FEEDBACK NOTE NO. 10
ANOTHER RESPONSE TO TONY ERICKSON
Copyright, Harold Aspden, 2002
As I noted in FEEDBACK NOTE
NO. 9, following his message to me of April 16, 2002 Tony Erickson,
Tony@lasersafety.com, sent me an E-Mail which was insulting in declaring that I
had made numerous untrue statements on my website concerning electromagnetic
radiation. My polite response to this was my E-Mail message to him dated April
22, 2002 (sent at 8.06 am):
"Will you kindly point to one section of my website where I make
an untrue statement concerning electromagnetic radiation - a statement that is
contrary to what you believe has been proven to be true from multiple
directions? Identify the statement that concerns you and I will correct it and
explain in my FEEDBACK section of my website why I have corrected it or I will
otherwise give a full explanation of why I adhere to what I have said in the
light of your criticism."
Some 8 hours later at 16.10 on April
22, Erickson sent me his E-Mail response, as presented below, and only 25
minutes later at 16.35 on April 22, he sent a further response, also presented
below, in which you will see that he declares to me, as his point 4, 'You are
crazy, but I assume you knew that', before signing off as "Tony Erickson, A REAL
scientist."
I therefore duly responded to this by my very extensive
FEEDBACK NOTE NO. 9 posted on this website on April 29th but Tony Erickson seems
not to have looked at my website to see this reply to his criticism, because on
May 7th he sent me the following E-Mail message:
I quote from your site. “The onward story concerns the discovery
that the creation of a plasma ball that has a substantial net electric charge
of one polarity will immediately, by its interaction with enveloping aether,
cause a state of spin to develop. Stars spin. Body Earth spins. The Moon
spins. Thunderballs, the product of lightning in which electrodynamic pinch
effects create charge clusters, spin. Tornadoes, which nucleate on whirlwinds
and develop even more spin energy owing to recurrent lightning discharges
through their funnels, are related phenomena. It all comes down to
understanding how anomalous spin effects arise by interaction in or with the
aether and the real story of this begins by deciphering the spin properties of
the photon”
Wrong again Einstein. Tornadoes do NOT spin because of
interactions with the aether and lightning. My god, you set yourself up for so
much abuse by making such easily dis-provable points. Learn some real physics.
Tornadoes are not always associated with lightning, that PROVES you are wrong
without even getting into the actual reasons you are wrong.
“What then
happens is that, within a single space domain, the protons, which are
positively charged, see one another as two interacting particles subject to
gravitation”
If you study the actual laws of the universe, you will see
that gravitation is NOT a significant force on sub-atomic scales.
Electromagnetic and the nuclear forces are millions of times more powerful at
those scales. This has been TESTED and PROVEN.
You have never published
a response to my other e-mails. Kind of hard to make up more fake science on
the fly?
You should be ashamed of yourself for propagating such lies.
You make the creationists that may use your “information” as evidence look
like morons.
Now I have no idea how well-educated or
ill-educated this fellow Tony Erickson is on the subject of physics, but he
seems to assume a level of authority that few professors of physics would rise
to or sink to in their debates with their peers. What, I ask, are these 'actual
laws of the universe' that specify that the force of gravitation is
insignificant on sub-atomic scales'? Even at school I was taught that the force
of gravitation, being ever attractive and effective as between elements of mass
however small, did regulate how planets interacted with the sun, there being no
overriding effect attributable to electrostatic interaction. Later in life I
read that Einstein had tried, but failed, to explain the force of gravitation as
an electromagnetic interaction, the quest of what was called 'unified field
theory'. So how can this affect what I say about the role of gravitation in an
ionized plasma of astronomical size?
I note that at the age of 17 when I
went to university I had won my school's annual Physics Prize and, even then,
knew by simple calculation that the electrostatic interaction force of repulsion
between two electrons is greater by more than a factor of 10 to the power 43
than their gravitational interaction force of attraction. Two protons however
repel by a electrostatic force that is greater than gravity by a factor of 10 to
the power 36. Evenso the gravitational force is not insignificant when we look
at the sun and not merely at something of subatomic size. There are more than 10
to the power 57 electrons and protons in the sun and, given its state of
ionization, the only prevalent force is in fact the force of gravity!
So,
Mr. Erickson, do some physics and do the calculations according to the accepted
laws of physics to see how that stronger force of gravitational attraction
between every combination of pairs of protons in the sun has an overriding
effect which causes the proton population to be slightly more concentrated than
the electron population and ask yourself if that might account for the sun
having a magnetic moment. If you need help then do refer to the APPENDIX I of my
book 'Physics Unified' (ISBN 0 85056 0098) where, at pages 195-196 under the
heading 'Uniform Charge Induction in a Self-gravitating Electron Proton-Gas', I
present the mathematical analysis.
Read up on the history of the
Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis, which accepted that gravity had an action that could
reveal itself in an electrical effect in stars, even though, as you put it:
"Electromagnetic and nuclear forces are millions of times more
powerful ... This has been TESTED and PROVEN."
and ask yourself, Mr.
Erickson, why a Nobel laureate in physics (Blackett) would go to the trouble of
experimenting on this theme if what you say is true is a sufficient reason for
dismissing the problem as not warranting any attention.
Now, can I really
be wrong about the tornado theme? My Erickson does not need to get into the
actual reasons why I am wrong, because, as he puts it, he knows that "tornadoes
do NOT spin because of interactions with the aether and lightning" as "tornadoes
are not always associated with lightning". Well, again, here I admit that my
study of the subject has been limited, but it does suggest aether involvement
when I read in a major physics periodical that tornadoes have been seen to
travel in a direction opposite to that of the prevailing wind. Also, I tended to
be influenced by the scientific reports of one specialist authority who
explained that an observer looking upwards within the funnel of a passing
tornado was impressed by the repeated flashes of lightning seen along the
channel of the funnel. I accept that a whirlwind does not imply the
pre-existence of a lightning discharge but I wonder at what stage a whirlwind
develops into a tornado. I suppose it has something to do with the level of its
destructive power, the wind speed of its rotational motion, and wonder, as did
that expert (Vonnegut), what may have been the source of the energy inflow that
built up the enormous power of that whirlwind. Vonnegut felt sure it was an
electrical source and even experimented with tests on electrical discharges with
air spinning slowly about the axis of discharge. He demonstrated that the slow
rotation of air can stabilize that discharge and confine it to the central axis
of spin. How could that by possible by our existing laws of physics? Mr Erickson
says that the aether is "NOT" involved, but surely one might be forgiven for
thinking that, if the the aether is entrained by the air so as to share that
spin, then if there is an electric displacement induced in the aether radial to
the spin axis it might just set up electric fields which confine that discharge
to the central axis.
You see, unlike Mr Erickson, who knows what a
tornado is not but not what it really is, I do not know all there is no know
about physics, because there is more that we can all yet learn, given that
Nature still withholds a few secrets. However, I always have a reason for the
advances in physical theory that I suggest and can but invite those interested
to share my path of exploration of the unknown by taking due note of those
reasons.
As to Erickson's final remarks in his E-Mail message of May 7th,
saying "I have never published a response to his other E-Mails", I can but draw
attention again to the previous 9/02:
Response to Tony Erickson FEEDBACK NOTE NO. 9 of April 29th as I smile upon
reading of his absurd assumption that I have not answered because I find it
"Kind of hard to make up more fake science on the fly?"
Having reacted by
replying to four of his taunts I now decline all further response to his
insulting mode of communication. However, I will have more to say soon on the
subject of how difficult it is to project new ideas in this modern world of
physics, where there are many who regard themselves as arbiters as to what is
right and what is wrong just because of their basic training in the standard
disciplines of the science. Research is no easy task if it involves little more
than new theory aimed at explaining what is known already but not fully
understood. That reference to 'fake science' has more relevance to much that is
said about the neutrino and its role in cosmology. Once the aether is eliminated
from consideration in physical theory one is left to invent 'fake' notions in
order to keep the books in balance and the neutrino is the 'fake' particle that
fills the bill. New ideas find no easy entry into the world of the theoretical
physicist because those who see themselves as well entrenched in that field
combine forces to oppose a would-be rival. However, though it is fair game to
debate the merits of rival theories, there is no justification for blocking
consideration of new theoretical advances in physics based on the mere assertion
that it has to be excluded owing to the definitive state of existing knowledge,
as Mr Erickson has done.
[H. ASPDEN, May 9th, 2002]