Calculations of the Unified Force Theory by David W Thomson

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.

It is an honor to have a published science writer comment on my work. Thank you for your support.

David

Nice defrocking of the SM, and good aether model. But missing a logical explanation of CSL for all moving receivers. No worries, I can supply that, and agree most of your proposals, including aether as the actual structure of space, and local background frame as well as source of energy and mass.

I also particularly agree with; "The electromagnetic charge has surface area and takes the form of tubular cardioid geometry, which is geometrically equivalent to toroidal geometry. This toroidal electromagnetic charge shares the half spin nature of the subatomic particle." I discussed the toroid as a common morphology also at larger scales in other papers and also last years essay, which also referred to the real, not 'virtual', photons or 'photo-electrons' of the LHC.

I hope you'll read my essay, which doesn't discuss aether, but assumes it's 'state of motion', and effect of maintaining local c (only changed to a new c by particles 'condensed to do so' by the disturbance of the motion). The mechanism I describe is then the one that actually logically 'ALLOWS' the aether frame as a non-absolute frame by explaining CSL as a process of re-emission of absorbed energy at LOCAL c.

We may disagree on dark matter formulation, as I find it can include significant 'baryonic' plasma, (i.e. free electrons) which has self focussing qualities but a refractive index of n=1, rendering it optically invisible. That certainly won't affect my scoring of your very well written essay. I look forward to your comments on mine, and hopefully a good score (as though it's doing well, my last years effort was ignored after a community 10th, so I need this years to make single figures).

You're obviously only too aware of the size of the majority dismissing ether, but by removing the 'bar' to it, which has other important implications, this should eventually evaporate. I thus haven't tried to tackle the ether matter 'head on' as it seems there's a better plan.

Do give me your views. I look forward to finding your other publications when I surface from essays. Well done and very best wishes.

Peter

Hi Peter, it is good to read your paper sharing similar ideas and insights into the Universe. Of course, we are both reciting similar theories that were proposed and repeated by several scientists going back to Rene Descartes.

We are limited to nine pages in our papers, so I could not cover all the errors and omissions of modern physics and provide their proper quantification and explanation. In my work, however, I do explain the source of the constant speed of photons. First, when we turn on the light in a room, the light is not moving, it is the photons that are moving. Similarly, water molecules move, not rivers. The driver of photons is the Gforce, which also is the driver of the fundamental forces. The Gforce is a type of metronome that pervades the entire Universe and gives rise to Aether (quantum rotating magnetic fields comprising dynamic space). The Aether oscillates at a rate equal to 2 * c, but matter only sees half this rate. Cynthia Whitney independently developed the physics for 2c light propagation.

Photons are not matter, but are angular momentum disturbances in the Aether. I show that these disturbances exist in a five dimensional space-resonance, whereas matter (due to half spin onta) exists in a four dimensional space-time.

The toroidal nature of the electron has been proposed by numerous other scientists within the past 100 years. The mapping of electron charge fields supports this hypothesis. So we may both be on the right track.

The proton also has toroidal geometry except that instead of having a large major diameter and small minor diameter like the electron, it has a small major diameter and large minor diameter, which works out the same as a sphere.

We should not be concerned about our areas of disagreement since we both cover lots of intellectual territory. Some of the disagreements may just be a matter of perception and terminology, but we essentially agree in principle.

I have now read your paper and we do agree on most points. Perhaps we could collaborate further. I have a private mailing list setup for discussing Aether related physics away from the Aether deniers at:

web20.dnchosting.com/mailman/listinfo/sota_secrets-of-the-aether.com

Any other Aether scientists are welcome to join.

I would be more impressed with this contest if there was a panel of judges whose focus is to look through all the papers for fundamental physics discoveries, rather than rely on buddies patting their friends' backs. What a waste of opportunity.

I have presented an actual Newtonian physics for unifying the forces and the physics paradigm to understand it with. This is something that could be used in a laboratory to make real predictions for other phenomena. It is a true Theory of Everything that puts all science under a single paradigm. However, due to the contest structure, philosophers who happen to have a tight knit club will promote themselves for the money, and lone scientists with actual science will be neglected from consideration.

This is why my main promotional effort involves leaving the scientific community altogether. When my ideas finally make it to the mainstream it will be through a completely unorthodox venue. I do not have much time this week to participate in the contest as I must attend Grand Chapter and Grand Lodge for Illinois Eastern Star and Freemasonry this week. I am the worthy patron and master of our local chapter and lodge.

"You're obviously only too aware of the size of the majority dismissing ether..."

The prejudice toward discussing Aether is highly irrational and shows just how political our scientific establishment really is.

My greatest obstacle, however, is that I did not receive my education from Academia, which is a huge fraternal organization. Steven Weinberg made it a point to attend the PIRT 2006 conference in London, where I was to give a presentation of my work at 10:00 am during the conference. He had the moderator change my speaking time to just after lunch, and then invited everyone to lunch (except me) and tried to keep them all there during my newly scheduled presentation time. Only half of the attendees showed up at my presentation.

Before the conference started, I happened to have met Steven Weinberg and his wife. My cousin was with me and we were the first four people to arrive at the conference room. Steven Weinberg asked me what I was there to present. I got out my first sentence when he interrupted me and asked where I got my PhD. I told him I did not have a PhD. He then said, "I do not want to talk to you until you get a PhD." That was the end of that.

I must have really scared him that he would travel all the way to London from Texas just so he could sabotage my presentation. As you know, Steven Weinberg received a Nobel Prize for his so-called "Electroweak Theory."

I would not be surprised if his influence reaches to this contest. He is apparently more concerned about his legacy than he is about real science. And since he teaches at a Texas university, I'll bet he is even more annoyed that someone from outside of Academia was the first to unify the forces and correct several errors in mainstream science.

Like Clerk Maxwell and others who were self taught, I was not molded by the prejudices and preferences of the establishment. I was not concerned if my work supported or disproved someone else's work. I was simply looking for the truth, and I found it.

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Hello Mr. Thompson,

No question here... yet. I just wanted to express my profound appreciation for your intellectual courage in exploring reality in the absence of formal education. Many may judge you without contemplating the potential that a lack of "schooling" may have contributed to your free association of observable realty without the dogma that appears ever present in contemporary academia. I am a credentialed engineer and I can state unequivocally that most of what I learned in college I taught myself. Ultimately I paid for a piece of paper to show prospective employers.

In addition, I would like to commend your perseverance in the face of "academia" and dogmatic know-it-alls who are little more than educated parrots, incapable of the trivium. The ad hominem drivel they dispense due to a lack of humanity and true understanding is pathetic. You handle it with such considerate precision and factual objectivity; very refreshing to witness such integrity in the face of juvenile antics. I am in awe.

BTW, I have not completed my review of your AMP but to this point am dumbfounded by its organic simplicity, in congruence with the tenets of Occam. Another source material that is of profound importance to me is ancient knowledge, sacred geometry and all things natural/metaphysical. I am convinced this New Age will be grand when as a species we awaken to our true potential. Your work will be instrumental to that end.

Dimensional analysis is of visceral import to me when working through problem solving. I always say that "units are your friend" as they have the potential of defining relationships that may not be obvious. You have brought my understanding to a new level with the distinction between a dimension and a unit.

I very much look forward to learning more, but more importantly promoting your genius to those I know (that will listen).

Thanks for being an authentic human being in world of manipulated/controlled ignorance!

Chris Scobba

Thanks for your post of genuine support, Mr. Scobba. Hopefully, you have been infected with a desire to investigate these simple relationships, as I have. I am interested in pursuing the truth wherever it may lead. If that bothers those in academia, then that is their problem.

When we realize the entire visible Universe of matter where we reside composes of only two stable subatomic particles, the electron and proton, then common sense dictates that the rules governing these two particles must also be relatively simple. It is the whole misconception of probability functions as particles that makes physics more complicated than it needs to be.

It also helps to understand the simple concept of space being real. Even though space is non-material, it has existence. The existence of space is measurable and manipulable. When two magnets are held near each other and we feel the effects of the magnetic "fields," then we are experience the effects of non-material space acting on non-material space. We are directly manipulating the Aether.

Denying the existence of Aether and then calling it "field" is nothing short of being ignorant. It exists no matter what it is called.

It amazes me that by quantifying the Aether and including it in our physics understanding it makes unifying the forces very easy. This is supposed to be the Holy Grail of physics. There is no rational reason at all to deny this simple quantification of the forces and not give it thorough examination. Hopefully, persons like yourself will help to spread this antidote and heal our sciences from the disease of ignorance.

Dave