You are a naive RE who simply hasn't done his homework at all.
There is no such thing as the dynamo RE theory of geomagnetism, please read:
http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#s5Ether was thought to be a medium of vacuum. Its existence was disproved by Michealson and Morley. The experiment is called Michealson-Morley experiment.Obviously, you haven't even graduated from high school.
Here are some proper references on the MM experiment:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101128012239/http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (one of the very best references on the subject; it explains the colossal errors committed by Michelson and Morley, especially the fact that they did not understand the concept of a DYNAMICAL ETHER)
The Michelson-Morley experiment detected the speed of the ether drift: 5-8 km/s.
The Dayton Miller experiment detected a similar speed.
Here is the proper reference on the MM experiment:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1780340#msg1780340Magnetic monopoles do NOT exist.Are you scientifically illiterate as well?
Magnetic monopoles discovered for the first time:
http://www.london-nano.com/research-and-facilities/highlight/magnetic-monopoles-discovered-by-lcn-scientistshttp://www.london-nano.com/research-and-facilities/highlight/%E2%80%98magnetricity%E2%80%99-observed-and-measured-for-the-first-timehttp://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jan/30/magnetic-monopoles-seen-in-the-labYour lousy reference is totally useless as it has no connection to the latest scientific developments on the subject.
You just spit in a bunch of random words to make up nonsense.The hallmark of my messages are precise proofs, this is what my messages are famous for.
Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real objects and were not fabricated ac-
cording to their expectations? Knowing which groups of the periodic table
these undiscovered elements belong to could have enabled them to deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups. But the values of the atomic weights of these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for these elements agree with their chemical atomic weights to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have come about by chance in every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery. These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.
The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always
occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if Besant and Leadbeater had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation. Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements? This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively, 1939 and 1940, about seven years after the deaths of the two
Theosophists. How, if MPAs are not atoms, could they have anticipated in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in 1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.
This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles. It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted. Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of physics. If this had been the case, Besant and Leadbeater might reasonably have been expected to describe atoms
according to the Rutherford-Bohr model. The nuclear model of the atom was
formulated by Rutherford in 1911, two years after they concluded their main
investigation of MPAs. Yet none of its features can be found in their publica-
tions. Instead of being atoms, as would be expected if micro-psi faculty were
actually precognition, MPAs are more exotic objects which, as Figure 5 shows,
have compositions and UPA populations indicating that they consist of the
constituent quarks and subquarks or two atomic nuclei of an element. This
makes them more akin to what nuclear physicists call "compound nuclei,"
which are formed in high-energy physics laboratories by the collision and brief
fusion of two very fast-moving nuclei. Moreover, precognition would not
have led Besant and Leadbeater to portray some chemical molecules such as
methane and benzene in a way that conflicts with chemistry. If they had used
merely precognition, they would never have observed four MPAs for which
atomic theory can provide no corresponding element; they would have record-
ed only MPAs of known elements.
The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were published several years before physicists even suspected that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and
mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discover-
ing the neutron in 1932, twenty-four years after the first edition of Occult
Chemistry appeared. No normal or alternative paranormal explanation of the
correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old obser-
vations of subatomic particles appears to exist other than that Besant and
Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of
ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdfSubquarks is a deprecated term in physics. We use Preons nowadays. You don't even know the details about the Michelson-Morley experiment: subquarks and preons are way beyond your level.
Preons are THE FRACTIONAL SUBDIVISIONS OF AN ELECTRON.
Subquarks are THE FRACTIONAL SUBDIVISIONS OF A QUARK.
Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.”
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44784http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1998/press.htmlhttps://www.llnl.gov/str/Laughlin.html (fractional quantum effect)
Preon-quarkel structure of the electronS:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quarter-electrons-may-enable-quantum-computerEvery science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.htmlhttp://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v55/i5/pR2521_1See also (subquark detected)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdfhttp://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdfIt can be taken as an exciting and already intriguing historical
discovery of the substructure of quarks (and leptons), which has been long predicted, or as the first evidence for the composite model of quarks (and leptons), which has been long proposed since the middle of 1970’s [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. It may dramatically change not only the so-called “common sense” in physics or science but also that in philosophy, which often states that quarks (and leptons) are the smallest and most fundamental forms (or particles) of matter in the “mother nature”.
As for the ether, the Sagnac effect proves its existence immediately:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1886174#msg1886174