Notices
Results 1 to 55 of 55

Thread: The vacuum, longitudinal waves and magnecules

  1. #1 The vacuum, longitudinal waves and magnecules 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Super Einstein & Tesla
    Superrelativity as the answer?

    For those who aren't familiar with M. Fiorentino's all reconciling theory, please visit http://physcom.awardspace.com

    He's been a IBM-software engineer and an awarded trouble-shooter. He's been working on the theory for the last 20 years.

    Any other explanation for this is welcome:

    PESwiki energy phenomenon intro:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO0G-gUfxGk

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2czE_HNWl3Q
    The Joe cell

    For the latest news on Superrelativity:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Superrelativity

    Have Fun,
    Heebiejeebies


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Ask a Scientist 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    From Ask a Scientist

    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/phy99104.htm

    RE-EDIT
    the only ether everybody knows about is still the angular/momentum workaround as proposed by

    http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/.

    and the Odomann wave atom model

    http://www.odomann.com

    There has been little to no science communication done about Super Relativity as to this date.

    However, there's this now:

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Superrelativity


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Ask a Scientist 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    From Ask a Scientist

    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/phy99104.htm

    Question: Did the theory of relativity require dropping the concept
    of Aether, or was Aether simply dismissed as irrelevant because
    relativity principles do not need an Aether to work? I ask the
    question because it appears to me that some authors are
    attempting to re-introduce some kind of Aether concept to
    explain Quantum "non-local" effects. Is this consistent or
    compatible with either special or general relativity?
    ------------------------------------------------
    Answer: Well, the "Aether" that may be reintroduced to explain quantum
    non-locality is not at all the same "Aether" as that used
    to explain the propagation of light. The reason the original
    "Aether" was introduced was because of the wave nature of light,
    which suggested it was vibrating in some medium (just as sound
    cannot travel in a vacuum, it was assumed that light could not
    and would require some medium to travel in). That turned out to
    be simply wrong - light does not behave like sound, and the
    vacuum already contains the possibilities of electric and
    magnetic fields required to propagate light. In fact, the vacuum
    of quantum mechanics is very far from empty, since anything
    described by a "field" has constant zero-point fluctuations going
    on everywhere, including in a vacuum. But quantum mechanics
    and general relativity have not been completely reconciled, so
    this "aether-like" nature of the vacuum (even without non-locality)
    is somewhat hard to reconcile with GR. Basically, general
    relativity is not that important on the length-scales and energy-scales
    of interest, and so can be and is being ignored in this kind
    of theory-making. So, no, the original ether was not compatible
    with relativity, and nor is the new ether, and nor is quantum
    mechanics as normally developed...
    Arthur Smith
    the new ether reffered to is still the angular/momentum workaround as proposed by http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/.

    There has been little to no science communication done about Super Relativity as to this date.
    What do you think space is made of?

    It is made of light gases. This was never disputed.

    Where have you seen light without a medium?

    Your eye is a medium. It converts electrical impulses to nerve stimulation that we perceive as light.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: The vacuum, longitudinal waves and magnecules 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    Super Einstein & Tesla
    Superrelativity as the answer?

    For those who aren't familiar with M. Fiorentino's all reconciling theory, please visit http://physcom.awardspace.com

    He's been a IBM-software engineer and an awarded trouble-shooter. He's been working on the theory for the last 20 years.

    Any other explanation for this is welcome:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2czE_HNWl3Q
    The Joe cell

    Have Fun,
    Heebiejeebies

    Listen.to/Einstein
    They make natural gas from water and carbon dioxide, or at least they used to. Now if you can make natural gas, you can then crack that as they call it and make gasoline.

    Natural gas in cars seems dangerous to me.

    But why not just use electrical perpetual motion, with a weak physical link, to shut it down in case of failure? We have all the electricity I can imagine. I was taught matter was electricity.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Ask a Scientist 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Where have you seen light without a medium?
    The idea that light needs a medium to advance was already ruled out by Michelson's experiment in 1887. Michelson was awarded the Nobel prize in 1907.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

    Light is just modified by a medium.

    By the way. Space is not continuously filled with matter. The typical value is less than one particle per cubic centimetre. There is lots of empty space between them that photons would have to cross in order use them as a medium. How do they get there, if they need a medium?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Ask a Scientist 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Where have you seen light without a medium?
    The idea that light needs a medium to advance was already ruled out by Michelson's experiment in 1887. Michelson was awarded the Nobel prize in 1907.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

    Light is just modified by a medium.

    By the way. Space is not continuously filled with matter. The typical value is less than one particle per cubic centimetre. There is lots of empty space between them that photons would have to cross in order use them as a medium. How do they get there, if they need a medium?
    The ether rays cannot travel without a medium. Neither can radio, or anything else.

    I know it may not be easy if you were not raised like me. However if you look at that experiment in the link you provided, it is obvious that there is air in the partial vacuum they created. That is not science. That is not even a good grade school experiment. It is certainly not applying the scientific method.

    These guys were quacks fighting what Benjamin Franklin kicked off. Benjamin Franklin kicked English physics where the medium of light rarely carries light.

    In deep space the samples came back and showed atoms of hydrogen.

    So this is just a case of either a quack scientist, or a very poor writer.
    Our science has only a few links to the real Universal Scientist left. After that Bozakian particle science will prevail.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Ask a Scientist 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    The ether rays cannot travel without a medium. Neither can radio, or anything else.

    In deep space the samples came back and showed atoms of hydrogen.
    Were the atoms of hydrogen separated by empty space? If so, how does electromagnetic radiation travel between them?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Ask a Scientist 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    The ether rays cannot travel without a medium. Neither can radio, or anything else.

    In deep space the samples came back and showed atoms of hydrogen.
    Were the atoms of hydrogen separated by empty space? If so, how does electromagnetic radiation travel between them?
    Tungsten is 90 percent space. Air might be 95 percent space. Deep space might be 98 percent space. But that is still a lot of matter. I am of the understanding that the air in space, although a bit more scattered is not really that expanded. Because of the high speed radiation whistling past it.

    Each electron of ambient radiation passes each atom in a slightly arced pattern and actually accelerates, as it moves through the very light gas. In a very large spiral pattern. Up close a short distance of its path would look totally straight. Further back a very large, diameter spiral path could be observed.

    This was the good teaching they did not want you to know.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Ask a Scientist 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    Tungsten is 90 percent space. Air might be 95 percent space. Deep space might be 98 percent space. But that is still a lot of matter. I am of the understanding that the air in space, although a bit more scattered is not really that expanded. Because of the high speed radiation whistling past it.

    Each electron of ambient radiation passes each atom in a slightly arced pattern and actually accelerates, as it moves through the very light gas. In a very large spiral pattern. Up close a short distance of its path would look totally straight. Further back a very large, diameter spiral path could be observed.

    This was the good teaching they did not want you to know.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    A simple, "I dunno" would have been honest, at the very least. But, as we all know, Billy, when it comes to intellectual honesty, you try to do the very least.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Ask a Scientist 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    A simple, "I dunno" would have been honest, at the very least. But, as we all know, Billy, when it comes to intellectual honesty, you try to do the very least.
    What is honest to you? You cannot even agree upon your own information. You claim that after all this time the basics are still unknown. Heck they come up with a new particle just about every month.

    Now particles collide, with one another in your honest world. They change into other particles in your world. They have mass, they also don't have mass. They spin, they leap. They alter time in your world. Whatever it takes to make me dishonest it appears.

    This comedy video makes more sense then your science.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/WMV/Quantas/Quantas.html

    And it is fun.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Ask a Scientist 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    The ether rays cannot travel without a medium. Neither can radio, or anything else.
    Have you at all understood, what this experiment tells us? If there was a medium that light needs for travelling, we would notice a Doppler shift between two orthogonal directions of the travelling light. This is either because the ether itself has its own velocity or the earth is travelling with a velocity relative to this ether. And the direction changes completely during a whole year. There was no indication for such a thing.

    Have you heard about the optical interferometer telescope at the VLT in Chile? They use the same principle to produce interference. If light needed ether, this telescope would have to be retuned all the time because of the wavelength shift.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Ask a Scientist 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    What is honest to you? You cannot even agree upon your own information. You claim that after all this time the basics are still unknown. Heck they come up with a new particle just about every month.
    Ah Billy, you're so deranged, you can't remember what people say from one post to the next. Heck, you come up with a new fantasy just about every post.

    Now particles collide, with one another in your honest world. They change into other particles in your world. They have mass, they also don't have mass. They spin, they leap. They alter time in your world. Whatever it takes to make me dishonest it appears.
    Your intellectual dishonesty does not preclude nature.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Ask a Scientist 
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    What do you think space is made of?

    It is made of light gases. This was never disputed.

    Where have you seen light without a medium?

    Your eye is a medium. It converts electrical impulses to nerve stimulation that we perceive as light.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Once again William, light is not an electrical impulse before it hits your eyes, your eyes convert the photons into electro-chemical signals our brain can interpret! In the human eye, photons enter the pupil and are focused on the retina by the lens. Light-sensitive nerve cells called rods (for brightness) and cones (for color) react to the photons. The rods and cones interact with each other and send electrical signals to the brain that indicate brightness, color, and contour.

    Darkness is not a state of light, it is the absence of light. Just as cold is not a state of heat, it is the absence of heat.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Have you at all understood, what this experiment tells us? If there was a medium that light needs for travelling, we would notice a Doppler shift between two orthogonal directions of the travelling light. This is either because the ether itself has its own velocity or the earth is travelling with a velocity relative to this ether. And the direction changes completely during a whole year. There was no indication for such a thing.

    Have you heard about the optical interferometer telescope at the VLT in Chile? They use the same principle to produce interference. If light needed ether, this telescope would have to be retuned all the time because of the wavelength shift.
    As i see it both William, Dishmaster and SuperNatendo bring up some different issues. One of them is the status of light or photons, the other one being the many kinks in the standard model. I do follow SuperNatendo's view on the matter of light. This however does not recuse the standard model of it's faults. I must advise everybody to go check http://physcom.awardspace.com/ for a superrelativistic view on photons, and why they sometimes do and sometimes don't appear to have mass.

    There cannot be moving gaseous aether;
    On the Michelson-Morley experiment. Whatever the faults with the design of the experiment I do believe the ideas have been repeated in other experiments and the results do conflict with any moving aether

    On the solidity of an electromechanistical dimension:
    http://www.physforum.com/index.php?s...c=2275&st=1035

    William I do believe you're messing up the notion of a vacuum, this is where there are no atoms and even radiation may be shielded of. Everything that is left over makes up "super relativity", i.e dark matter, dark energy, "longitudinal waves" as in
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_040712.html
    You should really check the websites for answers because this goes beyond relativity, hence super relativity

    Greetings,
    HeebieJeebies
    http://Listen.to/Einstein

    What is a Photon?
    http://searchwarp.com/swa95331.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Have you at all understood, what this experiment tells us? If there was a medium that light needs for travelling, we would notice a Doppler shift between two orthogonal directions of the travelling light. This is either because the ether itself has its own velocity or the earth is travelling with a velocity relative to this ether. And the direction changes completely during a whole year. There was no indication for such a thing.

    Have you heard about the optical interferometer telescope at the VLT in Chile? They use the same principle to produce interference. If light needed ether, this telescope would have to be retuned all the time because of the wavelength shift.
    As i see it both William, Dishmaster and SuperNatendo bring up some different issues. One of them is the status of light or photons, the other one being the many kinks in the standard model. I do follow SuperNatendo's view on the matter of light. This however does not recuse the standard model of it's faults. I must advise everybody to go check http://physcom.awardspace.com/ for a superrelativistic view on photons, and why they sometimes do and sometimes don't appear to have mass.

    There cannot be moving gaseous aether;
    On the Michelson-Morley experiment. Whatever the faults with the design of the experiment I do believe the ideas have been repeated in other experiments and the results do conflict with any moving aether

    On the solidity of an electromechanistical dimension:
    http://www.physforum.com/index.php?s...c=2275&st=1035

    William I do believe you're messing up the notion of a vacuum, this is where there are no atoms and even radiation may be shielded of. Everything that is left over makes up "super relativity", i.e dark matter, dark energy, "longitudinal waves" as in
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_040712.html
    You should really check the websites for answers because this goes beyond relativity, hence super relativity

    Greetings,
    HeebieJeebies
    http://Listen.to/Einstein

    What is a Photon?
    http://searchwarp.com/swa95331.htm
    What is gaseous ether? Not the anesthetic ether. Ha-ha.

    Either is ambient radiation pure electrons. Ambient radiation moves through all matter. Air, liquids, and solids. Even plasma rays are abundant with ambient radiation racing through the plasma ray.

    Ambient radiation is not much effected by other ambient radiation. It is effected by slowed ambient radiation. Ambient radiation is slowed by diodes. Created by matter.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    There cannot be moving gaseous aether;
    On the Michelson-Morley experiment. Whatever the faults with the design of the experiment I do believe the ideas have been repeated in other experiments and the results do [b]conflict with any moving aether

    William I do believe you're messing up the notion of a vacuum, this is where there are no atoms and even radiation may be shielded of. Everything that is left over makes up "super relativity", i.e dark matter, dark energy, "longitudinal waves" as in
    There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. You cannot even get close. So there is no test, there is no proof of it. It is just an unneeded theory. There is nothing left to explain. Except how people become such poor scientists.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Give me a V 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. You cannot even get close. So there is no test, there is no proof of it. It is just an unneeded theory. There is nothing left to explain. Except how people become such poor scientists.

    In the theoretical sense, something can be construed that should ressemble a perfect vaccuum. But as you say , no such thing can be construed in reality, it is not physically and not metaphysically possible. In the end this can be boiled down to Mr. Fiorentino's comments on space and nothingness, his most famous quote being: "You cannot put something into nothing" And this does have some farfetching implications.



    What is gaseous ether? Not the anesthetic ether. Ha-ha.
    Either is ambient radiation pure electrons. Ambient radiation moves through all matter. Air, liquids, and solids. Even plasma rays are abundant with ambient radiation racing through the plasma ray.
    Once again, your ambient radiation does not move, see the light effects we talked about, above.
    There is some truth to your claims, but we have to be very prudent in describing the mechanistical universe, explaining every subtility and nuance!



    What do you think space is made of?

    It is made of light gases. This was never disputed.
    In any case I'm disputing it now. Based on Lorentz and Maxwell & Einstein & Fiorentino it's a solid not moving electromechanistical dimension



    Greetings,
    Heebiejeebies



    PS
    You can check for a little description of super relativity at PESwiki:
    http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Super_Relativity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Give me a V 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    Once again, your ambient radiation does not move, see the light effects we talked about, above.
    There is some truth to your claims, but we have to be very prudent in describing the mechanistical universe, explaining every subtility and nuance!



    What do you think space is made of?

    It is made of light gases. This was never disputed.
    In any case I'm disputing it now. Based on Lorentz and Maxwell & Einstein & Fiorentino it's a solid not moving electromechanistical dimension



    Greetings,
    Heebiejeebies



    PS
    You can check for a little description of super relativity at PESwiki:
    http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Super_Relativity
    Your ambient radiation and ether may not be moving.

    But the handful of real scientists years ago, their ether/ambient radiation, is moving, faster then we can detect.
    Until we slow it down. Then we see how much and how fast it goes. And we realize the potential pressure an electron can inflict since it cannot be destroyed or touched by another electron.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: Give me a V 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Your ambient radiation and ether may not be moving.
    It does not matter. The earth moves, and into a different direction every second, because it revolves around the sun. So its relative velocity to any kind of non-moving ether or whatever else changes all the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Give me a V 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Your ambient radiation and ether may not be moving.
    It does not matter. The earth moves, and into a different direction every second, because it revolves around the sun. So its relative velocity to any kind of non-moving ether or whatever else changes all the time.
    I am saying that the ether/ambient radiation, is in fact moving faster then light. Much faster. Infinitely faster then light.

    Ambient radiation/free electrons, are traveling at unknown speeds. Incredible velocities. Across the entire universe in the blink of eye.

    This work was all done and waiting for real scientists to use. None seem to have come along.

    I was saying the current very, very poor scientists of today, did not even bother to look at what we had, before they went off with the hype makers. And "Super particle accelerators".

    The current scientists assumed that no group of multiple sub-atomic particle theorists, that large could exist as the ruling body in science and still be so dumb. That was their first mistake.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: Give me a V 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    This work was all done and waiting for real scientists to use. None seem to have come along.

    I was saying the current very, very poor scientists of today, did not even bother to look at what we had, before they went off with the hype makers. And "Super particle accelerators".

    The current scientists assumed that no group of multiple sub-atomic particle theorists, that large could exist as the ruling body in science and still be so dumb. That was their first mistake.
    Have you tried to publish it in a scientific journal? Has it been published at all anywhere? Was it critically reviewed by others?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: Give me a V 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    This work was all done and waiting for real scientists to use. None seem to have come along.

    I was saying the current very, very poor scientists of today, did not even bother to look at what we had, before they went off with the hype makers. And "Super particle accelerators".

    The current scientists assumed that no group of multiple sub-atomic particle theorists, that large could exist as the ruling body in science and still be so dumb. That was their first mistake.
    Have you tried to publish it in a scientific journal? Has it been published at all anywhere? Was it critically reviewed by others?
    The result of the study of why real science the all electron universe, was not taking off like wild fire if indeed it was accurate and demonstrable.
    Turned out to show that most citizens were over taxed, had no time to investigate the field of science. They were exhausted at the end of the day. And it was sad, because these individuals can put the real life accidents and phenomena they lived through, into a relation of the all electron universe.

    At the time as well, the government was still holding, to keeping the reality quite. Away from all. Just those that needed to know, should know. It is written in stone that, this was the plan after World War Two. To use counterintelligence on Americans. What ever there reason it has proven to have been a poor plan.

    It goes against our greatest American George Washington, who stated. "Nothing deserves you utter most patronage more then the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is, in every country the surest basis of public happiness".

    Your question about publishing this way of understanding the all electron Universe. It is not mine. It belongs to others many others. That spent their whole lives developing it. There are actually a lot of individuals like me. But they come under heavy pressure, from people around them, if they start raising hell, like I often do. None of them would put their name on it in good faith. It belongs to all that helped.

    Even you guys by holding to what you were taught even if it was wrong, have helped the reality because, you highlight the obvious conflicts in multi-sub-atomic particle science. I do uphold all those that do things for principle. I have been wrong many times, but my principle, my purpose for being right and wrong, is what keeps me going.

    I learned the all electron universe from three different sources that were all very successful in applying it to real things, in my day. No one has ever duplicated what they did. Much less what they wanted to do.

    There are scraps of what took place around here and there. But to be honest colleges, libraries are purging their shelves of such material. Sometimes I get to them before they hit the scrap heap.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    William, just answer Dishmaster’s question, will you? Have you had your unorthodox ideas about science published anywhere, ever? “Yes” or “no” will do! :x

    Because I’m curious to know the answer as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Thanks for backing me, Jane. I was already thinking I am missing something there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    No problem. I’ve long given up posting to William McCormick. But in this case, I’m dying to know if he’s ever managed to publish anything – and if so, who in the world has actually considered his ideas fit for publication.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    William, just answer Dishmaster’s question, will you? Have you had your unorthodox ideas about science published anywhere, ever? “Yes” or “no” will do! :x

    Because I’m curious to know the answer as well.
    How could I? It is not mine. It belongs to thousands who understand and contributed to it.

    I thought I was very clear about it.

    I guess I could write a history book about science. Science was completed a long time ago. They have been destroying it and hiding it for the last ninety years. But forty years ago they really whacked it hard.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Ok, William, then can you provide any references to the published works of these "real scientists"? Stop dodging the question!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Ok, William, then can you provide any references to the published works of these "real scientists"? Stop dodging the question!
    I am not dodging the question. We in my part were not very big on who did it. Even if it was our area.
    I admit when others, thought that someone else was the expert, and in fact they were not the expert. That our area had no recourse. Or way to prove that we had done that. It often comes out later on. Fifty years later. Because the big money is holding it hostage.

    Roy Grumman and another company built the Rigel Ramjet rocket in the fifties. And that project was considered a dud before it was built. Not because it wouldn't or didn't work, it probably worked too well.

    It was a dud because we had even better technology already back then. That was the only problem with the lunar module we did not need a giant flaming rocket to carry it. Or an all oxygen atmosphere that the astronauts got burned up in. Roy had been sending his lunar rock collector to the moon for years. He would launch in the morning and touchdown on the moon before lunch. In the fifties.

    While the rest of the world was arguing for neutrons. I thought a lethal chamber would be a happy Godly place for them. They believed that if we could get these new particles understood it would clear up their misunderstanding of science. That is how it was sold to them. In their defence.

    Greats? Roy Grumman was great. Some of the Guys at Republic Aircraft were great. There were great guys all over the island.

    Only this island seemed interested in science. Everyone else just wanted to act like they were interested in science.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Ok, William, then can you provide any references to the published works of these "real scientists"? Stop dodging the question!
    I am not dodging the question. We in my part were not very big on who did it. Even if it was our area.
    It is not so much about the who, but the how.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Roy Grumman and another company built the Rigel Ramjet rocket in the fifties. And that project was considered a dud before it was built. Not because it wouldn't or didn't work, it probably worked too well. ... Roy had been sending his lunar rock collector to the moon for years. He would launch in the morning and touchdown on the moon before lunch. In the fifties.
    Do you understand, what a ramjet is? It needs an oxygen environment. Otherwise, it is basically the same like any other rocket engine; only that space rockets need to bring their own oxygen into space. Therefore, such a nuke rocket like Rigel would have never got into space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Ok, William, then can you provide any references to the published works of these "real scientists"? Stop dodging the question!
    I am not dodging the question. We in my part were not very big on who did it. Even if it was our area.
    It is not so much about the who, but the how.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Roy Grumman and another company built the Rigel Ramjet rocket in the fifties. And that project was considered a dud before it was built. Not because it wouldn't or didn't work, it probably worked too well. ... Roy had been sending his lunar rock collector to the moon for years. He would launch in the morning and touchdown on the moon before lunch. In the fifties.
    Do you understand, what a ramjet is? It needs an oxygen environment. Otherwise, it is basically the same like any other rocket engine; only that space rockets need to bring their own oxygen into space. Therefore, such a nuke rocket like Rigel would have never got into space.
    I do understand that the rocket needs an atmosphere. However they were just hailing ramjets like some secret top secret design just recently.

    I thought it was kind of funny because they were kind of old hat in the fifties. We had much better stuff from the World War Two error.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31 Proof 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Your ambient radiation and ether may not be moving.
    It does not matter. The earth moves, and into a different direction every second, because it revolves around the sun. So its relative velocity to any kind of non-moving ether or whatever else changes all the time.
    Everybody has to watch out what they are saying.
    William Mccormick, you especially, because as a metatheorist I do believe you're mixing classical and quantum mechanics and everything together up. Also, William please update your references ; try to talk about the Joe Cell, an easy-to-build self-sustaining mobile bubbler, using diamagnetism and a lot of Mr. Fiorentino's toroidal curvature to space-time.


    Which brings me to your question, Dishmaster.
    You have to envision this curvature to space-time, to be a part of every little particle, every fermion and boson. This is ofcourse, it's own dimension with it's own laws.
    Thus, because it is scalar, it moves along with the earth in every direction. It's even a part of you :wink:
    (hence them damn immediate allergies)

    You may remember this dusty thing;
    "think relative to the frame you are in"

    This is not just another theory, it is, as described, the holy grail of physics.

    How many string theories there may be, variants therof, and the crazy variants William Mccormick clings to, there can still only be one accurate theory of reality.

    so, for the most revolutionary thing to happen in physics, please visit

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Superrelativity

    Physcom


    Greetings,

    HeebieJeebies

    PS
    I exspect you especially, Mr. Mccormick to check the theory and try to understand it. It might be even worth your while.


    As for the rest of you guys, try to read letter 2 at
    Physcom as it reveals how
    this 'Super Relativity' can already be proven today

    ----
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Major Spoiler 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Please read the postulates and the entire, fitting, theory of Mr. Fiorentino, first,
    before continuing,
    at http://www.superrelativity.org/html/sitemap.html

    It unites the 'scalar field', and all the forces, including gravity, with Einstein's Relativity.

    To clear up any misunderstandings I have an attempt at a little appendix for afterwards.


    ---SPOILER---


















    This is an attempt to clarify the new 'EM medium'

    Fields, waves and particles. And dimensions.

    (in Super Relativity (5D))


    A field is a situation where a particle would exhibit signs of an external force
    (Classical Electromechanics)

    A wave is a deformation that propagates through a medium.
    (Electromagnetic radiation also travels through a medium, with the help of photons)

    A particle is only a flat wave.
    (a particle is also a wave, but only a flat wave)
    (QM)

    A particle is only a scalar field.
    (a particle is also a field, but only a scalar field.)
    (from QM,mathmatics : \psi(\vec{r}) )

    (In the other 3 dimensions a particle is not a field; this may be the reason why 4D scalar doesn't work)

    This same scalar field exists in a vacuum.
    (time passes in a vacuum, but there is some 'dark' energy in a vacuum, too)

    This is the only (1) real scalar field, i.e. the fifth dimension. (the EM medium)
    ( 4th dimension= time ; 5th dimension=energy )

    This dimension is solid, not moving and twisted
    (Toroidal curvature)

    Electromagnetic radiation is photonic movement that propagates through the EM medium
    (the explanation why a photon has wave-particle duality)

    From VTK forum
    http://vtk.ugent.be/forums/viewtopic...=623062#623062

    Greetings,
    Heebiejeebies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    If you don't mind, HeebieJeebies, could you take a look at my little mind experiment on the THIS page? I have not gone to your site yet (I will when I have more time), but on the surface it appears that my mind experiment might have some similarities with Super Realtivity?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Thank you Kalster.

    Is it not remarkable
    that physicists around the world come to the same conclusions when thinking about a vacuum (and then some)

    You are ofcourse mostly right, however I do not have the time to check for any inconsistencies in your speed of light metaphore now.

    But you are right that Super Relativity will answer any question you may have about the vacuum, and it does as a matter of fact have something to do with the speed of light.

    Greetings,

    Heebiejeebies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 Re: Major Spoiler 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies

    This is the only (1) real scalar field, i.e. the fifth dimension. (the EM medium)
    ( 4th dimension= time ; 5th dimension=energy )

    Greetings,
    Heebiejeebies
    Anything more then the third dimension and you do not bother having to read it. You guys are in a Twighlight Zone rerun.

    "Another Dimension Of space and time. " Ha-ha.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    If you don't mind, HeebieJeebies, could you take a look at my little mind experiment on the THIS page? I have not gone to your site yet (I will when I have more time), but on the surface it appears that my mind experiment might have some similarities with Super Realtivity?
    That ridiculous idea made 425 chaotic requisition think that time travel is possible. You are not a nice man.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37 Re: Proof 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Your ambient radiation and ether may not be moving.
    It does not matter. The earth moves, and into a different direction every second, because it revolves around the sun. So its relative velocity to any kind of non-moving ether or whatever else changes all the time.
    Everybody has to watch out what they are saying.
    William Mccormick, you especially, because as a metatheorist I do believe you're mixing classical and quantum mechanics and everything together up. Also, William please update your references ; try to talk about the Joe Cell, an easy-to-build self-sustaining mobile bubbler, using diamagnetism and a lot of Mr. Fiorentino's toroidal curvature to space-time.


    Which brings me to your question, Dishmaster.
    You have to envision this curvature to space-time, to be a part of every little particle, every fermion and boson. This is ofcourse, it's own dimension with it's own laws.
    Thus, because it is scalar, it moves along with the earth in every direction. It's even a part of you :wink:
    (hence them damn immediate allergies)

    You may remember this dusty thing;
    "think relative to the frame you are in"

    This is not just another theory, it is, as described, the holy grail of physics.

    How many string theories there may be, variants therof, and the crazy variants William Mccormick clings to, there can still only be one accurate theory of reality.

    so, for the most revolutionary thing to happen in physics, please visit

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Superrelativity

    Physcom


    Greetings,

    HeebieJeebies

    PS
    I exspect you especially, Mr. Mccormick to check the theory and try to understand it. It might be even worth your while.


    As for the rest of you guys, try to read letter 2 at
    Physcom as it reveals how
    this 'Super Relativity' can already be proven today

    ----
    You guys need courage not another theory. Each theory takes you further into the realm of the Outer Limits, the TV show, not high tech science.

    When someone can explain attraction, I will look at particles other then electrons.
    You will end up with two neutron professors hugging each other in a classroom, trying to demonstrate it. Because there is no such thing as attraction. In this universe. Never was never will be.

    And you wish me to watch what I say? You have nerve. You cannot even begin to explain the false basis of your false science. But I better watch what I say? If that is the new scientific revolution you can keep it.

    No professor has ever debated the all electron universe. They just side step it. Because they are not scientists.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38 Re: Proof 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    No professor has ever debated the all electron universe. They just side step it. Because they are not scientists.
    Or maybe it's because they never heard of it. Maybe because the electron scientists don't really exist. They are your imaginary friends.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    William, and yet you have also never cited ANY references? Anyway, chaotic developed his time travel ideas all on his own. Check the fractal thread for my thoughts on attraction and some physics books on the current model. Just because you can't understand it does not make it wrong my friend.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40 An answer to Billy 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    An answer to Billy



    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Mccormick
    When someone can explain attraction, I will look at particles other then electrons.

    Yes the coulomb force is explained. As I said this is the big one.
    You have to envision toroidal curvature to an electromechanistical medium, which is a part of everything. (hence the fifth dimension) where density and tension in the curvature are a constitution of all the forces. (http://www.superrelativity.org/html/sitemap.html)





    Quote Originally Posted by Heebiejeebies
    Which brings me to your question, Dishmaster.
    You have to envision this curvature to space-time, to be a part of every little particle, every fermion and boson. This is ofcourse, it's own dimension with it's own law.
    Thus, because it is scalar, it moves along with the earth in every direction. It's even a part of you
    (hence them damn immediate allergies)
    When your electrons can explain immediate allergies I'll listen to you. Untill then, everybody watch out, hay fever season is coming
    :-D



    Quote Originally Posted by William
    Anything more then the third dimension and you do not bother having to read it. You guys are in a Twighlight Zone rerun.

    "Another Dimension Of space and time. " Ha-ha.
    You guys need courage not another theory. Each theory takes you further into the realm of the Outer Limits, the TV show, not high tech science.


    William, please do not reply to this thread anymore. It is clear to me, as it is to everyone else you might not at all be in pursuit of real science. This is not a forum to discuss 'crazy'.
    Every claim has to be supported by references to either inrefutable logical, mathmatical, experimental, physical or metaphysical work.

    This is a forum to discuss 'science'. If you are not capable of reading material before you reply to a thread it might not be prudent for you to answer at all.




    As for everyone else out there, the correct number of dimensions for all forces is 5. As we didn't have a unified field theory ever before, it might actually be really logical that you have the 4 dimensions, including one (1) for time, and including one (1) for energy, as the basis for all matters pertaining to energy.


    Greetings,

    Heebiejeebies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    William, and yet you have also never cited ANY references? Anyway, chaotic developed his time travel ideas all on his own. Check the fractal thread for my thoughts on attraction and some physics books on the current model. Just because you can't understand it does not make it wrong my friend.
    That’s William’s problem basically. He is always blaming the whole world for his intellectual shortcomings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    That’s William’s problem basically. He is always blaming the whole world for his intellectual shortcomings.
    stupid people are too stupid to realize how stupid they really are.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    William is not as stupid as everybody thinks. He is just mis-informed from the beginning and intellectually lazy till the end.
    Unfortunately, he took all the shortcomings in all the theories and prematurely escalated it into one thing: the electron.

    talk about premature escalation

    Greetings,
    Heebiejeebies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Lets for the moment say that space itself is infinite and all matter was created in a small area as a result of spontaneous vacuum polarization. Also assume that all matter are nothing more than folded up space and the spontaneous annihilation of matter according to their respective half lives are in fact the folded space unfolding in an instant, sending the most basic ripples possible (photons) in all directions, according to the as yet unknown propagating attributes (viscosity variables) of space.
    Your assumptions about viscosity variables are correct, but it has a contradiction where it describes the vacuum. In my humble opinion, 'nothing' can not be polarized

    Super Relativity does not allow for any vacuum to exist, because the whole universe is connected through the solid EM medium (5D)

    Your unknown propagating attributes are the density and tension of the EM medium.

    Your ripple is a collapse in solid 5D space.

    For how matter relates to energy in advanced relativity go here:
    http://www.superrelativity.org/html/...NF_Scroll.html

    Have Fun,

    HeebieJeebies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45 Re: Proof 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    No professor has ever debated the all electron universe. They just side step it. Because they are not scientists.
    Or maybe it's because they never heard of it. Maybe because the electron scientists don't really exist. They are your imaginary friends.

    You have never debated it. Surely you have not forgotten all the times I have written about it.

    I am saying that this is how they pulled off the really great things years ago. With an all electron universe understanding.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    William, and yet you have also never cited ANY references? Anyway, chaotic developed his time travel ideas all on his own. Check the fractal thread for my thoughts on attraction and some physics books on the current model. Just because you can't understand it does not make it wrong my friend.
    That’s William’s problem basically. He is always blaming the whole world for his intellectual shortcomings.
    Not understanding time travel is not an intellectual short coming. It is a gift from God, to see false science.

    It would be like sticking a flat world down someone's throat when they know the world is round.

    Time is the eternal passing of a place, with everyone in a certain unique position.
    Where you were at that certain unique place and positioning, you find later remembering it, looking back, you realize you could have done more good and less evil. Ha-ha.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    William, and yet you have also never cited ANY references? Anyway, chaotic developed his time travel ideas all on his own. Check the fractal thread for my thoughts on attraction and some physics books on the current model. Just because you can't understand it does not make it wrong my friend.
    If I said two apples and two apples equal four apples.

    And you say, "but I had hopes that, it would be a million apples and I could make a big pile and touch the moon".

    What references would I need? What kind of help would you need?

    That is what multi particle science looks like to me.
    No one can demonstrate or even slightly explain attraction. Not even close. It sounds like three year old's asking if it could be.

    Not like men saying it is repulsion, of electrons and demonstrating it with a million things around you.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Mccormick
    No one can demonstrate or even slightly explain attraction. Not even close. It sounds like three year old's asking if it could be.
    This one is easy, people, just copy-pasting posts till he finally gets it

    An answer to Billy


    When someone can explain attraction, I will look at particles other then electrons.


    Yes the coulomb force is explained. Rather clearly!
    As I said this is the big one.
    You have to envision toroidal curvature to an electromechanistical medium, which is a part of everything. (hence the fifth dimension) where density and tension in the curvature are a constitution of all the forces. (http://www.superrelativity.org/html/sitemap.html)


    Which brings me to your question, Dishmaster.
    You have to envision this curvature to space-time, to be a part of every little particle, every fermion and boson. This is ofcourse, it's own dimension with it's own law.
    Thus, because it is scalar, it moves along with the earth in every direction. It's even a part of you
    (hence them damn immediate allergies)
    When your electrons can explain immediate allergies I'll listen to you. Untill then, everybody watch out, hay fever season is coming



    Quote Originally Posted by the great philosopher Mccormick
    Not understanding (..) is not an intellectual short coming. It is a gift from God, to see false science.
    Well , now you've said that we have to stop understanding things, you can now stop posting alltogether.
    As you say, some science cannot be understood (by you),
    so you can now go finally rest in your electron grave.

    If you are going to practice agnostic science you have to be at the philosophy page I believe. There is no need for you for a science forum , and no need in this science forum for you.

    Could you PLEASE stop posting in this thread, and according to other forum members, perhaps refrain from posting such large quantities of bullocks upon these and other pages.




    So, I repeat what i was saying to KALSTER, before you interrupted me,


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Lets for the moment say that space itself is infinite and all matter was created in a small area as a result of spontaneous vacuum polarization. Also assume that all matter are nothing more than folded up space and the spontaneous annihilation of matter according to their respective half lives are in fact the folded space unfolding in an instant, sending the most basic ripples possible (photons) in all directions, according to the as yet unknown propagating attributes (viscosity variables) of space.

    Your assumptions about viscosity variables are correct, but it has a contradiction where it describes the vacuum. In my humble opinion, 'nothing' can not be polarized

    Super Relativity does not allow for any vacuum to exist, because the whole universe is connected through the solid EM medium (5D)

    Your unknown propagating attributes are the density and tension of the EM medium.

    Your ripple is a collapse in solid 5D space.

    For how matter relates to energy in advanced relativity go here:
    http://www.superrelativity.org/html/...NF_Scroll.html

    Have Fun,

    HeebieJeebies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Some more anti-spam:



    The Philosophy behind Super Relativity


    The original idea for this new theory was inspired by a great deal of research having to do with the study of Albert Einstein and his quest for the Unified Field Theory. Einstein and physicists and philosophers before and after him have spent a great deal of effort trying to explain how the Universe works. Scientists have spent the last 75 years or so trying to tie together all known phenomena to explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy in existence.

    Since physics has made little progress in discovering the Grand Unification Theory an interesting question arises. Why have the best minds of the past and present failed to discover the truth about our Universe.

    Since the time of Isaac Newton who began the era of Classical Mechanics and modern day physics we have all been trying to unlock the secrets of how the Universe works. Many of the greatest intellects of all time have attempted to find a simple explanation for material existence and the central cause of force, action at a distance. The question of why so many great minds could not solve this problem eventually led the author of the theory to come up with a reasonble explanation for our failure to solve this great mystery. It seemed reasonable to assume that perhaps something might be wrong with our approach and that possibly a mistake was made somewhere in the past. The mistake would creat a paradigm shift that would take physics in the wrong direction.

    If this idea is correct the only explanation that makes sense is that somewhere along the way we began to attempt to solve an inequality. In other words we switched onto a track that was a dead end, a red herring so to speak. What if for the past hundred years or so we have been trying to prove something, that is not true. What if we have been trying to prove that a=b and in fact a<>b. If we did not know this fact we could spend centuries trying to prove an incongruity.

    This was the idea that led to the development of the Theory of Super Relativity. Research was begun in an effort to find the error in the past and then correct it. After spending several years of research the error was found. The error that was discovered was subtle and it went completely undetected. The mistake occurred about a hundred years ago. It was, in my mind the most important experiment in history. The Michelson-Morley Experiment and this was the experiment that was to determine whether the ether existed or not. Neither the measurements, nor the technique were in error. That part of the experiment was executed to perfection. The experiment has been repeated many times and confirmed. I do not dispute the measurements. The error actually occurred before the experiment. A faulty assumption was made about the ether. The bad assumption was that the ether was a fluid or gas or in some way the ether could flow or move. The faulty assumption led to a design of experiment that was flawed. The experiment was designed to detect a change in the speed of light caused by light passing through an ether wind. What in fact the experiment proved was that there was no ether wind. There was no wind because it is not a gas or fluid and it did not move in any way to have a frame of reference that would be in motion. That is all that the experiment proved. Unfortunately, it was then assumed that since there was no ether wind, therefore, there was no ether. That is the mistake. The ether is a solid therefore there is no wind or resistance in any direction.

    In the years following the experiment, the notion of field theory as an explanation of the fundamental mediator of force was all but given up on. The Standard Model and particles interactions have risen into power. Quantum Mechanics and its success with helping to identify and predict the existence of new particles has led us into an even deeper commitment to the belief that particle interactions themselves are the reason and explanation of force. Super Relativity says that all force is generated by the fields that particles are made up of and that the interactions that occur between the particles are caused by the fields emanating from the cores of the particles.

    This idea is further bolstered by the fact that the Standard Model cannot be reconciled to the idea of Gravity uniting with the other so called primary forces, the Strong and Weak Nuclear forces and Electromagnetism. This is the error or bad assumption that was spoken about earlier in this section. SR Theory states that Gravity is not physically the same thing as the other so called forces. Gravity, Electrostatic fields, (the Coulomb force) and Magnetism are the true and only forces of nature and they are purely mechanical and require direct contact via space (the ether). The primary forces of nature are not mediated by particles they are mechanical elastic deformations of space. These forces are different types of spatial deformations that manifest themselves as force fields. Since they share the same medium they can be unified.

    No theory would be complete without a way to prove that it is correct or not. In the section called "The Experimental Verification of SR Theory" there are two experiments that can be performed that will prove if this theory is correct.

    The Theory of Super Relativity was created to explain in more detail the concepts explained in this Introduction. The theory of Super Relativity as you can see returns us to a Universal structure that is a compromise between Newtonian Mechanics and Einstein like Relativistic Universe.

    From
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Super_Relativity

    Greetings,
    Heebiejeebies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    To conclude this for a while,
    THIS IS A HEISENBERG INHIBITOR

    speed, place, energy, time; the non-local effects are not present anymore.

    It might even bring some new ideas on the electron :P lmao
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    Yes the coulomb force is explained. Rather clearly!
    As I said this is the big one.
    You have to envision toroidal curvature to an electromechanistical medium, which is a part of everything. (hence the fifth dimension) where density and tension in the curvature are a constitution of all the forces. (http://www.superrelativity.org/html/sitemap.html)

    A coulomb tube is a watt meter. They used it to determine how much energy a laden jar or battery could hold. By measuring/weighing how much silver was deposited or depleted on one of the terminals.
    Or by measuring how much gas was released from a weak solution of sulfuric acid.

    It just measures watts. When you deal with capacitors they often have a curve of charge, or discharge amps, and volts. This device was able to level that off, and calculate both the amps and volts simultaneously. It was a watt meter that could measure variable voltage and current.

    In fact the first perpetual motion recorded is probably this tube. Because if they filled a capacitor through the colomb tube, they not only filled the capacitor they also made hydrogen and oxygen with electrolysis. Ha-ha.

    And then when they discharged the capacitor through the colomb tube they made more gas.

    To calibrate the tube. They would use one volt and one amp, over a certain period of time, and measure the gas or silver depending on the model. From there they could measure anything and tell you how many watts total power went into a capacitor.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    Quote Originally Posted by the great philosopher Mccormick
    Not understanding (..) is not an intellectual short coming. It is a gift from God, to see false science.
    Well , now you've said that we have to stop understanding things, you can now stop posting alltogether.
    As you say, some science cannot be understood (by you),
    so you can now go finally rest in your electron grave.
    You know if you were able to cut and paste what I said. Rather then to alter my words. I might have had reason to read what you say. However you failed to even duplicate what I said. Or were to afraid to have it seen again.

    There is no time travel, and never, even the slightest explanation of it. You guys are helping me out though. Keep it up.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53 The same answer to billy 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by the great philosopher Mccormick
    wrote:
    Not understanding (TIME TRAVEL) is not an intellectual short coming. It is a gift from God, to see false science.

    Well , now you've said that we have to stop understanding things, you can now stop posting alltogether.
    As you say, some science cannot be understood (by you),
    so you can now go finally rest in your electron grave.
    I mean LITTERALLY just because William Mccormick doesn't understand it does not make it un-understandable. As you can see below, Billy doesn't even try to understand. He doesn't even read the things we are saying to him. Then I do wonder what the point is.

    Untill this point, there aren't even any indications that he is able to read.

    On time travel:
    Well there are some problems with Einstein's time theory;
    Schrodinger's cat for instance...

    It can mean there is a place for a process time theory, that does not allow any time travel. This seems congruent with our subjective experience of time itself. If you would read sometimes instead of bitch, you would see "time travel" is considered somewhat false science by the Physcom website, also.
    http://physcom.awardspace.com

    But, the mere notion that you do not investigate theories before bitching about them means, Billy, you do not have the right to meddle in these affairs


    Quote Originally Posted by Billy
    You know if you were able to cut and paste what I said. Rather then to alter my words. I might have had reason to read what you say. However you failed to even duplicate what I said. Or were to afraid to have it seen again.
    Is this quoted to satisfaction? I did not know your quotes were the most important thing on this forum (the irony)


    So here we go again with the easy part, explaining attraction to Billy:

    An answer to Billy


    When someone can explain attraction, I will look at particles other then electrons.

    Yes the coulomb force is explained. Rather clearly!
    As I said this is the big one.
    You have to envision toroidal curvature to an electromechanistical medium, which is a part of everything. (hence the fifth dimension) where density and tension in the curvature are a constitution of all the forces. (http://www.superrelativity.org/html/sitemap.html)

    Which brings me to your question, Dishmaster.
    You have to envision this curvature to space-time, to be a part of every little particle, every fermion and boson. This is ofcourse, it's own dimension with it's own law.
    Thus, because it is scalar, it moves along with the earth in every direction. It's even a part of you
    (hence them damn immediate allergies)

    When your electrons can explain immediate allergies I'll listen to you. Untill then, everybody watch out, hay fever season is coming

    In short:

    Electrons, according to Heisenberg, have some special properties, when defining them.

    Super Relativity is a heisenberg inhibitor

    Energy has it's own dimension (5D)

    Even Mccormick can't understand his electrons fully, without understanding the energy dimension to it.




    Mr. Mccormick, please stop posting in my thread. If you have nothing to say about either SR, the vacuum, longitudinal waves (if you know what they are) or magnecules (same here), then please just shut up.


    In any case I will be copypasting the reactions and explanations to your convolutions after each of your post, ad infinitum, or in the end I will have to ignore you, Billy, alltogether. Whichever comes first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Anybody except for William have some thoughts on THIS matter?

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Superrelativity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    some more news for billy:

    from http://peswiki.com/index.php/Super_R...r_Relativity_2


    Super Relativity

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Composition: Solid

    Particle based: Not particle based

    Ether Motion: Ether does not move

    Fields: Ether is the central cause of all forces.

    Locality: All forces expressed by direct contact via mechanical deformations

    Velocity of Light: Determined by ether density and tension

    Universal Constants: All Constants vary and are determined by ether density and tension

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    SR theory

    One of the most profound arguments according to SR Theory for the existence of the ether is the fact that so many great scientific discoveries and advancements were based on a so called incorrect concept. This defies rational explanation. It is incomprehensible that so much good working theory could be based on a fictional concept. There is no analogous event is science to compare to this.

    SR Theory reintroduces as the central cause for the material Universe and refocuses on a mechanical explanation to explain force (action at a distance). All forces are a result of mechanical actions within the etheric material. All energy and matter exist as spatial configurations within the ether. Failure to detect the ether is due to a misinterpretation of experiments and alternate incorrect explanations that were given to explain physical phenomena.

    In the current paradigm disbelief in the ether was caused by new exciting theories such as Quantum Mechanics and String Theory. In time the older scientists who were engaged in the field of ether theory retired. These scientists were replaced by young scientists that were taught that ether theory was obsolete. In time the concept lost adherents.


    Greetings,

    Heebiejeebies
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •