"Ben" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"Ben" wrote in message
om...
"David Thomson" wrote in message
...
I was posting on another list when one of the readers suggested I
use my
reply as a general introduction to the Aether Physics Model on these
newsgroups. So here is how the Aether Physics Model came to be.

I was working on a flat spiral coil and placing a fluorescent tube
between
the top load and ground wire of the coil. I noticed that the spark
going to
the topload was a thin purple streamer and the spark going to the
ground
was
a thick, white streamer.

Until then, I was under the impression that electricity changed its
outward
form because of the coil arrangement, frequency, current, potential,
etc.
But here I had a single coil, the same shape feeding both ends. The
same
frequency existed at both ends. But it became evident that the
potential
was greater on the topload and the current was greater on the ground
end.
As a result of these differences, the appearance of the spark
changed
dramatically.

Thus I surmised that the same electrons in a given coil can manifest
in
two
distinctly different forms. I then posted this observation on the
pupman
list and began searching the literature for an explanation. Finding
none, I
decided to investigate physics from the ground up to see if
something
was
missed.

It didn't take but a few days before I realized that charge should
be
distributed in the math, since it is also distributed in nature. Ed
Philips
suggested I read Great Experiments in Physics so I purchased a copy.
In
this book Charles Coulomb himself clearly stated that all charge
must be
distributed in order for the inverse square law to work.

The first thing I noticed in physics was that Coulomb's constant was
precisely equal to a combination of light speed, permeability,
permittivity,
and a conductance constant, which the established literature does
not
recognize. I then found that Planck's constant times the
conductance
constant gives a distributed charge. But I was disappointed that
the
distributed charge it produced did not equal the elementary charge
squared.
So I worked with the two distributed charges for a few hours before
discovering that they were exactly proportional to each other by way
of
8pi
times the fine structure constant of the electron. And so I had
this
equation:

e^2 = 8pia e.emax^2

where e is the elementary charge, a is the fine structure of the
electron,
and e.emax^2 is the derived value of charge equal to:

e.emax^2 = h * Cd

I then applied the same process to the proton and neutron and found
fine
structures for both. But since the fine structures and angular
momentum
of
the proton and neutron are not defined in modern physics, I really
didn't
have an empirical body of data to go by there. However, the lack of
data
was encouraging since it implied that modern physics was incapable
of
determining these values based on their chosen model of subatomic
behavior.

Three weeks went by before it occurred to me that e.emax^2 could be
strong
charge, which mediates the strong force. I then realized that if it
were,
then I was looking at the Unified Field Theory. Further research
showed
me
that it has nothing to do with fields, but is rather a Unified Force
Theory.
I later found that the concept of fields is very ambiguous in the
Standard
Model and relativity theories, as modern science apparently does not
know
what a field really is.

When I calculated the relative value of the forces for the different
subatomic particles, looking at both the electrostatic force and the
new
concept of strong force, I found that the relative strengths of the
forces
matched the empirical data.

Then I started reading older literature on electromagnetism. I was
particularly struck by Ed Leedskalnin's description of electricity
as a
stream of tiny magnets. Although his view incorrectly denies the
electrostatic effect of electrons, he does show a convincing
argument
for
electrons acting as tiny magnets. And then it occurred to me that
electromagnetism is caused by the strong charge. Further analysis
of
the
mathematical aspects of the two charges revealed that electrostatic
charge
has a spherical geometry while strong charge (or electromagnetic
charge)
has
a toroidal geometry.

When I applied this knowledge to my coil observations it made
perfect
sense.
When electrons are magnetically moving sideways in the coil, they
produce
the bright white streamers. When electrons are moving along their z
axis,
they produce the thin purple streamers. Electrons moving along
their z
axis
are creating pressure on the electrons in front of them, thus
potential
increases. Electrons moving sideways along the circular y axis and
outward
on the x axis (it is a polar coordinate system) they move closer to
each
and
form longitudinal waves of electrons.

Hertz was broadcasting from the top load and Tesla was broadcasting
from
the
ground. This is why Tesla's system of signaling was notably
different
from
Hertz. Whereas Hertz's system caused the electrons to transform
into
photons and radiate permanently away from the transmitter, thus
causing
power loss, Tesla's system was pumped into the ground, which is a
closed
system. This allowed Tesla to longitudinally broadcast current
through
the
electrostatic field of the Earth and have that current return to his
transmitter. Thus he could build up resonance within the Earth with
very
little power loss.

But I as I was working on this Unified Force Theory, it occurred to
me
that
the units were in the wrong dimensions of charge, except three of
them.
The
units of inductance, capacitance, and conductance were in the proper
distributed charge, while all other units with charge were in single
dimension. Investigating the various changes that take place when
the
dimensions are corrected in the units led me to the development of
the
Aether Physics Model.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
100,000
Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---



This is very interesting. Not only do I feel that you are on to
something. But I have posted ,"Are gravitational waves electromagnetic
waves?", on the group.
I was relating to the possibility that electromagnetic waves are a
compression and expansion of the space-time continuum, rather than
gravitational waves.

The problem is you do not know basic physics. EM is described by a 4
vector
gravity by a tensor.

Your posting not only bolsters my own theory (where I am just
realising the implications of experimental evidence and well founded
theories), but makes some valid points of its own.

David Thomson is a well known crank whose views, in this posting alone,
have
been thoughly discredited by Bilge.

If LIGO detects gravitational waves (an expansion and compression of
space-time), then it is experimental evidence that this 5th dimension
exists.

You are intermixing ideas atrociously. First you say that that
'electromagnetic waves are a compression and expansion of the
space-time
continuum' then you invoke the 5th dimension where EM is an artifact of
the
cylinder condition imposed on the 5th dimension having nothing to do
with
the space-time continuum. If you are considering Kaluza-Klien theories
then
EM results from the left over covariance imposed by the cylinder
condition -
see http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9805018.


I would be interested to hear your thoughts on my discussion with
PD(although he thinks I'm making the whole theory up).

How about being precise in detialing those ideas?

Bill


Would you describe the compression of space-time, by a body such as a
star, to be a separate dimension from the 4 existing dimensions.

I do not know what you mean by compression of space-time. Space-time is
curved by gravity - in fact according to GR gravity is space-time curvature.

I ask
because, surely there must be a dimension to alter the existing 4.

I do not really know what you are trying to say. You may be thinking of the
ideas promulgated by the popular press where they liken space-time curvature
to the bending of a rubber sheet or something like that. That is bad IMHO
because it creates the false impression (among other things) that the
curvature must be taking place in a higher dimension. Unfortunately the
mathematics of the situation does not necessity imply such an
interpretation.

If
this was not the case, then wouldn't these dimensions have to remain
unchanged?

?????????????.

Bill


Regards Ben