The Aether, Black Holes and the Standard Model (Chapman)

The following post was made originally be Chapman in the Always On Thread

The topic of “The Aether” recently popped up in the thread about the EM Drive. I have much to say on the topic, but I did not want to divert that thread from it’s primary topic, so I will just post a few thoughts and questions here, in the Open Thread, on the off chance anyone else may have any thoughts or insights to share…

To start things off, let me outline a seemingly unrelated problem I can not reconcile, involving General Relativity, The Standard Model, and Black Holes. I say “seemingly unrelated” because while the issue does not directly reference or involve the Aether, I believe The Aether to be the only viable answer.

So, here you go Kids; think on this…

General Relativity tells us all about Gravity Wells. I will not waste your time reviewing all the details – you either understand it, or you do not – but the key takeaway is that gravity actually warps space-time. From this concept we get Gravitational Lensing, Worm Holes… and Black Holes.

Black Holes are depicted with massive accretion discs, are modeled in binary star formations SUCKING the very life out of their nearby partners, and are reported to be the Gravatic foci at the heart of Galaxies.

With Black Holes, you have a sufficiently large mass so as to cause Gravity to completely warp space in on itself. Every straight line originating below the event horizon is bent back and terminates at the singularity. There is no way out, because there is no DIRECTION that points “out”. This idea is far more complex than simply looking at it as a matter of the escape velocity below the Event Horizon being greater than the speed of light, which is TRUE, as a statement, but the CAUSE is the Gravitational bending of space itself. Again, this is THE great insight of General Relativity.

On the other hand, the Standard Model is built upon the idea of Fermions, which are the material particles that serve as the actual building blocks of physical matter, and Bosons, which are particles/quasi-particles that mediate the transfer of the primary forces (EM, Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, Mass, and Gravity) between those Fermions. For each force that works on observable matter, there is a class of boson which is being exchanged between those particles and actually conveying the attraction or repulsion effect of the force in question. The key take away here is that the Standard Model describes forces as being mediated by carrier particles being exchanged between interacting material particles.

So… Do you see where this is going???

Gravity is understood to be mediated by the Graviton. This particle has not yet been claimed to have been observed, but it’s existence is absolutely mandatory according to the physical mechanics upon which the Standard Model is based. And it’s existence is the basis of a whole universe of ideas and theories about Gravitic Propulsion, Worm Holes, Warp Drives, and Anti-Gravity devices.

But THINK about Black Holes for just a moment longer. As stated, below the event horizon space-time itself is physically warped back on itself. All vectors terminate at the singularity. It is a closed space. And THAT means that even GRAVITONS can not escape!

THERE IS NO PHYSICAL WAY FOR SINGULARITY GRAVITONS TO INTERACT WITH REAL-SPACE! There is no path by which the Singularity Gravitons can exchange with passing material particles outside of the event horizon. In short, once a black hole has formed, it will cease to have ANY gravitational influence with external matter. You could STAND 5 feet from the event horizon and feel NO EFFECT. You could not orbit around it, because there is no gravity well at all. This simple fact also means that they can not be the seeds at the heart of galaxies.

Not only would there be no light escaping, and no gravitational emanations, but because the Black Hole would be totally untethered from real-space, it would have no observable mass in real-space. It would no longer maintain “location” in real-space relative to it’s local point of origin. At the instant of it’s formation, the black hole would appear to zip away at high velocity, as it would no longer maintain whatever relative velocity it had as it was moving along with the common velocity it shared with the local neighborhood. It would actually be just stopping in terms of absolute space, but of course the rest of local space would still carry forward along its previous vector, and with whatever velocity it already had.

Just to simplify the idea, we can sum things up by saying that if Photons, just one sample of the boson class, can not escape the black hole, then NONE of the FAMILIES of bosons can either. ALL FORCES ARE DISRUPTED by the same mechanism.

Unless the Standard Model is wrong, and General Relativity is only a philosophy. Simply accepting the Aether would allow Black Holes to work as predicted, and reportedly observed. In fact, with an Aether, black holes would exhibit MORE gravity than the same mass in real-space!

CONCLUSION: Contrary to the current Scientific Theories supporting The Standard Model, FORCES can not be interactions between material particles being mediated directly between those particles by a subordinate set of carrier particles. The only workable answer is that there IS an Aether, and that the observed forces are interactions between material particles and The Aether, or interactions between particles via waveforms within the Aether.

1. EM is mediated by Photons, which are just coherent waves through the Aether.

2. MASS is just an Impedance effect resulting from material particles moving through the Aether, and is actually responsible for the formation of Photons.

3. Gravity is the result of non-coherent waves in the Aether, which drive all material particles towards each other, exactly as is observed by boats in open water.

4. Weak nuclear force is perfectly reasonable EM induced activity on the quark scale.

5. Strong nuclear force is the result of a physical “flow” within the Aether that surrounds all rotating particles, and creates what amounts to a “micro-quasar”. Also, there are no blue, red, and green quarks. Quarks join up in threes because each must align at 90 degrees to each of it’s neighbors in order to have their axial flow not repel.

Grand Unification becomes simple mechanics once you accept the existence of The Aether.

And for the record – Matter and Anti-Matter do NOT annihilate! Get THAT ONE straight, and most of the other mysteries become obvious also…

  • Brokeeper

    But what is Aether? What are its properties, substance, and mechanism? Has it experimentally been proven to exist? Is it too finite to be measured and observed? Smaller than a vibrating string? Exists in a 12th deminsion? Or comes from a non-demension within another belief system, as a word – HEB 1:3? (Sorry for being unscientific).

    • Chapman

      The exact properties of The Aether is a subject of much debate.

      Because the idea was officially abandoned by the elites within the scientific community at the start of the 1900’s, and officially made “taboo” with the acceptance of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, little mainstream research or theory development has been done in Academia, and the idea that the original Aether concept is actually REAL has only gained strength in the independent community as mainstream science has had to resort to ever increasingly outlandish theories to patch over the inconsistencies and discrepancies that continue to show up.

      That being said, there are things we DO know. Plank solved the black body radiation problem by the introduction of an arbitrary constant. That is to say, he could not state WHY the constant corrected the emission spectrum distribution, but by limiting the top end of the POSSIBLE radiation energy spectrum he found that the remaining energy distribution calculations suddenly matched perfectly with observed measurements. The logical PHYSICAL correlation is that space is a liquid medium, and that the particles that make up that liquid have a density – that is, they are separated by – a single Plank width in 3 dimensional space. Waves can not propagate at a frequency that has individual particles being displaced by less than this distance, because no collision with neighboring particles, and subsequent waveform propagation, occurs.

      The Plank Length is in the range of 10^-35 meters! From YOU, down to a Proton, is only a scale of 10^-15. A primary particle of the Aether is subsequently 10^-20 further below the scale of the proton. The SCALE between a Quark and the Aether is much GREATER than the scale of Planet Earth to a single Proton.

      In all likelihood, the Aether is composed of Plank Scale Dipoles, each being a pair of bound Mono-poles bearing opposing fundamental charge. This is the charge that we directly recognize as the Electromagnetic Force, and which, via complex physical and mechanical interactions, generates secondary “effects” on the macro scale that we OBSERVE to be separate forces, simply due to our lack of insight as to the underlying nature of the mechanics we are observing.

      All material particles are born FROM these pairs, due to them becoming unbound. Every particle we observe is a construct of many constituent parts, all stemming from these broken pieces of the very fabric of space. Matter itself is just the broken bits clumped together. They are the “disorder”. Particles are bits of flotsam, bobbing on the waves within the Aether. But from the Plank Scale up, “Particles” are REAL. They combine, and separate, but they NEVER just POP magically out of probability-space.

      This whole concept is as FAR from the mysticism of string theory and modern quantum mechanics as you can get. “The Aether” is a Classical Physics model, and predates GTR, QM, QED, QCD, String Theory, and all the rest. It is based on the idea that stuff is real, that there really are only three dimensions, that stuff is “There” even if you ain’t lookin’, and that time marches ever onward.

      Aether Theory is “Physics for Muggles”, and we are HAPPY to leave “Magic” to Harry Potter and his confused, trouble making little friends at the academy…

      Lastly, you ask “Where did the Aether come from???”
      Gen 1:1? (maybe HE follows the KISS principle TOO!!!)

      • Mats002

        Strange – I woke up this morning thinking of light and matter as the funktion of waves and vortexes in a dipole aether.

        And now (a few hours later) read this article about the very same concept.

        Amazing! ^^

        • Chapman

          That is because it is “Intuitive”. Your subconscious models everything, in order to empower you with insight. It is the reason intelligence evolves. Ideas either make sense, or not, because they fit into the patterns your mind builds it’s model of reality and response around.

          Your own experience with the physical world leads you to a sense of “comfort” with solutions that easily conform with your subconscious understanding of physical mechanical interactions and cause and effect.

          We all come up with these same insights, and then some academic tells us that we are ignorant and uneducated, and they proceed to explain how everything we THOUGHT we knew is wrong. 4 years (and 1000 bottles of aspirin) later we graduate from University completely reprogrammed to ignore what we experience, and trust in the established dogma of the day.

          For the record – These are NOT my ideas, nor offered as MY great contribution to science. I stake no claim to the theories presented. I am a voracious consumer of scientific writings and publications, and I am inclined to pass along and expound upon the parts of what I read that makes sense to me, but these theories have been around for longer than I have walked on the Earth!

          • Brokeeper

            I think Mats002 has QM entanglement accross space with Chapman. ☺

          • Mats002

            That would violate this intuitive concept – wouldn’t it? 🙂

          • Frederic Maillard

            Hello Chapman,
            Do you think stuff like EM Drive could actually work because of the existence of the aether ?
            FM

          • Chapman

            Thanks to the explicit details on the mechanics of the thrust of the EM Drive outlined in the fine paper referenced by our friend radvar in the post above, I see no reason to expect the action of the EM Drive to differ under either condition.

            Basically, the Aether Theory describes Photons as pure waves that nonetheless transfer energy/mass/momentum. The EM Drive would work weather that Photon was an actual particle, or a wave with all the EFFECTS of a particle.

            As long as it does not require superposition or “extra-dimensional quasi-particle tunneling” or such nonsense, then I see no contradictions.

          • Frederic Maillard

            Thanks for your reply.
            My post and Radvar’s have crossed.

      • Brokeeper

        Perhaps simple to God who resides outside space and time. But very complex to us mortals caught up in this realm. “The foolishness of God is wiser than man”.
        We need to ask ourselves how did our consciousness come into being? Presto chango you’re here? Why isn’t it in another state or form? (Zec 12:1, Gen 2:7, Ecc 12:7).
        I suggest the creation was made so deeply infinitely small to entertain our gift of imagination and discovery as to keep us from being too self reliant and bored. Otherwise such geniuses as Hawkings would have perished long ago without meaning and purpose.

        • Chapman

          I sense a kindred spirit…. 🙂

          • Brokeeper

            🙂

    • Stephen

      Sometimes “words” can be a better way to describe or allude to unexplained phenomena and concepts in a free and more unconstrained way than using known formula and established data parameters.

      For me a word in its broadest sense is a concept of an idea expressed in some form.

      The unknown and unexplained is first glimpsed through feeling, emotion response and often first expressed in words. As scientists we try to explain them as far as we can with what we know through constrained formula and data. But formula and data can also be misleading about the underlying truth.

      There is certainly an important role for scientific method but words, philosophy and art in all its forms are also important expressions to our understanding. Together they complement each other better than when they compete.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    An external observer never sees matter cross the event horizon because its infalling motion slows down so much from his point of view. To me, that would seem to resolve the paradox.

    A couple of years ago there was an interesting idea by Laura Mersini (https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1837) that actually a true event horizon never forms: just before reaching a would-be horizon, the infalling matter experiences so large gravity gradient that it turns into intense outgoing Hawking radiation. In this picture, the black hole is not a stationary object, but a very dynamic process where matter collapses and then immediately explodes away as Hawking radiation. From the point of view of an external observer, however, the extreme gravitational redshift slows down the violent process so much that the hole has seemingly very long lifetime and (for a macroscopic hole) looks practically stationary and black. I like such picture because it avoids the notion of singularity. I think, however, that the picture can be neither proven nor disproven without having a theory of quantum gravity, i.e., without having a theory that prescribes exactly how to calculate the backreaction of Hawking radiation in a strong field regime. Mersini’s paper was turned down by referees, it only appeared as arxiv preprint.

    • Chapman

      I do not see how the perspective of an external observer resolves the question of how Gravitons emitted from a singularity can traverse the warped space-time below the event horizon in order to interact WITH that external observer. What the observer “sees” outside does nothing to un-warp the space within!

      Keep in mind that I am not arguing that black holes HAVE no external gravity well. I am pointing out that the Standard Model and General Relativity would RESULT in black holes without gravity wells. That is the point. Reality is not wrong, it is THEORY that is flawed.

      This is not a Special Relativity issue that deals with perceptions based upon an observers frame of reference. This is a question of the shape of space-time below the event horizon. What is seen outside of the event horizon is simply a consequence of the structure within, and that structure tells us much about the forces that form it.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        The mass never disappears from the view of the external observer (it just becomes so redshifted that it becomes effectively black), hence to him it’s no wonder that the gravity field also stays. Also, only a distant external observer is able to measure the hole’s mass from its asymptotic gravity field.

        I agree intuitively with you that GR+SM together with the stationarity assumption seems to yield the dilemma that you pointed out. But I would suggest questioning the stationarity assumption before GR or SM.

        • Chapman

          I follow your logic. For the record, it is my suspicion that the fault lies not in GR, but mainly in SM.

          Einstein never actually tried to prove there was no Aether, but would get aggravated when folks would invoke the Aether to argue against both SR and GR, so he basically said, “Shut up already about the damn Aether! It is not necessary or germane to the Time vs Perception issues I am trying to explain here!”. Other than Einstein’s conclusion that there is no absolute frame of reference (hense all measurements are relative), there is nothing he proposed that is in direct conflict with Aether theory.

          SM and QM, on the other hand, are completely bass-ackward from AT.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            ‘Reality’, ‘universe’s fabric’, ‘aether’, ‘vacuum’.. the names refer to the “stuff” that the universe is made of. The word aether is not used nowadays because it referred to the pre-Einsteinian non-Lorentz invariant concept of the vacuum which was shown by Michelson-Morley experiment to be invalid.

            That said, e.g. brane cosmology perhaps could be called an ‘aether’ description, in the sense that its universe is a massive 4-D object (the world brane) which moves in some higher-dimensional background spacetime.

            GR+SM teach that the “stuff that the universe is made of” is 1) Lorentz invariant, 2) curvable by masses, and 3) exhibits virtual particle effects such as vacuum polarisability. And cosmologists might add: 4) contains dark energy. By what name to call the stuff is a linguistic question.

  • Max Nozin

    Well put. I’ve been following this alternative school of thought for few years and it definitely worth attention.
    There is an opinion that modern​ physics has been hijacked by the mathematicians and therefore deviated from traditional philosophical materialistic approach. Sure the universe is so complicated we will never fully understand it so let’s use plausible approximations instead.
    Only in the formulas it is acceptable to operate with such concepts like field, wave and charge without questioning the true nature of them. Aether allows to bring all that back into pure mechanics where no other energy exists apart from kinetic. Nothing pops out and comes back into parallel multi-dimensional universe. No ‘density of probability’ is needed to find a particle in Euclidian space.
    Light is a wave and like any wave its speed is limited by the properties of the Aether which is the medium where light wave propagates.
    Time is absolute and time travel is impossible but superluminal speeds are.
    Getting down to the root causes behind physical events will send research down the path to new discoveries unlike current situation in which we are constantly being sent on a rogue round trips by claims such as ‘distruction of information releases energy’ an so on.

    • Chapman

      HAH! You clearly get it! It is nice to hear from a fellow dissident… 🙂

      For years I followed conventional theory. When mainstream science seemed irrational I would mark it down to my own ignorance. Then came String Theory, and the idea that the sum of all positive integers is -1/12, and THAT was the straw that broke the camels back for me. REAL theoretical physics had been usurped by abstract mathematics, and any connection between theory and reality had been severed.

      Oddly enough, it took very little time or effort to look about and discover I was not alone, and that there was a WORLD of alternative theories out there that were far more plausible than the mainstream nonsense we see. And a good number of those theories did not require the donning of any Aluminium Headgear at all…

      • HA! I just learned about that sum of all positive integers supposedly equaling -1/12 thing. That got me to question whether the entire concept of infinity makes any sense, at all.

        • Max Nozin

          I would like to see mathematicians to concentrate on issues like how big is the point is and how many spheres you can put in 8-dimensional cube. Meanwhile people like R.Mills will bring applied physics back to us. Even though Mills is not accepting ether and aether his critique of modern physics is a good start.

      • Max Nozin

        There is quite a number of professional physics particularly in Russia and Ukraine who have been developing ether theory called etherodynamics. What I see as anmajor problem that they like all scientist could not agree on anything beyond relativity criticism.

  • Chapman

    Thanks to the explicit details on the mechanics of the thrust of the EM Drive outlined in the fine paper referenced by our friend radvar in the post above, I see no reason to expect the action of the EM Drive to differ under either condition.

    Basically, the Aether Theory describes Photons as pure waves that nonetheless transfer energy/mass/momentum. The EM Drive would work weather that Photon was an actual particle, or a wave with all the EFFECTS of a particle.

    As long as it does not require superposition or “extra-dimensional quasi-particle tunneling” or such nonsense, then I see no contradictions.

    • Frederic Maillard

      Thanks for your reply.
      My post and Radvar’s have crossed.

  • Ciaranjay

    Hi Chapman
    If you are smart and curious (I think you are) then this is a great time to be alive.
    I am not sure about aether but I agree that (IMO) the underlying explanation will come down to geometry (or a related branch such as topology).
    You may find this discussion of interest.
    It has an interesting critique of the algebraic approach in physics.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-defense-of-the-reality-of-time/

    • Chapman

      I LIKE this guy’s way of thinking!

      Thank you for directing me to him. I will dive deeper into his work. He makes straightforward arguments, based on sound physics, that points out much of what I have tried to explain to folks. When you talk about “unconventional” there is a fine line between saying you believed in the existence of the coelacanth vs “I just had lunch with Bigfoot”. In physics, there are many issues that seem totally abstract and contrary to known laws, but really stem from just a single misconception, or applying what is, in itself, a perfectly sound and reasonable and well-documented principal too broadly.

      Rethinking the SCOPE of known principals, and identifying the exceptions that must be recognized, is not the same as denying EVERYTHING WE THINK WE KNOW and insisting that all of science is fundamentally wrong. The problem is that SOME oversights create misconceptions that get amplified over time, as every subsequent theory tries to accommodate the original error. Eventually you get a system rife with errors, but the actual seed of that tree-of-errors is a single, tiny concept someone rushed to embrace without due consideration, or it was adopted because it was the best choice at the time, and then folks are just naturally hesitant to go back and address the matter later, when the contradiction becomes obvious.

      This Guy is just showing how REASONABLY one can come to a few profound conclusions that seem, on the surface, to be outrageous or unconventional.

      I appreciate you bringing him to my attention. I look forward to reading his works.

  • Ciaranjay

    Hi Chapman
    If you are smart and curious (I think you are) then this is a great time to be alive.
    I am not sure about aether but I agree that (IMO) the underlying explanation will come down to geometry (or a related branch such as topology).
    You may find this discussion of interest.
    It has an interesting critique of the algebraic approach in physics.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-defense-of-the-reality-of-time/

    • Chapman

      I LIKE this guy’s way of thinking!

      Thank you for directing me to him. I will dive deeper into his work. He makes straightforward arguments, based on sound physics, that points out much of what I have tried to explain to folks. When you talk about “unconventional” there is a fine line between saying you believed in the existence of the coelacanth vs “I just had lunch with Bigfoot”. In physics, there are many issues that seem totally abstract and contrary to known laws, but really stem from just a single misconception, or applying what is, in itself, a perfectly sound and reasonable and well-documented principal too broadly.

      Rethinking the SCOPE of known principals, and identifying the exceptions that must be recognized, is not the same as denying EVERYTHING WE THINK WE KNOW and insisting that all of science is fundamentally wrong. The problem is that SOME oversights create misconceptions that get amplified over time, as every subsequent theory tries to accommodate the original error. Eventually you get a system rife with errors, but the actual seed of that tree-of-errors is a single, tiny concept someone rushed to embrace without due consideration, or it was adopted because it was the best choice at the time, and then folks are just naturally hesitant to go back and address the matter later, when the contradiction becomes obvious.

      This Guy is just showing how REASONABLY one can come to a few profound conclusions that seem, on the surface, to be outrageous or unconventional.

      I appreciate you bringing him to my attention. I look forward to reading his works.

  • Hey, Mr. Chapman, I have a question for you, if you’re interested in some speculation. Remember that Orbo Power Pack from Steorn? A lot of people seem to have come to the conclusion that it did not work, since they went under. However, let’s put that aside and assume, just for the sake of speculation, that it did actually work. Since you’ve thought through this aether thing, can you think of an explanation, involving the aether, as to how The Orbo Power Pack works?

    • Chapman

      As far as I was ever able to determine, the Orbo looked like a variant on the basic Joule Thief design.

      Sucking every possible teeny weeny potential out of ANY energy source can look like magic when you can draw on latent chemical reactions in seemingly dead batteries and possibly environmental RF energy and store/stack that energy in pulses to drive it up to a brief usable potential.

      The issues they had with the circuitry leads me to believe that is what the Orbo was. It did not work DEPENDABLY because he farmed out the engineering and manufacturing, and the product was crap. Not Steorn’s fault, but you get what you pay for from cut rate Chinese manufacturing houses. I suspect they would have been better off to have focused on having just 100 built at the same price by a quality western establishment, and then distributed THOSE for marketing demos and as manufacturing standards for the second round. You can build these circuits one by one at your bench. But they are ticklish, and require a good deal of tweaking to optimize.

      Joule Thieves are impressive as hell, just like a levitron, but neither are demonstrations of “alternative physics”

      • I see. Thanks for taking the time to answer. I thought you might have a different vision of the physics having to do with the aether, but I guess not. Thanks for telling me about these “Joule Thieves.” They sound pretty cool.

        • Chapman

          Sorry to disappoint on the matter. I am not disparaging the usefullness of the device, as a piece of tech. Their problem was one of manufacturing standards, and marketing. They simply should have had SOME level of quality control on the manufacturing side, and the lack thereof came back to sink them, and there was no need for them to advertise that it was a breakthrough in science, and a physics phenomenon.

          I can say without any hesitation that I can make you a little black box, about twice the size of a cigarette pack, that has only a single 2025 button cell within, and a single micro-USB wire coming from it – and you can place that box next to the register behind the bar at your local tavern, allowing folks to plug their cell phones in for a few hours at a time, and the device will consistently provide a demonstrable charge to those phones every time, for a LONG time.

          Steorn demonstrated the classic problem of a Valid concept, poorly executed.

          • Oh, no. don’t get me wrong, you didn’t disappoint – your answer was just different than I thought that it would be. On the contrary, the way you’re explaining it makes me think that I might be able to build one of those things if I study up a little. That sounds kind of exciting, to me, though I still might need to know how that “electret gel” was made that they were talking about…or whatever it is that you’re supposed to call it. Maybe that will come out now that everything is coming up to auction.

  • Chapman

    As far as I was every able to determine, the Orbo looked like a variant on the basic Joule Thief design.

    Sucking every possible teeny weeny potential out of ANY energy source can look like magic when you can draw on latent chemical reactions in seemingly dead batteries and possibly environmental RF energy and store/stack that energy in pulses to drive it up to a brief usable potential.

    The issues they had with the circuitry leads me to believe that is what the Orbo was.

    Joule Thieves are impressive as hell, just like a levitron, but neither are demonstrations of “alternative physics”

  • greggoble

    Thanks Chapman.
    I’m a layman, an amateur scientific research investigative journalist; interested in LENR and all related arts of science. Your presentation of these subject matters fits comfortably like a well worn shoe… easy to follow… takes me places… i.e. engaging. Many of the comments, and links, have led to hours of personal education.

    You say you enjoy learning something new every day… so do I. My grandma used to say, “So you want to learn something new every day. Well, to do that two things are absolutely essential. You have to be Ignorant and Smart!”.

    You are more knowledgable than I am on the subject of the Aether and associated ramifications, you may have heard this quote…

    “We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities. -In this sense- -Therefore- There exists an ether.” – Albert Einstein

    gbgoblenote –

    LENR and the Aether – ‘Heavy Electron’ -‘Mu-meson’ Vacuum Field – Electron Proton ‘Creation’

    Dr. Harold Aspden is of particular interest. A brilliant man, he successfully predicted the mass of the proton and was a pioneer of efficient thermal electric conversion devices. He was the first to be issued a U.S. patent with ‘cold fusion’ contained in the text of the application. A further example of his brilliance is his theoretical papers on Aether Science. This list is of ten Harold Aspden patents granted, applied, or cited that concern “Cold Fusion” LENR and the Aether. – end quote

    That’s from a Cold Fusion Now article I wrote way back in June of 2013. The article has links to the works and patents of Harold Aspden and other Aether theorists. His writings on electron/proton ‘creation’ are fascinating. I would like to hear your thoughts on his works… Aether and LENR… both thermal and electric (Quark)… etc.

    “Aether the Theory of Relativity and LENR Energy” http://coldfusionnow.org/aether-the-theory-of-relativity-and-lenr-energy/

    During an Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden

    A theoretical physicist once said,

    “As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know whether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially from that of the Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of that mean density.

    If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type.

    Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or — as they might also be called — space and matter.

    Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation.”

    Albert Einstein

    • Chapman

      Mr. Goble,

      I can not thank ENOUGH for bringing this specific address back to the forefront of our attention.

      It is amazing to read these thoughts directly from the man himself. To THINK that this presentation was from 100 years ago. Anyone with even the SLIGHTEST understanding of Physics, Mechanics, and Geometry can have no doubt regarding what he is saying. And yet, over the years his words have been distorted by others in support of their own theories.

      The value of the deep nature and profound ramifications of his insights have been largely ignored, as his broader perspectives have been distorted and reduced to a few childish axioms and diagrams that are, themselves, relegated to a tool-set of simple PROOFS, rather than the insightful and instructional analysis that they were, and still are. I dare say that most of what I see proclaimed to be “Einstein said” turns out to have little in common with the man’s actual words, and are hardly compatible with the insights he shared while outlining his theories.

      It is not the conclusions that Mr. Einstein arrived at that are his greatest contribution. It is the manner in which he analyzed the world around him. He did not teach us a few useful facts – he demonstrated how to THINK about reality in order to EXTRACT those facts.

      So again, THANK YOU for this wonderful reference.

  • Chapman

    Sorry to disappoint on the matter. I am not disparaging the usefullness of the device, as a piece of tech. Their problem was one of manufacturing standards, and marketing. They simply should have had SOME level of quality control on the manufacturing side, and the lack thereof came back to sink them, and there was no need for them to advertise that it was a breakthrough in science, and a physics phenomenon.

    I can say without any hesitation that I can make you a little black box, about twice the size of a cigarette pack, that has only a single 2025 button cell within, and a single micro-USB wire coming from it – and you can place that box next to the register behind the bar at your local tavern, allowing folks to plug their cell phones in for a few hours at a time, and the device will consistently provide a demonstrable charge to those phones every time, for a LONG time.

    Steorn demonstrated the classic problem of a Valid concept, poorly executed.

  • CWatters

    Google… How does gravity escape a black hole? It’s not a new question. Several explanations out there.

    • Chapman

      I am aware that this is an old question. And it is the fact that it IS an old question that STILL has no satisfactory answer that makes it stand out as a hint that something is wrong with our perspective on the issue.

      Every answer I find proposed out there really just boils down to “this mysterious contradiction is simply caused by this OTHER, even MORE mysterious and convoluted theory”. They will then go into a bunch of gobbledygook and doublespeak, all dressed up to LOOK like they are actually saying something, or passing on some insight, but in reality it is just an endless echo chamber of the same keywords and physics catch phrases, who’s substance is such that one has to carefully analyze the content in order to see that there simply is no substance at all.

      All these answers address one mystery by invoking the concept of an even greater mystery that must just be accepted, and memorized, but is beyond actual intuitive comprehension. These answers are no answers at all, just the introduction of additional unknowns, in an endlessly expanding backward cone of chaos and complexity. That is NOT how the real world manifests. Cause and effect results in ever increasing complexity as the scale factor increases, and as a result we see a reduction in the complexity of structures and forces as we peer BACKWARD down that sequence.

      In short, things do not become MORE complicated the deeper you peer. They become simpler, as functions, and we marvel at the way these simple functions create a multitude of diverse effects on the next order of scale.

      Aether theory, on the other hand, does exactly that. And it is to that end that I presented the question! Using this simple question as a filter, which theory, SM/QM or Aether, meet the criteria of demonstrating proper reduction of complexity/chaos?

      • greggoble

        “… they become simpler.”

        This reminds me of the works of Pharis Edward Williams ‘The Dynamic Theory’ and his U.S. DoD LENR Patent. He approached the contradictions you present with the same mindset. Some years ago I spent weeks exploring Physics and Beyond… a great experience.

        Quote (Pharis Williams)

        This is the equation of the electrostatic potential I derived. It differs from the classic potential by the multiplicative exponential term. The classic potential is just k/r and this goes to infinity as r goes to zero. This behavior is termed “singular.” My potential does not go to infinity and is called a “non-singular” potential. It is this non-singular character of my potential, both in the electrostatic and gravitational potentials that really allow my work to predict things current physics cannot do. For instance, the compact reactor is a direct result of this potential form. – end quote

        Coulomb’s Law Revisited by Dan Ross
        http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/CoulombsLaw.html

        Quote

        …so I decided to spend the rest of the day at Nimitz Library. After perusing the stacks on the upper floors, I went down to the Ground Floor where the research reports were kept. I found a card file of items produced by USNA Faculty, which I proceeded to examine. I found many pieces of excellent work but nothing that attracted my immediate interest until I reached the W’s. There I found a card concerning a research report by Pharis E. Williams, LCDR USN accompanied with the extremely interesting title, “The Dynamic Theory: A New View Of Space And Time.”

        I realized immediately that the author considered himself to be some sort of neo-Einstein. I had studied much of Einstein’s work for more than forty years. I was astonished by the abstract of Williams’ paper, which indicated that he had claimed to derive all of physics from three fundamentals of thermodynamics which he took as axioms for his mathematical derivations!

        My astonishment arose from knowledge that the world-famous physicists had traveled around the world in the 1920s giving lectures at major universities on the quantum theory and relativity. At each lecture, some young physicist would be bound to ask the lecturer about which theories he regarded as the ‘Rock Of Gibraltar’ and which he regarded as subject to future revision or, in some cases, complete overthrow. I do not know what Bohr, Heisenberg, Rutherford or Schrödinger said in reply to such questions, but I do know what Einstein said. Einstein always said that all of the theories of physics were subject to future revision, or in some cases, complete overthrow, except for the fundamentals of classical thermodynamics. On some occasions, he would also say that he could not even imagine a process through which the basic principles of thermodynamics could begin to be modified.

        Einstein is well known, not only for Special Relativity and General Relativity, but also for his lifetime search for a unified theory of physics. Knowing of his high opinion of classical thermodynamics, it is surprising that he never used thermodynamic axioms as a point of departure for the development of a unified theory and that is exactly what Williams has done with his spare time for the past twenty-five years! – end quote

        Memorial and Thoughts of a Man with Great Ideas-Pharis Williams”
        http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1248828

        Abstract

        Pharis Edward Williams was from Missouri. During his lifetime, he possessed an amazing ability to conceive original technical ideas. He raised questions that others would ignore. This created a ‘new’ perspective that would lead him to increasing knowledge and experience while in the Navy as well as in research laboratories. His Master of Nuclear Physics dissertation demonstrated this prevalent view. He proposed generalizations of the classical Thermodynamic Laws leading to the fundamental principles of what he termed ‘The Dynamic Theory’.

        In this theory, an important role is played by identifying an integrating factor that makes the energy exchange with the environment a total differential and leads to the definition of a mechanical entropy. Equilibrium and stability conditions for dynamic systems are derived and together with the principle of increasing entropy provide a geometrical structure from which the theories of relativity, Maxwell’s electromagnetism, and quantum effects may be derived. By applying simplifying or restrictive assumptions to the main body of the theory, Pharis shows that the major fields of physics are contained within the extensions of this theory. In these extensions, new field quantities appear to become important for systems and technical disciplines.

        Thus, the Dynamic Theory that he created would unify the various branches of physics into one theoretical structure. Only the future can tell what will be the impact of Pharis’ dynamic theory contributions and how engineers and scientists can gain and find new insights.

        Also of interest…

        Welcome to Physics and Beyond: A website dedicated to the work, theories and publications of Pharis E. Williams.
        http://www.physicsandbeyond.com

        His LENR patent

        Deuterium Reactor US 20130235963 A1
        http://www.google.com/patents/US20130235963
        Publication date: Sep 12, 2013 – Priority date: Mar 12, 2012
        $25,000 was received in 2008 from NSWC, Indian Head Division, to design experiments, review reports, and analyze data. The experiments verified heating using powdered/granulated fuel.
        Inventor: Pharis Edward Williams

        ABSTRACT

        The Deuterium Reactor is a fusion reactor whose design is based upon a non-singular electrostatic required by the quantization of electric charge. This potential allows for a significant reduction in the fusion barrier of deuterium nuclei when these nuclei are held in close proximity, as within a crystal, and preconditioned using a magnetic field. This manner of fusion barrier reduction produces direct fusion of two deuterium nuclei into a helium nucleus without attendant hazardous radiation of classical fusion reactors. The energy released in the deuterium reactor may be used in different ways for different applications and its use will result in a significant reduction in fossil fuel use, a significant reduction in radioactive waste by replacing fission reactors, and a significant impact upon the world economy.

        gbgoblenote – As a United States Department of Defense (DoD) Energetics Center, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division is a critical component of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Warfare Center (WFC) Enterprise. One of the WFC’s nine Divisions, Indian Head’s mission is to research, develop, test, evaluate, and produce energetics and energetic systems for US fighting forces.

        Energetics are explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, reactive materials, related chemicals and fuels and their application in propulsion systems and ordnance.

        As the largest DoD full spectrum energetics facility and leader in the Navy’s energetics enterprise, NSWC Indian Head employs a workforce of more than 1,400, of which more than 850 are scientists, engineers, and technicians dedicated to developing and sustaining explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, high-energy chemicals and their application to warfighting systems. In addition, NSWC Indian Head has the largest concentration of PhDs working in Energetics in the WFC, including the highest number of synthesis chemists, detonation physicists, and formulation scientists dedicated to the energetics National competency.

        Pharis Williams on Gravity Control & Clean Fusion
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB2wIBhAoVs

  • Chapman

    I am aware that this is an old question. And it is the fact that it IS an old question that STILL has no satisfactory answer that makes it stand out as a hint that something is wrong with our perspective on the issue.

    Every answer I find proposed out there really just boils down to “this mysterious contradiction is simply caused by this OTHER, even MORE mysterious and convoluted theory”. They will then go into a bunch of gobbledygook and doublespeak, all dressed up to LOOK like they are actually saying something, or passing on some insight, but in reality it is just an endless echo chamber of the same keywords and physics catch phrases, who’s substance is such that one has to carefully analyze the content in order to see that there simply is no substance at all.

    All these answers address one mystery by invoking the concept of an even greater mystery that must just be accepted, and memorized, but is beyond actual intuitive comprehension. These answers are no answers at all, just the introduction of additional unknowns, in an endlessly expanding backward cone of chaos and complexity. That is NOT how the real world manifests. Cause and effect results in ever increasing complexity as the scale factor increases, and as a result we see a reduction in the complexity of structures and forces as we peer BACKWARD down that sequence.

    In short, things do not become MORE complicated the deeper you peer. They become simpler, as functions, and we marvel at the way these simple functions create a multitude of diverse effects on the next order of scale.

    Aether theory, on the other hand, does exactly that. And it is to that end that I presented the question! Using this simple question as a filter, which theory, SM/QM or Aether, meet the criteria of demonstrating proper reduction of complexity/chaos?

    • greggoble

      “… they become simpler.”

      This reminds me of the works of Pharis Edward Williams ‘The Dynamic Theory’ and his U.S. DoD LENR Patent. He approached the contradictions you present with the same mindset. I spent weeks exploring Physics and Beyond… a great experience.

      Memorial and Thoughts of a Man with Great Ideas-Pharis Williams”
      http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1248828

      Abstract

      Pharis Edward Williams was from Missouri. During his lifetime, he possessed an amazing ability to conceive original technical ideas. He raised questions that others would ignore. This created a ‘new’ perspective that would lead him to increasing knowledge and experience while in the Navy as well as in research laboratories. His Master of Nuclear Physics dissertation demonstrated this prevalent view. He proposed generalizations of the classical Thermodynamic Laws leading to the fundamental principles of what he termed ‘The Dynamic Theory’.

      In this theory, an important role is played by identifying an integrating factor that makes the energy exchange with the environment a total differential and leads to the definition of a mechanical entropy. Equilibrium and stability conditions for dynamic systems are derived and together with the principle of increasing entropy provide a geometrical structure from which the theories of relativity, Maxwell’s electromagnetism, and quantum effects may be derived. By applying simplifying or restrictive assumptions to the main body of the theory, Pharis shows that the major fields of physics are contained within the extensions of this theory. In these extensions, new field quantities appear to become important for systems and technical disciplines.

      Thus, the Dynamic Theory that he created would unify the various branches of physics into one theoretical structure. Only the future can tell what will be the impact of Pharis’ dynamic theory contributions and how engineers and scientists can gain and find new insights.

      Also of interest…

      Welcome to Physics and Beyond: A website dedicated to the work, theories and publications of Pharis E. Williams.
      http://www.physicsandbeyond.com

      His LENR patent

      Deuterium Reactor US 20130235963 A1
      http://www.google.com/patents/US20130235963
      Publication date: Sep 12, 2013 – Priority date: Mar 12, 2012
      $25,000 was received in 2008 from NSWC, Indian Head Division, to design experiments, review reports, and analyze data. The experiments verified heating using powered/granulated fuel.
      Inventor: Pharis Edward Williams

      ABSTRACT

      The Deuterium Reactor is a fusion reactor whose design is based upon a non-singular electrostatic required by the quantization of electric charge. This potential allows for a significant reduction in the fusion barrier of deuterium nuclei when these nuclei are held in close proximity, as within a crystal, and preconditioned using a magnetic field. This manner of fusion barrier reduction produces direct fusion of two deuterium nuclei into a helium nucleus without attendant hazardous radiation of classical fusion reactors. The energy released in the deuterium reactor may be used in different ways for different applications and its use will result in a significant reduction in fossil fuel use, a significant reduction in radioactive waste by replacing fission reactors, and a significant impact upon the world economy.

      gbgoblenote – As a United States Department of Defense (DoD) Energetics Center, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division is a critical component of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Warfare Center (WFC) Enterprise. One of the WFC’s nine Divisions, Indian Head’s mission is to research, develop, test, evaluate, and produce energetics and energetic systems for US fighting forces.

      Energetics are explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, reactive materials, related chemicals and fuels and their application in propulsion systems and ordnance.

      As the largest DoD full spectrum energetics facility and leader in the Navy’s energetics enterprise, NSWC Indian Head employs a workforce of more than 1,400, of which more than 850 are scientists, engineers, and technicians dedicated to developing and sustaining explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, high-energy chemicals and their application to warfighting systems. In addition, NSWC Indian Head has the largest concentration of PhDs working in Energetics in the WFC, including the highest number of synthesis chemists, detonation physicists, and formulation scientists dedicated to the energetics National competency.

  • Chapman

    So now I hear you thinking, “So, what’s his Angle?”

    Well, now we have to think of reflection angles versus thrust vectors. As you know, the angle at which a traveling object approaches a surface, called the angle of incidence, is the same as the angle it will reflect OFF the surface. If it hits head-on, it will bounce away straight back. But if it strikes a glancing blow at 20 degrees, it leaves at 20 degrees. In each incident, the the traveling body has a momentum that has a direct component and a lateral component, in relation to the reflecting surface. The lateral forces imparted to the surface are equal, but opposite, and cancel out, while the direct forces add together and “push” the surface away. But that push is ALWAYS exactly perpendicular to the surface, and has NO relation to the angle of the path of the reflected object, other than in the MAGNITUDE of the force absorbed.

    If YOU were the surface, you would interpret a massive hailstorm of impacts as being bombarded head-on by a large number of “balls” of different size and mass. You would not perceive any ANGLE component in the reflected bodies. They would all appear to come straight at you, but they would seem to range from little rubber balls from a JACKS set, to tennis balls, to base balls, to billiard balls, each hitting you with different force. In all cases, every collision sets you STRAIGHT BACK. The vector of imparted force is always perpendicular to the plane of the surface impacted.

    The MAGNITUDE of that force is determined by the angle of the ball, and what percentage of its momentum is along that perpendicular line.

    This is a critical concept. It does not matter what direction the ball was moving, the direction of the resulting collision imparts force on the reflecting body that is only determined by the orientation of the surface of that body. The direction of the ball only determines the MAGNITUDE of that imparted force.

    We have to POUND that idea into our heads, because it is easy to look at a photon traveling right to left, and see that leftward momentum as being the energy that can be transferred, but this simply is not the case. The dynamics of INDIVIDUAL reflections are fixed by the geometry between the photon and the surface, in a frame of reference that ONLY involves the relative angle between THEM at the point of contact, and are not limited by OUR perception of which “direction” the photon appears to be travelling.

    The side wall of the thrust chamber is angled at, say, 5 degrees to the x axis. This means the angle between the side walls is 10 degrees, and results in a narrowing of the wave guide, and makes for a smaller end plate at the far end. A photon traveling to the right, and glancing off the side wall, imparts a force that is always angled toward the small end. And simple physics tell us that a photon traveling to the left, retracing that exact path BACKWARDS, STILL imparts the identical force on the wall towards the small end. Regardless of the perceived “direction” of the photon’s travel on the x axis of the thruster, ALL sidewall reflections result in some component of thrust being transferred to the body of the thruster in the direction of the small end.

    I will stop for a bit and let you ponder this. There is much more, but this needs to simmer a bit. Work it out and confirm it for yourself, in your own mind. It is NOT the whole picture, but it IS foundational, and easy to lose grip on when things get complicated, once we start actually calculating a photons full “tour” through the thruster.

    • Chapman

      From any starting point, we can see that the refection angle against the side walls, as a photon travels towards the small end, becomes closer to perpendicular TO the next side wall. The angle is slowly shifted, until the next reflection is at 90 degrees, which will reverse the photon and have it retrace it’s path back down to the large end. If properly designed, photons will never REACH the small end plate. The tapered wave guide will act like a Jacob’s Ladder, and photons will rush down the wave guide towards the small end, bouncing from side wall to side wall, in ever steeper increments, until forward motion (I said MOTION, NOT momentum) relative to the x axis is entirely lost, and the photons turns an about face, and start the long path back to the large end plate.

      The NUMBER of reflections across the chamber body, from side to side, for any single cycle is the product of the angle of the side walls relative to each other.

      When the photon gets BACK to the large end plate, there is only a single reflection turning the photon back down the wave guide, and that reflection is NEVER at a full 90 degree approach to the plate. The final reflection off a sidewall will have the photon reflecting off the large end plate at a shallow angle and across to the other sidewall, to begin the process again. The shallow angle of the reflection at the large end plate means there is not even a full quanta of energy imparted negatively on the thruster’s x axis.

      This effect is multiplied in direct proportion to the number of photons. The greater the Q factor, the more reflections you get from each photon you spent your energy budget creating, and the lower the incidence of random absorption, which just pumps heat into the thruster walls without the benefit of coherent thrust generation.

      At this point, it should be obvious that, BECAUSE it is the relative angles of the side walls to each other that creates the thrust, the cross sectional distance BETWEEN the walls at any point is, like the difference between end plate sizes, is only a consequence of the geometry of maintaining a relative angle the full length of the wave guide, and in no way contributes to the generation of thrust. It just makes the thruster footprint large and cumbersome. But we see two things.

      First, the effective length of the wave guide is limited to the angle of the walls and the distance a photon travels “down” the wave guide before being turned back on itself. There is no functional need for the wave guide to be LONGER than that distance.

      Second, there is no need to just allow the side walls to slowly grow farther apart in respect to the direction of the large plate. At any point, the side walls can constrict abruptly, reducing, and resetting, the sidewall separation distance, while not effect the relative angle BETWEEN the side walls. The result is a wall shape that is more a saw tooth. Imagine the angled annular teeth an a hose bib. THAT would be a workable inner surface geometry that compacts the overall thruster diameter, and combining that modification with limiting the wave guide length to the EFFECTIVE WORKING LENGTH of the photon tracks would greatly increase the thrust/volume metric of the thruster system. It would not increase the thrust itself, nor use less power for the derived thrust, but it would increase efficiency relative to the volume the thruster occupies.

      • Chapman

        All this is well and good. Happy days. But…

        I see a problem.

        It is deep in the mathematical weeds, and I am working to resolve it. But I will not state it here for a simple reason.

        I approached this topic based on a simple assumption – that being that it is “reported” that thrust has been observed, and that no clear understanding of the mechanism exist. And when you look into it, the theories proposed all involve theoretical radiations, or misinterpretations of velocity and mass rules. Some theories totally ignore the actual mechanics of the photons themselves, and that just boggles my mind.

        BUT, nevertheless, I was working with the assumption that the thrust is real, and pursuing justification with an undeniable confirmation bias. That is, that there IS a way that the EM Drive produces thrust. From an agnostic perspective, it is entirely true that the whole thing may well be false! So, I looked at it with a certainty that there WAS a solution, and first had to impose filters in order to quickly weed out all the ideas that could NOT be the answer, and then delve deeper into the potential causes that could not be immediately eliminated.

        This warped my objective view.

        So, here you have seen the mechanism I conclude COULD produce thrust, and I find it to be the most likely direction toward the solution, IF indeed there is a solution.

        And I have also “chummed the water” by announcing that I know of a flaw, so you will look at this solution NOT trying to accept it as perfect and not being critical in your own analysis, but LOOKING FOR THAT FLAW! It is like a “Where’s Waldo” poster. Can you spot Waldo?

        I assure you that MY flaw is real. I am not sending you down a rabbit hole. But I want YOUR mind to be able to:
        1. Fully follow the details of the proposed action,
        2. Fully understand the thought process that lead me to this conclusion,
        3. Look critically for errors, without thinking there are none to find
        4. Identify OTHER errors that I do NOT see because of my own mind being locked in the train of thought it has adopted.

        The problem YOU find may well NOT be the one I am already wrestling with, and just might be an unconditional negative proof, which will save me the effort of resolving the minor glitch I am working on.

  • LG

    What you think about

    Unified Field Theory papers (from AIAS)

    http://aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=Unified_Field_Theory_papers

    • Chapman

      Well, there are 377 papers there, and a few of them are a little deep, so I will need time to assimilate them all.

      I have only made it through a couple hundred so far, so let me get back at you after diner when I am done…

      • Chapman

        BAZINGA!!!
        🙂

        _____________________________

        That is a HELL of a resource! It will take me MONTHS to sort through, but I am scanning the titles to find the papers of highest interest to chew on.

        Thank you for a great link to such a diverse collection of great papers.

  • Chapman

    Well, there are 377 papers there, and a few of them are a little deep, so I will need time to assimilate them all.

    I have only made it through a couple hundred so far, so let me get back at you after diner when I am done…

    • Chapman

      BAZINGA!!!
      🙂

      _____________________________

      That is a HELL of a resource! It will take me MONTHS to sort through, but I am scanning the titles to find the papers of highest interest to chew on.

      Thank you for a great link to papers that harmonize with the base tones of my own internal science-perspective melody.

  • Charles

    .
    What’s with Stoyan Sarg and his BSM – SG?. I’m not bright enough to figure it out?
    .

    • Chapman

      His BSM (Basic Structure of Matter) theory IS an Aether theory.

      His whole point is that “space” is not, and CAN NOT BE a classical vacuum, such being defined as “an area with nothing in it”.

      QM begrudgingly admits to a Quantum Foam, which is a scale at which particles condense briefly, in pairs, from the universal “fields of force” that span the universe, before fading back out of existence – and basically only sticking around in THIS reality if they are disturbed while “here” and their process is interrupted.

      I ADMIT!!! This is a VERY simplistic and imprecise description of the deep physics of the QM model, but it IS the concept. Matter does not “exist” now as a primordial substance that has history. Matter “pops” into existence from the energy realms. The physical population of particles we call “matter” are only the current occupants of local space. They came from nothing, and will return to nothing. And the VACUUM of space REALLY IS JUST EMPTY SPACE.

      The contrast between QM and Any of the many Aether theories, is best reduced down to one idea, which one can credit to Ridley Scott. Yes, THAT Ridley Scott!

      “In space, no-one can hear you scream”.
      To that we simply add,
      “But even in space, you can STILL take a baseball to the crotch”.

      The critical concept here is that in a vacuum, there can be no waves, because it takes a medium for a wave to propagate through. Sound is a waveform, and in space there is nothing to CARRY sound between Screamer and passive observer. As a result, the only interaction between two objects is via a force being mediated by yet another, smaller, object being exchanged between them. This is the basis of the Standard Model classification of Fermions (the objects) and Bosons (the “Others”). And then QM goes on to insist that ALL these particles are just static “kinks” in energy fields, and that they form, and dissolve, constantly. And better yet, where there is NOW a particular particle, like say a Higgs Boson, that boson may spontaneously dissolve, and the energy may then miraculously REFORM itself into a couple of Quarks, or a couple OTHER bosons, and then They may dissolve to pure energy again and then reform into yet a third entity.

      Aether theory, on the other hand, says that ALL those particles are REAL. As real as you and I, and the Sun and the Moon… and baseballs. AND, that all those particles are just composite clumps of smaller particles, and those are made up of a collection of even SMALLER particles, all the way down to the Planck Scale. At 10^-35 meters, space is a real liquid mass of SOMETHING. Waves propagate THROUGH that liquid, and bits of the liquid can solidify and start the hierarchical sequence of particle constructions.

      And THIS is a key idea – that every particle IN that liquid is interacting WITH the liquid it is floating in. The liquid forms a meniscus upon the SURFACE of those particles, like the rim of water climbing the inside of a glass of water on your counter. This creates a particular type of drag, where the energy of the motion of a particle THROUGH the liquid is being STORED by the liquid around the particle, and returned to the particle on passing. This results in what WE see as MASS. It is exactly the same function we see on a larger scale as Impedance in electronics, which is different from Resistance. Resistance is energy lost. Impedance is Energy applied, transferred, and returned. This can ONLY happen if there is a STUFF that the particle is moving THROUGH.

      Anyway, THAT is what Sarg is talking about. That forces, like Gravity, Mass, and Radiation, are just the result of what we see as “Matter” interacting with the fluid it floats in, and that THAT liquid is a grid-work of Planck level primary particles that serve as the canvas that the perceptible “portrait of reality” is painted on. But do not mistake this with some “holographic universe” theory. The Aether is a REAL thing. A real liquid. And particles may build up to ever bigger constructs, like a pearl forming in an Oyster, but just as that pearl is STILL made up of a bunch of calcium and other atoms, so too those particle constructs are just collections of smaller bits, right back down to the Planck scale. And the total AMOUNT of those particles, way down there, never changes that we can see. God does not constantly work on creation. He is not constantly “fiddling” and adding NEW stuff to the universe. What is, is. What was made, was made, and is HERE, and is just swirling around, combining and recombining, exchanging energy by waves, direct collision, and alignment. That’s it.

      And it is all driven by one single force, which we see in OUR scale, as being the electromagnetic force. All the other forces are just “effects” that we observe due to that force playing out on all those levels of scale from the Planck up.

      Now you can see why Aether theorists see the idea of QM finding a grand unified theory as a joke. The forces are unified BECAUSE of the Aether, which is the one thing in ALL of the universe that they ADAMANTLY insist does not, and can not exist. These guys believe that superposition allows, through probability, that a pink unicorn CAN spontaneously manifest itself right in the Oval Office on a particular Sunday morning, but the idea that there is a “there” there, and space is REAL…. well, that just makes their heads explode.

      • Charles

        .
        Chapman, what a great piece of work. I cannot thank you enough. This ought to keep my mind occupied for a while. Thanks again.
        .

        • Chapman

          You are quite welcome. Be sure, after you stew on the topic and make discoveries elsewhere, to come back and share your insights. I never tire of the subject!

  • Charles

    .
    What’s with Stoyan Sarg and his BSM – SG?. I’m not bright enough to figure it out?
    .

    • Chapman

      His BSM (Basic Structure of Matter) theory IS an Aether theory.

      His whole point is that “space” is not, and CAN NOT BE a classical vacuum, such being defined as “an area with nothing in it”.

      QM begrudgingly admits to a Quantum Foam, which is a scale at which particles condense briefly, in pairs, from the universal “fields of force” that span the universe, before fading back out of existence – and basically only sticking around in THIS reality if they are disturbed while “here” and their process is interrupted.

      I ADMIT!!! This is a VERY simplistic and imprecise description of the deep physics of the QM model, but it IS the concept. Matter does not “exist” now as a primordial substance that has history. Matter “pops” into existence from the energy realms. The physical population of particles we call “matter” are only the current occupants of local space. They came from nothing, and will return to nothing. And the VACUUM of space REALLY IS JUST EMPTY SPACE.

      The contrast between QM and Any of the many Aether theories, is best reduced down to one idea, which one can credit to Ridley Scott. Yes, THAT Ridley Scott!

      “In space, no-one can hear you scream”.
      To that we simply add,
      “But even in space, you can STILL take a baseball to the crotch”.

      The critical concept here is that in a vacuum, there can be no waves, because it takes a medium for a wave to propagate through. Sound is a waveform, and in space there is nothing to CARRY sound between Screamer and passive observer. As a result, the only interaction between two objects is via a force being mediated by yet another, smaller, object being exchanged between them. This is the basis of the Standard Model classification of Fermions (the objects) and Bosons (the “Others”). And then QM goes on to insist that ALL these particles are just static “kinks” in energy fields, and that they form, and dissolve, constantly. And better yet, where there is NOW a particular particle, like say a Higgs Boson, that boson may spontaneously dissolve, and the energy may then miraculously REFORM itself into a couple of Quarks, or a couple OTHER bosons, and then They may dissolve to pure energy again and then reform into yet a third entity.

      Aether theory, on the other hand, says that ALL those particles are REAL. As real as you and I, and the Sun and the Moon… and baseballs. AND, that all those particles are just composite clumps of smaller particles, and those are made up of a collection of even SMALLER particles, all the way down to the Planck Scale. At 10^-35 meters, space is a real liquid mass of SOMETHING. Waves propagate THROUGH that liquid, and bits of the liquid can solidify and start the hierarchical sequence of particle constructions.

      And THIS is a key idea – that every particle IN that liquid is interacting WITH the liquid it is floating in. The liquid forms a meniscus upon the SURFACE of those particles, like the rim of water climbing the inside of a glass of water on your counter. This creates a particular type of drag, where the energy of the motion of a particle THROUGH the liquid is being STORED by the liquid around the particle, and returned to the particle on passing. This results in what WE see as MASS. It is exactly the same function we see on a larger scale as Impedance in electronics, which is different from Resistance. Resistance is energy lost. Impedance is Energy applied, transferred, and returned. This can ONLY happen if there is a STUFF that the particle is moving THROUGH.

      Anyway, THAT is what Sarg is talking about. That forces, like Gravity, Mass, and Radiation, are just the result of what we see as “Matter” interacting with the fluid it floats in, and that THAT liquid is a grid-work of Planck level primary particles that serve as the canvas that the perceptible “portrait of reality” is painted on. But do not mistake this with some “holographic universe” theory. The Aether is a REAL thing. A real liquid. And particles may build up to ever bigger constructs, like a pearl forming in an Oyster, but just as that pearl is STILL made up of a bunch of calcium and other atoms, so too those particle constructs are just collections of smaller bits, right back down to the Planck scale. And the total AMOUNT of those particles, way down there, never changes that we can see. God does not constantly work on creation. He is not constantly “fiddling” and adding NEW stuff to the universe. What is, is. What was made, was made, and is HERE, and is just swirling around, combining and recombining, exchanging energy by waves, direct collision, and alignment. That’s it.

      And it is all driven by one single force, which we see in OUR scale, as being the electromagnetic force. All the other forces are just “effects” that we observe due to that force playing out on all those levels of scale from the Planck up.

      Now you can see why Aether theorists see the idea of QM finding a grand unified theory as a joke. The forces are unified BECAUSE of the Aether, which is the one thing in ALL of the universe that they ADAMANTLY insist does not, and can not exist. These guys believe that superposition allows, through probability, that a pink unicorn CAN spontaneously manifest itself right in the Oval Office on a particular Sunday morning, but the idea that there is a “there” there, and space is REAL…. well, that just makes their heads explode.

      • Charles

        .
        Chapman, what a great piece of work. I cannot thank you enough. This ought to keep my mind occupied for a while. Thanks again.
        .

        • Chapman

          You are quite welcome. Be sure, after you stew on the topic and make discoveries elsewhere, to come back and share your insights. I never tire of the subject!

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    “And for the record – Matter and Anti-Matter do NOT annihilate! ” – is a nice conclusion. Anti-Matter is actually everywhere.
    I like that you pointed to these notions – Aether and Space. From my point of view they are not separated. A proper analysis of notion of Space is a key point for the construction of unified theory. May be it sounds strange, but such analysis was never done. Current view on space is simplified, it has mistake at the begging and huge mathematical building of space for physics is simply has wrong basement (while mathematically is perfect as it should be in mathematics). There will be no need to create QM to solve the atom stability problems, and many other things as consequences of this wrong direction.
    How I did this you can see in my theory – h-space theory. I can send to you the file of the theory, or you can take it from amazon –
    https://www.amazon.com/h-SPACE-THEORY-Everything-Valeriy-Tarasov/dp/1494332612/ref=sr_1_68?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1495989419&sr=1-68&keywords=the+theory+of+everything

    • Chapman

      Yeah… The whole “Matter:Anti-Matter” issue just irks me like nails on a chalkboard, and strikes to the root of the problems with current Academic narratives.

      Instead of just accepting that Electrons and Positrons are perfectly matched complimentary pairs, and that when they bond their respective fields each completely terminate the force lines of the other and become effectively “invisible”, they prefer to imagine that the two are spontaneously created from energy (which in reality was just energy enough to pull the two physical particles apart) and that they EXPLODE in a mutual annihilation event when they meet up (which is really just the release of the potential energy of the stored force that separated them being released back to the universe).

      Two gamma rays appear to convert into a E/P pair, but it is nothing more than the result of the photons separating an EXISTING pair, and they become “uncloaked” so-to-speak. And when the two meet, their fields collapse on one another, each releasing a pulse into the Aether(photon) as they re-align. Energy in = Energy out.

      We see neutrons form by direct electron capture, if the proximity and geometry of the lowest electron shell causes it to have a lower energy threshold than E/P pair dislocation, but otherwise the static imbalance within a nucleus will exceed the bonding potential of a nearby cloaked pair and PRESTO, the proton absorbs the electron, becoming a “neutron”, while the positron is ejected into space. No particles are “created”, just rearranged. No energy is gained or lost. It is just a quantum shuffle.

      But this fixation on the idea of spontaneous particle creation from cosmic energy, and that such is subject only to probabilities and chance, continues. It is the root cause of all the mysticism that has permeated our current physics landscape. From it we get Superposition voodoo and Many-Worlds theories of infinite parallel universes, and a mindset that leads to nonsensical interpretations of Super Collider data.

      • Valeriy Tarasov

        I agree with you on so called annihilation. In h-space theory electrons and positrons, not protons and neutrons, are constituents of nuclei. So, they are everywhere and electron-positron pare is neutral and is the smallest composed particle, while neutron is a combination of two electrons and two positrons. Accordingly proton is positive, because it is composed by two positrons and one electron. By direct electron capture proton is getting electron and becomes neutron. I the book other particles are described in a similar way.

        Of cause, the first objection will be the mass differences for proton/neutron and electron/positron. I like this question for a simple reason. This is a key point directed physics development to its modern state. In other words, physicists were forced to do nothing more than create proton/neutron nuclei and to speak about the electron/positron annihilation. The reason why they got in this trap is CHARGE, lack of understanding of this notion. If they would try to figure out what is this, not to be satisfied by simplified definition as just a feature of the elementary particle, what is actually a black box, then they will see that reason for mass differences for proton/neutron and electron/positron is charge. In h-space theory charge has definition as classical geometrical distribution of the particle (objects) of medium(space, aether). Thus, the conducted in the past experimental determination of mass was influenced by the charge, and actually the charge of electron and its mass is bigger (wile its charge to mass ration is exactly as it was determined by Joseph John Thomson ) than its values from text books.

        And again, the obvious doubt in all this said above should be present, since almost nobody will believe in other values of elementary charge and electron mass. But, science is based on experiments, and in h-space theory book two simple experiments are suggested to demonstrate the other values.

        Notion of charge, the Coulomb equation, especially a suggested in h-space theory modification of the Coulomb equation at atomic dimensions, have exclusive root in new Space definition, representing itself a new definition of Aether.

  • Chapman

    So, speaking of the Aether, and the idea of STABLE wave-forms propagating linearly, and without loss, in a liquid medium (pssst… think “photons”, ok?), It occurs to me that a little VISUAL is in order.

    And WHO better to instruct, AND amuse, than the master himself – Matt Parker!

    (For those who do not follow Matt, or know who he is, well… Leave it to the Brits to genetically cross Stephen Hawking with John Cleese!)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcr9-93wXng

    Curious, yes? WITH an Aether, you can have a photon that is NOT a particle, but rather a wave, but one that truly exhibits the PROPERTIES of a particle, in terms of precise linear motion, self-contained energy, mass, and momentum transfer.

    Without an Aether, these properties must be explained by complex theories bordering on magic. But WITH an Aether, they are simple structures that elicit nothing more than a “well, of course…”.

  • Chapman

    So, speaking of the Aether, and the idea of STABLE wave-forms propagating linearly, and without loss, in a liquid medium (pssst… think “photons”, ok?), It occurs to me that a little VISUAL is in order.

    And WHO better to instruct, AND amuse, than the master himself – Matt Parker!

    (For those who do not follow Matt, or know who he is, well… Leave it to the Brits to genetically cross Stephen Hawking with John Cleese!)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcr9-93wXng

    Curious, yes? WITH an Aether, you can have a photon that is NOT a particle, but rather a wave, but one that truly exhibits the PROPERTIES of a particle, in terms of precise linear motion, self-contained energy, mass, and momentum transfer.

    Without an Aether, these properties must be explained by complex theories bordering on magic. But WITH an Aether, they are simple structures that elicit nothing more than a “well, of course…”.

  • Rabotnik

    Of course, it might be that if you assume an Aether, gravitational collapse will stop before an event horizont forms and there will be no black hole, like here:
    https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Alan DeAngelis