tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.comments2014-12-04T07:19:18.415-05:00Aaron's Reality (Standard Vibration Model)Aaron Gueraminoreply@blogger.comBlogger472125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-3460480180501739232014-12-04T07:19:18.415-05:002014-12-04T07:19:18.415-05:00A nice man contacted my email.
First thanks for r...A nice man contacted my email.<br /><br />First thanks for reading my work. My full blog is at aaronsreality.blogspot.com<br /><br />It is a full model.<br /><br />My hx is complex. The Model started when I was young. My parents bought me and Dad a TRS 80 model 1. From there I began to ask questions about Gravity in 3d space.<br /><br />By 11th grade on the first day of physics class before class I wrote on the board E cannot equal mc2 because a scalar times a vector cannot equal a force. He sent me to the dean dismissing me from the class. Off to the theater, a dark room where the lighting is good for depressing event. I wanted to talk about Gravity, but now I am playing a drunk who gets the only laughter.<br /><br />I enjoyed my AS degree in Computer science. After that people just thought I was nuts.<br /><br />From there my seizures took over. Having a form of Epilepsy called Myoclonic (The deep thinkers). While I am in recovery, I would recall pictures, equations, logic, history. Dark rooms help in lowering the UV.<br /><br />As for the model that is when I cleared the Model of Gravity. I thought it was wrong, but now I was certain. Did you know Newton of the King's Scientist? He hunted down others and had them Drawn and Quartered. That was the way I felt.<br /><br />Then I thought about the needed tools to make a Universe? What known information is needed? If you reduce information from 3d to mass then how do you get the vital info back? Where is the math done? This is Dark Energy.<br /><br />When I realized all information is expressed, the model had no other shape. Its a plug and play system. If Maxwells equations are too simple try using Weber's equations.<br /><br />The reason this is not quantum mechanics, is because the cat has a 50% of existence. Not good for the universe. It must exist and be consistent.<br /><br />To be a gluon with no information is Dark Matter. Dark Matter interacts with magnetism. Magnetism causes compression into densities of Dark Matter. A magnetic wave at the edge of a Baryon bubble will cause hydrogen to form.<br /><br />So 5% baryonic matter<br /> ~35% interstellar dust (H or He)<br /> ~60% dark matter<br />This is why those CBOE pics look like networks of galactic super clusters connected to each other by insulation. The magnetism pushes against the dark matter allowing z bosons or particles to pass through.<br /><br />I hope this is some help. I am going to put the relevant parts on the blog.<br /><br />Warm Regards,<br />A<br />Aaron Gueramihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135433850653035435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-12783446002249214442014-10-01T22:29:57.617-04:002014-10-01T22:29:57.617-04:00Wow,
It is true, I want to Solve, Question and I...Wow, <br /><br />It is true, I want to Solve, Question and Invent. I hope that every student or professor has that ambition. <br /><br />To say that I have not had the proper education to make these statements is not a foundation for a discussion of a topic. Its a dismissal. <br /><br />I don't care if we the pond scum on this planet understand this. There are 7 billion people on this planet and we probably wont survive the century. So what do I care. I am a disabled epileptic with Parkinson. I dont care anymore. <br /><br />SR and GR cannot and do nor work in the domain of Quantum Electrodynamics or the Standard Model. SR and GR cannot explain spectra. <br /><br />So find a problem with my work and its definitions, principles and interactions and then we will talk. I have not heard you try to disprove my theories, you just want to polish an old idea.<br /><br />Lets just pretend that the universe has 3 dimensions + time, lets call this dark energy. Within this structure all matter baryonic and dark resides. <br /><br />The problem is that all recent observations at supercoliders point to a system that works like the Standard Model. The problem with the Standard Model is that it does not make sense because it is too new. With that you are willing to say old theory is better than observation and new thinking. Or maybe new thinking is just not allowed. The fear of loosing something. <br /><br />To say that I am not objective or that I seek knowledge not to explain but to reinforce my own yada yada. This is a personal attack. Personal attacks are not relevant to any discussion. So if you can find any relevant issues with this model I will be willing to discuss them.<br /><br />Aaron GueramiAaron Gueramihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135433850653035435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-20236983121587891112014-10-01T12:02:25.296-04:002014-10-01T12:02:25.296-04:00"The main problem with GR is that it lacks re..."The main problem with GR is that it lacks respect for Electricity and Magnetism."<br /><br />Einstein specifically took into account electromagnetism before he published ANY results. One of his 1905 papers was specifically "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Both SR and GR explicitly address Maxwell's equations, as he had to get this right before he could credibly publish anything.<br /><br />Mainstream science is NOT perfect, but the vast majority of it far more self-consistent than you give it credit for.<br /><br />I'm in support of what you're doing, but I just wish your community would take the time to attain a rigorous education on the topics at hand before trying to reinvent them, and then apply proper reason and research.<br /><br />I've read the majority of your blog. You're making the same mistake every interested student makes, firmly rooted in our basic creative need. You want to build. Solve. Invent. Question. We all do. Every student given a bit of knowledge thinks they can explain the universe. "Aha! NOW I get it!" It's partly pride, wanting to best their peers and feel like they've got the world figured out. But typically, they keep going... continuing to balance this endless questioning with learning, and maturing past their arrogance in the process. Their questioning becomes less about their own superiority and more objectively about truth. And eventually, they further our knowledge.<br /><br />You are not objective. You seek knowledge not to explain, but specifically to reinforces your own ends, or provide more material to rip apart and rebuild in your image and promote your significance. You refuse to embrace the reasoned pursuit of truth. You are the immature, proud, arrogate student, frozen in time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-12189138614769971862014-09-25T13:51:34.635-04:002014-09-25T13:51:34.635-04:00I apologize for misspelling Mr. Doolan's name....I apologize for misspelling Mr. Doolan's name. <br /><br /> As a matter of fact most of Mr. Doolan's Hypothesis points are already discussed in this blog. He just put into an elegant and easy to understand letter. This model goes into finer detail of the W+/- Boson (magnetism) properties and interactions. <br /><br />This model extensively describes the effect that Mr. Doolan states as Magnetic Red-shift. This is actually well defined as the Zeeman Effect. It is red shift. A magnetic field will stop the rotation of a photon and split it into three strands of information. <br /><br />to be clear Mr. Doolan Did not suggest any part of the crater issue. So if you wish to take issue with that. It is all mine, baby. And again Most of the points discussed in the letter are well discussed and in some cases proven by logic, the work of previous and current physicist, Mathematics, and/or physical observation. <br /><br />Aaron Aaron Gueramihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135433850653035435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-41248511269730199882014-09-25T13:22:01.442-04:002014-09-25T13:22:01.442-04:00Dear anon. Thanks for reading my blog.
I find it...Dear anon. Thanks for reading my blog. <br /><br />I find it sad that you won't evaluate issues that Have been discussed on this site. The concept that the relationship between the Earth and the moon as an inverter magnet has been discussed on this blog several times. The moon always faces the Earth. That means it is travelling through space like a lawn dart. Both density and magnetism keep the moon in motion. The moon does not rotate. That shows that density holds the direction of motion of the moon and magnetism keeps the distance in check.<br /><br />Also there are two types of craters on the moon. Large circular craters that are the came color inside the crater as on the ridges these are only found closer to the poles. Then small elliptical craters showing reflective ejecta in the opposite direction of the impact. The small reflective ejecta impacts are obviously from objects. The large circular polar craters are electrical impacts from the sun.<br /><br />Mr. Deeton is correct on this topic. <br /><br />The main problem with GR is that it lacks respect for Electricity and Magnetism. It fails the Standard Model. If your model ends in time travel or 2 dimensional mega structures, Multiple-dimensions, or does not take into consideration electricity, magnetism, density, or spectral information. Then your model has serious flaws. <br /><br />Should I have the right to discuss these issues. I have the responsibility to discuss these issues. You have the right to not read them. I don't care if you read them. I am already describe as a Dissident Scientist <br />http://editionsassailly.com/liste_diss_alpha/climont%20full%20list%20G%20htm.htm<br /><br />That is the best accolades I have ever had. By the way it says my critics will be SR and GR people. <br /><br />Thanks for your time, but if you wish to discuss any other issues you have with this model please feel free to comment on any posting. I will get you comment and respond.<br /><br />Aaron GueramiAaron Gueramihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135433850653035435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-37427557643554302382014-09-25T10:19:17.175-04:002014-09-25T10:19:17.175-04:00I don't even know where to begin. Things like...I don't even know where to begin. Things like this...<br /><br />"After doing some research I have discovered that Einstein knew that the orbit of Mercury varied by 43 arc seconds per century so he fudged his equation to take this into account with his value of pi."<br /><br />No... just no. It's a century old peer reviewed result derived from GR axioms. It's not "fudged". To think so disrespects the entire scientific community. How little faith do you have in humanity that you would assume we're all so stupid as to fall for some stage-show hand waving?<br /><br />I appreciate your interest in science, and there's certainly value in questioning the status quo, but from what I've seen on this blog, you could stand to educate yourself on more rigorous methods of mathematics, logic, and proof; and on a deeper understanding of existing theory before trying to rewrite it.<br /><br />Also, it's a sad state of affairs when people like Fenton are teaching our children science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-18598170278416599342014-09-22T20:56:37.526-04:002014-09-22T20:56:37.526-04:00I agree the 5th dimension does not exist in this m...I agree the 5th dimension does not exist in this model. Things like consciousness can be modeled with electricity and organic biology.<br /><br />So this model only requires 3 Dimensions over time. Time is regulated by bosonic interactions. <br /><br />AaronAaron Gueramihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135433850653035435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-61622523335115440462014-06-23T15:23:33.755-04:002014-06-23T15:23:33.755-04:00Although your comment is only an add. I will give ...Although your comment is only an add. I will give it 30 days to see if it benefits students and how.<br /><br />Thankyou<br />AaronAaron Gueramihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135433850653035435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-2496439448990970012014-06-23T04:21:50.635-04:002014-06-23T04:21:50.635-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Naveen Sharmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554684840001211706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-29181418890310277752014-05-12T02:02:34.518-04:002014-05-12T02:02:34.518-04:00It is really interesting and fun to watch the proc... It is really interesting and fun to watch the process...............<a href="http://www.uenergysolar.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">properties</a>Annie Khanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00485793711740302519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-9829599895008567082013-12-14T02:40:13.847-05:002013-12-14T02:40:13.847-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Fenton Doolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01715940513433395139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-35512598339339603962013-11-08T18:16:15.879-05:002013-11-08T18:16:15.879-05:00Dear Fenton. Your theory is sound( magnetically sp...Dear Fenton. Your theory is sound( magnetically speaking) as far as I can tell. We get to figure out the ratios that cause anomalies.<br /><br />Hi Aaron,<br /> I've made a slight update to my theory which now explain how the sunspots act like the small magnets in the clip. Do you think I'm onto something that might change our understanding of our solar system and the universe? I could probably add Physics to take as well. Thanks for putting my letter on your website. I've sent my theory to NASA and a few Professors none have replied.<br /><br />----------------<br />Dear Aaron,<br /><br /> My name is Fenton Doolan, I've been teaching Science for the past twenty years <br /><br />in Australia and overseas. I have a BSc in Biochemistry but lately have been more interested in Physics. I have been researching Einstein's theory of relativity in particular his ideas about space-time. To me his theory seems more like science fiction than a plausible scientific theory. As I have become more interested I've researched more and more. I came across the following Youtube clip which explains an unusual magnetic phenomena. When I saw this clip I came up with the following theory concerning what causes the moon to orbit the earth. No it's not due to a gravitational attraction between the two and no it's not due to a curvature in space-time. The moon orbits the Earth due to a magnetic attraction. <br /><br />This magnetic attraction is demonstrated in the Youtube clip. <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU ( 3 mins )<br /><br />I believe the Earth is acting like an inverter magnet. The movement of molten rock/iron inside the Earth and its solid iron core act like the large central magnet and deposits of iron ore (magnetite) under the Earth's surface are acting like the small satellite magnets in the clip. I read on the NASA website that the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since 1850. I wonder if that is due to mining of iron ore over the last 163 years ? My theory would also suggest that the sun acts like a gigantic inverter magnet as well, which the planets are magnetically attracted to.<br /><br />Sunspot in photosphere - The suns internal magnet- inner magnet satellite magnets in clip. in clip.<br /><br />At school we learn about Our Solar System maybe we should be learning about Our Magnetic Solar System. I am not a physicist or an expert in magnetism. I am just a high school science teacher interested in understanding the universe. I know itâ€™s a very simple concept but I think that often in science we disregard the obvious and try to over-complicate ideas and theories. Also, it is not everyday a theory would try to disprove both Newton and Einstein.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Fenton Doolan ( High School Science Teacher )<br /><br />Dear Fenton,<br />Please the comment section for further interaction. It is just easier for me to format and post.<br /><br />Thanks for your curiosity, <br /><br />On a personal note. I walked into my High School Physics class, Picked up a piece of chalk and E cannot equal mc2 because a vector * a scalar is still a vector. He sent me to the Dean's office with a note stating to have me removed from the class.<br /><br />The internet will destroy models within 10 years. I like the fact that this model is based on ratios and not constants.<br /><br />Thank you<br />AaronAaron Gueramihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135433850653035435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-88313878641649058642013-06-21T04:18:34.985-04:002013-06-21T04:18:34.985-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Dov Henishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487907863785174174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-52319896810660333242013-04-23T17:31:50.855-04:002013-04-23T17:31:50.855-04:00This is for the comment that left a link to a non-...This is for the comment that left a link to a non-relevant site.<br /><br />I use Blogger from Google. It is an amazing set of tools.<br /><br />aAaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135433850653035435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-39924496185345417262013-03-28T09:37:16.782-04:002013-03-28T09:37:16.782-04:00Hi, Thanks for responding.
Yes, space is discrete...Hi, Thanks for responding.<br /><br />Yes, space is discrete. This is described in my paper on Dark Energy. <br /><br />It is required to time for bosons. Each boson increments from each Dark Energy Ruleset it passes through. <br /><br />It is required to explain observations like the Zeeman Effect. Photons slow or stop their rotation in the presence of a magnetic field. This explains gravitational lensing.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />AaronAaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135433850653035435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-50649067924963367902013-03-26T13:48:09.198-04:002013-03-26T13:48:09.198-04:00> We need to agree with a simple beginning. The...> We need to agree with a simple beginning. The universe is a matrix.<br /><br />In what way is the Universe a matrix? Mathematically, spaces are not matrices. Maybe you're suggesting that space is 3D matrix with infinite indices x, y, and z; but matrices have countably many cells, while space can have uncountably many points... it doesn't work.<br /><br />Unless you're suggesting that space is discrete, and x/y/z are Integers.<br /><br />Can you clarify?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-71148257827750711042013-03-26T12:08:32.995-04:002013-03-26T12:08:32.995-04:00Thanks for commenting. It is nice to have a modest...Thanks for commenting. It is nice to have a modest conversation about these topics.<br /><br />We need to agree with a simple beginning. The universe is a matrix. This means information can travel in x,y,z directions over time. <br /><br />Mass is the reduction of all the information about an object to a number of measure. This is a simplification of the real process which is an enhanced density equation. Which now you have me working on. Thanks?<br /><br />Those two things are why I think physics has such difficulties.<br /><br />AaronAaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135433850653035435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-44119356208097119972013-03-25T17:31:30.362-04:002013-03-25T17:31:30.362-04:00> I never wish to argue, I only wish to show a ...> I never wish to argue, I only wish to show a new method.<br /><br />Argument is a pillar of reason... no sense in avoiding it.<br /><br /><br />> Mass is a scalar, density is an equation that shows all the information in an area ...<br /><br />If your definition of density is anything other than "mass divided by volume", then it isn't density... it's something new you've created, and you might want to coin a new term for it (likewise for your use of "dimension"). Density is already defined to mean exactly mass per unit volume.<br /><br /><br />> A vector cannot pass through a matrix. Only a field or a force can pass through a matrix. This is defined by Maxwell and others. Using vectors in matrices fails in real matrix algebra world problems. You get a bunch of lines around a bulge instead of a flowing field.<br /><br />I assume this is in response to my [f=ma] comments, which came from your paper. In that equation, there are no matrices, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning them. [f] and [a] are both vectors, and because of that, the argument posed in that section of your paper on gravity does not hold.<br /><br /><br />> Constants are arbitrary and change when there is a need. <br /><br />While constants can indeed be assigned any value (absent empirical evidence), they can NOT have arbitrary affects on the equations they're contained in.<br /><br />Basically, Newton's equation says three things...<br />1) Gravity is proportional to the product of the masses.<br />2) Gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the masses.<br />3) Gravity acts along the vector between the masses.<br /><br />It is mathematically impossible for the value of the gravitational constant can affect these statements. For that, you'd need a whole new theory.<br /><br /><br />> The problem with gravity ...<br /><br />If gravity is a diversion, feel free to set it aside. But you are actively claiming to be able to "disprove" it, which is why it keeps coming up in conversation.<br /><br /><br />> This model is able to concurrently use and produce results for all systems ...<br /><br />It would be interesting to see an actual formal derivation of some result in the context of your theory.<br /><br /><br />> I do not wish to make gravity any part of the discussion on this site.<br /><br />No problem. Either remove your paper, correct it, or at least stop referring people to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-89655822425369222732013-03-24T12:04:37.619-04:002013-03-24T12:04:37.619-04:00Thank you for commenting on my blog. I never wish ...Thank you for commenting on my blog. I never wish to argue, I only wish to show a new method.<br /><br /> Gravity is a concept. One that was devised in a environment that was so horribly defiant to change that Kepler published his books after he died. So gravity is attractive. It fills the God dynamic. It fills those earth-centric demands of the time.<br /><br /> The purpose of the blog is to explore the model describing an information/vibration based system. I did need to show why I thought the current systems did not sufficiently explain physics. Gravity and Particles are dismissed in this model for vibration and information. <br /><br />Mass is a scalar, density is an equation that shows all the information in an area. Density cannot be expressed as a scalar. In physics the density of an object is reduced to a mass to just make it easier. All that vital information is lost to reduction. Now the user has no idea what the object was. It was just a mass. Salt or lead, don't know, it is just 64.<br /><br />A vector cannot pass through a matrix. Only a field or a force can pass through a matrix. This is defined by Maxwell and others. Using vectors in matrices fails in real matrix algebra world problems. You get a bunch of lines around a bulge instead of a flowing field. <br /><br />Constants are arbitrary and change when there is a need. <br /><br /> The problem with gravity is that I cannot propose new problems because of the complete refusal to set aside current belief to examine a new one. Here is a problem that has troubled me since I was a child. I read in the book "Practical Astronomy with your Calculator" that the moon might not orbit the earth. It may follow the earth. The author gave a series of equations and a calculator series solution so the reader could follow along. A lunar calendar based on an elliptical orbit following the earth. Big problem. This model explains the theory of how that works. <br /><br /> This model is able to concurrently use and produce results for all systems. This model is capable of transforming all bosonic information at the same time regardless of types of interactions across all of dark energy. This model requires subatomic information to change atomic information and upwards.<br /><br /> This model explains how a comet can have two tails; one a junk tail in the direction opposite of the direction of travel, and one a charged junk tail in the direction opposite the direction of the sun's electrical discharge.<br /><br /> I do not wish to make gravity any part of the discussion on this site. I would rather discuss why and at what ratios gluons of elements expand or contract at a certain temperature will allow mixtures to form.<br /><br /> I want gravity to be a part of history and scientist expand their thinking to cover the observations of their amazing new tools not the theory of their predecessors beliefs. <br /><br />Thanks <br />AaronAaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135433850653035435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-32803301244489642692013-03-21T15:06:02.066-04:002013-03-21T15:06:02.066-04:00I've read the paper, and don't find it to ...I've read the paper, and don't find it to make any compelling arguments.<br /><br />---<br /><br />To point (1) in the paper, helium balloons do experience the downward pull of gravity, but it is only one contribution. The other comes from the pressures of the atmosphere, and the combination results in a net upward force. Gravity is contributing, but it's only part of the puzzle.<br /><br />Point (2) in the paper is a mix of arguments...<br /><br />First, density is not 3-dimensional, nor is mass 0-dimensional. Both are single dimensional scalar quantities. They're just real numbers, and all real numbers are single-dimensional. To think otherwise is a misuse of the term "dimension", which was the subject of a response to your previous post. This has been raised by commenters several times on your blog, and I haven't seen a thorough response.<br /><br />You also bring up [f=ma] and its dimensionality. Force and acceleration are vectors of equal dimension. Mass is a scalar. A scalar times a vector is a well-defined mathematical operation, and results in another vector of the same dimensionality, and so the equation is well behaved. Maybe your theory redefines the meaning of those terms (not sure, just playing what if), but that wouldn't matter. The equation wasn't defined for use in your theory, so that doesn't invalidate it. As mainstream physics defines f, m, and a, it is a valid equation.<br /><br />You mention that constants are arbitrary corrections to make equations fit, which is absolutely not so. Equations model the relationships among variables of a system. The constants are only there to correct units... they, by their very definition, can not affect relationships. For example, if x = c z^2, then we say that x varies with the square of z. No value of the constant c can alter that relationship, and if we choose "natural" units of x and z such that c == 1, then we can eliminate c entirely... it's only there to translate units.<br /><br />Yes... quantum-scale gravity and the standard model are at war. This changes nothing about macro gravity. Two slow objects of large size relative to the Plank length will obey Newton to a rediculous level of accuracy. To fast objects of large size relative to the Plank length will obey Einstein to a rediculous level of accuracy.<br /><br />Point (3) is invalid and you actually accepted this in a comment on your blog. Gravity is well defined for an arbitrary number of objects, as forces obey superposition. What is hard to do is predict the stability of an N-body system, due to gravitational systems having the properties of chaotic systems (meaning small changes in initial condition results in large deviations how the system evolves). This doesn't invalidate anything... it just is.<br /><br />Point (4) merely states that large systems have more contributions than gravity alone. Yes. That doesn't invalidate gravity any more than it invalidates electromagnetism or the nuclear forces. Everything has a part in large systems and modelling/prediction is hard.<br /><br />Points (5) and especially (6), which just lists a bunch of topics without explanation, aren't focused enough to respond to here.<br /><br />---<br /><br />In the end, if you have a theory that replaces gravity, great. I support you in exploring it. But I don't believe you have any ground to claim that existing gravitational theories such as Newton's or GR is invalid in their domain of applicability (read: macro interactions).<br /><br />And you didn't respond to points (b) or (c).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-38137402043729513862013-03-19T09:28:09.009-04:002013-03-19T09:28:09.009-04:00Thanks for noticing the security errors. I don'...Thanks for noticing the security errors. I don't want to hurt the reader with spam. <br /><br />AaronAaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135433850653035435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-27801723415229778692013-03-19T09:20:15.189-04:002013-03-19T09:20:15.189-04:00Hi,
Thanks for reading my work. I want to take som...Hi,<br />Thanks for reading my work. I want to take some time to respond to each of your points. <br /><br />I made a mistake in discussing other models. At this point in the life cycle of this model I should be consolidating information that shows how data travels in and through each boson and how magnetic data affects dark matter.<br /><br />Now I must disprove gravity again. Using observation we can look at the perfection of orbital dynamics which uses at it's base, gravity. Orbital dynamics requires error correction. Why, because we don't understand motion better. We are just more capable of error correction. <br /><br />If you have the time I wrote a note called Disproof of Gravity. It is linked on the right side of the blog. An overall picture of the model is described in the abstract. <br /><br />When you read the papers and the abstract you can see why gravity is not a necessary concept.<br /><br />Thanks again and I will respond to each point.<br />AaronAaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15135433850653035435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-91217508474163418972013-03-18T15:47:03.607-04:002013-03-18T15:47:03.607-04:00I notice you keep letting these comments slip thro...I notice you keep letting these comments slip through moderation. You know they're just spam, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-37293711358275650882013-03-18T11:12:10.332-04:002013-03-18T11:12:10.332-04:00a) Hydrogen and Helium are absolutely affected by ...a) Hydrogen and Helium are absolutely affected by gravity. Where did you hear otherwise? And don't tell me it's because of balloons...<br /><br />b) That gravity must act instantaneously is a very out-dated concept. It's unclear what your "data about mass exceeds the speed of light" reference means.<br /><br />c) They did not find a result that "lies on the E/M scale". They found an increased number of events that correspond to a particle at a particular point on the MASS scale. I'm confused about your E/M reference. Are you saying this because mass is measured in electron-volts? That's just a way to provide a point of reference for a unit of energy... nothing more. That's like arguing that things that have horsepower must have the properties of horses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6495264582589825361.post-4418396974214785282013-03-13T09:18:08.500-04:002013-03-13T09:18:08.500-04:00I sort of understand what you're doing there, ...I sort of understand what you're doing there, but using the word "dimension" in that context is inviting confusion.<br /><br />Sure, a raw number is mathematically one dimensional (assuming you mean Reals, of course). But that does not make data structures two dimensional mathematically. The technical dimensionality of a data structure, and even a "number", can vary quite a bit.<br /><br />Maybe use the word "layer" or "tier" or some such? Numbers can be layer 1 in your model, structures layer 2, etc. Not sure. Whatever you use, you'd be wise to separate mathematical dimensions from conceptual "dimensions", and the model you're building confuses the two.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com