Calculations of the Unified Force Theory by David W Thomson

Thank you Mr. Reeves for your question. According to my analysis, the electron does experience the Casimir effect. In fact, the Casimir effect is nearly identical to the calculated strong force for the electron and the difference falls within the range experimentally produced by Steve Lamoreaux.

Also, CERN conclusively proved in 2010 that the Casimir effect generates real photons from the Aether (vacuum) and not virtual photons. When a real photon is generated by the presence of two properly aligned electrons, that photon can be absorbed by certain atoms and converted to an electron and the electron can be put to work. This in essence is "free energy."

However, the energy is not free. There is a cost to everything. The creation of new electrons from the Aether means new matter, and hence, new mass and charge are generated.

If all energy on Earth was generated by Casimir devices, we would end up with excessive electrons, or electrostatic pollution.

Thankyou for your elucidation!

Yes it is readily obvious to me now that the topology of distributed charge plays a *significact role* in determining field strength, force and hence ENERGY. Between the line and sphere examples, there is already a dF of 2.pi.r, but the case of charge squared (ie the plane example) particularly interests me because of it's distance invariance :-)

I am just a beginner in all this, so please forgive me if this is a stupid question but is "empty space" just totally empty and these aether particles in a sort of "dormant" state, waiting to be, like, "activated" or is empty space already full of them ? To put it another way, does "empty space" actually consist of a "sea of aether", (so to speak) or do they "pop in and out" of existence ?

Hi Mike, this is a very good question.

Aether is the actual structure of space. Space is not a numerical coordinate system. Yes, we can use numerical coordinate systems to map space, but space has dynamic structure.

Aether provides not only the structure for space, but it also provides particle spin, electrostatic charge, and the "shell" for subatomic particles, among other things.

Because the Aether is space, and because the Aether is a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic fields, Aether can be manipulated. This is how General Relativity, the Sagnac effect, frame dragging, positive holes, magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, gravitational fields, and other phenomena of space are possible. It is possible to manipulate space just like we manipulate matter.

The Casimir effect is another example of manipulated space (Aether). The reason why photons are generated from "free space" is because space is both structured and dynamic. This is also quantified and explained in the Aether Physics Model.

We normally think of matter as being the only thing with structure. But Aether units are quantum rotating magnetic fields with finite structure. In other words, fields precede matter in the evolution of the Universe. The idea that the entire Universe popped out of a single point is absurd and simply not true.

Atoms are matter, subatomic particles are quasi matter, and Aether is not matter at all; it is a field. There are even subtler levels of existence than fields, which are also quantified in the Aether Physics Model. Modern science incorrectly assumed that reduction meant breaking things into smaller pieces. There is a progression of states of existence from the simplest (Singularity) to the more complex.

It is because each level of existence has a different state that we need to go beyond the particle concept. Particles are a mid-range state of existence; they are not the most fundamental state of existence.

Hello, my question (very basic) was answered to Mike Davis with your usual didactic explanation. Thank you.

Jorge, I am glad to have answered your question. Relevant to this paper, the Aether is also the quantum of all the forces. Fundamental physics theory in the Standard Model attempts to use particles to mitigate force. By misinterpreting equations and streaks on film, theories have misled physicists to believe that matter conveys force and fundamental structure. The Higgs Boson theory also arose from these erroneous assumptions.

According to the Aether Physics Model, forces are inherent to the structure of space. This is why there appears to be force at a distance. The structure of space conveys the fundamental forces, so by manipulating space in specific ways, it is possible to make and even break force fields. As such, it is possible to build vehicles (or any structures) that are gravitationally isolated from the Earth. It would be fairly easy to build a proof of concept device.

A structure, such as a conductive sphere, could have an electrostatic resonator placed inside of it. Connect the ground plane of the resonator to the conductive sphere and leave the top load at the center of the sphere. Then tune the resonator until an electrostatic standing wave is formed over the sphere.

This will separate the space inside the sphere from the space outside of it and break the gravitational force link and cause the vehicle to become weightless.

So not only am I proposing a new physics theory, but I am also providing an experiment to prove it.

Can you further explain,

"As the unified charge equations reveal, the spherical angle, one-spin electrostatic charge equates to the steradian angle, half-spin electromagnetic charge multiplied by 2 to equate spin, and multiplied by 4 to equate solid angles. The fine structure is the magnitude difference of the equivalent spherical angle, one-spin charges."

? please

Thanks, Michael, for the question. There are two types of charges, electrostatic and electromagnetic. In the APM, all charge is distributed. Furthermore, the distribution is over a curved surface. By analyzing equations and constants, we can easily determine the electrostatic charge occurs with a spherical geometry and electromagnetic charge occurs with a toroidal geometry.

The quote from my paper refers specifically to the relationships of the electrostatic charge to the electromagnetic charge as is evident from the Unified Charge Equation.

[math]\[{e^2} = 8\pi \alpha \cdot {e_{emax}}^2\][/math]

The equation is balanced not only mathematically, but also geometrically. As part of the geometry, the total spin on the right equals the spin on the left.

Electrostatic charge (on the left) has 1 spin and spherical angle 1. Electromagnetic charge (e.emax^2) has 1/2 spin and steradian (1/4pi) angle.

The 8pi alpha term shows that the electromagnetic charge needs to be multiplied by 2 (to balance 1 spin electrostatic charge) and also multiplied by 4pi (to balance steradian angle geometry). The alpha term is the fine structure of the electron and refers to the proportional difference between one spin, spherical angle electrostatic charge, and the 8pi-adjusted half spin, steradian angle electromagnetic charge.

The electrostatic charge mediates the electrostatic force, the electromagnetic charge mediates the strong force, and the 8pi alpha difference is the cause of the weak interaction.

Also, the electrostatic charge is part of the Aether (space) and is the space-curvature tensor of the Einstein General Relativity equation. The electromagnetic charge multiplied by the fine structure applies directly to subatomic particles (matter) and is the GR mass/energy tensor.

The Aether Physics Model not only unifies the forces, but it also provides a physical interpretation of the Einstein General Relativity theory.

In the Aether Physics Model, the electromagnetic charge of the subatomic particle is always orthogonal to its mass, thus there is a direct proportion between the strong force and the gravitational force. This mass-to-charge ratio is a new constant for physics that applies to all matter throughout the Universe.

BTW, my PDF converter rendered the 4pi in the quoted text as 4 [square root sign]. The square root sign should actually be the symbol for pi.

In Table 2, the last force strength source has an error message. What is that about?

Hello Mr Thomson,

I beleive that it is not possible to give a geometrical model of the aether. Because this aether is above our physicality.The only one link is these central main spheres,these singularities.These spheres separate the physicality and this aether. The aether so is without dimensionality,without motion, without geometry. In fact this infinite light creates this physical sphere. The paradox is about the entropy and its increasing......this entropy from aether is paradoxal inside the physicality. Furthermore this finite physical entropy incre&ases towards this infinite entropy behind our walls. So it becomes so not relevant for the geometrization of the aether. The only one possibility is so a sphere for this aether, but above the physicality and its laws.Paradoxal but evident.

I wish you good luck for this contest.

Thank you, Steve, for your comments.

My approach to quantifying the Aether is based solely in science. In fact, before I started reexamining the foundations of physics in 2002, I did not believe in the Aether at all. I first discovered that subatomic particles resided in a structure of quantum rotating magnetic fields. It was not until Jim Bourassa challenged me by saying that the quantum rotating magnetic field was actually the Aether that I eventually realized he was right.

The existence of the Aether is a scientific fact, it is not a belief. The Aether is observable and has been observed for several hundred years in the form of electrostatic, magnetic, and gravitational fields. The Aether is also observed as angular momentum passing through it (photons). In the 20th Century, the Aether was further observed as the spin of subatomic particles and as positive holes in transistors. The Aether is observed in astronomy as the carrier of electric currents between galaxies, stars, and planets. The Aether is also observed as it is distorted near dense bodies and causes the precession of planetary perihelions, and drags around spinning planets causing the Sagnac effect. Even the movement of planets around the Sun causes frame dragging (Aether dragging) in the wake of the planet's path.

There is no need to pretend the Aether does not exist. The only need we have is to change our understanding about the foundations of physics. The physical world has a non-material cause. The physical Universe does not construct from infinitely smaller physical particles. As matter reduces in complexity from molecules, to atoms, to subatomic particles, to Aether, and to even subtler forms of existence, it also gives up its physical characteristics and eventually reveals itself in non-material forms. This is why physical science has such difficulty in understanding the quantum realm. Physicists have the wrong model for how reality is constructed. They need to accept and recognize that physical existence is the result of complex non-material structures.

And to more specifically address your comments, geometry originates in the non-material forms of existence and is carried over to the physical forms of existence. Geometry is present in the beginning and makes it possible for structure to be imparted to the physical Universe we think of as being solid.

Thank you for your good wishes in this contest.

Thank you also Mr Thomson,

The aether exists, but not like you said.Until soon, I will develop more.I beleive that the main probelm is about the physicality. You know the motions, the rotations of spheres are inside the physicality. We cannot confound the lattices or the space witrh this aether. The aether is above our physicality.See my reasoning about the singularities, these main central spheres, the most important volumes, the codes of physicality of evolution.

Regards

Since Aristote,A lot of scientists, general and universal have tried to explain this aether.I beleive humbly that my theory helps. In facy my works explain the aether,the mind body probelm, the evolution,the entropical principle,the anthropical principle......

They were numerous to try to explain this aether.This infinite light above our walls.I am insisting on the fact that the infinite light does not turn.So it is really these main singularities, quantical and cosmological which are connected with this infinite light, the infinite entropy. I have made a bridge with both of systems, the physicality in evolution and this infinite light. The aether is not a kind of river or fluid, no it is an infinite entropy above these physical walls, quant. and cosmol.In fact it is evident.

I beleive that we are all babies of this light.But we must accept the pure physicality. We arrive at the ubiquity probelm. The convergences with the body mind probelm are relevant. This light is above the understand of this unbiquity. It is relevant considering the spherization evolution imrpovement of minds correlated with the evolution of bodies. If this light is a pure ubiquity linked with these central main spheres.So we understand the real meaning of this ubiquity.The only way so is the universal spirituality accepting our young age at the universal scale.We are still babies in fact.My calculations imply a maximum spherical volume for the universal sphere, a contraction appears for this oscillation. I see it between 120 to 150 billions years for this maximum.So the eternal physical sphere begins at 240 to 300 billions years.At this moment, we begin the eternity unifying the infinite light and the physical sphere and its spheres(quant.or cosmol). We are still young so.

The works of Maxwell are relevant considering the electromagnetism.In fact it proves my theory.The aether is above our physicality.That said we appraoch this entropy towards our main cnetral spheres. This paradox is fascinating.In fact we must be rational and dterministic inside this physicality. The real relevance is to analyze our pure physical sphere and its laws of pure general determinism of spherization. Thye partition universal of spherization is from this infinite light, the chief orchestra improves its melody at each second, each rotation of sphere !

All is light.......

Thanking you

Best Regards

Steve

I like these kind of discussions, it is rare :)

I beleive that Stoke,Fresnel and Maxwell were rational about this aether. The aim in fact is not to experiment or to test it. In fact it exists this aether, but it is essential to differenciate the fact that it exists a physical spheres with rotations and motions of light and a system above our walls without rotations and physicality and dimensionality.

In fact the real interest is to understand the road towards our main central physical spheres.For the two 3D scales,quantic and cosmological. At these walls , the entropy physical is maximum.It is relevant consideringt the polarization m/hv of evolution. We have the universal link fermions bosons and their fields.If the mass turns in opposite sense than mass, so it becomes very very relevant Mr Thomson. My equations help in all humility because the 3 motions of spheres must be inserted and also the volumes of the serie of uniqueness. It permits to quuantize mass.The gravitation is the rotations of spheres ! This gravitation turns in opposite sense than light.This mass increases on the entropical arrow of times.

Thanking you.

Until soon

Regards

Hi Steve,

I don't know if you know the work of Walter Russell, but your comments remind me of him - his basic premise was that there are two primary "forces" that are causal to all others and responsible for all creation ; one of ocmpression (gravity) and one of expansion (radiation)... to my mind, David's Aether Particle geometry seems to resonate (no pun intended) with this way of looking at things...

Thank you, Hoang Cao Hai, for your insights.

Concerning the Higgs Boson and its weight on the Moon, the point is moot. Weight is not the same thing as mass. An object will have the same mass whether it is on the Moon or Earth.

But there are other reasons why the Higgs Boson cannot be a particle that gives matter its mass. First, mass is simply a dimension. It is like length, frequency, and charge. It is a property, not an object.

Second, nearly all units involving mass are not material. For example, force is a unit equal to mass times acceleration. Force composes from mass, but it is non-material. You cannot weigh force on any planet or satellite. Other units, such as potential, resistance, magnetic flux, momentum, energy, and capacitance, also have mass as one of their dimensions. None of these units are material objects. Units involving mass describe what material objects do, not what they are.

If the Higgs Boson gives matter its mass, does it also give mass to the other units of physics? If there is a particle that gives matter its mass, then there should also be a particle that gives long objects their length, and another particle that gives existing objects their duration. This is all absurd.

Mass is not a "thing." It is a property of a thing. Mass is a fundamental property of both material and non-material existence, just as are length, frequency, and charge.

Similarly, length is a property of matter, but it is also a property of non-material things, such as space. The length (distance) between two planets is just as real and vital to physics as is the radius and circumference of the planet.

When one contemplates the nature of dimensions, the Higgs theory is seen as an awkward mistake in perception. However, the Higgs theory is a natural consequence of the Standard Model. Its absurdity should serve as a warning that some assumptions within the Standard Model are likely to be incorrect.

David's theory is so good, he's featured in 3 podcasts on my site Tesla Academy

We are at a point where the whole idea of aether has to be put back into physics. Without it, most current experimental results make no sense at all. With aether, we have many opportunities before us to dramatically increase the efficiency of power generation.

Thomson's Unified Aether model offers a brilliant demonstration of the cogency of rediscvering the Aether (or ether, or unified field) as the basic physical reality of the universe. It lays one of the foundations of a new physics, more realistic and more meaningful than the current approaches, whether based on relativity or on quantum.

Thank you for your support, Michael.