've
given up. 'Round 'n 'round they go in circles of thwarted
reality, in elliptical orbits around dim brown dwarfs.

When will they begin again to search for the bright stars?

Mmm, Art, i just took a break outside. Isn't Sirius truly
beautiful this time of year? Closer it gets to the horizon,
the more it brightly sparkles! in several colors! Well, at
least we know what causes _that_, don't we.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com

Art Deco

2008-05-26 02:22:13 UTC

On May 25, 11:42 am, Paul Holbach

Metaphysics merely means, "beyond physical." Anything that is beyond
physics is metaphysical.

No, "metaphysical" and "superphysical" are not synonymous.
Metaphysics and physics do not deal with different spheres or reality.

I think you missed what I meant. I'm speaking of physical as meaning
things that are made of matter, i.e. electrons, protons, and
neutrons. The electrons, protons, and neutrons are the only physical
objects in existence. Atoms, molecules, cells, crystals, humans, and
every other object is composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons.
Metaphysical refers to things the electrons, protons and electrons do,
as well as to the non-material structures that gave rise to the
subatomic particles. In the Aether Physics Model, I have induced from
empirical measurements the non-material structures that gave rise to
physical existence.
I also recognize the quantification of feelings as conductance and
show how feelings relate to physical matter. I'm presently writing a
second books on metaphysics, which explains these physics in greater
detail and helps people to tune their own body and mind into the
Universe. I am successfully reversing the aging process of my body by
understanding its chemistry and how the chemistry relies on the Aether
for part of its function. As a result, my hair is growing back, it is
turning from gray to brown, my skin is soft and smooth, and I'm
feeling like I did in my teens and early twenties. I also managed to
clean out my arteries, lose 30 pounds, and lost 4 inches from my waist
line. I'm also experimenting with ultrasound for regenerating my
teeth and bones. It will take longer to see results with ultrasound
according to the research I have read.
There is more of a relationship between Aether and metaphysics than I
had imagined earlier. Nearly all paranormal activity can be
explained, quantified, and measured through the conductance of objects
and their environment.
Dave

What does "conductance of objects and their environment" mean?

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen

Robert J. Kolker

2008-05-26 02:31:28 UTC

Post by Art Deco
What does "conductance of objects and their environment" mean?

It means nothing. It is word salad.

Bob Kolker

Art Deco

2008-05-26 02:40:18 UTC

Post by Art Deco
What does "conductance of objects and their environment" mean?

It means nothing. It is word salad.

As I suspected.

Post by Robert J. Kolker
Bob Kolker

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen

socratus

2008-05-26 04:30:44 UTC

People have the preconception that physical matter exists first, and
then non-material things arise from it (mind, for example). But it is
the other way around. Non-material reality came first and physical
existence evolved from it.

========================..
David Thomson only repeats that Quantum theory says:
" from a virtual the real particles born".

2008-05-26 06:16:21 UTC

Post by Art Deco
What does "conductance of objects and their environment" mean?

It means nothing. It is word salad.

As I suspected.

Read his http://www.16pi2.com/eddy_currents.htm page.
It is clear that he doesn't understand how to measure low dc resistances
accurately[with kelvin connections
see http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_8/9.html],
especially in the presence of small varying dc voltages from another
source.

Since he based a lot of his ideas on his wrong headed ideas of eddy
currents, almost everything he wrote is sure to be 'word salad.'

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+***@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Art Deco

2008-05-26 15:33:03 UTC

Post by bz

Post by Art Deco
What does "conductance of objects and their environment" mean?

It means nothing. It is word salad.

As I suspected.

Read his http://www.16pi2.com/eddy_currents.htm page.
It is clear that he doesn't understand how to measure low dc resistances
accurately[with kelvin connections
see http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_8/9.html],
especially in the presence of small varying dc voltages from another
source.
Since he based a lot of his ideas on his wrong headed ideas of eddy
currents, almost everything he wrote is sure to be 'word salad.'

Not only does he not understand 4-wire resistance measurements, he
can't even report his data correctly. The graph shows resistance
varying between 150 and 450 milliohms, but in the text where he
discusses his results he states that it changed from 0.4 ohms to 30
ohms to 100 ohms; a discrepancy of 3 orders of magnitude. I also doubt
that the resistance of a 1" copper tube, with a 1-2 mm wall thickness,
across a slit would be as high as 200 milliohms.

He does not present any other explanations, or show how he tried to
eliminate them. This experiment was driven by the rate at which the
magnet dropped through the tube -- frictional resistance between the
magnet and the walls of the extruded, non-round copper pipe should have
been minimized at the outset. The photograph with the magnet tilted is
telling.

The leap he makes to "angular momentum" is just bizarre.

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen

2008-05-26 15:54:40 UTC

Post by bz

Post by Art Deco
What does "conductance of objects and their environment" mean?

It means nothing. It is word salad.

As I suspected.

Read his http://www.16pi2.com/eddy_currents.htm page.
It is clear that he doesn't understand how to measure low dc resistances
accurately[with kelvin connections
see http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_8/9.html],
especially in the presence of small varying dc voltages from another
source.
Since he based a lot of his ideas on his wrong headed ideas of eddy
currents, almost everything he wrote is sure to be 'word salad.'

As 1" Cu tubing is 17 micro-ohms per foot (1.7x10^-5 ohm)[see
http://www.stormcopper.com/CopperTubing.htm], it is VERY unlikely that such
a FAT rectangular resistor [flatten it out and look at it] would be
anything over 1 micro-ohm in resistance.

Clearly, since his two soldered contact points are NOT exactly along a
horizontal line, he is seeing the effect of the induced dc voltage
upsetting his ohm meter readings.

He should run a simple experiment with a small DC current supply putting a
few amps from one end of his pipe to the other and see what it does to 'the
pipes resistance' as he is currently measuring it. He can do the same with
just a small piece of wire as his 'resistor'.

Post by Art Deco
He does not present any other explanations, or show how he tried to
eliminate them. This experiment was driven by the rate at which the
magnet dropped through the tube -- frictional resistance between the
magnet and the walls of the extruded, non-round copper pipe should have
been minimized at the outset. The photograph with the magnet tilted is
telling.
The leap he makes to "angular momentum" is just bizarre.

Agreed.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+***@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

h***@centurytel.net

2008-05-26 16:07:51 UTC

Post by bz

Post by Art Deco
What does "conductance of objects and their environment" mean?

It means nothing. It is word salad.

As I suspected.

Read his http://www.16pi2.com/eddy_currents.htm page.
It is clear that he doesn't understand how to measure low dc resistances
accurately[with kelvin connections
see http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_8/9.html],
especially in the presence of small varying dc voltages from another
source.
Since he based a lot of his ideas on his wrong headed ideas of eddy
currents, almost everything he wrote is sure to be 'word salad.'

Not only does he not understand 4-wire resistance measurements, he
can't even report his data correctly. The graph shows resistance
varying between 150 and 450 milliohms, but in the text where he
discusses his results he states that it changed from 0.4 ohms to 30
ohms to 100 ohms; a discrepancy of 3 orders of magnitude. I also doubt
that the resistance of a 1" copper tube, with a 1-2 mm wall thickness,
across a slit would be as high as 200 milliohms.
He does not present any other explanations, or show how he tried to
eliminate them. This experiment was driven by the rate at which the
magnet dropped through the tube -- frictional resistance between the
magnet and the walls of the extruded, non-round copper pipe should have
been minimized at the outset. The photograph with the magnet tilted is
telling.
The leap he makes to "angular momentum" is just bizarre.

Careful "bz", Deco is a sexual preditor.

HJ

David Thomson

2008-05-26 16:50:45 UTC

Post by Art Deco
Not only does he not understand 4-wire resistance measurements, he
can't even report his data correctly.

I do understand the four wire measurement, and as I pointed out, it is
irrelevant to this experiment. The slight offset in resistance
measurement does not change the physics of the demonstration.

But you are correct in that I reported my data incorrectly. I
appreciate you taking the time to carefully look at the page. The
error you noted on my recording of the data has now been corrected. I
must have been thinking of something else when I wrote the page. I
did not make the same mistake in my book.

Post by Art Deco
I also doubt
that the resistance of a 1" copper tube, with a 1-2 mm wall thickness,
across a slit would be as high as 200 milliohms.

As I mentioned, this is the total resistance of the copper tube and
the leads from the meter.

Post by Art Deco
He does not present any other explanations, or show how he tried to
eliminate them.

The purpose of this demonstration is to show how the Aether Physics
Model interprets the measurements in terms of eddy currents. The
theory behind the units is explained in detail in the white paper and
the book. The page was not presented as an official paper for
publication in a journal.

Post by Art Deco
This experiment was driven by the rate at which the
magnet dropped through the tube -- frictional resistance between the
magnet and the walls of the extruded, non-round copper pipe should have
been minimized at the outset.

Friction has nothing to do with this experiment. There is no contact
between the magnet and the copper tube as the magnet falls down. The
eddy currents keep the magnet suspended in its counter magnetic
field. The variation in falling rate was caused by trying magnets
with different masses. Unlike a gravity-only drop, heavier magnets
fall through the tube faster than lighter magnets.

Post by Art Deco
The photograph with the magnet tilted is telling.

What did it tell you? There was no contact between the magnet and the
copper pipe as it fell. You can verify this for yourself by
replicating the experiment. It is not difficult to do.

Post by Art Deco
The leap he makes to "angular momentum" is just bizarre.

It would seem that way if you didn't read the foundations of the
theory. Angular momentum in the Standard Model is strictly a two-body
unit. In the Aether Physics Model, a single-body unit of angular
momentum is identified. The single-body unit of angular momentum
applies directly to the angular momentum of the subatomic particles.
The single-body angular momentum is explained as a circular string of
mass that moves a velocity through the Aether spin positions. The
Aether drives the angular momentum, and keeps it behavior quantum.
The Standard Model sounds bizarre to people who don't study it, too.

Dave

Art Deco

2008-05-27 01:40:39 UTC

Post by Art Deco
Not only does he not understand 4-wire resistance measurements, he
can't even report his data correctly.

I do understand the four wire measurement, and as I pointed out, it is
irrelevant to this experiment.

Of course it is relevant, that is the quantity you are trying to
measure.

Post by David Thomson
The slight offset in resistance
measurement does not change the physics of the demonstration.

"Slight offset"? It is many orders of magnitude!

Post by David Thomson
But you are correct in that I reported my data incorrectly. I
appreciate you taking the time to carefully look at the page. The
error you noted on my recording of the data has now been corrected. I
must have been thinking of something else when I wrote the page. I
did not make the same mistake in my book.

I am not buying any book.

Post by Art Deco
I also doubt
that the resistance of a 1" copper tube, with a 1-2 mm wall thickness,
across a slit would be as high as 200 milliohms.

As I mentioned, this is the total resistance of the copper tube and
the leads from the meter.

A value which is dominated by the wire resistances. As bz pointed out,
the resistance of the tube between the soldered points is on the order
of microohms.

Post by Art Deco
He does not present any other explanations, or show how he tried to
eliminate them.

Which it has failed completely because of your flawed experimental
technique.

Friction has nothing to do with this experiment. There is no contact
between the magnet and the copper tube as the magnet falls down.

Yes it does -- it explains your report that the magnet falls slower.
You have failed to:

1) measure the time the magnet falls by itself.
2) provide measurements of the tube ID (hint: extruded tubes are
not uniform>
3) provide measurements of the magnet diameter
4) show how the magnet does not contact the copper
5) provide measurements of the magnetic field strength
6) calculate the resistance of a thick copper sheet
7) show how your results cannot be explained with conventional physics
8) show how you measured time
9) measure the magnet mass

Post by David Thomson
The
eddy currents keep the magnet suspended in its counter magnetic
field. The variation in falling rate was caused by trying magnets
with different masses. Unlike a gravity-only drop, heavier magnets
fall through the tube faster than lighter magnets.

Yet none of this data is presented.

Post by Art Deco
The photograph with the magnet tilted is telling.

What did it tell you? There was no contact between the magnet and the
copper pipe as it fell. You can verify this for yourself by
replicating the experiment. It is not difficult to do.

Of course there is contact, it is visible in both photographs.

And no, you have not provided enough information for anyone to attempt
to replicate your tests, let alone generate any motivation to even try.

Post by Art Deco
The leap he makes to "angular momentum" is just bizarre.

It would seem that way if you didn't read the foundations of the
theory. Angular momentum in the Standard Model is strictly a two-body
unit.

Huh? This makes no sense at all. What do you mean by "two-body"?

Post by David Thomson
In the Aether Physics Model, a single-body unit of angular
momentum is identified. The single-body unit of angular momentum
applies directly to the angular momentum of the subatomic particles.

These are assumptions you have made without any basis, AFAICT.

Post by David Thomson
The single-body angular momentum is explained as a circular string of
mass that moves a velocity through the Aether spin positions. The
Aether drives the angular momentum, and keeps it behavior quantum.
The Standard Model sounds bizarre to people who don't study it, too.

What does this word salad have to do with electric fields inside a
metallic conductor?

Post by David Thomson
Dave

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen

David Thomson

2008-05-27 01:49:34 UTC

On May 26, 8:40 pm, Art Deco <erfc-***@usa.net> wrote:
[comments deleted to save bandwidth]

Aside from your many snide remarks and mindless ranting, you make
several valid points concerning the presentation of the experiment.
You have motivated me to redo the experiment with more care. I hope
to get to it this week.

Dave

2008-05-27 03:46:19 UTC

Post by David Thomson
[comments deleted to save bandwidth]
Aside from your many snide remarks and mindless ranting, you make
several valid points concerning the presentation of the experiment.
You have motivated me to redo the experiment with more care. I hope
to get to it this week.

This is good. I hope you understand why we have been critical of the data.

By the way, I can't speak for Art Deco, but I never intended for any of my
remarks to be snide and apologize if they came across that way.

I think that you intend to do good science but need to be more rigorous in
your approach to data collection and interpretation.

It is always tempting to jump to the conclusion that one has observed
something that is 'earth shaking'. That is why peer review is useful. Many
a balloon is popped by those who have 'been down the same path'.

I remember quite vividly when a PhD candidate I was helping and I though we
had discovered a new family of organic chemical compounds. The candidate's
major professor looked over all the data and our conclusion and asked if we
had considered that a combination of two molecules of a particular common
organic molecule would fit the data better than the structure we had
proposed.

It was difficult to give up the 'great discovery' in favor of the more
pedestrian explanation, but sure enough, the correct explanation was that
we had made a mistake.

Having worked in the field of proper data collection, I know that one MUST
be very careful when measuring things like low resistance and voltages,
especially in the presence of strong, slowly changing magnetic fields.

Unfortunately, you were NOT measuring what you though you were measuring.
You were NOT measuring changes in the resistance of your copper tube.

This is not to say that there aren't valid effects that are related to such
a change. See, for example, the Hall effect, the Thermoelectric effect, the
Ferroelectric effect, and others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect

Your experimental set up mixes MANY different effects together into what
you were measuring and calling 'resistance'. Thus your conclusions are not
supported by your data. Your 'eddie current theory' is based on a
misunderstanding of what was being observed, I fear that you need to scrap
the idea and start over, and keep in mind the fact that science seeks to
DISPROVE theories, not to prove them.

In any case, good luck to you, and keep in mind the old saying
'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+***@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

David Thomson

2008-05-28 21:44:27 UTC

Post by Art Deco
Not only does he not understand 4-wire resistance measurements, he
can't even report his data correctly.

I do understand the four wire measurement, and as I pointed out, it is
irrelevant to this experiment.

Of course it is relevant, that is the quantity you are trying to
measure.

Just to prove you wrong, I updated the web page with a four wire
measurement.
http://www.16pi2.com/eddy_currents.htm

The behavior of the apparent resistance change is the same, except
that now it is not offset due to the resistance of the meter leads.

I used a longer and wider tube with a cleaner soldered tab. I also
wrapped the magnet with electrical tape to prevent any electrical
contacts with the copper tube. The complete data are included as an
Excel file so you can see the time measurements.

Dave

Art Deco

2008-05-26 16:06:28 UTC

Post by Art Deco
What does "conductance of objects and their environment" mean?

Grandiose claim, utterly without a shred of evidence.

Our mind directly experiences feeling. We are particularly attuned to
the feelings associated with our body,

These are called "nerves".

but with training, we can also
attune to the feelings of other objects and our environment. People
who are either naturally sensitive to conductance, or train
successfully to recognize it (mystics), are often called psychics.

All of which are routinely debunked as cons and self-delusions.

There are many phenomena related to conductance, which have been
regarded in the past as anomalies. For example, I have had the
natural ability to bend keys just by touching them while experiencing
intense feelings. It is not something I have learned to control, it
just occurs naturally. Here is a picture of some keys that have
naturally bent while I was holding them.
Loading Image...

Tricks of magicians: <http://skepdic.com/geller.html>

So you are claiming you can generate microwave radiation with your
fingertips?

Mathematically, the Hutchison effect and metal bending can be
explained by quantum rotating magnetic fields. High energy photons
(microwaves) bombarding the electromagnetic charge of electrons
produce rotating magnetic fields.
A.u = phtn / chrg (Aether unit is equal to photons per
electromagnetic charge)
Quantum rotating magnetic fields can also be produced with the flow of
A.u = velc / cond (Aether unit is equal to velocity per conductance)
This is agreeable with the oriential concept of Chi (also known as Ki,
Qi, Ku, prana, and others).
The equations above have dimensional meaning and each variable is also
a quantum constant. This is explained in detail in the book, Secrets
of the Aether. So all of this theory is testable and quantifiable.

Balderdash.

Dave

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen

h***@centurytel.net

2008-05-26 19:34:52 UTC

Post by Art Deco
What does "conductance of objects and their environment" mean?

Grandiose claim, utterly without a shred of evidence.

Our mind directly experiences feeling. We are particularly attuned to
the feelings associated with our body,

These are called "nerves".

All of which are routinely debunked as cons and self-delusions.

Tricks of magicians: <http://skepdic.com/geller.html>

So you are claiming you can generate microwave radiation with your
fingertips?

Balderdash.

Ko0k Award just around the corner, Dave!

You have been warned about Art Deco.

HJ

Art Deco

2008-05-26 16:07:24 UTC

In article

Post by Art Deco
What does "conductance of objects and their environment" mean?

It means all matter and all Aether possess the property of
conductance. Conductance in the Aether Physics Model is the
reciprocal of magnetic flux. Conductance in the neurosciences is a
measurement of feeling. Thus, all objects and the environment
(Aether) possess feeling. Feeling has a reciprocal relationship to
magnetic flux.
Our mind directly experiences feeling. We are particularly attuned to
the feelings associated with our body, but with training, we can also
attune to the feelings of other objects and our environment. People
who are either naturally sensitive to conductance, or train
successfully to recognize it (mystics), are often called psychics.
There are many phenomena related to conductance, which have been
regarded in the past as anomalies. For example, I have had the
natural ability to bend keys just by touching them while experiencing
intense feelings. It is not something I have learned to control, it
just occurs naturally. Here is a picture of some keys that have
naturally bent while I was holding them.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/bentkeys.jpg

Greetings Mr. Thomson, The above link doesn't work. Pls.
check it out as I'm very interested in your bent keys. You need to
touch them to bend them, I merely have to look at a metal to bend it
by altering its molecular structure. I'm what they called a
telekinetic.
Our science is insufficient to explain what many of us can do.
We must arrive at the enhanced physics ourselves because
our scientists like Uncle Al are just so ignorant. Goodluck in your
path to take the world of physics by storm. Study hard and aim for
truth (and the Nobel and all righteousness will come unto you).
We are counting on you. Don't fail or the world may disintegrate
from outdated science that can't deal with the next evolution that
is approaching the planet.

Another usenet pseudoscientist.

Megs

Apparently, intense feeling can alter the molecular structure of
materials by working at the quantum level via the Aether. John
Hutchison stumbled upon a similar process while playing with high
potential electrostatic fields and bombarding them with microwaves.
This caused aluminum and wood to share lattice structure without
altering the other.
Mathematically, the Hutchison effect and metal bending can be
explained by quantum rotating magnetic fields. High energy photons
(microwaves) bombarding the electromagnetic charge of electrons
produce rotating magnetic fields.
A.u = phtn / chrg (Aether unit is equal to photons per
electromagnetic charge)
Quantum rotating magnetic fields can also be produced with the flow of
A.u = velc / cond (Aether unit is equal to velocity per conductance)
This is agreeable with the oriential concept of Chi (also known as Ki,
Qi, Ku, prana, and others).
The equations above have dimensional meaning and each variable is also
a quantum constant. This is explained in detail in the book, Secrets
of the Aether. So all of this theory is testable and quantifiable.
Dave

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen

Art Deco

2008-05-26 16:08:19 UTC

http://www.16pi2.com/files/bentkeys.jpg

Alain Nu can also bend metal by looking at it.
The ISP doesn't always allow direct links to files. Go to the
http://www.16pi2.com/files
Dave

"The ISP"?

Hahahahahahahahahhahahaah

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen

Art Deco

2008-05-26 02:23:17 UTC

On May 25, 11:52 am, Paul Holbach

Fields are physical things (in the broadest sense of "thing") too.

I think that if you took more time to investigate the physics of
matter and how matter arises you would see things differently. Fields
are collections of Aether units. Aether units are quantum rotating
magnetic fields. Quantum rotating magnetic fields may contain primary
angular momentum (same stuff as dark matter), which gives rise to the
subatomic particles. Aether has no materiality. It is non-material,
yet it is very real.
People have the preconception that physical matter exists first, and
then non-material things arise from it (mind, for example). But it is
the other way around. Non-material reality came first and physical
existence evolved from it.
Dave

And you know all this ... how, exactly?

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen

Art Deco

2008-05-26 15:37:11 UTC

I can read: "www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf";
"www.MiraNet.ORG/science_as_religion.htm".
" The skin conductance of the human body is a measure of its emotions;
the conductance of Aether is the collective emotion. ".

Thanks for bringing this up. I forgot about the Miranet pages. Yes,
the Aether Physics Model fully quantifies the interaction of mind and
body based upon empirical measurements.
All physical matter possesses conductance, as does the environment in
which it exists (Aether). The conductance of matter can affect the
conductance of the environment, and vice versa. This is the
scientific basis of many psychic abilities.
The transfer of conductance is the science behind religion. When
people work themselves up through prayer, tune their mind through
meditation, and consciously alter their environment with objects
possessing good conductance characteristics, they improve the quality
of their feelings and the feelings of those around them.
Dave

So you claim, without evidence.

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen

D. Ismay

2008-05-26 16:45:01 UTC

So you claim, without evidence.

...and this one is a fine candidate for VVFWS, May '08, yes?

h***@centurytel.net

2008-05-26 19:40:51 UTC

Post by D. Ismay

So you claim, without evidence.

...and this one is a fine candidate for VVFWS, May '08, yes?

Evidence of your impending "Ko0k Award", Dave!

It's probably too late to stop posting to Deco now.

The "handwritting is on the wall" now!

HJ

Art Deco

2008-05-26 15:43:09 UTC

Yes, in the contemporary standard model the leptons and the quarks are
the fundamental bits of matter.

Quarks are nothing but transient debris caused by the destruction of
protons and neutrons. The visible matter of protons and neutrons is
destroyed and converted back to dark matter.

I see that you have all the answers to everything.

But there is also dark matter, which consists of we know not what;

The Aether Physics Model shows that dark matter is primary angular
momentum. It is a non-material form of existence, which when
encapsulated by an Aether unit, becomes a subatomic particle. A
neutrino is simply this dark matter, which is sandwiched between a
bound proton and electron. While the neutrino quantity of primary
angular momentum is sandwiched between the proton and electron, it
contributes its angular momentum to the total angular momentum of the
neutron. When the neutron decays, the primary angular momentum is
released and we observe its effect as the neutrino.

You have no evidence of this.

and there might be other universes with
a totally different set of atomic and subatomic particles (or even
universes where matter isn't atomic at all).

You see, modern physics is based upon fantasy. The non-material
Aether is fully quantifiable and induced from empirical constants,
which in turn derive from physical measurements. The effects of the
non-material Aether are fully observable as magnetic fields,
electrostatic fields, gravitational fields, solitons, phonons, p-
holes, frame dragging, and space-time curvature tensor. Yet, there is
absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there are other universes. The
concept of other universes is a fantasy until some kind of evidence is
presented to prove it.

Ironic, given that your model also has no evidence.

Metaphysical refers to things the electrons, protons and electrons do,
as well as to the non-material structures that gave rise to the
subatomic particles.

No physicist would call the actions and interactions of particles
metaphysical, would he?

You made my point. Modern physicists are reluctant to admit to the
truth that physical reality arose from metaphysical reality, despite
overhwhelming evidence that physical existence arises from non-
material existence. We need to educate people so that they can
evaluate for themselves the facts supporting a non-material cause of
the Universe.
Dave

And finally, the usual claim that physicists are hiding the truth.
Your ideas are quite on-topic for alt.astronomy.

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen

h***@centurytel.net

2008-05-26 16:09:43 UTC

Yes, in the contemporary standard model the leptons and the quarks are
the fundamental bits of matter.

Quarks are nothing but transient debris caused by the destruction of
protons and neutrons. The visible matter of protons and neutrons is
destroyed and converted back to dark matter.

I see that you have all the answers to everything.

But there is also dark matter, which consists of we know not what;

You have no evidence of this.

and there might be other universes with
a totally different set of atomic and subatomic particles (or even
universes where matter isn't atomic at all).

Ironic, given that your model also has no evidence.

Metaphysical refers to things the electrons, protons and electrons do,
as well as to the non-material structures that gave rise to the
subatomic particles.

No physicist would call the actions and interactions of particles
metaphysical, would he?

And finally, the usual claim that physicists are hiding the truth.
Your ideas are quite on-topic for alt.astronomy.

Deco, your ideas are on-topic in 'alt.teen.boy.lovers.pedophiles'.

Your Pal,
HJ

David Thomson

2008-05-26 17:07:43 UTC

Quarks are nothing but transient debris caused by the destruction of
protons and neutrons. The visible matter of protons and neutrons is
destroyed and converted back to dark matter.

I see that you have all the answers to everything.

If I didn't, you would criticize me for that, too. Damned if I do,
damned if I don't.

But there is also dark matter, which consists of we know not what;

You have no evidence of this.

You are right. This evidence comes from the Standard Model. It is
called "beta decay." The electron, proton, and neutron masses and
angular momenta have been determined to a very high degree of
accuracy. The neutron has angular momentum equal to the electron
angular momentum plus the proton angular momentum plus the neutrino
angular momentum. At first, the neutrino was hypothesized, but later
experiments detected the neutrinos. The presence of neutrinos
produced by beta decay on the Sun is verified by the Kamiokande
experiment in Japan.

The Aether Physics Model predicts the neutrino angular momentum as
being 1.531 times the angular momentum of the electron from first
principles. The quantification of the neutrino angular momentum is
calculated by observing the geometrical properties of the bound
electron and proton.

Ironic, given that your model also has no evidence.

No evidence of what? That magnetic fields, electrostatic fields,
gravitational fields, solitons, phonons, p-holes, frame dragging and
space-time curvature exists? The evidence for all of these phenomena
is well documented in the scientific literature. In case you didn't
know, p-holes are observed in the electronics industry and space-time
curvature is observed as gravitational lensing. I suspect you are
familar with the others.

And finally, the usual claim that physicists are hiding the truth.
Your ideas are quite on-topic for alt.astronomy.

h***@centurytel.net

2008-05-26 19:38:43 UTC

Quarks are nothing but transient debris caused by the destruction of
protons and neutrons. The visible matter of protons and neutrons is
destroyed and converted back to dark matter.

I see that you have all the answers to everything.

If I didn't, you would criticize me for that, too. Damned if I do,
damned if I don't.

But there is also dark matter, which consists of we know not what;

You have no evidence of this.

Ironic, given that your model also has no evidence.

And finally, the usual claim that physicists are hiding the truth.
Your ideas are quite on-topic for alt.astronomy.

Are you implying you are giving the usual denial? It certainly
appears that way. Whether physicists are hiding the truth
intentionally or through ignorance, it doesn't matter. The mere act
of denying a fully quantified science such as the Aether Physics Model
qualifies as hiding the truth. If you could do the same with my
carefully written papers and book as you did with my off-the-cuff web
page, we could probably resolve our differences.

Dave
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Within 24 hours Art Deco will put you up for an 'alt.usenet.kooks' Award!

Look at all your posts to him as they are cross-posted to
'alt.usenet.kooks'.

If you are truely "Wise", then a word to the wise should be sufficient!

HJ

Robert J. Kolker

2008-05-26 19:40:32 UTC

Post by David Thomson
The Aether Physics Model predicts the neutrino angular momentum as
being 1.531 times the angular momentum of the electron from first
principles. The quantification of the neutrino angular momentum is
calculated by observing the geometrical properties of the bound
electron and proton.

A genuine prediction. Has this been verified experimentally?

Has anyone checked your math (besides you)?

Bob Kolker

h***@centurytel.net

2008-05-26 19:58:17 UTC

A genuine prediction. Has this been verified experimentally?
Has anyone checked your math (besides you)?
Bob Kolker

It's close to the end of the month nominations in 'alt.usenet.kooks' and
Deco hasn't nominated anyone yet and is desparately looking for a NAIVE
poster like Dave to "put-up" for nominations.

Dave will just NOT stop posting to this TROLL.

Deco has posted too him long enough to have found something to twist around
and hang Dave out to dry!

Deco is coiled-up ready to strike!

All this is cross-posted to AUK for only one purpose: NOMINATIONS!!!!

Wait and see!

HJ

David Thomson

2008-05-26 21:16:44 UTC

A genuine prediction. Has this been verified experimentally?

Not that I am aware of.

Post by Robert J. Kolker
Has anyone checked your math (besides you)?

Many people have, including several PhD physicists and
mathematicians. It is very simple, you could check it yourself. It
is laid out in the white paper at:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/ then click on NewFoundationPhysics.pdf.
The formula should be 11.2.

Dave

m***@gmail.com

2008-05-26 21:24:29 UTC

A genuine prediction. Has this been verified experimentally?

Not that I am aware of.

Post by Robert J. Kolker
Has anyone checked your math (besides you)?

Many people have, including several PhD physicists and
mathematicians. It is very simple, you could check it yourself. It
is laid out in the white paper at:http://www.16pi2.com/files/then click on NewFoundationPhysics.pdf.
The formula should be 11.2.
Dave

The Aether is immatterial. Albert Einstein likened it to his Curved
space-time.

Mitch Raemsch

Robert J. Kolker

2008-05-26 23:53:27 UTC

Post by m***@gmail.com
The Aether is immatterial. Albert Einstein likened it to his Curved
space-time.

It is not only immaterial, it can be ignored in the entirety.

Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker

2008-05-26 23:52:44 UTC

Post by David Thomson
Many people have, including several PhD physicists and
mathematicians. It is very simple, you could check it yourself. It
http://www.16pi2.com/files/ then click on NewFoundationPhysics.pdf.
The formula should be 11.2.

In what reputable journal or venue is your stuff posted and where is the
referee's report?

Bob Kolker

Art Deco

2008-05-26 15:59:55 UTC