Tusenfem,

You accuse me of being confused but you are certainly not grasping the basics of FET. I described how an FET atom consists of nucleons made of solid energy that spin at 10^23rps and have fluid energy circulating around them like a fountain of water. So why on earth do you consider this to be anything like the Bohr model of an atom? In his model, electrons are point size particles whizzing around and kept in orbit by goodness knows what whereas in FET an electron is a stream of fluid energy that is attached to the spinning nucleon and extending away from it and returning back to it as a continuous band of energy that is driven around by the spinning action of the nucleon. The energy density of the electron energy varies with distance from the nucleon according to the inverse square law. Thus an FET atom looks more like a flower with petals radiating in all 3 dimensional and at the end of this posting this picture will clarify another point you have raised.

FET electrons do not change orbits when energy is absorbed or emitted but simply extend or shrink in length. Until the basic points of FET are understood it is not possible to go into details of why each atom absorbs specific amounts of energy. For example, before then you have to understand how fluid energy is stored as kinetic energy, how electricity and magnetism are generated, how the tick rate of an atomic clock changes with speed and gravitational fields and how the speed of light varies with the source atoms etc.

You can see why it is said that an electron has a probability of being found in a certain location if it is considered to be a point like particle moving around the nucleus but if you plot the probability against location you find that it does not resemble a series of specific orbits that an electron can jump between. An FET electron has energy dispersed over a specific region of space and because it is always attached to a nucleon it gives this impression of having a strong attractive force to it. It is possible to tap into electron energy at any point along its path from the surface of the nucleon to as far away as the electron energy extends. For a normal atom that is stationary upon the Earth the extent of an electron is around 10^10m but if extra energy is added there is really no limit to its extent just as long as that extra energy is trapped on a stationary atom and the atom is not moving at a speed commensurate with the amount of added energy. If this was the case then the electron energy would be only extended a fraction of its possible distance.

In FET the notion of the electromagnetic force is replaced by the flow rate of energy. For an electron flowing around a nucleon the flow rate is around 10^39 times the flow rate of energy that a spinning nucleon accumulates and gives rise to the gravitational force. Hence electron energy can be exchanged much faster than it can be gleaned from the flow of continuum energy as gravity. The gravitational force acts over very large distances when a large number of nucleons are packed together because they generate a flow in the continuum that only decreases in strength according to the inverse square law. This flow of continuum energy is translated into a force of acceleration when an electron captures the energy flowing past it and absorbs it as kinetic energy.

One way that the electron flow rate is translated into a force is because a circular flow of fluid energy generates a centripetal force (because energy is a continuous substance which is something you obviously cannot get to grips with). So a hydrogen atom is nothing more than a neutron particle that has grown to its critical size where the centrifugal force equals the centripetal force and some of the solid energy of the core becomes fluidised. Hence a hydrogen atom is a single entity and is not composed of separate proton and electron or even quarks and gluons or any other sort of particle that has to be invented as more and experiments fail to agree with the current model of an atom. Two hydrogen atoms combine to form a single hydrogen molecule by sharing some of their electron energy. Because a certain amount of fluid energy passes around both nuclei it generates a centripetal force (a real one and not a fictitious one) that binds them together. The apparent isolation of a proton and an electron is also a bit too advanced for you yet.

A repulsive force can arise when two flows of fluid energy are circulating in different directions. This can be envisaged as being like two water jets aimed at each other. But electron energy does not always repulse other electron energy. A beam of electrons does not spread out as rapidly as it should do if they are assumed to be point like particles. This is because FET electrons are streams of fluid energy that can flow along together quite happily, although they do repel each other slightly as they expand with distance unless pushed back into alignment by the flow of more fluid energy from say a magnetic field. Likewise, two like magnetic poles can repel each other because they are forcing energy outwards which cannot be combined into a single flow.

And what is wrong with going back to the ideas of Descarte. The ancient Greeks knew about the Earth being a spherical body that orbited the Sun thousands of years ago but that did not stop numerous people after that believing something quite different because it suited them. If Descarte had considered the aether to be a continuous substance and worked out its properties he might have come up with FET all those years ago and by now people like you would be quite happy to believe it.

It is interesting that we arrived at different values for the escape velocity of a giant molecular cloud. I believe that both of the calculations are correct and that there must be a reason for the discrepancy between the two results. A clue can be found in that for the planets, the FET calculations yield flow rates of continuum energy into them which does agree with current values for the escape velocities. Furthermore I believe that the FET value for what I said was its escape velocity of the molecular cloud is also correct because it allows the correct value for the acceleration of an object into the cloud, just as it does for the planets.

I believe that the difference between the FET and the usual method for calculating escape velocities is that the FET method only generates the same value as methods using the gravitational constant when an object is gravitationally bound. Because the Sun and the planets are gravitationally bound objects that are compact enough to generate a flow at their surfaces that is greater than their escape velocities the two methods agree. However, when the matter in the sun is spread over a sphere with the radius equal to the orbit of Pluto (which is what is assumed in the giant molecular cloud example I cited), then the gravitational force is so thinly spread that its pull at the edge of the cloud is not strong enough to overcome the natural speed of atoms. Thus I am correct in equating the flow rate to the escape velocity but only when everything inside that radius is gravitationally bound. If this is correct then the FET method can be used to test whether or not a specific body of matter is gravitationally bound or not. I am continuing with such calculations.


As for the area of an electron being equal to 1.43x10^-18m^2, which I quoted in order to calculate the rate of acceleration of a body into the cloud, this is not the area of a circle or sphere because an electron does not circulate around a nucleon in a complete circle or sphere. I have stated that an electron is a jet of fluid energy that starts out with a diameter equal to that of the nucleon and then spreads out so think of them as I suggested above as being more like the petals of a flower.

In my postings I do not explain everything because that would mean putting over a thousand pages of information here and you have already said that you are not prepared to invest that much time reading my work. So I try to keep it short each time and then if you asked in a civilised way I might be prepared to offer more. However, I have already said that the content of book 1 is available for anyone to read and I am willing to discuss its content where things are not clear. But as for book 2, this is not yet finished and therefore I will tend to restrict what I say about it.

It has proved very useful to discuss the gravitational collapse or not of a gas cloud because it has set me upon a line of thought where I had a potential problem with a particular subject. FET kept on throwing up unexpected answers but I now believe that I can see why it does and moreover why they are correct. So thanks for that.

Jim.