The Fabric of Space or... Full of S?

[Dardedar]

This just trickled in. Smells like Greybear. Is this where you have been getting some of your stuff Greybear?

I think this is what happens when a person speaks outside of their area of expertise.

***************
Dear friends,

I have posted something that I hope you will eventually like. I'm ultimately looking for a publisher and/or literary agent. I'm contacting others in your group, and other groups similar to your own. I'm a humanist.

The following is a set of theories that explains almost every aspect of physics, and has implications that many will not like. The FOS [Fabric of Space] theory series simply uses an aether, vortex-electron model and protons as standing waves to explain just about everything. The fundamental forces are reduced just to Electromagnetism, and with the work of others on Plasma Physics [like Eric J Lerner] the universe can be more easily explained.

Someone has asked me to make this public to get feed back from various people and groups. It will appear on the http://www.abovetopsecret.com web site, and others, to get feed back from various people, and to determine what points need strengthening, but more importantly to hopefully find a publisher.


Posted on the ATS site as of May 5, 2010 8pm Mountain Time North America

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread568504/pg1

It has already been posted on my own web site. A draft of my book was copyrighted in 1990 & 1993, but never pursued for publication until 2009. Work and family life have not allowed me to work any faster than I have. That and the fact that I know well that what I have to say will be met not only with skepticism & ridicule, but also indifference, and anger.

Fidler-Morton Vortex-Electron model requires an aether. A new atomic model.

The is a summary of a theory that uses physical processes related to gases, & fluids, to explain the nature of the fundamental forces of nature, and reduces them all down to one force - Electro-magnetism. The so-called magical properties of such a luminiferous aether are far less than the number of magical particles, let alone their properties, and assumptions of today's most popular model. Michelson & Morely's work only proved that an aether wind does not flow thru the Earth, and thus the ether they envisioned did not exist.

I've been asked to post this publicly to see what others think of this. This information has been reduced to fit within limits of ATS posts. I will do my best to answer Q's in a timely fashion - when I'm not working or dealing with family life.

The Fidler-Morton Vortex-Electron model arose during the study of Two-Photon physics. This is not the first time that a vortex-electron model has been suggested, but no previous model actually provided a nearly complete explanation for almost every aspect of physics. 2-photon physics is where 2 gamma-rays interact with one another, or with the nucleus of an atom, and one of the possible outcomes results in the formation an electron-positron pair. This occurs through the creation of a fermion / anti-fermion pair which themselves release "energy" and result in an e- e+ pair being formed. Ignoring the scapegoat answer: "a photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair." (1) The question then for the study was: "How could 2 photons which are fundamental & neutral bodies give rise to a charged pair of particles? What is negative and positive charge?" If this was the result of a physical process, as the interaction between two fluidic/gas bodies, then what form could an e- and e+ take on to trigger charge. Physical processes would require an aether - otherwise we'd be stuck with delayed action at a distance, and like today's most popular theory would require additional particles, like Gauge Bosons, to transfer forces between particles like e- and protons to carry out the effects of the fundamental forces. Note how the most popular theory does not explain the forces, but instead requires additional bodies to transfer the still unexplained forces between bodies.

The study looked at the collision of 2 g-rays, with one passing thru the other. What could this result in? Part of the answer to this lies within the relationship that shows that magnetism & electricity are linked by the square of the speed of light. Which seems to indicate that what ever happened to the conduction of the gamma-ray thru the ether is still contained within the resulting structure of the electron, but has now been transformed to bring about the electrical constant [vacuum permittivity] and magnetic constant [vacuum permeability]. 25 years ago, the description of 2-photon physics was not quite like it is described now on Wikipedia(1).

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics

[1] What was the Michelson & Morely experiment supposed to have proved? They proved that the aether model they envisioned has no bearing on reality. They envisioned that it flowed thru the Earth like water flows thru a fish net. Most experiments, including more recent ones, have shown that there is no flow of an ether through the Earth, and if there is an ether then the only possible reason the experiments would fail is that the ether is being dragged along with the Earth as the planet revolves around the Sun. For more on current information about an Aether Drag Hypothesis look at:

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

There seems to be some question of others fudging the results of Dayton Miller's experiments to disprove his results in which he showed an ether exists:

(3) http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm



But what advantage could there be to an ether based model. The main reason is that the F-M vortex electron model can account for nearly all of the observed phenomenon in physics. This is do mostly to the fact that it reduces down the known fundamental forces to just one - Electro-magnetism. Time and time again we have found that Occam's razor applies when two theories try to explain the same thing. The simpler model usually turns out to have the most solid evidence to support it as being more plausible.



It is more than just a contradiction to say that the aether does not exist then show that empty space has measurable properties. Some might say that these properties might be due to the presence of all the non-matter that is not detectable any other way. New exotic particles that have replaced the ether in order to make the most popular model work. Why then does empty space have measurable properties? Few would dispute its dielectric constant, permeability, and impedance.



Instead of an Aether we now have the following to replace it:

- Dark Energy

- Dark Matter

- Gauge Bosons

- Super Strings

- And conveniently enough virtual photons & other virtual particles that come into existence when needed.



But No aether! As that would just be crazy talk, because that would just make the universe too complicated. Not!


The F-M Vortex-Electron model, along with Plasma Physics based models like those from Eric J Lerner's group (4), show that these other hypothetical phenomenon are not needed. Only the aether and electro-magnetism are needed.


(4) http://bigbangneverhappened.org


In summary:

- Black Holes: observed electromagnetic filaments and gravitational activity at galactic cores are better explained via plasma physics

- Dark Energy: there are alternate explanations for the observed Red-Shift

- Dark Matter: believed to account for Galactic clusters that should not be held together by gravity alone, but removing the galactic interlopers [those actually behind and in front of the clusters] shows that gravity alone can account for these systems

- Gauge Bosons: believed to be the fundamental particles of force exchange between bodies. Note that the force is not actually explained as in how-it-works, instead they just assign a new particle to pass it on

- Gluons: indirectly involved with the binding of protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei. Not needed since high energy electrons can account for the observed effects. EOC [electron orbital capture] shows that electrons can and do enter nuclei

- Gravitons: the vortex dynamics and its affects upon the aether around the standing waves we call protons generate a gradient of FOS that electrons are attracted to and interact with

- Super Strings: no need to talk about the different harmonics of strings to determine the different fundamental forces of nature

- Virtual Particles: are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles. Like static force fields, such as electric and magnetic fields

- Virtual Photons: photons are believed not to exist until needed or drawn out of the dark energy of space. The FM vortex electron models shows that electrons carry, or push, ether and dump, or displace it, as photons

The FM model simplifies how the following works:

. Electronic Shell Configurations - remember how in high school we were told that pairing an equal number of protons and electrons together created a neutral atom, BUT that if a shell was not full then an atom could give away or add another e- around it. Well there is a simpler explanation for this

. Gravity - caused by the residual charge left over by all atoms to which electrons are still sensitive and attracted to.

. Strong Nuclear Force - is what holds the nuclei of atoms together but could instead just be an electromagnetic side effect, and induced by nuclear electrons dropping the FOS density between protons so that they stay together. See part 6 for evidence of Fidler-Morton nuclear model

[2] Longitudinal waves can experience interference and be polarizable. Sound waves can be cancelled out, and elliptical shaped waves can be polarized. Circles were thought to rule the universe - then it was shown via the orbits of the planets that in fact ellipses are the norm, and not circles.

[3] What is an electron? What does it do to effect negative charge? The vortex formation slows down the original body of the gamma-ray and this newly formed vortex, or smoke-ring-like structure, rotates about itself, and in doing so affects the fabric in a number of ways. 1: It induces compression of the aether ahead of it, 2: Further compresses the fabric that passes through its center and then the FOS naturally decompresses as it exits the electron, 3: it imparts momentum into the fabric of space to trigger magnetism. The exiting fabric of space reduces the density of the ether/space it passes through and its this now relatively lower density aether that is seen as negative charge. Electrons induce movement in atoms by being sensitive to the gradients around them, and favoring the side that places it more often in a stronger gradient. The pressure differential that is formed pushes/pulls the nuclei towards this region of space.


[4] What are protons & neutrons? As many others have come to believe, protons appear to be standing waves. That trigger compression in the FOS around themselves resulting in the formation of a gradient of dense aether that extends out, and to which electrons are attracted to as a region of more conductive aether. Ultimately giving rise to the Fidler-Morton Atomic Model. And at the same time implying that matter is an illusion and all we really have in the universe is energy and force fields. I would argue that a Neutron is not a fundamental particle because outside the nucleus of an atom it decays within roughly 10.5 minutes. Giving rise to a proton and a pion [an energetic electron]. Where as protons do not appear to decay. EOC radiation shows that electrons do enter nuclei, and since they can enter nuclei we know that they are there. For more on Neutrons see pt 6.



--------------------- Part 2 -----------------



[5] The ionic states of atoms, and the attraction of electrons to nuclei and other charged bodies, along with gravity, can be better explained via the Fidler-Morton Vortex-Electron model, protons as standing waves and the Fidler-Morton Atomic Model. Without the contradiction of charge neutralization versus the filling of electronic shells that all of us are taught in school. Anyone who has taken chemistry remembers being told that an electron and proton have equal and opposite charges, and thus combining the two results in a neutrally charged system. But then we're immediately told that; "But atoms like to fill their shells with electrons, and so..." So, in other words they don't really know what they are talking about. The hydrogen atom is the most nearly perfect counter example of their understanding. It is just one electron and one proton, but is one of the most reactive of the atomic elements. While on the other hand, if you instead look at the helium atom which is normally described as two electrons and two protons it is nearly perfectly neutral, but is an exception to the rule in the periodic table of the elements. [*Note that when you remove an electron from an atom it leaves the atom charged positively by the amount of negative charge you removed, but this is because you removed the negative effect of that electron.*] Ok, so an electron and proton do not form a stable neutral body when combined, and even in the form of a neutron this particle system is unstable outside of the nucleus of an atom, and decays within approximately 10.5 minutes into a proton and nuclear electron. It takes at least two protons and one nuclear electron to form a stable arrangement - called the deuterium nucleus. So, obviously the charges are un-equal. Why then are most atoms willing to either donate an electron, or accept an electron from another atom? The Fidler-Morton vortex-electron model states that electrons are attracted to the density gradients formed around protons, and that as electrons fill a shell they reduce the density of the aether around the nucleus of an atom, and this layer, or shell, becomes less attractive to other electrons. Eventually either additional electrons are not attracted to the atom at all, or new electrons are instead attracted to a region further away from the nucleus and thus start to form a new electronic shell. The electrons are attracted to this other region because it has had time to recover from the activity of the electrons below it and return to normal, and now the FOS further out from the nucleus is a region that electrons find more favorable and thus conduct themselves through it. Since ether densities and electron energies increase accordingly these shells are similar around other nuclei of similar size, and since the nuclear charge increases accordingly, there is a natural pattern of orbits or electronic shell configurations. An atom whose shell is almost full still has enough of a gradient left over to hold onto another electron. While an atom whose highest orbital is quite weak obviously can attract an electron but is more likely to share it or give it up with another atom. In fact, even if an atom can no longer hold onto another electron, its nucleus is still generating a small but weak ether gradient further out from the atom. Electrons can in the presence of a positive electric field, ether gradient, find them selves spending more time on one side of an atom than the other, and thus triggering a variety of effects.



Gravitational effects are similarly induced and occur due to electrons favoring one side of an atom more than another due to the presence of some mass on that side, and the electrons spend more time on this side. In effect creating a lower density region on that side to which the nucleus of the atom is then forced towards due to this FOS, aka ether, pressure differential. The electrons in our bodies favor being on the side of the atoms towards the gravitational center of the Earth, and thus our bodies are drawn towards the Earth, even though the electrons are strongly bound to the atoms and molecules to which they are part of.



[6] Neutrons and protons can form nuclei because nuclear electrons (muons - pions) that help form neutrons create a negative region close to a proton, that then allows this system to pair up with another proton. In such a manner that the two protons are simply sharing the nuclear electron, without either of them really being a neutron or exclusively owning the electron. In other words, a neutron is simply a system of a proton and a nuclear electron. Deuterium nuclei are stable because the electron is attracted to the region between the two protons who are creating between them a denser than normal region in space, to which the electron is strongly attracted to. And once it passes through this region it lowers the density such that the protons unequal pressure gradients pushes the protons towards the center of the lower density/pressure region. As the pressure once again builds up the protons could again move apart, but the electron returns back to this more conductive region again and again once the effects of its previous passage are minimized and it becomes attracted to this region again. Nuclear stability is based on the nuclei having enough electrons and protons to remain balanced. Too many electrons, or protons, will increase the likely hood of electrons nearly colliding with one another or not being able to return back soon enough between a set of protons to keep them together within a nucleus. Recent evidence of the nuclear structure indicated by the Fidler-Morton nuclear model was supported as negative regions around neutrons were shown to exist, and reported in the book the "Fundamentals in nuclear physics." See page 156 of Fundamentals in nuclear physics: from nuclear structure to cosmology - by Jean-Louis Basdevant, James Rich, Michel Spiro. Here is a link to that page:



http://books.google.com/books?id=OFx7P9 ... #PPA156,M1



[7] What do we know about the Red-Shift that many claim to be as indisputable proof of the Big Bang. It has been said that it is due to either the Doppler shift of the photons, or the expansion of space itself. The only thing we know for sure is that the red-shift happens and is a measurable, and observable effect. In general it does not appear to be 100% linear relationship. That is that two stellar bodies at the same distance away from us may not have the same amount of red-shift. But could this simply be due to some of the stellar bodies moving around the galactic centers coming towards us? The red-shift has at least four possible reasons, or combination of reasons;

1. It is due to motion and thus is a Doppler effect. This implies that some galaxies are approaching the speed of light which is suppose to be impossible.

2. It is due to the expansion of the universe itself. Thus as space expands so do photons. But wouldn't they just get bigger - wouldn't we along with the electrons and protons? Since electrons arise from photons shouldn't they also expand accordingly?

3. It is due to the Compton effect. That is photons interact with matter as it travels towards us, and they lose energy in collisions. But wouldn't this cause their path to change?

4. It is due to photons simply expanding as they travel through space. Some say this is in effect to them losing energy overtime. But I'd argue that this is not due to a loss of energy in so much as the compression and rarefactions of space itself simply causes them to grow larger over time due to the dynamics of this type of conduction.

[8] CMB - Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is touted as being indisputable proof of the Big Bang, but other theories have arisen that are just as good, and since the Big Bang's key assumption is in doubt so are any other supporting interpretations of the data. One moment they are happy with the way it appears, then someone points out that it is too smooth, and then they are back to trying to determine some new phenomenon to counter act this effect. Check out item 7 on the following page:

http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm

Or better yet item 2 on the following page:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology ... Theory.htm

[9] Fidler-Morton Gravitational Time Paradox - If atomic clocks can be shown to run at different rates for all distances for every gravitational body then how can the universe function with time as a dimension if time is running differently everywhere. Only synchronizing up around other gravitational bodies at certain altitudes and similar distances from other similar masses. Instead these variations in atomic clock rates can be better explained as nuclei relaxing or increasing their hold on the electrons orbiting them depending on whether the clock is moving away from or towards a mass. In fact these time variations, are evidence for the existence of an aether, and that the ether is being dragged along with the Earth around the Sun.

--------

The main reason I'm posting this information is to get feed back, find out where my weak points are or need re-enforcing, and also I'd really like to write a book about this. I was told by one group that they needed to see what others think of my theories as they are not sure what to think, and I stumbled upon ATS. So, here I am. I'm looking for a publisher. And perhaps a co-author or acknowledged ghost-writer as I'm more of an idea man than a writer.

Instead of dictating to the Universe how it must behave I have tried to instead observe how it appears to behave.

Terrance Fidler

http://www.Robots4Farms.com - BC's largest collection of underwater photography.

[kwlyon]

This is so nonsensical I simply have no comment. I will not waist the time to attempt to respond to something so utterly ridiculous....wow....

[Savonarola]

I have posted something that I hope you will eventually like.

Well, you're not off to a good start.
I won't claim to have a great understanding of particle physics, but I understand science and the scientific process quite well, and I have an above-average understanding of the world just slightly larger than quarks... which -- it would appear -- you don't think exist.

Let's start by exposing some dishonestly backhanded well-poisoning:

Anyone who has taken chemistry remembers being told that an electron and proton have equal and opposite charges, and thus combining the two results in a neutrally charged system. But then we're immediately told that; "But atoms like to fill their shells with electrons, and so..." So, in other words they don't really know what they are talking about.

No, I know exactly what I'm talking about. The process involves the ionization energies of the metal and the electron affinities of the nonmetal. The most thermodynamically stable formation results. Because of the effect of Coulomb's law on the attractive force between the nucleus and an electron in shell n (or n+1 or n-1 as applied) and the law of conservation of mass, the charge works out.
Did I mention that I teach this to 16-year olds? Yes, contrary to your assertion that old ideas die out so that the younglings will accept newer ideas, my adolescent students understand this well enough that they'd read this and wrinkle their noses in disgust, too. That is, even teenagers will make you look stupid.

The hydrogen atom is the most nearly perfect counter example of their understanding. It is just one electron and one proton, but is one of the most reactive of the atomic elements.

No, your "counterexample" is the perfect example to show that you have no idea what modern scientists think. You want to argue that because a hydrogen atom is neutral, modern science's view should be that it is stable (i.e. unreactive). Being neutrally charged is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for being unreactive. We don't teach as such, so once again you're pretending that scientists and teachers are lying when it is you who is doing the lying.

While on the other hand, if you instead look at the helium atom which is normally described as two electrons and two protons it is nearly perfectly neutral, but is an exception to the rule in the periodic table of the elements.

An exception to what rule? It has a filled shell and an insufficient nuclear charge to attract another electron at a thermodynamic preference because the third electron would have to enter a shell with a larger average radius. We understand this quite well. It is clear that you don't.

Ok, so an electron and proton do not form a stable neutral body when combined

Let's be clear: An electron and a proton do not form a chemically stable atom, but the protium atom is physically stable.

It takes at least two protons and one nuclear electron to form a stable arrangement - called the deuterium nucleus.

But you can't just slam together two protons and an electron and get a deuterium nucleus. There are other types of subatomic particles involved, one of which is a neutrino. How does this work into your model, Fidler? Why are you ignoring the neutrino?
Also note that you've conveniently switched your meaning of "stable" when you want it to apply differently. Why can't you just be specific? The deuterium atom is no more chemically stable than the protium atom. The deuterium atom is no more physically unstable than the protium atom.

Why then are most atoms willing to either donate an electron, or accept an electron from another atom?

There are two main factors: effective nuclear charge and size (i.e. radius) of the occupied orbital. We have the answer. Do you think that we're wrong? If so, why?

The Fidler-Morton vortex-electron model states that electrons are attracted to the density gradients formed around protons, and that as electrons fill a shell they reduce the density of the aether around the nucleus of an atom, and this layer, or shell, becomes less attractive to other electrons.

So really, you're talking about what we call nuclear shielding or nuclear screening, which doesn't require the existence of an aether but only of fields.

Eventually either additional electrons are not attracted to the atom at all, or new electrons are instead attracted to a region further away from the nucleus and thus start to form a new electronic shell.

Schrodinger showed this a long, long time ago without needing an aether and simply by treating the electrons as waves.

The electrons are attracted to this other region because it has had time to recover from the activity of the electrons below it and return to normal

So if you try to add the electrons quickly, the outer electrons won't experience the attraction because the fabric hasn't equilibrated? This sounds like an experiment that could easily show that you're correct and that modern physics is wrong. Then you could tell us how quickly the fabric of space flattens back out.
On the other hand, the experiment could also show that you're wrong. In fact, I suspect that sufficient experimentation has already been done. Care to find it?

Note that the above is just from one paragraph of one part of your senseless diatribe. You get facts wrong, accuse scientists and teachers of lying, concoct "solutions" to problems that don't exist, and create ideas that are superfluous to explaining the phenomena.
It's just bad science.