Development of a Theory of Aether
Web Publication by
Mountain Man Graphics, Australia - Southern Autumn '97
Date: 4 Mar 1997 03:25:49 GMT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Ross Tessien)
Organization: Impulse Engineering, Inc.
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Conference on the Fundamental Structure and Mechanisms of the Universe
> In theory, someone could derive Maxwell's equations without knowing how
> to use them. However, I have a very hard time believing that someone
> who does not have sufficient understanding of classical electromagnetism
> (EM) to be able to solve some of the more straightforward problems could
> still have sufficient understanding to write a meta-theory that contains EM.
> How in the world does one come up with the fundamental axioms? As
> Murray Gell Mann stated in a lecture I was in, there already are
> millions of mathematical systems that could or could not apply. Going
> through these, and the billions more that could be invented might
> eventually work, but it seems akin to the million monkeys with typewriters.
Yes. And Weinberg stated that he tried to monkey around with the constants of nature to come up with a new set of laws and everything went whacko.
But the way you come up with a fundamental axiom is sometimes extremely simple, and in my case that is what happened. You are so on target here that I hate to delete anything of the next paragraphs, so I won't.
> What it takes to come up with a good theory is the same as what it takes
> to work Jackson or Goldstein problems: a good understanding of what is
> happening. Once you can picture the problem properly, it all falls into
> place. It was amazing how one can go in studying physics from being
> totally perplexed by a set of problems to having them be fairly trivial.
Yes. The first time you grasp the simple notions of F = ma, and then apply them to mechanics and to statics etc., you come to realize that you can understand anything by simply breaking things down into the fundamental components and then dealing with them individually. But then when you get to QM, this all goes flying apart. And with GR, it seems to again all go flying apart due to our notions about space and time.
> That flash of intuition is needed, and in spades, when one
> wants to do new work. My most memorable professional work was when I
> got those insights, walked up to the board, knowing that I would have
> the answer by the time I sat down.
> We train to do this by arguing out problems that are already solved.
> This gives us a feel for what is going on out there. The axioms are not
> first in physics, the physical reality is.
Yes, so you test your axioms qualitatively at first and see if they at least point north when the experiment showed the needle pointed north. If your qualitative notions say, "the needle will point south" then you know for certain your intuition is incorrect. This is different from quantative work, but if you fail the qualitative yes no questions, then you are never going to get to the quantative stuff because you have some fundamental errors in your notions.
Here is the flash of intuition I had, for what it is worth. I didn't believe that the universe could induce an attraction mechanism on anything over there by pulling from over here. So, in my mind, I banned them. But this meant that sub atomic matter would explode outward if it could not hold itself inward. I also thought that the unification of forces meant that there was only one fundamental force mechanism, and it seemed logical that space, time, matter, force fields, etc., were all different manifestations of just one, something or other. Today that something is called the quantum vacuum, to avoid the Aether word, but I didn't care what we called the rose, so I use the term aether. Combining that with the postulate;
Now this is radically simple and from the above you may think you could go no where.
But one of the first things that happened was that particles were not static structures. The only way I could get an electron to continue to exist, without a way to hold that energy or aether, in, was to allow it to explode, and then have some wave energy converge in, and then expand out and so on. Thus, I could not have a static pea like particle, I could only have a resonant standing wave. At first this may sound difficult to deal with, but it really isn't. In fact, if an electron is a standing wave, you have no further problem imagining why it is surrounded by a "field".
From this came two observations that spurred me on. First, I wondered what would happen to the shapes of the standing waves around a lot of electrons and positive nuclei if the electrons were to precess around a wire coil. And I saw induction fall out as the electrons resisted instantaneous accelerations or decelerations because of the time delay for the waves to communicate across the separation of the coil.
And the second thing was when I imagined what the entire earth filled with these little buzzing standing waves would look like from space. The summation of that nodal structure wound up taking on a spherical curvature to it due to the phased array emissions of the particles. And so I saw GR spacetime curvature for the first time as the constructive and destructive interferences of the ball of particles distributed like a 3D phased array antenna.
When I read that Thomson had already shown that a phase angle shift could lead to the attractions of positive and negative charge, I was really jazzed because that is what I had found. He did it with math, I did it with time delays in the communicated wave energy. And I also found that he confirmed that 90, and 270 degree resonances would not interact just as the diagrams I had worked out indicated. So I gained some confidence in my work due to this confirmation of behaviors.
And when I realized that there were three distinct kinds of thrust that one could impose on these standing waves I was really excited. This is because you can induce either attraction or repulsion behaviors if you accelerate a group of particles with a net charge, relative to one another. These are phase interferences, and they corresponded to the nuclear strong and the electric fields. But the coup de gras was realizing that you can also have frequency interferences. This is like two pendulums that are coupled together as observed by Huygens. They not only phase coupled, but they also frequency coupled.
But frequency interferences with standing waves can lead to only one kind of net thrust, a repulsion! So, if you had frequency shifted wave energy arriving from all around, and you had a body nearby that could filter out that wave energy, then that body would not repulse you as much as the surrounding space would repulse you. And as a result, you would be pushed "down" harder than you were pushed "up". That is gravity. And proving that gravitational shielding is equivalent to a pull is easy, as Le Sage showed way back in Newtons day.
But when I mention this, people always think of some sort of flow of aether, as did Feynman evaluate in one or more of his books. But this is not what I am talking about. I mean a filtering of frequency mismatched wave energy, and the re-emission of that same wave energy at the phase and frequency timings of our local part of the universe. ie, in cadence with our local spacetime oscillations.
Well, I am not a graduate physicist. But I am a graduate mechanical engineer, so I have studied a lot of mechanics and I work with my mind to formulate the way things must behave.
And from the simple rules I applied, I found that in our current structure of physics, there is (IMO), one error. I think that if this error were removed, and the notions in GR and QM were re-formulated, that you would come up with essentially what I have found.
This rule is the notion of "equivalency" of mass and energy in the equation E = mc^2. IMO, mass is the amplification of the amount of aether in a locale. And E is a measure of the work that can be performed by aether in motion, or aether at higher pressure than the surroundings. I am here speaking of work at the Planck scale, and not like normal pressure you would work with. ie, QVF.
But the net of this change is really simple and subtle. It requires you to adopt a universe that is massive. ie, the empty vacuum of space becomes massive. But since you have all of the universe being massive, this really doesn't change any net GR effects at all on the first cut. But it does change one important thing. It means that when you induce a fusion reaction, or any exothermic reaction for that matter, that you must account for not only the energy attained by the observed emitted particles, but as well, for the net flux of aether out of the reacting particles.
It is this conservation of aether notion that comes in here, and that is what leads you to expect to see some anamolous behaviors as that flow of aether heads out of stars. But just look at the T-tauri stars with their jets. Look at the sun with its corona and its coronal holes and fast and slow component of the solar wind blowing outward.
When you test this notion and you look into any region of our universe where there is a large amount of energy being released, and you seek to find out if there are anamolous behaviors that would be better fit if there were an aether flowing out of the stars involved, you come to find out that the answer is, the anamoly would be reduced by some unknown amount (since we are not into the quantative phase yet) by an outward aether flux.
Now the above is not a trivial question to evaluate, because you must consider that the mass we think the sun is, is incorrect if this is true. So you have to think about it for a while. But the crux is, this notion leads to a reduction of the errors observed by astro physicists.
So yes, you must start with some simple idea if you are to supplant the current theories of physics. I began with just one medium, and with just one force mechanism, and began from there with action, reaction, period.
I guess I pushed the envelop, but then that is what it takes. The question that remains is, "Is this new theory, crazy enough?"
To find out, I ordered some particle physics texts the other day to test out my notions on QCD. Time will tell. And yes, the notions I will test deal with the weak force, which is just a phase angle transferance of energy from inside the nucleus to outside the nucleus via a particle exchange.
Development of a Theory of Aether
Web Publication by
Mountain Man Graphics, Australia - Southern Autumn '97