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!"

__________________
Disclaimer: I have no theories, I am not smart enough to come up with theories. I only have a hypothesis. So anything I may write, statement or otherwise is just a hypothesis based on what I observe...

The difference between a correlation and a causation... Everyone who drinks water dies... Water makes things wet...

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)

So lets see it explained then!

Unless this is just a Spam post.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

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)

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)

Please, Jim, tell me this is a joke!

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

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".