Quantum AetherDynamics Institute

I read your record of our discussion @

http://www.16pi2.com/quack.htm

It was very complete, & took nothing out of context.

However, a little below the clause

"> where Phi and phi are the Golden ratio and its inverse."

you added the comment,

"[Just so the reader knows: 2/sin(Phi) = 2(1+1/861) ]"

According to my calculator, 1/sin(Phi) = 1 + 1/895.46629...

895 isn't very close to 861.

To be a little more precise,

1/sin(Phi) = 1.00111673661...

whereas g/2 for the electron is 1.00115965219, and for the muon is 1.01165916, so your guess is only good to 4 or 5 digits.

(My "861" was only lowest-order QED, so only good to 6 digits.) QED has long passed your level of accuracy.

So it seems even your numerology doesn't work.

An interesting analog is Arthur Eddington, who proposed an exact value for the fine-structure constant (roughly 1/137, which is 2 pi times the roughly 1/861 above).

Unfortunately, every time the experimental value became more accurate, he had to revise his theory as to what to add to the 137.

Hi Warren,

> I read your record of our discussion @

> http://www.16pi2.com/quack.htm

> It was very complete, & took nothing out of context.

Thank you, I wanted to be fair about it.

> However, a little below the clause

> "> where Phi and phi are the Golden ratio and its inverse."

> you added the comment,

> "[Just so the reader knows: 2/sin(Phi) = 2(1+1/861) ]"

> According to my calculator, 1/sin(Phi) = 1 + 1/895.46629...

> 895 isn't very close to 861.

> To be a little more precise,

> 1/sin(Phi) = 1.00111673661...

> whereas g/2 for the electron is 1.00115965219, and for the muon is

> 1.01165916, so your guess is only good to 4 or 5 digits.

As I tried to point out to you, mine wasn't a guess. It was derived from first principles. Four or five digits is nothing to sneer at for a physical model that proposes to show the origin of the "anomalous" electron magnetic moment. It would seem like a wild guess at first, but then the proton g-factor is close to:

g.p/2 = Phi/sin(phi)

where phi is the reciprocal of Phi.

What are the odds that both the electron and proton g-factors could be expressed in terms of the Golden Ratio to five significant digits for the electron and three for the proton? What are the odds that both g-factors are reflected in a geometrical model of a quantified Aether?

It raises the issue of whether or not the experiments for determining the g-factors are being influenced by the materials of the measurement equipment. And even if the measurements are accurate, it may simply mean there is another very subtle physical effect that affects the Aether geometry. Regardless, the equations and geometrical model I produce deserves closer scrutiny than merely being blown off by someone's personal opinion that it is "numerology."

> (My "861" was only lowest-order QED, so only good to 6

> digits.) QED has long passed your level of accuracy.

> So it seems even your numerology doesn't work.

> An interesting analog is Arthur Eddington, who proposed an exact value

> for the fine-structure constant (roughly 1/137, which is 2 pi times

> the roughly 1/861 above).

> Unfortunately, every time the experimental value became more accurate,

> he had to revise his theory as to what to add to the 137.

Like I said, I proposed a valid, quantified theory that includes simple equations and a geometrical model. Modern physics provides no geometrical model as quantum mechanics are explained in terms of point particles and probability functions. I'm not asking for a Nobel prize, I'm asking for the scientific community to carefully consider my theory and test its validity. If necessary, this means we need to revisit the measurement techniques and see if they aren't affecting the outcome in some way. The difference between my first principles prediction and the presently accepted electron g-factor may seem like a large order of magnitude in numbers, but it is an extremely small measurement quantity. It is small enough that a slight error in measurement techniques, due to an incomplete understanding of quantum structure, may produce misleading results.

Not only do I provide only a slightly different theoretical result, but I also provide the physical model by which the measurement techniques can be re-evaluated.

I'm not interested in your personal opinions, despite you exceedingly important and well-deserved credentials. I'm interested in science. I proposed a quantified, rational, logical theory, so I want a quantified, rational, and logical review. And I will patiently wait until I get it before abandoning the theory.

Dave

On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:09 PM, David Thomson wrote:

> What are the odds that both the electron and proton g-factors could be

> expressed in terms of the Golden Ratio to five significant digits for

> the electron and three for the proton?

> What are the odds that both g-factors are reflected in a geometrical

> model of a quantified Aether?

The point is that 5 digits is nowhere near as good as 9.

So no one will be impressed.

It is like a dog that can walk on his hind legs:

It is amusing, but not as good as a human being.

> It raises the issue of whether or not the experiments for determining

> the g-factors are being influenced by the materials of the measurement

> equipment. And even if the measurements are accurate, it may simply

> mean there is another very subtle physical effect that affects the

> Aether geometry.

The experiments have been verified by many different groups.

And they are in almost perfect agreement with QED.

> I'm not

> asking for a Nobel prize, I'm asking for the scientific community to

> carefully consider my theory and test its validity.

As I said, no one will spend their time when you are still so far behind QED.

QED agrees with experiment, yours doesn't.

Why would anyone want to try to fix your theory when they already have one that works perfectly?

> I'm not interested in your personal opinions, despite you exceedingly

> important and well-deserved credentials. I'm interested in science.

Exactly. And science means agreement with experiment.

That is not an opinion, that's a definition.

> I proposed a quantified, rational,

> logical theory, so I want a quantified, rational, and logical review.

> And I will patiently wait until I get it before abandoning the theory.

A real scientist abandons a theory when it's proven wrong.

He doesn't claim, without evidence, that all the experiments done on a subject in over 20 year are wrong.

Contradicting reality, as defined by experiment, is neither rational nor logical.

If you think demanding agreement with experiment is narrow-minded or irrational or paranoid, then you have no clue as to what science is.

Hi Warren,

> The point is that 5 digits is nowhere near as good as 9.

> So no one will be impressed.

But the SM has no geometrical explanation for the values it touts. How can you be certain the measured value of the electron g-factor is reflecting only the electron g-factor and not also some physical attribute of the measurement equipment, if you don't have a geometrical model of the value you are measuring?

> It is like a dog that can walk on his hind legs:

> It is amusing, but not as good as a human being.

QED is like a physicist who describes the physical world as a set of probabilities. It has usefulness, but obviously it is not the correct quantum structure.

> The experiments have been verified by many different groups.

> And they are in almost perfect agreement with QED.

What is the benefit of a thousand mistakes over one mistake? It only makes the illusion of being correct seem that much more real. I'm not saying QED is necessarily wrong, I'm just saying I can show you a valid paradigm that clearly shows much of what was thought was correct in physics, may be wrong.

The fact that I can produce a viable physics using distributed charge, rather than single dimension charge, and that this physics easily reveals a Unified Force Theory, is very strong evidence that your physics may be based on wrong assumptions. The fact that charge is treated as a point particle in the SM, and a point has zero dimensions whereas the units containing charge are thought to have one dimension of charge, is itself very clear evidence there is something wrong with QED and the rest of modern physics. Single dimension charge is linear, not a point.

Yet, the APM treats all charge as distributed, provides a very lucid quantification of electrostatic charge as opposed to electromagnetic charge, and also provides a geometrical model not only for subatomic particles, but the space-time in which they exist. The APM has a solid basis for quantifying the electron g-factor from first principles, but QED has no basis at all for treating charge as a point particle and notating it as a linear dimension within units.

How can you continue to rant about the "successes" of QED, when the physics method employed by it is an utter failure?

> As I said, no one will spend their time when you are still so far

> behind QED.

> QED agrees with experiment, yours doesn't.

You need to have a sharper understanding of what you are saying. QED doesn't agree with experiment, it agrees with data. Data is derived from an experiment, and then normalized to fit a paradigm. Since you are only willing to entertain just one paradigm, you have no basis at all for eliminating systemic errors. And that is exactly what QED, QCD, SR, GR, and all the other independent and unrelated physics theories are based upon, a series of systemic errors. That is why you need several different systems of physics, whereas my system will allow for just one, completely unified system of physics, which also has a UNIFIED FORCE THEORY. I put that in caps in case you miss it again. You continually keep ignoring the fact that the APM provides important solutions that QED cannot, such as UNIFYING THE FORCES.

> Why would anyone want to try to fix your theory when they already have

> one that works perfectly?

You sound like someone who spends a lot of time in front of a mirror. Modern physics "works perfectly?" Where is your UNIFIED FORCE THEORY? Explain the "anomalous" electron magnetic moment from first principles. Quantify "space-time curvature" as a physical reality. Shall I go on with a long list of imperfections in modern physics?

> A real scientist abandons a theory when it's proven wrong.

Exactly. Prove the Aether Physics Model is wrong. Do something to prove that measuring equipment is not affecting the accuracy of the measurements.

> He doesn't claim, without evidence, that all the experiments done on a

> subject in over 20 year are wrong.

A scientist always questions the prevailing theory, especially when a better, quantifiable theory is proposed. A true scientist does not blow off a new theory simply because it is not the old theory, neither does he or she automatically assume the old theory is 100% correct, especially when the new theory is as rich in detail and predictions as the Aether Physics Model.

Dave

On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:54 PM, David Thomson wrote:

> But the SM has no geometrical explanation for the values it touts.

If you get the wrong answers, nobody cares about the explanation.

> How can you be certain the measured value of the electron g-factor is

> reflecting only the electron g-factor and not also some physical

> attribute of the measurement equipment, if you don't have a

> geometrical model of the value you are measuring?

By using different experimental setups.

This has been done over a period of 60 years, with precise agreement between different experiments, as well as precise agreement with theory, and strong disagreement with your proposal.

> QED is like a physicist who describes the physical world as a set of

> probabilities. It has usefulness, but obviously it is not the correct

> quantum structure.

Useful = correct.

Until you learn that, you will never understand what science is.

> What is the benefit of a thousand mistakes over one mistake?

If you think thousands of different experimental groups have made exactly the same error, you are in serious denial.

A real scientist can admit when he's wrong, and move on.

> How can you continue to rant about the "successes" of QED, when the

> physics method employed by it is an utter failure?

Experimental agreement = success.

Denial of reality = ranting.

You are living in a fantasy world.

>> As I said, no one will spend their time when you are still so far

>> behind QED.

>> QED agrees with experiment, yours doesn't.

>

> You need to have a sharper understanding of what you are saying.

> QED doesn't agree with experiment, it agrees with data.

They are identical.

> Data is

> derived from an experiment, and then normalized to fit a paradigm.

Never. Paradigms are normalized to fit data.

Quacks ignore data.

> Since you are only willing to entertain just one paradigm,

I'm willing to entertain anything that agrees with experiment.

That's why I exclude you.

And it's the ONLY reason.

But you can't accept that.

> And that is exactly what QED, QCD, SR, GR, and all the other

> independent and unrelated physics theories are based upon, a series of

> systemic errors.

So all of physics is wrong, because they ignore you.

Yet refrigerators continue to work, as do global positioning satellites, electronic devices, etc.

> UNIFIED FORCE THEORY. I put that in caps in case you miss it again.

> You continually keep ignoring the fact that the APM provides important

> solutions that QED cannot, such as UNIFYING THE FORCES.

Lots of CAPS: Item 4.

> Explain the "anomalous" electron magnetic moment from first

> principles.

9 decimal places of correctness.

You get only 5.

9 > 5.

Also, nine > FIVE.

Also, 9 > UNIFIED 5.

> Exactly. Prove the Aether Physics Model is wrong.

Wrong @ the 6th decimal place, remember?

> neither does he or she automatically assume the old theory is 100%

> correct,

No, he proves it with experiment.

Many, many experiments.

For 60 years.

> especially when the new theory is as rich in detail and predictions as

> the Aether Physics Model.

Very, very poor: Not a single cross section.

Hi Warren,

> Quacks ignore data.

Quacks ignore science. Science is more than probabilities, and nonsensical theories like wave/particle duality. And who in their right mind really believes forces are mediated by particles? Real science looks at an observable world and produces geometrically correct paradigms that mirror the observations.

You go ahead and continue to ignore the theory I'm proposing, without giving it due consideration. That is just fine by me.

You have heard the old maxim, "Science progresses one death at a time?" Well, I hope you are enjoying the time you have. There are young physics students who are approaching the Aether Physics Model with much more interest than you are.

BTW, here is a comment by a physics student who has read our exchange, "I read the dissection of your theory by Prof Siegel on the “quackery” section of your website, and feel that while in many ways the theory does indeed meet some of Siegel’s standards for “quackery”, these are merely Siegel’s ideas of how science should and shouldn’t be conducted, and his points touched very little on the actual validity of the AP model, but more, rather, on its context. Saying “my theory says this but your theory says that, therefore your theory is wrong” is not really a criticism, but an exercise in intellectual egotism."

Dave

On Jun 29, 2006, at 4:51 PM, David Thomson wrote:

>> Quacks ignore data.

> Quacks ignore science.

Science is data, & its evaluation.

> Science is more than probabilities, and nonsensical theories like

> wave/particle duality.

Yes, but it includes them, & you ignore them.

You ignore 60 years of experimental data.

That is not science, that is religion.

> And who in

> their right mind really believes forces are mediated by particles?

Nobody believes it, they know it.

And every scientist knows it, because experiment confirms it.

You believe it to be false, because your religion, like any religion, is based on belief, not data.

> Real science looks at an observable world and produces geometrically

> correct paradigms that mirror the observations.

"Geometry" doesn't apply to everything.

"Paradigm" is your favorite catchword.

No scientist ever uses it.

I think you must define it in some way not understood to science.

> You go ahead and continue to ignore the theory I'm proposing, without

> giving it due consideration. That is just fine by me.

I considered it, and found it:

(1) Lacks all predictive power, because it has no equations of motion, and therefore can't be applied to scattering, orbits, electric circuits, or anything else of value.

(2) Makes wrong predictions, such as the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron & muon.

(3) Contradicts special relativity, which says there is no such thing as a rigid body.

How much more do I have to consider it? How much more do I have to

find wrong with it? I have not found a single thing right with it.

Do I have to show every single sentence is wrong? How much failure do you need? And whenever I find something wrong with it, instead of dealing with it, & trying to come up with a better theory, you just go into denial. What's the point of anybody reading your theory if you can't accept criticism?

Real physics has weathered much better critics than you, & responded. When real science meets with experimental disagreement, it adapts. It has always done so. But it only responds to facts -- data. Old theories are modified when they disagree with data. New theories are accepted only of they both agree with existing data and predict more.

> You have heard the old maxim, "Science progresses one death at a

> time?" Well, I hope you are enjoying the time you have. There are

> young physics students who are approaching the Aether Physics Model

> with much more interest than you are.

There are some people foolish enough to believe the earth is flat.

Science does not go forward by anecdotes.

The people who invented QED are dead, but QED lives on.

And it will still live after we're both dead.

You disagree with 60 years of data -- that's long enough for plenty of deaths.

And now you will tell me your "ether" religion has also stood the test of time, in spite of the fact that your definition of "ether" is unlike anyone else's, even though you use an archaic spelling to make it look old.

> BTW, here is a comment by a physics student who has read our exchange,

> "I read the dissection of your theory by Prof Siegel on the "quackery"

> section of your website, and feel that while in many ways the theory

> does indeed meet some of Siegel's standards for "quackery", these are

> merely Siegel's ideas of how science should and shouldn't be

> conducted, and his points touched very little on the actual validity

> of the AP model, but more, rather, on its context. Saying "my theory

> says this but your theory says that, therefore your theory is wrong"

> is not really a criticism, but an exercise in intellectual egotism."

Misery loves company.

Saying "your theory gets the wrong answer, off by 10,000,000 standard deviations", is not egotism, it's fact.

But then, you can't do arithmetic either, since you added the note to your web page of our discussion that implies 861 = 895.

And the people who follow your religion obviously never even check your numbers (your only predictions), so what good are those people?

You are not looking for a critical evaluation of your proposal, only for pats on the back. So why bother even talking to scientists, when you know that any one of them who seriously looks at it will only say things that you will ignore? Does it give you satisfaction to lie to people? Are you looking for disapproval so that you can claim to be a prophet?

Maybe if you learned some real physics, & saw how well it applies to everyday life numerically, you would accept it more easily, instead of denying successful theories, & pretending all experiments are wrong. The one most important fact of any theory is that it can be proven wrong. But your "theory" can never be proven wrong, because you declare all physical data to be wrong. And you declare all science that agrees with data to be "nonsense". But your definition of "sense" disagrees with all data, & therefore can only be religion. You are the kind of person who welshes on bets, because you deny that facts prove you wrong. When your beliefs disagree with proven theories, you say your belief is misunderstood, and say, "look @ my numbers". Then when your numbers are also proven to disagree with data, you deny all data. So, you are left with nothing. Only a cry that everything but your religion is "nonsense". And the world will continue to go around, satisfying the equations of motion that modern science understands, but you deny.

Hi Warren,

> You ignore 60 years of experimental data.

> That is not science, that is religion.

You can tell a lot about a person's reasoning ability when they automatically talk in absolutes. You make it sound as though the entire Aether Physics Model ignores all scientific data.

> > And who in

> > their right mind really believes forces are mediated by particles?

>

> Nobody believes it, they know it.

> And every scientist knows it, because experiment confirms it.

Experiments don't confirm anything, they only provide data. Scientists do the interpretation of the data, and the interpretation is called a theory. It is the interpretation of data (especially when the data has to be renormalized) that provides "confirmation" of the theory, which is circular reasoning. Not only do you deal in absolutes, you are also very sloppy with language such that you can use it to prove whatever you want to believe. The Aether Physics Model is very specific with physics definitions so that such sloppiness is avoided.

> You believe it to be false, because your religion, like any religion,

> is based on belief, not data.

That is such a great example of hypocrisy. *Your* religion is based upon belief, which you have conveniently hidden in your sloppy terminology. You make it sound like the experiment does the interpretation for you, thus removing the scientist from the interpretation of the data. You can *pretend* your belief has nothing to do with your interpretation of the data, but that only reduces your religion to a cult. Now you are incapable of seeing the flaws in your own interpretation, because you have declined responsibility for making the interpretation.

> > Real science looks at an observable world and produces geometrically

> > correct paradigms that mirror the observations.

> "Geometry" doesn't apply to everything.

It most certainly does. Anything that is observable must have a distance from the observer, and must also have surface area. We are incapable of seeing one dimensional objects, and point particles do not exist. Further, if an object has geometry, then its actions must reflect that geometry. Geometry is unavoidable.

> "Paradigm" is your favorite catchword.

Paradigm is a word with a specific meaning, like "religion," "belief," and "quack," which seem to be your favorite catchwords.

> No scientist ever uses it.

That doesn't surprise me since no other paradigm is allowed in "mainstream" science other than the one sanctioned by the High Priests of Academia.

> I think you must define it in some way not understood to science.

par·a·digm n.

1. One that serves as a pattern or model.
2. ...
3. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

I have a very good understanding, and I properly use the word. If you use the word in any other way, it is likely you who are the one who has misunderstood it.

> > You go ahead and continue to ignore the theory I'm proposing,

> > without giving it due consideration. That is just fine by me.

> I considered it, and found it:

> (1) Lacks all predictive power,

That is a bald-faced lie and shows your intentional disregard for the scientific method.

> because it has no equations

> of motion, and therefore can't be applied to scattering, orbits,

> electric circuits, or anything else of value.

The theory shows the structure of quantum existence. Prior to an object having motion it must have structure in order to exist. The rules of motion will be mitigated by the structure of the existence. Whales move differently than humans. If you don't take into account the different geometries of whales and humans, as well as the structures of the environment in which they exist, your equations for motion are meaningless. They are sterile and apply to nothing, except by chance.

> (2) Makes wrong predictions, such as the anomalous magnetic moments of

> the electron & muon.

My theory provides a possible explanation for the structure that leads to the g-factors. I didn't claim it was anything other than a theory for just that purpose. For you to simply dismiss the theory, without considering the new mitigating factors presented by the theory, is a sign of bigotry, which goes well with your hypocrisy, cultish behavior, need for intentionally misrepresenting others, and absolutist views.

> (3) Contradicts special relativity, which says there is no such thing

> as a rigid body.

There you go again with your intentional misrepresentation. Who said anything about a rigid body? Did you read the theory, or not? Just because an object has geometry does not mean it is rigid. And even when an object is rigid, that does not mean a fabric made out of the rigid objects will be rigid. Sand is rigid, yet it flows like a fluid in an hourglass. Water molecules are rigid, yet their combined macro structure provides an excellent example of fluidity at certain temperatures. The quantum Aether theory clearly shows how toroidal geometry allows for flexibility of strong charge geometry, while conserving angular momentum.

> How much more do I have to consider it?

A lot. You haven't even taken the time to understand it, yet. You just spout off with all kinds of prejudicial statements, none of which are scientific or serve any practical purpose in evaluating the theory.

> How much more do I have to find wrong with it?

You haven't found anything wrong with the theory at all. All you have done is point out your own expectations and how the theory does not meet your expectations. It is as though you believe you are the author of the Universe, and you alone have the authority to determine what science should and should not be like. It is you who behave religiously, here, not me.

> I have not found a single thing right with it.

That is because you haven't taken the time to understand it. You still have no concept of "quantum structure." In your mind, quantum structure is irrelevant and quantum mechanics is all there is to quantum existence.

> Do I have to show every single sentence is wrong?

Just show me one! Don't make up your own idea of what my theory should present and then attack that. No, look at the theory I present and attack it directly. Point out an error in the math, a place where the wrong constant was used, a wrong definition, or something about the actual theory that you think is wrong. Your irrational argument that equations of motion are required in a theory of structure exemplifies ignorance. Apparently your cries for equations of motion when Watson and Crick identified the structure of DNA when unnoticed!

> How much

> failure do you need? And whenever I find something wrong with it,

> instead of dealing with it, & trying to come up with a better theory,

> you just go into denial.

There is nothing in your arguments to deny. Your arguments are empty and completely unrelated to the theory. Only in your mind could equations of motion be required for a theory of structure. Certainly, it is not a requirement of nature.

> What's the point

> of anybody reading your theory if you can't accept criticism?

Are you now admitting that you have not read the theory? Is there no wonder why your criticism of the theory is meaningless?

> > You have heard the old maxim, "Science progresses one death at a

> > time?" Well, I hope you are enjoying the time you have. There are

> > young physics students who are approaching the Aether Physics Model

> > with much more interest than you are.

> There are some people foolish enough to believe the earth is flat.

Just as there are people who are foolish enough to believe force is a particle, a particle can be its own wave, and that quantum structure is really a mathematical probability. The world is full of fools, but what does that have to do with the scientific validity of the Aether Physics Model?

> Science does not go forward by anecdotes.

> The people who invented QED are dead, but QED lives on.

> And it will still live after we're both dead.

My statement about "one death at a time" was not about QED, it was about the people who believe in wave/particle duality, force particles, and probability functions as quantum structure.

> You disagree with 60 years of data

There you are intentionally misrepresenting me, again. I do not disagree with the data, I disagree with certain interpretations of the data. The data is what it is. Renormalization and lack of understanding about quantum structure could easily lead to an incorrect view of the data.

> And now you will tell me your "ether" religion has also stood the test

> of time, in spite of the fact that your definition of "ether" is

> unlike anyone else's, even though you use an archaic spelling to make

> it look old.

And the purpose of that statement was?... Are you putting words into my mouth, again?

> Misery loves company.

> Saying "your theory gets the wrong answer, off by 10,000,000 standard

> deviations", is not egotism, it's fact.

Your egotism comes from seeing only your own view, and intentionally misrepresenting the views of others. And your wild statement of 10,000,000 deviations is unfounded.

> But then, you can't do arithmetic either, since you added the note to

> your web page of our discussion that implies 861 = 895.

Let's see just how confused and mathematically challenged you really are, okay? I'll stick entirely to the facts and let you determine for yourself where the problem is here. On the web page, I stated:

[Just so the reader knows: 2/sin(Phi) = 2(1+1/861) ]

I provided a completely different equation structure than you did. Also, I have no clue where you got "895." The expression "sin(Phi) is equal to 0.998884509094885 (to 15 decimal places). My equation does not have the structure of

1 + 1/x

My equation was a trigonometric function. I don't know where you got "861," other than as a wild approximation derived empirically, but my trigonometric function is based upon the actual geometry of a quantified Aether unit (quantum of space-time). I can show a hypothesis for why the electron and proton have an "anomalous" magnetic moment to begin with. All you can show is that the g-factor value was squeezed out of some measurements. You don't know why the electron has a g-factor, which is why you call it "anomalous."

The value I present is within reasonable limits of agreement for a theory working from first principles, and is further supported by the fact that the proton g-factor also shows similar structure as a reasonable function of the Golden Ratio.

Further, your expression of 2(1+1/861) is only accurate to five decimal places, while mine is accurate to four decimal places (insignificant since you are claiming the actual value is precisely known to 9 decimal places). This means that for all intents and purposes when discussing your approximation compared to my approximation:

2/sin(Phi) = 2(1+1/861)

Which was my statement.

> And the people who follow your religion obviously never even check

> your numbers (your only predictions), so what good are those people?

Obviously, people of your cult can use sloppy language and double standards to make your point, but the opposing view is not allowed the same degree of sloppiness and confusion.

> You are not looking for a critical evaluation of your proposal, only

> for pats on the back. So why bother even talking to scientists, when

> you know that any one of them who seriously looks at it will only say

> things that you will ignore? Does it give you satisfaction to lie to

> people? Are you looking for disapproval so that you can claim to be a

> prophet?

Is this the reasoning of a scientist? The very accusations you project onto others are reflected in your own behavior and methods. BTW, a religious person looking for disapproval would be a martyr, not a prophet.

> Maybe if you learned some real physics, & saw how well it applies to

> everyday life numerically,

Early on you accused me of being a numerologist, and now you are espousing numerology. The Aether Physics Model is discrete, not numerological. The APM represents true science, not poetic descriptions of data, as your numerology does.

> you would accept it

> more easily, instead of denying successful theories, & pretending all

> experiments are wrong.

There you go, again, intentionally misrepresenting me. Methods of deception have been deeply engrained into your psyche. Intentional misrepresentation has become your primary defense against new physics paradigms. You are not capable of applying the scientific method to a theory about quantum structure, because you have already convinced yourself that quantum structure does not exist except as metaphysical concepts of wave/particle duality, force particles, and probability functions. If you could transcend your prejudice, bigotry, sloppy physics terminology, intentional misrepresentation, and your religious devotion to your own intellectual superiority, you might actually benefit from the Aether Physics Model. Not only would you learn new insights into quantum existence, but it would help you to better understand the paradigms within quantum mechanics, which *do* work.

> The one most important

> fact of any theory is that it can be proven wrong. But your "theory"

> can never be proven wrong, because you declare all physical data to be

> wrong. And you declare all science that agrees with data to be

> "nonsense". But your definition of "sense" disagrees with all data, &

> therefore can only be religion.

Your reasoning is highly deluded. The theory I present is founded upon the existing physical and empirically derived constants and data. When the Aether Physics Model disagrees with your interpretation of the data, it is doing just that, disagreeing with *your* interpretation. You are incapable of seeing your investment as the interpreter of the data and mistakenly believe that because the data exists, your interpretation and renormalization procedures must be correct.

As for the APM being proven wrong, it is entirely mathematical and geometrical in structure. All you need to do to prove the theory wrong is show that math is wrong, or that I used the wrong data to derive the theory. I have witnessed the weakness in your math skills already, but you probably have a Mathematics department at your University. You might try asking a mathematician to look at the theory and see if the math is right or wrong. A mathematician will also be able to help you through the geometry. If you have a Philosophy department, you might also take the theory to them to see if the logic of the theory is correct or not.

I can see it is difficult for you to understand the difference between quantum structure and quantum mechanics. Perhaps if you have an English Language department, they may be able to assist you in this regard.

> You are the kind of person who welshes on bets, because you deny that

> facts prove you wrong. When your beliefs disagree with proven

> theories, you say your belief is misunderstood, and say, "look @ my

> numbers". Then when your numbers are also proven to disagree with

> data, you deny all data. So, you are left with nothing. Only a cry

> that everything but your religion is "nonsense". And the world will

> continue to go around, satisfying the equations of motion that modern

> science understands, but you deny.

Don't you find it disconcerting that your own numbers didn't agree with measured values? Your "861" is way off the mark. But it is okay for you to provide an approximation based upon wild guessing, right? It's just not okay for me to provide an approximation due to first principles. Did I mention "hypocrisy?"

You know, this is making great material for the world to see. You are doing us a great favor by offering your "scientific" rebuttal to the theory. It is one thing for me to have this kind of discussion with physicist "wannabes" and people who have no recourse except to quote the available literature, but to have this discussion with a physics professor who claims to know a quack when he sees one is just precious.