Dear David Thomson:

"David Thomson" wrote in message
...
On Jun 3, 4:27 pm, dlzc wrote:
Not being argumentative, just asking for you
to have a scientific mind here.

I think I have provided a scientific mind by
developing a quantified Aether theory and
performing actual experiments.

Did you make quantitative predictions, and seek to verify them?
Or did you just hook it up and turn it on?

I don't mind questions, but is it too much to
ask for you to look at the data and listen to
my answers?

All I've got here is *your* answers. You assume your conclusion,
and everything you see is "proof of magnetic 5D aether". You are
supposed to *disprove*.

Yes, that is true. However, ionized particles
cannot carry their radiation through grounded,
solid aluminum (at least not at the levels we
are talking about).

I had aluminum carriers that were nearly
entirely transparent to the 1.1 and 1.3 MeV
gamma radiation of Co-60. Additionally, there
was quite a bit of "spallation" products
scattered from the aluminum, allowing
"increased ionization" near the aluminium
surface.

I worked on drive systems for conveyors,
that used "linear induction motors" to induce
electrical currents in aluminum plates. No
wires touched the plates, and hundreds to
thousands of amps were induced.
All it needs is

Muons induce very similar reactions in metals
(and anything else).

Geiger Mueller tubes (and their ilk) detect
radiation passing through various intervening
materials, identifiying the type of radiation
based on what is still present.

Unless you have a large evacuated space
around your detector, you are simply fooling
yourself.

Using that logic, no detector is reliable.

But that is all that Nature gives us. But much can be done with
even that.

Gamma and cosmic rays are constantly
bombarding everything, even vacuum tubes.
I have a scintillator encased in about 3" of
lead all around it and it still picks up thousands
of cps.

So how do you know which gamma detection corresponded to your
"gravity wave" of ~24 hours before?

But you made me curious tonight. I checked
for E fields near the detector, and there were
none.

What detector impedance do you have? What is the response time?

Then I checked for EMR and was surprised.
The power supply must have blown a
transistor or something as the power output
was down a half volt. Also, it was putting
out EMR to five feet. The meter's low
threshhold is .1 mW/cm^2. The power supply
was only about a foot from the sensor, so I
moved it downstairs to the room below and
replaced it with a fresh power supply.
Checking the power supply after setup
shows that no EMR from the power supply is
reaching the sensor at this time.

Why not leave it downstairs, and feed the power up shielded wire?
More to the point, are you using a switcher or a linear power
supply? For a quickie test, can you construct a bank of
batteries and run for a few minutes, just to quanitfy the effect
of an external power source?

Other than removing an intense buzz from the
signal, the device works as it did before. There
is a lightning storm about seventy miles away
and I'm picking up lightning strike signals loud
and clear. I'm also picking up a technology
signal (probably related to the military
submarine communications system).

Do you have a cell phone, or wireless phones in the house? They
usually impinge on sensitive stuff for quite a ways.

Also, the ionization from the gamma rays has
nothing to do with the gravitational waves.

But can have a lot to do with detection.

It can't have anything to do with the gravitational
signals since they occur long before the gamma
ray bursts reach the earth.

1) you cannot discount ionization, either "today" or "about 24
hours ago".
2) you have not even attempted to establish polarity on the
"magnetism" you have detected, to see if it has a northwards
bias.
3) you assume your conclusion, so everything you see is
"gravitational waves".

The gravitational waves are occurring nearly 24
hours before the gamma ray burst arrives.

So a single detection is simply noise and random
chance. Disprove that.

The gravitational wave signals are not subjective
little blips in the system, they are completely
saturating signals. Take a look at the graph I
posted on the web page, it's under the June 2
follow up entry. There is no chance a gravitational
wave is a random signal.

There is a big chance your detector "saturated" for other
reasons. You have not even attempted the most basic of analyses.

That does not mean there aren't gravitational waves
without GRBs. It appears the Milky Way galaxy
puts out its own gravitational waves, and they don't
follow the same pattern as for supernovae. I'll bet
when the Sun gets active again, I'll see gravitational
waves associated with strong CMEs, but that is
speculation.

Oh no, you will imagine all sorts of stuff, when the CME induces
noise in the AC lines.

Light is the flow of photons, which are limited
to the speed of light.

One would hope. But photons can disguise
themselves as electromagnetic fields, completely
describable by wave equations, you cannot
discount that photons have some EM nature to
them.

I agree that photons are fully quantifiable with wave
equations. And I agree that photons will correspond
with electromagnetic radiation. In the Aether
Physics Model, the Aether unit is also equal to a
photon per electromagnetic charge. In order for
photons to exist, they must exist in connection
with electromagnetic charge, much like potential
and current can only exist in conjunction with
resistance.

Be careful, current can exist without potential, just as
potential can exist without current.

The gravitational waves are tsunamis in the
Aether fabric, which can travel faster than the
speed of light (and also slower).

Aether is the medium of propagation of light. Or
have you completely redefined aether for your
own evil purposes?

Light does not propagate, any more than a river
flows. Water flows as a river, photons flow as
light. Aether is the medium in which photons
flow, yes. But the Aether medium can itself
flow. That is what frame dragging is all about.

Better not be. A dragged aether has been disproven by
experiment. Better look to your similes.

It is also why the MMX showed a flowing Aether
entrained behind the Earth.

It has not shown any such thing. It only *disproved* an aether
through which light propagates, but matter not.

The fact that magnetic fields can move (rotating
magnetic fields) is further evidence the Aether is
capable of movement.

.... when you assume your conclusion.

Further, the Aether is capable of propagating
longitudinal waves, just like water propogates
a tsunami through the ocean. The longitudinal
waves of Aether are not caused by photons,
they are caused by the Aether units, themselves.

Yet you agree that photons "flow through" the aether, but are not
in any way affected by your tsunami?

A gravitational wave and a magnetic pulse are
the same thing but seen from two different
views. A gravitational wave and a magnetic
pulse are longitudinal waves within the Aether
medium, which do not involve photons.

So you assert...

The fact that the gravity waves are disconnected
from the photons of the gamma ray burst by
dozens of hours clearly shows the magnetic
component is separate and independent from
the photon stream.

No such proof, just random noise and someone
that *wants* there to have been a detection.
Disprove that.

I did. You need to look at the data. There is no
way the magnetic pulses detected in this sensor
are random noise.

Who said this:
QUOTE
Then I checked for EMR and was surprised.
The power supply must have blown a
transistor or something as the power output
was down a half volt. Also, it was putting
out EMR to five feet.
END QUOTE

What was the correlation between your "absolutely, positively a
gravitational wave detection" and the failed power supply? For
that matter, have you tried inducing a magnetic field in other
ways, to see how your detector behaves?

Right now, the Sun is extremely quiet. When
it gets a little more energetic and the long
wave solar x-ray irradiance starts showing on
the graph, then the gravitational waves that I
detect are nearly exactly timed to a similar
burst of solar x-rays.

I appreciate your questions. I'll gladly answer
them. Please be courteous and give my
responses adequate attention and comment on
them. After looking at the data, do you agree or
disagree that the data I provide is not just random
noise?

I can't tell. You bluster about this "theory", then you start
measuring... and just assume that Nature is only showing you what
you want to see. She really doesn't work like that.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
.... chance only favors the prepared mind.

Find out what orientation your "magnetic detector" responds to.
Calibrate it to some sort of magnetic field intensity. Assure
yourself that you are not reading only "ionization boosted
M-field" from Earth's own magnetic field. Do you know what a
Faraday cage is? How about Helmholtz coils?

Aluminum (nor lead) does neither job well.

No response required.

David A. Smith