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, [email protected], 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]