Massfree Energy & Aetherometry (With experimental support!)
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Gravityman - 24 Mar 2006 22:40 GMT Has anyone heard (or have studied the work) of Dr. Paulo Correa? What is your thought of him and his work?
see http://www.aetherometry.com
He has a sophisticated aether model with experimental support (unlike the many aether cranks here)..
Here's the summary of his idea:
Massfree Energy
Aetherometry claims to be a scientific theory (a system) of the imponderable Aether. It proposes the existence of energy devoid of inertia, called 'massfree energy'. In this it follows on the steps of Maximo Aucci's theory of massless charges. Aetherometry proposes that massfree energy does not simply fill up space, but produces or engineers it. It also advances the notion that massfree energy is responsible for all motions of material objects, be they material particles or celestial bodies. In a wide sens e, massfree energy is said to encompass Aether manifestations proper, as well as photon and kinetic energy states (also called 'kinetons' in the aetherometric jargon). The primordial or Aether manifestations of massfree energy are said to include what the Correas have called "dark massfree energy" in both electric and nonelectric forms and are associated with the cosmological creation of material particles. The process they propose for the creation of matter (electron, proton) requires the concomi ttant crea tion of gravitons "affected to that matter".
Aetherometry proposes that the world of Matter relates solely and strictly to the electromagnetic and inertial properties of mass-energy particles, to material particles that possess inertia. But the object of study that it claims as its own is not, per se, massfree energy in states that are directly dependent upon mass, such as the transient kinetic energy of massbound particles or the electromagnetic energy of blackbody photons, but the study of massfree energy in nonelectromagnetic forms.
Ambipolar massfree energy, aka Tesla radiation
Electric massfree energy consists of ambipolar charges that are devoid of inertial effects and propagate longitudinally. In contrast to the monopolar charges (electrons, protons) that characterize ordinary massbound electricity, ambipolar charges continuously alternate between polar states, or, to say it more accurately, constantly vary their polarity during forward propagation. Ambipolar electricity is a massfree phenomenon. Field capture of ambipolar energy by massbound (monopolar) charges results in thei r acceleration; deceleration of the same massbound charges results in the local production of blackbody photons. The Correas have published the cosmic spectrum of ambipolar radiation and the corresponding blackbody spectra emitted from electrons and protons, providing exact new equations that profoundly alter the conventional theory of electromagnetism. They have also demonstrated how the continuous ambipolar spectrum contains two biologically and physically distinct regions. The cut off between OR and DOR o ccurs at 79.4 keV. This is a strictly aetherometric discovery.
Latent heat or latent massfree energy
Nonelectric massfree energy exists in both unbound and massbound states. In massbound states, it is responsible for the energy of state of molecular phases, the intrinsic energy of gases, specific latent heats, most of the atmospheric energy, and the noncovalent bond energies exploited by all living systems. Its generic designation is molecular latent heat. In unbound states, massfree latent energy is responsible for the cosmological creation of space and the direction (diachronism) and synchronicity of abs olute Time. The superimposition of unbound massfree latent energy yields what is physically and mathematically designated as the phase energy which permits the creation of mass-energy and associated gravitons (secondary superimposition). Thus, Aetherometry affirms that all mass-energy is a transient construct of the phase superimposition of latent massfree energy, the composite effect of Aether energy units.
Blackbody radiation is composed of nonionizing thermal, optical and supra-optical 'electromagnetic' (photon) radiation, forming what is called radiative (sensible) heat. Ambipolar orgone radiation indirectly gives rise (through the 'medium' of electrons) to blackbody radiation having wavelengths greater than 300 nanometers. Ambipolar DOR radiation indirectly gives rise to blackbody (Hallwacks) photons in the UVB and UV-C ranges, up to the shortest 47nm blackbody radiation (end of the blackbody spectrum).
Note that sensible heat, unlike latent heat, is composed of thermal drift kinetons (molecular heat) and blackbody photons (radiative heat)
Photons (ionizing or nonionizing), 'kinetons', gravitons, ambipolar charges and particles or units of latent massfree energy are all massfree particles associated with specific physical interactions or manifestations. The demonstration of these particles' existence, and the proposed new model and mathematical formalism (see Aetherometric Microfunctional Transformative Algebra below) that address their specific properties, have been extracted from a nexus of systematic and diverse experimental investigations into physical and biological systems, gathered under the rubrics of Experimental Aetherometry, Aetherometric Biology, and the Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity (AToS).
Bill Hobba - 24 Mar 2006 22:56 GMT > Has anyone heard (or have studied the work) of Dr. Paulo Correa? > What is your thought of him and his work? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > strictly to the electromagnetic and inertial properties of > mass-energy particles, Well there is a problem right from the start - what about the strong, weak force and gravity? As Gerald T'Hooft says: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html 'Do get me right: you don't have to believe anything you read on faith - check it. Try alternative approaches, as many as you can. You will discover, time and again, that really what those guys did indeed was the smartest thing possible.'
Bill
>to material particles that possess > inertia. But the object of study that it claims as its own is [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > Aetherometric Biology, and the Aetherometric Theory of > Synchronicity (AToS). Gravityman - 25 Mar 2006 00:01 GMT > > Has anyone heard (or have studied the work) of Dr. Paulo Correa? > > What is your thought of him and his work? [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Bill Here's the gravity part:
"Gravitons are transient, nonelectromagnetic massfree energy particles whose impulse (gravitational momentum) is anchored to the mass-energy of particles of Matter, but which are emitted from the local Aether medium (formed by the constant and ordered flux of dark massfree energy and cosmological lepton lattices). Both gravitons and antigravitons (a concept rejected by established Physics) may also be formed and seated in the composite lattices composing the local Aether medium. Gravitons anchored to mass-energy particles are described mathematically and physically as being in a relationship of secondary superimposition with that mass-energy.
Besides gravitons, Aetherometry has demonstrated the existence of primordial or primary manifestations of massfree energy in both electric and nonelectric forms, also referred to as 'dark massfree energy'."
> >to material particles that possess > > inertia. But the object of study that it claims as its own is [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Aetherometric Biology, and the Aetherometric Theory of > > Synchronicity (AToS). Bill Hobba - 25 Mar 2006 00:33 GMT >> > Has anyone heard (or have studied the work) of Dr. Paulo Correa? >> > What is your thought of him and his work? [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > electric and nonelectric forms, also referred to as 'dark massfree > energy'." Along with predicting new things it might also be a good idea to explain current stuff such as the strong and weak force whose existence disproves the statement 'the world of Matter relates solely and strictly to the electromagnetic and inertial properties of mass-energy particles' eg the W particle.
Bill
>> >to material particles that possess >> > inertia. But the object of study that it claims as its own is [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >> > Aetherometric Biology, and the Aetherometric Theory of >> > Synchronicity (AToS). Bilge - 27 Mar 2006 03:19 GMT Gravityman:
>Here's the gravity part: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >physically as being in a relationship of secondary superimposition >with that mass-energy. OK, then using that description, what does he calculate for the precession of mercury? While this is just a hunch, I suspect that he doesn't calculate.
Bilge - 27 Mar 2006 03:16 GMT Gravityman:
>Has anyone heard (or have studied the work) of Dr. Paulo Correa? >What is your thought of him and his work? That can be ascertained from the answers to the following two questions.
(1) Does he have a rigorous mathematical proof that light propagating in his medium has _only_ transverse polarizations within the experimental limits for which light is known to have only transverse polarizations? (Equivalently, can he rigorously derive maxwell's equations from the mechanical properties of his ether?)
(2) Can he predict the weak decay rates for superallowed fermi transitions (to the level that CVC predicts the decay rates in agreement with experiment) based on his theory of weak interactions derived from the mechanical properties of his ether?
If the answer to question (1) is no, then his ``work'' has a ways to go before reaching the 1904 state-of-the-art and there is no point in going on to question (2). Assuming he can address (1) but not (2), then his work is comparable to the state-of-the-art sometime between 1904 and 1950. If he has no theory of weak decays, then change 1950 to 1934. I suspect a question (3) won't be necessary to place his theory in perspective by comparison with the timeline of conventional physics.
>wide sens e, massfree energy is said to encompass Aether >manifestations proper, as well as photon and kinetic energy >states (also called 'kinetons' in the aetherometric jargon). Does he provide a scientifically rigorous definition of ``kinetone,'' (as in a mathematical derivation that pins down its physical meaning)? If not, then ``jargon'' was the right term.
[...]
>Ambipolar massfree energy, aka Tesla radiation > >Electric massfree energy consists of ambipolar charges that are >devoid of inertial effects and propagate longitudinally. Which means what (in terms of a defining equation)? [...]
>ambipolar spectrum contains two biologically and physically >distinct regions. The cut off between OR and DOR o ccurs at 79.4 >keV. This is a strictly aetherometric discovery. Strangely enough, this and the rest of their ``discoveries'' are so astounding that you have to pay money in order to read the text that goes with the soundbites. But, let's just apply some logic to one of those astounding claims:
``Lift Technology 1 - The Aetherometric Weight-Neutralizer (AWN)''
Since this technology is still only 75-90 percent efficient at neutralizing weight, it is, of course, being kept a ``commercial secret'' pending perfection, so we have to rely on the ``eyewitness testimony'' of eugene mallove, whose most notable talent is repackaging reports of failure from cold fusion experiments as up-and-coming technology:
``My visit in March 2001 was an especially gracious favor by you, because it allowed two scientific and business colleagues of mine to witness the startling operation of two Aether Motors that were running from energy captured by adjacent ORAC boxes. These were fully self-running motors - that is, no conventional energy source, chemical or electrical, was present.''
Now, presuming none of these people are living on other planets where energy is so abundant that the fuel required to lift a fully loaded airbus A380 doesn't factor into the expense of flying a fleet of them, one might imagine that the above ``discovery,'' if true, would have made paulo a lot more money (even without the state of perfection for which he is nobley striving) than selling aticles no one will buy from a web site few people will encounter, at $20.00 a pop more than anyone will spend. Just think - even the imperfect implementation eugene so kindly verified above, would free paulo from having to solicit donations on his website.
While some would call me a skeptic or even a cynic, I must to admit to having serious doubts about paulo being on the level. I suspect all that separates him from a 1-900-PAY-PAULO number is that the lack of revenue derived from his ``Contributions'' link has made the initial cost prohibitive.
Gravityman - 27 Mar 2006 11:17 GMT > Gravityman: > >Has anyone heard (or have studied the work) of Dr. Paulo Correa? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > theory in perspective by comparison with the timeline of conventional > physics. I don't own any books of Dr. Correa so I don't know his explanations. This is why I mention him so anyone who has studied his stuff before can share it. He has more sophisticated aether model than say Thomson or Seto nonsense stuff.
I'm just puzzled on the unification principle of General Relativity and
the Aether... I wonder whether it is theoretically possible to have an Aether version of General Relativity... just for exploratory purposes. IIja stuff is one but he uses LET principle. I want to explore others where they don't use LET.
Grav
> >wide sens e, massfree energy is said to encompass Aether > >manifestations proper, as well as photon and kinetic energy [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > revenue derived from his ``Contributions'' link has made the initial > cost prohibitive. kenseto - 27 Mar 2006 17:32 GMT > > Gravityman: > > >Has anyone heard (or have studied the work) of Dr. Paulo Correa? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > before can share it. He has more sophisticated aether model > than say Thomson or Seto nonsense stuff. It is apparent that you don't have a clue what a sophisticated aether model is. You like Correa's stuff because it have pretty pictures. My theory of gravity is published in the following peer-reviewed journals: 1. Galilean Electrodynamics. 2. Nature and Science.
Ken Seto
Eric Gisse - 27 Mar 2006 19:33 GMT > > > Gravityman: > > > >Has anyone heard (or have studied the work) of Dr. Paulo Correa? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > is. You like Correa's stuff because it have pretty pictures. My theory of > gravity is published in the following peer-reviewed journals: Thats right Ken, keep fighting the good fight even though nobody cares.
> 1. Galilean Electrodynamics. Give us a break. Most of us were not born yesterday, so you will have to do better than that.
> 2. Nature and Science. Not Nature *and* Science, of course. "Nature and Science". There is a subtle difference in naming, but an enormous difference in quality.
Straight off their webpage:
"The Nature and Science is an international journal to enhance our natural and scientific knowledge spreading in the world under the free publication principle. Any valuable paper to describe natural phenomena/existence or report scientific researches/pursuits will be acceptable, including both natural and social sciences. Papers submitted could be reviews, objective descriptions, research reports, opinions/debates, news, letters, and all other information nature and science related."
Peer-reviewed indeed.
> Ken Seto Sam Wormley - 27 Mar 2006 19:44 GMT > My theory of > gravity is published in the following peer-reviewed journals: > 1. Galilean Electrodynamics. > 2. Nature and Science. > > Ken Seto You are kidding yourself Seto if you think those are peer-reviewed journals. They are full of rubbish--a lot of crackpot sh.t that is contradicted by empirical data.
kenseto - 27 Mar 2006 20:28 GMT > > My theory of > > gravity is published in the following peer-reviewed journals: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > journals. They are full of rubbish--a lot of crackpot sh.t that > is contradicted by empirical data. I will agree with you if you can have a paper published in Galilean Electrodynamics. otherwise shut the f.ck up.....runt of the Srians.
Sam Wormley - 27 Mar 2006 20:39 GMT >>>My theory of >>>gravity is published in the following peer-reviewed journals: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I will agree with you if you can have a paper published in Galilean > Electrodynamics. otherwise shut the f.ck up.....runt of the Srians. Some of the content of papers published in Galilean Electrodynamics refute each other.
Ilja Schmelzer - 30 Mar 2006 07:55 GMT "Gravityman" <gravitymanuel@yahoo.com> schrieb>
> I'm just puzzled on the unification principle of General Relativity and > the Aether... I wonder whether it is theoretically possible to have an > Aether version of General Relativity... just for exploratory > purposes. IIja stuff is one but he uses LET principle. I want to > explore others where they don't use LET. Hm. If you want an ether version of GR, its nongravity limit will be an ether version of SR. And that is what people name LET. I see no alternative.
But I don't "use" LET in the sense that I don't have to postulate the things which are postulated in LET. The postulates of GLET are independend, natural postulates about a moving, compressible ether.
Ilja
JeffRelf - 28 Mar 2006 06:15 GMT Hi Gravityman, You asked:
Has anyone heard ( or have studied the work ) of Dr. Paulo Correa ? What is your thought of him and his work ? Paulo_Correa talks a lot but never really says anything.
Sure an ideal vacuum might be composed of particle/antiparticle pairs, but he doesn't understand that dark energy is General_Relativity's lambda, a.k.a. GR's cosmological constant, a.k.a. Negative_Mass_Energy, a.k.a. negative pressure, a.k.a. the cost of maintianing the vacuum of space.
Lambda is well known these days, SNLS' preliminary data, released November 22, has lambda _Constant_ to +- 10 percent, ...for at least the last 12 billion years or so... and likely forever.
WMAP has lambda pinned down to an accuracy of +- 5 percent.
WMAP's March 17th data shows only polerizations consistent with dissipation, -- i.e. ever increasing entropy --, not from the massive gravity waves we'd see if, absurdly, the entire cosmos had instantly popped into existence... sheesh, talk about science fiction !
So... The 5D shape of the cosmos, Space_Time_Entropy, can be imagined as a 2D hyperbola or a 3D horn with an infinitely long mouthpiece and flange. As Hawking keeps saying... the cosmos has no beginning or end.
Because the cosmos has no center of gravity, it's 4D shape, Space_Time, -- not just Space --, is flat, like a straight 2D line.
I posit that everything from water and humans to photons and black holes are all just leftover density from the notional start of the big bang. I also posit that entropy is an intrinsic property of mass-energy.
Further, I posit that entropy is the measure of so-called cosmic time, the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, Space_time_Entropy.
To understand cosmology and particle phsyics, you must first realize:
Nothing is intrinsically random, just unknown, given _Today_'s best observations/theories.
For example:
The spin of the earth and it's path around the sun are well known, a priori; but, until it's measured, the spin of a photon and its path are unknown. GR tells us that time is intrinsically _Spatial_, it's only unknowns that make it seem directional.
|
|
|