Monday, June 04, 2018

(12) David Thomson's answer to If there are 4 forces in nature, why not just one? Can anyone unify gravity, electric -magnetic force, the strong/weak nuclear force of nature. - Quora

(12) David Thomson's answer to If there are 4 forces in nature, why not just one? Can anyone unify gravity, electric -magnetic force, the strong/weak nuclear force of nature. - Quora:

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

David Thomson's answer to What is an electron probability cloud? - Quora

Modern physics is stuck in the four-dimensional perspective of space-time due to their reliance on four-dimensional instrumentation. Although the data from a four dimensional perspective is useful and valid, it needs to be conceptualized from a five-dimensional perspective to be fully understood.

David Thomson's answer to What is an electron probability cloud? - Quora:

'via Blog this'

Saturday, May 19, 2018

What Can the Death of a Neutron Tell Us About Dark Matter?

I don't understand why they (physicists) don't admit that anti-neutrinos are dark matter? When a neutron decays, the total angular momentum of the neutron, minus the angular momenta of the resulting proton and electron, leaves an angular momentum value equal to about 1.5 times the angular momentum of the electron. This angular momentum that is 1.5 times the angular momentum of the electron is the anti-neutrino. 

I explain this in greater detail in Secrets of the Aether under the subheading of Neutrino.

The fact that a particle with more mass than the electron just disappears without interacting further with visible matter is very strong evidence for dark matter. This is exactly how dark matter is expected to behave. So why is the anti-neutrino not considered to be dark matter?

What Can the Death of a Neutron Tell Us About Dark Matter?:

'via Blog this'

Monday, April 02, 2018

On the Importance of the Five Dimensional Aether in Understanding Reality

Why Do Interpretations Of Quantum Physics Matter?

A couple of weeks ago, fellow Forbes blogger Ethan Siegel took to his keyboard with the goal of making me sigh heavily, writing a post about interpretations of quantum physics calling the idea that you need an interpretation "the biggest myth in quantum physics." Ethan's argument boils down to noting that all of the viable interpretations known at present make identical predictions about the probability of getting particular outcomes for any experiment we might do. Therefore, according to Ethan, there's no need for any interpretation, because it doesn't really matter which of them you choose.

There is no viable logic in his article if the foundations of the physics he uses to interpret an experiment are in error. For example, what if the whole paradigm of particles and waves as descriptors of the structures of subatomic particles is flawed and just plain incorrect? What if a subatomic particle's structure is actually a quasi-material structure that we could call, "primary angular momentum?" Such a structure could exist if the structure of space (Aether) is a five-dimenstional (3L / 2T) quantum rotating magnetic field and the subatomic particle is merely a string of mass (dark matter) caught up in the quantum rotating magnetic field. Thus dark matter would be "converted" to appear as visible matter, particularly if the quantum rotating magnetic field structure imparted the properties of electrostatic and magnetic charge to the string of mass.

A string of mass moving at a velocity through this quantum rotating magnetic field in a five dimensional frame of reference could easily be mistaken for being either a particle or a wave, especially to a bunch of mathematicians ignorant of the actual structure of the subatomic particles and the five-dimensional reference frame they exist in. 

The weirdness of the Standard Model is rooted in the limited choice between particle and wave, and the ignorance if the other temporal dimension. In fact, the ignorance of the Standard Model is further rooted in the incomplete understanding of the temporal nature of the Universe. Time is just a subset of a greater collection of temporal attributes, just as length and area are a subset of "volume." The temporal dimensions as a whole are what physicists refer to as "spin." This "spin" has a forward AND backward time frequency as well as a right and left spin direction. Due to the half spin nature of the electron and proton, subatomic particles only "see" a single time direction and a single spin direction. The space (Aether unit) that contains the subatomic particle, however, sees a two spin point of view, which forever oscillates between forward and backward time, and right and left spin, at an extreme (and quantifiable) frequency. 

It is the half spin of subatomic particles that gives matter the appearance of moving in the forward direction of time. And yet, despite the forward advance in time associated with matter, our mind always remains right here and right now... in the present. Our mind is the reference point that perceives the advancement of time. The mind does not move through time; it ever remains in the present, and in the exact same present as every other mind. 

In the Standard Model, time is believed to be an independent metric, and it is also believed our mind traverses through time along with matter. The spin nature of subatomic particles is considered "weird" and is subsequently discarded from our understanding. Also, the concept of Aether is discarded as being unnecessary because four-dimensional, forward-time matter has been arbitrarily chosen as the only reality the physicists are interested in. Aside from the fact that evidence for the Aether's existence abounds in physics, the Aether as a five-dimensional coordinate system is required in order to understand the hidden aspects of quantum structure and also quantum mechanics. 

The problem with physics isn't the physics, it is the physicists, and it always has been. All of humanity is living in a deep ignorance concerning the true nature of our four-dimensional realm. To get a glimpse of this perspective, imagine life in a television world. Television worlds are three-dimensional, having two dimensions of length and one dimension of time. The characters live out a scripted life written from players in the four-dimensional world of space-time. Well, our four-dimensional lives are written by players in the five-dimensional realm of space-resonance. All those players in our four-dimensional world who claim to see ghosts, spirit guides, and angels, and who practice religions based on the afterlife, and who practice magic or experience paranormal events, they are all interacting with, or merely believing in, the greater five dimensional realm. And just as our four-dimensional world seems infinitely more vast than the area-time television world, the five dimensional realm is infinitely more vast than our four-dimensional, space-time realm.

The Rosetta Stone for understanding this greater five-dimensional realm is quantum physics, but we will never make progress in this understanding as long as physicists continue with their nonsense of probability functions as subatomic particles, and their flat out denial of Aether. 

Saturday, March 17, 2018

More about the Aether that isn't an Aether.

Here we are, back to scientists describing the Aether that isn't an Aether.

"...empty space isn't really empty, but instead populated with 'virtual particles.' These particles are artifacts of the fact, described by quantum mechanics, that physics is governed more by probabilities than fixed realities. Because of the small possibility that a particle might exist in any one empty point in space, that empty point in space acts as if the particle is sort of, kind of there. And those virtual particles have real effects on the world."

Since when does a mathematical probability function become a physical fact in the real Universe? What the scientists are not saying, and which the real facts allude, is that there is a very real, non-material structure to the fabric of space. Space is not a physical substance, like matter, but rather a non-material structure that gives rise to magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, and gravitational fields (all of which are non-material realities). Even the spin property of subatomic particles, and the speed limit of light are functions of the space the subatomic particles reside in.

What the scientists are close to discovering is that black holes are not physical objects such as the much touted super massive black holes, but rather black holes are regions near the centers of galaxies where the structure of space collapses, and visible matter is converted to dark matter. And yes, space can become (and is) polarized in such a way as to prevent the entire galaxy from unraveling.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Most images of black holes are illustrations. Here’s what our telescopes actually capture. - Vox

Astrophysicists believe the only viable explanation for black holes is that there has to be a super massive, highly condensed piece of matter hidden in space.

This is not the only explanation, and neither is it the best explanation. The best explanation is that at the centers of galaxies space is unraveling. Space has structure, which is quantifiable, as I have shown in Secrets of the Aether. When space becomes too dense, it just unravels, and it unravels any matter that is within it. The unraveled matter converts from visible matter to dark matter, and radiates outward from the center of the galaxy as neutrinos.

Think of a large bathtub with a drain. As the water goes down the drain, all the other water in the tub migrates toward the drain. If there is something floating in the water, it may get close to the vortex of the drain, and be shot back out before actually heading straight into the vortex at a later time. This gives the appearance of being gravitationally attracted toward the vortex. You can imagine the vortex of a bathtub as having imaginary mass and design a whole set of equations to explain the action of the vortex in terms of Newton's gravitational laws. But this would be nothing more than an imaginary exercise, even though the math will work.

There are no super massive black bodies in the centers of galaxies. There is a drain of space, and every star is migrating toward the drain, which explains the inward spiral nature of galaxies and the observed behavior of stars "orbiting" the center.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

They are still trying to detect gravitational waves using interferometers.

More money wasted and more disappointments on the way. This observatory is supposed to detect gravitational waves by measuring minute fluctuations in laser beams shooting over long distances. The gravitational waves are said to be ripples in the fabric of space-time, however, modern physics denies that space-time has structure that can ripple. If it did, it would fit the description of the Aether, which mainstream academia emphatically denies.

The interferometer won't work because the space the laser beam is moving through, as well as the laser beam, will both ripple at the same time. It is like trying to knock a cowboy off his horse in a movie shown on a flexible screen TV by flexing the screen.

In order to detect gravitational waves, the detector has to be a large magnetic field with magnetic flux lines stressed to the breaking point. When a gravitational wave comes through, it would break the magnetic flux lines. The more flux lines broken, the more intense the gravitational wave.

Magnetic fields can detect gravitational waves because they actually exist in a five dimensional space-resonance coordinate system, which is the true coordinate system of the "fabric of space-time." Space-time is a subset of space-resonance and only has four dimensions.

Physical matter exists in space-time, but not in space-resonance. Only photons and magnetic fields exist in all five dimensions, which are length cubed by frequency squared (resonance). Similarly, a movie exists in area-time while the audience exists in space-time. If someone existing in area-time tried to build an interferometer, it could never reach out to detect space-time any more than an interferometer in space-time can detect movement in space-resonance.

The incredibly redundant article below appears to be nothing more than a press release explaining why millions of dollars was spent. The science is worthless.

Dense star clusters shown to be binary black hole factories: Study predicts observatories to detect more merging black holes than previously thought -- ScienceDaily: