Taken from the website below.

FET

Fluid Energy Theory is an entirely new theory based upon energy being a real substance. Unlike substances that we are familiar with, energy is not particulate but is a continuous substance. From this it can be deduced that energy is the only substance to exist and is the aether that exists throughout the whole of infinite space. The reason that we see such a variety of substances is that in its natural state, energy is a fluid substance that is extremely compressible. It is for this reason that I have called the theory Fluid Energy Theory. Fluid energy has no lower limit to its density but it does have an upper limit, and this corresponds to it being in an incompressible solid state.

“Wot, no bang?” is the first in a series of books In this book I describe how regions of fluid energy came to be converted into its solid state that form the nucleons at the heart of every atom. FET shows how neutron particles are created, and using readily available experimental data I am able to show their correct size, how long they take to grow and how fast they spin.

I then describe how neutron particles reach a critical size whereupon they change into hydrogen atoms. From this change it becomes obvious why nobody has ever established the true nature of an electron. Contrary to current belief, protons and electrons do not have electrical charges of opposite sign but are instead linked together as a region of fluid energy (the electron) circulating around a spinning core of solid energy (the proton). The so-called electrostatic force is shown to arise from this continuous flow of fluid energy around a core of solid energy.

Similarly, the gravitational force is shown to be the flow of fluid energy into the cores, and objects within its flow absorb some of this energy causing them to move with the flow towards its source. Thus the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force are both forces of physical contact associated with flowing energy. Not only does this explain why protons and electrons have such an affinity for each other it shows why the strength of their union is 1039 times greater than the strength of the gravitational force.

The strong and weak nuclear forces do not exist but there is another force, the centripetal force, which is responsible for the creation of atoms and molecules, their condensation into stars and gaseous planets and the formation of galaxies and galaxy clusters. The centripetal force is a consequence of energy being a continuous substance and is what makes particles of solid energy spin. The gravitational force is shown to be significant only in the structure of solar systems. So whereas the motions of the planets around a star are governed by the gravitational force the motions of the stars in galaxies are governed by the centripetal force and hence there is no requirement to have dark matter.

FET predicts that the universe is infinite in extent and has always existed and will always exist. Furthermore, its initial state was motionless and timeless but has since developed into an equilibrium state where the conversion of fluid energy into solid energy is now balanced by the reverse process. Part of this process is the loss of energy by photons as they move through space. Calculations show that the red shift of starlight is mostly due to this loss with the rest attributable to the random motions between galaxies and therefore the universe is not expanding.

The range of star types according to FET is much simpler than currently assumed with logical explanations for normal stars that eliminate the need for pulsars, neutron stars and black holes. The peculiar quasars discovered by Arp that have high red shifts and appear to be associated with galaxies with low red shift can now be easily explained. The cosmic microwave background radiation is shown to be a local effect which is also responsible for the misinterpretation of data that led to the belief in dark energy.

Let me guess -- electrical engineer?

A couple of quotes come to mind....

"If history has taught us one thing it is that, with hindsight, newly discovered laws always turn out to be quite logical extensions of what we have already known for a long time." -- Gerard 't Hooft

"If a theory is crazy, or unorthodox, or seemingly bizarre, that does not make it pseudoscientific. Crackpot and pseudoscientific theories are bizarre in a particular way. They tend to ignore long-established scientific ideas. They operate in a world of their own, not in the world of scientific discourse." -- Richard Morris

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Snipped by me.

What is a pulsar then? How do they form?

How do free electrons come to be then?

Protesters of course, they hang out on the sidewalk carrying signs and chanting "Free Electron Now!"

__________________

-work in progress--

Didn't we get rid of the caloric a while ago?


So, why do electrons repel each other?.



Atoms and molecules are the result of electric forces, not nuclear forces...



Since this "energy" is continuous, how do you explain the experimental results showing quantization, such as discrete lines in spectra and Stern-Gerlach-type experiments?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

So lets see it explained then!

Unless this is just a Spam post.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

It's not my theory, just came across the website. It's being discussed on many forums and so far there is no evidence against it that I can see.

He's not electrical engineer.

It's is logical and makes sence.

I can't answer any questions, just thought it was worth a look to get a heads up.

Answered in the book

I've forwarded this link to the author.

So, you limited yourself to a copy&paste job and to advertising the book....

What is the point of this thread, again?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Google says 'many forums' = 2 - this one & toequest.com. I'd say this is the author (Jim Mash) resorting to spam to increase his exposure. By claiming no relationship he doesn't need to defend it, but the 'discussed on many forums' appears to give lie to the claim.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

I have just been alerted to the posting of news of my theory on this site, thanks Daffyduck.

I see that there are already many questions and comments and it will be impossible to address them all here at the moment.

Just for the record I was a research physical chemist at a UK government laboratory concerned with energy.

Papagew says "didn't we get rid of caloric a while ago?". Yes we did and this in fact is where science started down the wrong track. It was understandable that in 1798 Thompson concluded that the heat generated in boring cannons seemed inexhaustible and could not therefore be present as a real fluid within the cannon material. And he was right. But what he did not know was that most of the heat comes from what is doing the boring.

When a person presses a file against metal and pushes upon it, energy is being released from that person and being passed along their arms and into the cannon. FET shows exactly how it is generated in a form than can be transmitted to the cannon where it can be observed as after being absorbed as motions of the atoms and by some that is then re-emitted as photons with a spread of energies exactly matching that of a black body at the observed temperature. Thus heat can be shown to be a flow of real energy in its fluid form.

The aether (I prefer to use the term continuum for obvious reasons) is energy in its fluid form and is distributed through every part of space at a density of 1.97x10^15eV/m^3. Incidentally, what other theory can tell you how much energy there is in apparently empty space?

I assumed energy to be a continuous substance (reasons and arguments given on my website) and then worked out how it might behave when made to flow. A continuous substance behaves in the opposite way to particulate substances when spun and can be likened to the stirring of water plus string in a bucket. The centrifugal force forces water molecules outwards whereas the centripetal force draws the string inwards (see details on website).

Just as a spinning skater speeds up when the arms are drawn inwards, an energy whirlpool speeds up as more energy is drawn inwards. This continues until the energy density within the centre reaches a value of 2x10^54eV/m^3. At this density it becomes solidified and cannot be compressed any further and is the start of a particle.

When the particle reaches a diameter of 10^-15m its centrifugal force becomes equal to the centripetal force and part of the solid energy splits away from the core.

The energy density of this particle is the energy density of a neutron and proton and because it spins at 10^23rps its surface speed is equal to c. Hence any energy thrown off of such particles acquires a translational speed equal to c. No other theory can explain why photons move at light speed or why neutrons have a certain diameter and well defined energy density.

After a shell of solid energy has broken away it become fluidised but now the centripetal force is larger than the centrifugal force and so it wants to become compressed down again as solid energy. So an equilibrium state is reached where a certain amount of fluid energy is continuously circulated around a core of solid energy.

So where do the forces of gravity and electromagnetism come in I hear you say.

The gravitational force is due to the flow of fluid energy onto a growing and mature core of solid energy and as it is very small it takes a long time to create a neutron particle. Now when I added up this flow of energy onto all the nucleons of the Earth I arrived at a flow rate at the surface of 11.2km/sec. Now is this just a coincidence that it is equal to the escape velocity of the Earth? The same calculation for all the planets and stars also equals their escape velocities.

To quote Newton "Gravity is the condensation of the aether into a body". How right he was.

Now when I calculated the flow rate of fluid energy around a neutron core that had reached its critical size I found it to be 10^39 times greater than the flow of energy that gives rise to gravity. Is this just another coincidence that the ratio of these flow rates is exactly equal to the ratio of the strength of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces?

All of this I discovered many years ago but because I knew everyone would be skeptical I decided to see if I could fault my logic.

I tried FET with every known fact and so far I have not found one single thing that it could not explain in a much simpler and logical way than current theories.

For example, when I worked out the creation process for photons and their properties according to FET I calculated that they should lose energy at exactly the same rate that is observed in the red shift of starlight. Is this yet another coincidence?

When I worked out how matter absorbs gravitational energy it predicted that objects in the Earth's gravitational field would accelerate at 9.8m/s/s. Just another coincidence I bet. There are many such predictions and coincidences and some are to be found in the first book but many others are in book 2 which is well under way.

I will let you digest the above and tear it to pieces if you can before I go on to answer other questions. But if, in the meantime, you would like to learn more about FET then why not take the plunge and visit the Fluid Energy Theory website.

As already mentioned by someone, I am having discussions on toequest but also on other sites apparently not found by Google and also I get many queries direct from my own site.

Regards to you all

Jim

How about addressing my actual points?



So, why is radiated heat behaving differently from transported heat?



That 10^39 ratio is valid only for particle with a specific electric charge/mass ratio (electrons, if I remember correctly). It is not a universal constant.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Please, Jim, tell me this is a joke!

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Papageno

It is not possible to answer all questions in just one posting. After all FET is a complete theory that explains everything and you would not expect to see quantum theory, relativity and the big bang theory all explained in one go.

You ask how do electrons repel each other.

Current theory states that electrons have a negative charge and that negative charges repel each other. Does this explain how they do it? Of course not. It is only the repeated use of words to represent observations that cannot be understood that fools you into thinking that you understand something.

FET electrons are the fluid energy flowing around cores of solid energy that are their protons. The electron flow of one core can combine with that of another core to form a combined flow of fluid energy around both cores. This is why two hydrogen atoms are readily united to make one hydrogen molecule. FET shows how the combined flow can take two different routes that correspond to the two different forms of hydrogen. FET even explains which form is more stable at low temperatures and why the ratio changes upon heating.

This explains how electrons can actually attract each other but in most cases they repel each other. They repel when the flows of fluid energy are not aligned. I will not reproduce the diagrams to show how here as they will appear in book 2.

Protons are supposed to have positive electric charges that repel each other and yet many of them sit quite happily together in the nuclei of most atoms. I assume that you are quite happy to accept that protons also have another unexplainable force that just happens to be stronger than that due to the electric charge so that they stick together. And again I bet you are happy to assume that this strong nuclear force just happens to decay at a much faster rate than the electric charge so that its effect is limited only to nuclei.

I also assume that you are happy to accept that the force decays according to an inverse law to the power 12. This implies that the force must be dissipating in 13 dimensions because there is no other way to explain it.

You stated that atoms and molecules are the result of electric forces and not nuclear forces. But what is an electric force and how is it supposed to differ from a nuclear force? Just putting into words what is observed is no explanation. FET on the other hand does explain how all forces arise and how they operate. All forces result from the flow of a real substance, energy, and are forces of contact. They do not act mysteriously or by magic or by having virtual particles popping into and out of existence.

You also stated that because I claim energy to be a continuous substance it cannot explain quantisation of energy. Quantisation was first introduced to explain why photons come in discrete packets of energy. Notice that the photon spectrum is continuous with both an upper and lower limit to the amount of energy any one photon can carry.

Quantisation occurs because of the equilibrium between the size of a core of solid energy and the amount of fluid energy it can support. The minimum amount that a core can support is when it is at absolute rest. It acquires translational motion by the absorption of more fluid energy and it can only hold onto that extra energy while it is moving. So every time its speed is changed it has to absorb or emit fluid energy to compensate.

This is why the photons given out by an atom change in the amount of energy they have when that atom is heated, moving or in a gravitational field. The characteristic spectrum of an atom relates to a particular environment for that atom and changes in a continuous, not stepwise, manner.

By the way, FET not only predicts that the electromagnetic spectrum has an upper and lower limit it explains why they are there but I will not go into that here for now.

FET is entirely compatible with the mathematics of quantum theory and general relativity so although it differs markedly in the explanation of how and why things happen it still uses the same mathematics.

Regards

Jim Mash

Tusenform,

FET is no joke.

What is a joke is that people believe in the existence of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, virtual particles, a constant speed of light regardless of who is observing it, the existence of more than the three known spatial dimensions, the bending of space time by matter, the existence of multiple universes, string theory and much more.

It is time to explain everything in a rational way and one that can be easily visualised and FET does just that.

As long as I see constructive comments I am prepared to stay at this site and argue my corner but not so if I find abusive remarks from someone who is prepared to accept what the majority believe but cannot be bothered to learn about the subject they are rubishing.

Jim

And I did not ask you to explain it all. I had three, very specific points.



But free electrons have never been observed attracting each other. They are always observed to repel each other. The same goes for free protons.

And if the important parameter is the alignment of the flows of "fluid energy", why aren't we observing a continuous change from attraction to repulsionas a function of alignement angle? Is the alignment quantized?



There is no need to assume: the theory can be compared to the experimental results.



The electric field of a dipole decays as r^3: does it mean that the dipole acts in 4 dimensions?



Current physics is no more magical or mysterious than this "fluid energy".



No, I did not state it: I asked a question.



There is much more to quantisation than photons...



Why would the change be discrete, if "fluid energy" is continuous?



I don't see an explanation of the discrete spectra of atoms and molecules (and nuclei, actually...).



What mathematics? So far you only presented words.


There is also another question that came up in the meantime:
If it is all "fluid energy", why the difference?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Dear Jim, the name is Tusenfem, thank you

I am commenting on the text that you wrote, and certainly if you are versed in a little bit of physics you can understand why I ask you are joking. Let me repeat the quote for clarity and pay special attention, no your main attention, to what I bolded in your piece of text:

Now, tell me, this sentence is a joke to fool the uninitiated, isn't it?

Can you please explain me what the difference and similarity is between the centripital and centrifugal force?

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

You say that free electrons have never been observed attracting each other.

This is because there are no such things as free electrons. FET electrons are attachments of fluid energy around proton cores of spinning solid energy. Once separated they no longer have any attraction for each other as the electron becomes a photon with an energy of 0.0051x10^8eV (as often observed in radioactive decay for example) and the proton becomes a neutron. If you believe in the existence of free electrons then can you tell me, for example, what size and shape they have?

As far as I can tell, electrons are said to be probabilities of where a certain amount of energy can be at any instant. An FET electron is that packet of energy circulating around a proton with its energy distributed with distance according to the inverse square rule. Thi is why you cannot pin down an electron to a specific location at a specific time.

Interactions with electrons will start wherever the flows of energy are compatible and will therefore be dependent upon what it is interacting with and from which direction. Hence it behaves with certain probabilities as defined by wave theory.

You ask why if the alignment of flows is an important parameter in interactions we don't observe a continuous change from attraction to repulsion.

In fact we do. An electric current is fluid energy flowing along and between atoms via the bonded electrons. When an electric current is passed down a wire some of the energy passes into non-bonding (see later) electrons and if these are at the surface of the wire the electrons become vastly extended. So when two wires are placed parallel to each other and a current flows in the same direction the extended electron flows are aligned and can exchange with each other. This exchange generates an attractive force which draws the two wires together.

Now if the electric current is reversed in one of the wires then the two extended flows of electron energy are not aligned but are opposed and hence this generates a repulsive force and the two wires are pushed apart. Hence Faraday was correct when he described the effect of an electric current upon a magnetic needle as being just such a force.

Now about the strong nuclear force of protons overcoming the repulsive effect of their positive charges. You say there is no need to assume the existence and relative strengths of these two forces because theory can be compared to experimental results. But hang on, the strong nuclear force was only introduced after the introduction of the repulsive force of protons and its strength and dependence upon distance were then adjusted to fit the observations, so of course the two are compatible. But that does not make them correct.

You say the electric field decays as r^3. When I was measuring forces at the atomic level it was assumed that the Casimir effect was a force that decayed according to the inverse power of 6. My measurements gave the best fit for an inverse square law because I allowed for the origin of the force to be in steps that were dependent upon at least 100 atoms depth. This is explained in detail in book 3.

You say that current physics is no more magical or mysterious than FET. But you know very little about FET so can you justify that statement? Can you honestly say that you are completely happy with current theories on how forces arise and interact, and I don't mean just the mathematics.

If you are then please explain it to me because I find interpretations of forces according to current theories to be impossible to visualise or have any physical meaning. All forces according to FET are the result of flowing fluid energy and all forces interact by means of contact. This I can understand and visualise and before you say it, that does not make it correct. It does though make it deserving of further investigation and not be dismissed out of hand.

I agree there is much more to quantisation of energy than photons but as this is in book 2 due out later this year I will not expand upon it here except to answer the next of your questions.

The upper limit to the EM spectrum coincides with a photon having sufficient energy and confined in a volume where the energy density is equal to that of solid energy. Hence highe energy photons become particles.

The lower limit to the EM spectrum is where the energy density of a photon becomes equal to that of the continuum and hence the two merge. I have suggested in my books that one way to measure the energy density of the continuum is to see where the lower limit is to radio waves.

Radiated heat is the release of photons from atoms. FET atoms have the nucleons held together by the flows of every electron. Thus every part of an atom is connected directly to every other part. So when an atom absorbs a photon it can be absorbed by every part so that it moves as a whole in the direction that the photon was moving and at a speed determined by the law of conservation of momentum.

But if that atom is prevented form moving at the required rate and distance, for example by colliding with another atom, the photon energy has to be released. By this means, all incoming photons could be of say one wavelength but through multiple collisions they will be emitted as a gaussian distribution of energies corresponding to the same distributions of speeds of the atoms.
Hence we can tell the temperature of a substance from the wavelength distribution of its emitted photons. This also explains how thermal energy is transmitted through a condensed substance and why thermal conductivities are very closely related to electrical conductivities.

Got to go now but will be back soon.

Jim

I take it that you have never heard of Cathode Ray Tubes and electron microscopes....


The proton has nearly 2000 times the mass of an electron: do you think we would not have noticed?


We have upper limits to the size and we cannot resolve the shape of them. On the other, the size and shape of protons is measured experimentally.


Electron are quantum particles with a well defined (rest) mass and a well defined electric charge.


Of course we can pin down an electron to a specific location at a specific time, otherwise electron microscopy would not work.


It depends. Sometimes electron can behave very classically.



Unfortunately, we do not: the electrostatic force between two electrons is epsilon*(e^2/r^2), not I]epsilon*(e^2/r^2)*cos(phi)[/I], where phi is the angle of alignement.


I am not talking about electric currents, but about electrostatic (Coulomb) forces.


That would be the magnetic field produced by the current (see Maxwell equations): it is not the electrostatic interaction between two electrons.


What you have described is the interaction between two dipoles, not between two monopoles, such as electrons in the context of Coulomb force.


That does not change my point: the nuclear forces are so called because they are limited to the nuclei. They are not responsible for binding electron to nuclei to form atoms and molecules.


What part of "the electric field of a dipole" is not clear?


And you know very little about current physics, but that did not stop you...


I never ever claimed that current physics is perfect and complete. But it is not as magical and mysterious as you claim.


That might have something to do with the fact that you don't know much about current physics. The Q&A forum is a nice place to visit.


It has not been dismissed out of hand. It has failed under scrutiny.


No, you don't get it: there is much more to quantisation, not just photons and not just energy.


Radiowaves are nowhere near the lower limit of the EM spectrum. Your standard 50/60 Hz mains is way lower than radiowaves....

By the way, I still do not see an explanation of the discrete lines in the spectra of nuclei, atoms and molecules.


Then why do alpha particles exists and are stable?


Gamma photons are usually not absorbed by the whole atom...


Why do electric insulators conduct heat?

Also, I don't think I saw the answer to this question: why would the change be discrete, if "fluid energy" is continuous?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Like a lot of ATM proponents you seem to have a problem with the Maths. Why? it's the basic language of physics? You need the maths to to do the visualising, lots of prose and analogyis no substitute.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Sorry for getting your name wrong. My typing is terrible but luckily my spell checker corrects most things for me but unfortunately does not recognise names.

When considering the centrifugal and centripetal forces you have to consider the difference between the normal particulate form of matter that we interact with every day and the underlying continuous substance from which everything is made.

We can feel the effect of the centrifugal force when we spin around a weight at the end of a piece of string. However, we are not accustomed to the centripetal force even though without it nothing would exist. Nuclear particles and atoms depend upon it for their creation as do the operations of magnets, the apparent gravity defying feats of gyroscopes and the formation of solar systems and galaxies.

As I have already stated, the centripetal force arises when two motions within a region of a continuous substance come together. (Don't ask me how or why these motions occur because that is like asking why does space or anything else exist and these types of questions may never be answered.

Now imagine that two sticks placed within a continuous medium are causing the motions. They will displace the strings in the direction of their motions (see diagram on web site) and therefore pull more string inwards. They are pulling upon each other and therefore they will start to rotate around each other, but only in the one plane. This is why solar systems and galaxies are disc shaped.

When a critical speed is achieved the energy density inside a whirlpool becomes so high that it solidifies. Up to this point the only force in operation is the centripetal force and this becomes constant when the spin rate is constant.

Once solid energy starts to create a solid particle a centrifugal force arises and this increases with the size of the particle. On reaching a critical size the centrifugal force becomes equal to the centripetal force so that no more solid energy can be laid down upon the particle.

The maximum of the centrifugal force is not at the outermost edge of the sore but somewhere inside it and therefore the break occurs there. Thus a shell of solid energy breaks away from the core and because it is no longer under the full centripetal force it starts to expand back into fluid energy. It is the centrifugal force that places a limit upon the spinning of CD's without them exploding.

I believe that an example of where this can be seen operating is in particle accelerator experiments. When particles are accelerated to high speeds and then smashed into others there will be occurrences where one or more particles will be prevented from spinning at the critical rate. This results in the release of some of the solid energy but not in sufficient quantities to prevent it from being sucked back down as solid energy again. The spiral tracks associated with such experiments could well be the result of other atoms being caught up in these reforming whirlpools.

Another example of whirlpools in operation are the motions of stars within a galaxy. Stars in a galaxy sized whirlpool would all have the same speed regardless of distance from the centre as they were drawn inwards with the galaxy sized whirlpool. At the centre where the density of stars is greatest the gravitational force also comes into play. Hence there is no need for dark matter.

One day FET may be listened to more carefully if the particle accelerator experiments succeed in smashing up too many cores of solid energy. The expansion of solid energy into fluid energy is a factor of 10^39 and hence an explosion, it it were to happen, would be much more violent than current nuclear bombs. In fact it is this process that I believe explains the large amount of energy released when stars collide.

I will certainly make sure I am nowhere near the Hadron collider when it starts operating later this year.

Jim

solid energy? how does it form again? I tohught you said it was a fluid?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

In the beginning, infinite space was filled with energy at a uniform density of 2x10^15eV/m^3. Nothing moved and therefore there was no sense of time.

When motions started they paired up to form whirlpools of every conceivable size. Every one of them generated its own centripetal force that concentrated energy towards its centre.

The smaller the whirlpool the faster it could grow. So the first whirlpools to have any effect were the smallest or quantum whirlpools that compressed energy at the fastest rate. This process could have continued ad infinitum with the result being that all the energy would have ended up as black holes.

This obviously has not occurred and therefore there must be a limit to the compressibility of energy in its initial fluid state. This limit is where the fluid form becomes an incompressible solid with a density of 10^54eV/m^3.

So the first step in creation was the formation of nuclear particles. To me this makes far more sense than to say that all particles and radiation just happened to pop into existence in a big bang.

Larger whirlpools drew together the nuclear particles to make the first atoms and these were drawn together by even larger whirlpools to make gaseous planets and stars and these were drawn together by even bigger whirlpools to make galaxies and these were drawn together by even bigger whirlpools to make clusters and so on.

Jim

why does the expansion of the BB make less sense than an infinite space filled with unmoving energy? what made it move? what made these 'whirlpools of every conceivable size' form?

how can energy become an incompressible solid? what is to stop it just keeping on 'concentrating'?

How do you account for the different elements if everything is made of the same solid energy? why would'nt everything just be bits of the same solid energy?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Before I go on to answer some of your questions let me state that you must have an open mind and be prepared to accept that FET is very different to current theories and that it covers everything from quantum theory, relativity and creation with just the one set of very simple rules. So do not expect to see things described in ways that you have been accustomed to. I will also take the questions in a different order and not even answer some specific questions because their answers can be inferred from the following.

Current theory claims that electricity and magnetism are different things although it is recognised that one does not go without the other. Electric currents are said to be derived from the movement of electrical charges and magnetic fields from monopoles.

No one can say what an electric charge is nor a magnetic monopole but this has not stopped them from looking for them. I am confident that they never will.

FET shows that there is no real difference between the flow of electricity and a magnetic field. They are both derived from the same source. In FET an electric current is the flow of fluid energy along a series of atoms via their linked electron bonds. The difference between an electrical conductor and insulator is in the relative number and orientation of bonded and non bonded electrons and how they interact within a nucleus.

All nuclear particles are perpetual motion machines spinning at 10^23rps and these keep the electron energy circulating at light speed. So when other fluid energy (be it from photons or energy released from the making or breaking of chemical bonds) is united with electron energy, it too moves at light speed. This is why the speed of propagation of electric and magnetic forces occurs at light speed.

In iron, the atoms are bonded together in such a way that when fluid energy is added (eg by stroking an iron bar with a magnet), that energy flows along the electrons of the atoms and when it reaches the surface of the bar it can only flow outwards into space. But the electrons of the atoms at the opposite end of the bar can suck in that energy thereby keeping it flowing even when the applied stroking is stopped. Hence it is the perpetual motion of nuclear particles that gives magnets the ability to produce a magnetic field forever, or at least until some other force or rearrangement of iron atoms stops it. Once started this flow of added energy forms a whirlpool and therefore it does what all whirlpools do and that is try to contract due to its centripetal force.

If we placed a piece of wood within the flow of energy outside of the iron bar, i.e. in the magnetic field, the energy is easily able to flow between its atoms and therefore the magnetic force can penetrate such matter. But if we replace the wood with an iron bar then its atoms capture that energy and add to the driving force. Because the circular flow of energy is now captured and powered by the perpetual motion of the nucleons in both iron bars it can contract thereby drawing the two iron bars together.

So if the second iron bar is placed to the side of the magnet it will be drawn sideways which makes you think that the magnetic force is operating perpendicular to an electric force. In fact it does operate this way but then electric forces result from head on flows whereas magnetic forces act by contracting whirlpools.

I have explained this first because it illustrates how fluid energy can be absorbed by electrons, which in effect lengthens them.

Now of course I have heard of cathode ray tubes. But what is currently interpreted as being a flow of free electrons is really the extensions of lots of surface electrons from the cathode.

These electrons can be absorbed or repelled by atoms within their path or stretched between source and target where the energy can then be absorbed. This beam of continuous fluid energy can be bent by a magnetic field because a magnetic field is only another flow of fluid energy crossing it at right angles. It cannot therefore be absorbed by the electron energy and is therefore simply pushed away by an amount depending upon the amount of energy flowing in both cases. This is the same principle where light is deflected by gravity.

An electrostatic force occurs where fluid energy has been added to the surface atoms of a substance that does not have the correct atomic structure to allow that energy to be dissipated into the neighbouring atoms. Hence it remains with the surface electrons and these become extended. This extension can easily reach a few metres, which is a great deal more than the normal length of an electron at 10^-10m.

You asked why do electric insulators conduct heat. I thought that you could have worked that out from previous remarks. Heat is conducted as fluid energy along all of the electrons in a material. If that material has mostly electrons that end in space and are not capable of sharing electron energy with their neighbours, then when an atom has a change in speed and it has to shed kinetic energy, that energy cannot pass onto neighbouring atoms fast enough to drain it all away and therefore some is emitted as a photon. Hence heat within a condensed form of matter is the production of photons with a wide range of energies, not just though of incident radiation.

I have studied at graduate and postgraduate level at university and have spent many years looking at every aspect of physics, chemistry, cosmology and astronomy in a search for some phenomenon that cannot be explained by FET. I have not yet come across one thing so please do not insult me by saying I know little about physics.

You say that FET has failed under scrutiny but if you define scrutiny as about 1 hour of your time discussing just a few aspects of it then I see there is no point wasting my time in trying to explain it to you. You have obviously not read my first book, which only deals with the cosmological aspects of FET and you certainly have not read the second two books because they are not due for publication until later this year.

Best wishes

Jim

Jim,

Thanks for the answer, it shows nicely that you do not understand a lot of basic physics. You mix up centripetal force and impulse moment, and treat them to be the same in your example of "gravity defying gyroscopes."

I have no idea what you are talking about.
IMHO the centripital force comes into play when one particle is performing a rotational motion around a centre. For example, in normal physics, an electron in a magnetic field experiences a Lorentz force, which is perpendicular to the magnetic field and the velocity of the electron, and it bends the path of the electron, THIS is the centripital (or centre-seeking force).

The same holds for swinging a rock around on a string. I pull on the string, which bends the path of the rock into a circle, which is the CENTRIPETAL force that the rock experiences. The force that I feel I need to deliver for the rock not to fly away is the CENTRIFUGAL force. This is really bacis physics, that every student learns in the first year of college. And that is what I would expect you to answer, not some epistology with lots of psychobabble that sounds scientific, but basically hides the fact that the answer you gave had no meaning.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

You asked what made fluid energy move and what made whirlpools of every conceivable size.

The answer to the second question is obvious. If I had stated that only whirlpools of a certain size were formed then you would be asking why this was so.

As to the first question, I say what started the bb, why did it have just the correct parameters to build a universe where life could develop, what started inflation, what stopped inflation and a host of other unanswerable questions.

The bb theory has been around for many years and picked over and added to by thousands of great minds and yet they still cannot answer these questions.

It is only 10 years since the birth of FET and has only been studied by one person until now and yet it can account for the creation of a universe that would evolve every time into the same state with no pre-determined parameters. The only differences that could occur are the original density of the fluid energy and the density of solid energy. Changes in these values would only result in a change of scale.

It explains how particles, radiation and forces are created and how they all operate with the same principles from the atomic scale to the great wall structures of galaxies.

Jim

I stated that the centrifugal force is the force you feel when swinging a weight around on a length of string. Why does the string break if the rate of swing is increased too far? The reason is that the atoms in the string are held together by the centripetal forces of the electrons that overlap and form bonds. Once the centrifugal force is greater than that of the atoms in a cross section of the string then it breaks.

You are still thinking in terms of normal matter where everything is particulate. To benefit from FET you need to think in terms of what happens in a continuous substance.

You cannot generate a centripetal force if everything was particulate. Just in case you were thinking of an immediate example to come back with just try thinking for a moment of where the centripetal forces really are. After all, your signature states "a good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open".

As for the gravity defying feats of a gyroscope I could explain exactly why it can balance horizontally at a table edge and why a boy who cannot lift a 40lb gyroscope that is stationary has no trouble at all when it is spinning. But I feel too tired now to do this but I may do it later if you are really interested.

As you are an astrophysicist perhaps you can answer a question for me. I remember reading somewhere that the intensity of the CMBR does not fit with that calculated from bb theory. Could you enlighten me upon this point as I have shown that the CMBR is a local effect and what is more it gives the right value for its intensity.

I cannot comment more upon this here because I am preparing an article for a peer reviewed journal.

Jim.

The whole of the above sounds more like a 'Just So' story I am afraid. Can you point us to any actual evidence or experimental results? How about any predictions or falsifications?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►