You can post links from this thread. There is a link help page, find it by looking under the 'Reply to this Thread' heading, point two. If you link to your web site anyone checking out this essay thread, and interested in learning more, would be able to find your web site too.
Ron
Just got to your essay. Sorry it wasn't in the first 200 I read. I saw your complaint about voting, but you should realize we get back what we put in. Reading all before the deadline was impossible. If you'd read and commented (politely!) on mine I would from courtesy alone have read and scored yours, and highly as it happens. The community IS you. If none of us bothered to read, understand and comment on other essays none would get ANY scores!
So the great value in yours has been missed (but also true of many others). Even mine, well read and scored, was too dense and complex to be followed by most. I like and agree with most of your theory, and your writing style and fig's were good. In particular your conclusion; "When an object leaves earth it takes its boson condensate field with it that is strongly embedded around and in the mass of that object." closely match my own ontology. Certainly most is consistent, if of mainly smaller scale nature and from a different angle. My own removes the chasm between SR and QM, with wide 'bigger picture' consequences, and infers a fundamental fractal toriod at all scales up to universes (see also the end notes and last years essay, also community 7th).
I hope you'll read mine and comment, but I flag up points of possible inconsistency and questions wrt yours. i.e. Where is the electron? I disagree with; the 'Big Bang, 'single pointlike states,' and that "The reason why SR needs no aether to explain propagation of light is that we are using the same 1's and 0's from the aether throughout the universe to program SR." but I show how SR can logically emerge FROM background ether frames, so agree; "The geometry of SR is a precise geometrical formulation because of the aether. As a result general theory of relativity, special theory of relativity, and classical physics would not exist today without the aether, neither would everything else."
You should be aware that mu essay asks you to assimilate a sequence of replacement assumptions, and built those elements into a kinetic ontological construction. As an engineer I hope you may grasp this abstract concept and apply it dynamically. I hope you can develop your theory to provide falsification and unique predictions. These are basic essentials if to be taken seriously. Though mine has them in abundance it's still not yet 'noticed' (last years was passed over in the results).
There are a number of other good and consistent essays herein. Look also at Kinsley Nixeys Fig 2 for an analogue of my 'fluid dynamic coupling' boundary mechanism equivalent to your 'local field around matter.' I look forward to your thoughts with interest.
Best wishes
Peter
My final thought.
I don't kiss up and force my ideas on others, I read over 50 papers and voted on the ones I liked. I'm not into politics just have thoughts that I would like to share with other people without smooching too much. Judging from some of the papers I read and how they were voted on, my conclusion is that this forum is all about politics not about a fair exchange of ideas...
