The Dynamic Nature of the Fabric of Space

This page is being editted at this time. March 2010

The following is an introduction to the Fidler-Morton Vortex-Electron model that will be used or posted into a variety of chat sites to bring up the topic but also to find out what other information I need to include.

Web site introduction:

Fidler-Morton Vortex-Electron model requires an aether.

The is a summary of a theory that uses physical processes related to gases, & fluids, to explain the nature of the fundamental forces of nature, and reduces them all down to one force - Electro-magnetism. The so-called magical properties of such a luminiferous aether are far less than the number of magical particles, let alone their properties, and assumptions of today's most popular model. Michelson & Morely's work only proved that an aether wind does not flow thru the Earth, and thus the ether they envisioned did not exist.

I've been asked to post this in a public forum to see what others think of this. This information has been reduced to fit within limits of sites that allow posting of theories about - anything. One of these sites is ATS [Above-Top-Secret]. I will do my best to answer Q's in a timely fashion - when I'm not working, looking for a higher paying job, or dealing with family life.

The Fidler-Morton Vortex-Electron model arose during the study of Two-Photon physics. This is not the first time that a vortex-electron model has been suggested, but no previous model actually provided a nearly complete explanation for almost every aspect of physics. Two-photon physics is where 2 gamma-rays interact with one another, or with the nucleus of an atom, and one of the possible outcomes results in the formation an electron-positron pair. This occurs through the creation of a fermion / anti-fermion pair which themselves release "energy" and result in an e- e+ pair being formed. Ignoring the scapegoat answer: "a photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair." (1) The question then for the study was: "How could 2 photons which are fundamental & neutral bodies give rise to a charged pair of particles? What is negative and positive charge?" If this was the result of a physical process, as the interaction between two fluidic/gas bodies, then what form could an e- and e+ take on to trigger charge. Physical processes would require an aether - otherwise we'd be stuck with delayed action at a distance, and like today's most popular theory would require additional particles, like Gauge Bosons, to transfer forces between particles like e- and protons to carry out the effects of the fundamental forces. Note how the most popular theory does not explain the forces, but instead requires additional bodies to transfer the still unexplained forces between bodies.

The study looked at the collision of two gamma-rays, with one passing thru the other. What could this result in? Part of the answer to this lies within the relationship that shows that magnetism & electricity are linked by the square of the speed of light. Which seems to indicate that what ever happened to the conduction of the gamma-ray thru the ether is still contained within the resulting structure of the electron, but has now been transformed to bring about the electrical constant [vacuum permittivity] and magnetic constant [vacuum permeability]. 25 years ago, the description of two-photon physics was not quite like it is described now on Wikipedia(1).

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics

[1] What was the Michelson & Morely experiment supposed to have proved? They proved that the aether model they envisioned has no bearing on reality. They envisioned that it flowed thru the Earth like water flows thru a fish net. Most experiments, including more recent ones, have shown that there is no flow of an ether through the Earth, and if there is an ether then the only possible reason the experiments would fail is that the ether is being dragged along with the Earth as the planet revolves around the Sun. For more on current information about an Aether Drag Hypothesis look at:

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

There seems to be some question of others fudging the results of Dayton Miller's experiments to disprove his results in which he showed an ether exists:

(3) http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

But what advantage could there be to an ether based model. The main reason is that the F-M vortex electron model can account for nearly all of the observed phenomenon in physics. This is do mostly to the fact that it reduces down the known fundamental forces to just one - Electro-magnetism. Time and time again we have found that Occam's razor applies when two theories try to explain the same thing. The simpler model usually turns out to have the most solid evidence to support it as being more plausible.

It is more than just a contradiction to say that the aether does not exist then show that empty space has measurable properties. Some might say that these properties might be due to the presence of all the non-matter that is not detectable any other way. New exotic particles that have replaced the ether in order to make the most popular model work. Why then does empty space have measurable properties? Few would dispute its dielectric constant, permeability, and impedance.

Instead of an Aether we now have the following to replace it:
- Dark Energy
- Dark Matter
- Gauge Bosons
- Super Strings
- And conveniently enough virtual photonss & other virtual particles that come into existence when needed.

But No aether! As that would just be crazy talk, because that would just make the universe too complicated. Not!

The F-M Vortex-Electron model, along with Plasma Physics based models like those from Eric J Lerner's group (4), show that these other hypothetical phenomenon are not needed. Only the aether and electro-magnetism are needed.

(4) http://bigbangneverhappened.org

In summary:
- Black Holes: observed electromagnetic ffilaments and gravitational activity at galactic cores are better explained via plasma physics
- Dark Energy: there are alternate explannations for the observed Red-Shift
- Dark Matter: believed to account for Gaalactic clusters that should not be held together by gravity alone, but removing the galactic interlopers [those actually behind and in front of the clusters] shows that gravity alone can account for these systems
- Gauge Bosons: believed to be the fundammental particles of force exchange between bodies. Note that the force is not actually explained as in how-it-works, instead they just assign a new particle to pass it on
- Gluons: indirectly involved with the biinding of protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei. Not needed since high energy electrons can account for the observed effects. EOC [electron orbital capture] shows that electrons can and do enter nuclei
- Gravitons: the vortex dynamics and its affects upon the aether around the standing waves we call protons generate a gradient of FOS that electrons are attracted to and interact with
- Super Strings: no need to talk about thhe different harmonics of strings to determine the different fundamental forces of nature
- Virtual Particles: are viewed as the quuanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles. Like static force fields, such as electric and magnetic fields
- Virtual Photons: photons are believed nnot to exist until needed or drawn out of the dark energy of space. The FM vortex electron models shows that electrons carry, or push, ether and dump, or displace it, as photons

The FM model simplifies how the following works:
. Electronic Shell Configurations - remember how in high school we were told that pairing an equal number of protons and electrons together created a neutral atom, BUT that if a shell was not full then an atom could give away or add another e- around it. Well there is a simpler explanation for this
. Gravity - caused by the residual charge left over by all atoms to which electrons are still sensitive and attracted to.
. Strong Nuclear Force - is what holds the nuclei of atoms together but could instead just be an electromagnetic side effect, and induced by nuclear electrons dropping the FOS density between protons so that they stay together. See part 6 for evidence of Fidler-Morton nuclear model

[2] Longitudinal waves can experience interference and be polarizable. For example sound waves can be cancelled out, and elliptical shaped waves can be polarized. Circles were thought to rule the universe - then it was shown via the orbits of the planets that in fact ellipses are the norm, and not circles.

[3] What is an electron? What does it do to effect negative charge? The vortex formation slows down the original body of the gamma-ray and this newly formed vortex, or smoke-ring-like structure, rotates about itself, and in doing so affects the fabric in a number of ways. 1: It induces compression of the aether ahead of it, 2: Further compresses the fabric that passes through its center and then the FOS naturally decompresses as it exits the electron, 3: it imparts momentum into the fabric of space to trigger magnetism. The exiting fabric of space reduces the density of the ether/space it passes through and its this now relatively lower density aether that is seen as negative charge. Electrons induce movement in atoms by being sensitive to the gradients around them, and favoring the side that places it more often in a stronger gradient. The pressure differential that is formed pushes/pulls the nuclei towards this region of space.

[4] What are protons & neutrons? As many others have come to believe, I too have come to the conclusion that protons appear to be standing waves. That trigger compression in the FOS around themselves resulting in the formation of a gradient of dense aether that extends out, and to which electrons are attracted to as a region of more conductive aether. And at the same time implying that matter is an illusion and all we really have in the universe is energy and force fields. I would argue that a Neutron is not a fundamental particle because outside the nucleus of an atom it decays within roughly 10.5 minutes. Giving rise to a proton and a pion [an energetic electron]. Where as protons do not appear to decay. EOC radiation shows that electrons do enter nuclei, and since they can enter nuclei we know that they are there. For more on Neutrons see pt 6.

--------------------- Part 2 ------------------

[5] The ionic states of atoms, and the attraction of electrons to nuclei and other charged bodies, along with gravity, can be better explained via the Fidler-Morton vortex-electron model and protons as standing waves. Without the contradiction of charge neutralization versus the filling of electronic shells that all of us are taught in school. Anyone who has taken chemistry remembers being told that an electron and proton have equal and opposite charges, and thus combining the two results in a neutral system. But then we're immediately told that; "But atoms like to fill their shells with electrons, and so..." So, in other words they don't really know what they are talking about. The hydrogen atom is the most nearly perfect counter example of their understanding. It is just one electron and one proton, but is one of the most reactive of the atomic elements. While on the other hand, if you instead look at the helium atom which is normally described as two electrons and two protons it is nearly perfectly neutral, but is an exception to the rule in the periodic table of the elements. [*Note that when you remove an electron from an atom it leaves the atom charged positively by the amount of negative charge you removed, but this is because you removed the negative effect of that electron.*] Ok, so an electron and proton do not form a stable neutral body when combined, and even in the form of a neutron this particle system is unstable outside of the nucleus of an atom, and decays within approximately 10.5 minutes into a proton and nuclear electron. It takes at least two protons and one nuclear electron to form a stable arrangement - called the deuterium nucleus. So, obviously the charges are un-equal.
Why then are most atoms willing to either donate an electron, or accept an electron from another atom? The Fidler-Morton vortex-electron model states that electrons are attracted to the density gradients formed around protons, and that as electrons fill a shell they reduce the density of the aether around the nucleus of an atom, and this layer, or shell, becomes less attractive to other electrons. Eventually either additional electrons are not attracted to the atom at all, or new electrons are instead attracted to a region further away from the nucleus and thus start to form a new electronic shell. The electrons are attracted to this other region because it has had time to recover from the activity of the electrons below it and return to normal, and now the FOS further out from the nucleus is a region that electrons find more favorable and thus conduct themselves through it. Since ether densities and electron energies increase accordingly these shells are similar around other nuclei of similar size, and since the nuclear charge increases accordingly, there is a natural pattern of orbits or electronic shell configurations. An atom whose shell is almost full still has enough of a gradient left over to hold onto another electron. While an atom whose highest orbital is quite weak obviously can attract an electron but is more likely to share it or give it up with another atom. In fact, even if an atom can no longer hold onto another electron, its nucleus is still generating a small but weak ether gradient further out from the atom. Electrons can in the presence of a positive electric field, ether gradient, find them selves spending more time on one side of an atom than the other, and thus triggering a variety of effects.

Gravitational effects are similarly induced and occur due to electrons favoring one side of an atom more than another due to the presence of some mass on that side, and the electrons spend more time on this side. In effect creating a lower density region on that side to which the nucleus of the atom is forced towards due to this FOS or ether pressure differential. The electrons in our bodies favor being on the side of the atoms towards the gravitational center of the Earth, and thus our bodies are drawn towards the Earth, even though the electrons are strongly bound to the atoms and molecules to which they are part of.

[6] Neutrons and protons can form nuclei because nuclear electrons (muons - pions) that help form neutrons create a negative region close to a proton, that then allows this system to pair up with another proton. In such a manner that the two protons are simply sharing the nuclear electron, without either of them really being a neutron or exclusively owning the electron. In other words, a neutron is simply a system of a proton and a nuclear electron. Deuterium nuclei are stable because the electron is attracted to the region between the two protons who are creating a denser than normal region in space, to which the electron is strongly attracted to and once it passes through this region it lowers the density such that the protons unequal pressure gradients pushes the protons towards the center of the lower density/pressure region. As the pressure once again builds up the protons could again move apart, but the electron returns back to this more conductive region again and again once the effects of its previous passage are minimized and it becomes attracted to this region again. Nuclear stability are based on the nuclei having enough electrons and protons to be balanced. Too many electrons or protons will increase the likely hood of electrons nearly colliding with one another or not being able to return back soon enough between two protons to keep them together within a nucleus. Recent evidence of the nuclear structure indicated by the Fidler-Morton nuclear model was supported as the negative regions around neutrons were shown to exist as reported in the book the "Fundamentals in nuclear physics." See page 156 of Fundamentals in nuclear physics: from nuclear structure to cosmology - by Jean-Louis Basdevant, James Rich, Michel Spiro. Here is a link to that page:

http://books.google.com/books?id=OFx7P9mgC9oC&pg=PA375&dq=helium+%22nuclear+structure%22&lr=&as_brr=0#PPA156,M1

[7] What do we know about the Red-Shift that many claim to be as indisputable proof of the Big Bang. It has been said that it is due to either the Doppler shift of the photons, or the expansion of space itself. The only thing we know for sure is that the red-shift happens and is a measurable, and observable effect. In general it does not appear to be 100% linear relationship. That is that two stellar bodies at the same distance away from us may not have the same amount of red-shift. But could this simply be due to some of the stellar bodies moving around the galactic centers coming towards us? The red-shift has at least four possible reasons, or combination of reasons;
1. It is due to motion and thus is a Doppler effect. This implies that some galaxies are approaching the speed of light which is suppose to be impossible.
2. It is due to the expansion of the universe itself. Thus as space expands so do photons. But wouldn't they just get bigger - wouldn't we along with the electrons and protons? Since electrons arise from photons shouldn't they also expand accordingly?
3. It is due to the Compton effect. That is photons interact with matter as it travels towards us, and they lose energy in collisions. But wouldn't this cause their path to change?
4. It is due to photons simply expanding as they travel through space. Some say this is in effect to them losing energy overtime. But I'd argue that this is not due to a loss of energy in so much as the compression and rarefactions of space itself simply causes them to grow larger over time due to the dynamics of this type of conduction.

[8] CMB - Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is touted as being indisputable proof of the Big Bang, but other theories have arisen that are just as good, and since the Big Bang's key assumption is in doubt so are any other supporting interpretations of the data. One moment they are happy with the way it appears, then someone points out that it is too smooth, and then they are back to trying to determine some new phenomenon to counter act this effect. Check out item 7 on the following page:

http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm

Or better yet item 2 on the following page:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

[9] Fidler-Morton Gravitational Time Paradox - If atomic clocks can be shown to run att different rates for all distances for every gravitational body then how can the universe function with time as a dimension if time is running differently everywhere. Only synchronizing up around other gravitational bodies at certain altitudes and similar distances from other similar masses. Instead these variations in atomic clock rates can be better explained as nuclei relaxing or increasing their hold on the electrons orbiting them depending on whether the clock is moving away from or towards a mass. In fact these time variations, are evidence for the existence of an aether, and that the ether is being dragged along with the Earth around the Sun.

The main reason I'm posting this information is to get feed back, find out where my weak points are or need re-enforcing, and also I'd really like to write a book about this. I was told by one group that they needed to see what others think of my theories as they are not sure what to think, and I stumbled upon ATS. So, here I am. I'm looking for a publisher. And perhaps a co-author or acknowledged ghost-writer as I'm more of an idea man than a writer.

Instead of dictating to the Universe how it must behave I have tried to instead observe how it appears to behave.

Copyright Terrance Fidler 1990 - 2010

The following is an introduction being written to be sent of a few people and groups to get feed back on the topic and what I should include in the dicussion book.

Email introduction

There has been an unusual amount of prejudice in the scientific community in the support of the Big Bang Theory even in the face of failure after failure, and the need to invent band-aid after band-aid to try cover up its problems. Giving rise to the most outlandish of notions about physics and the current dominant view of our universe [as we see it] a model of the real Universe. With too many within the general public finding solace in this models ever increasing complexities, due to the possibilities it does not preclude. There seems to be a suppression of the more reasonable plasma physics based cosmological theories [even if this may not be deliberate. And only a product of ensuring that the Big Bang gets all the air time]. Even though the plasma based theories have now started to dominate and be widely accepted for their evolutionary models of solar systems, and galaxies because of the empirical evidence to support them. The plasma based theories have not introduced anything new in terms of new particles, or fundamental forces - such as gravity & electromagnetism, as they simply don't need to. This is because they are based only on electromagnetic forces and gravity. While the Big Bang theory variations have required not only the creation of new types of matter and particles, but also Einstein himself introduced a repulsive force now termed Dark Energy to keep the Big Bang theory alive [and bring balance to the universe he envisioned]. The only thing the plasma based theories lack is something to bring them to the attention of the average person, since their position and logic are actively suppressed by the Big Bang community [supporters], and those who desire the universe to allow for dark energy & matter, worm holes, super strings, parallel universes, etc. and to have a beginning & end in time. Why would they want this, because it supports ideas about the universe and alternate realities that appeal to them. [Just because the Tooth Fairy is a popular idea it should not be pushed as a truth.] But what scientific principle or observation triggered the development of the Big Bang theory? The critical moment in time when the Big Bang Theory took hold was shortly after the development of Hubble's Law which is related to the observed Red Shift of all light from distant stellar objects with a greater red-shift for increasingly more distant objects. As a result of this law, and the dismissal of the theory of Tired-Light, their conclusion was this red-shift had to be due to an expanding universe where all the matter in the universe was moving away from a center of the universe due to a large explosion. [Note how we are once again at the center of the universe. Just like we used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that even the Sun revolved around us.] A group of people concluded that the Red-Shift was not due to the phenomenon of Tired-Light because that was impossible. Tired-Light being due to the decay of light - or to state it another way is that photons increase in wavelength over time and their passage through space. Why are variations on a Tired-Light theory impossible? They're not! We simply have been told they are impossible from those who insist that the expanding universe is the only logical conclusion for the red-shift of all distant objects[, and the only reasonable explanation?]. What would it mean or imply if Tired Light was possible? [For many people Tired-Light simplifies the universe too much, and would destroy the concept of the Big Bang, and all its extra bonus features. Including all their hopes for alternate realities, time travel, ghosts,... [And make our view of a universe to simple and neat]. Without the chaos of the Big Bang life would be too boxed into a boring universe. One without alternate realities, parallel earths,...] An expanding universe is not a fact, it is merely one logical conclusion that someone has come to based on the evidence they've selected, and their dismissal of alternative explanations. A fact is something that we can empirically provide evidence for. The deductive reasoning to draw some conclusion about an observation is not a fact unless it has empirical [measurable] evidence to support it. Here is a fact - the red-shift occurs. It is an observable fact. All we know for sure, without prejudice, is that the further away a star or stellar body is away from us is that the more red-shifted the light from that body is. Any conclusion about why this is so is purely speculative. Any new theory about why this is so will not likely be empirically proven in the foreseeable future. Instead what we can do is to look for empirical evidence to support the reasoning behind a given proposed theory and apply Occam's Razor to select the best theory.

-------------------------------------------------------------

What was the alternative theory that the Big Bang was suppose to dismiss due to its superior reasoning? And if the Big Bang is wrong then don't we need to look at the model of the Universe it was suppose to supersede?

If the universe is not expanding then what does that imply. Olbers' Paradox does not arise as first of all stars die after they burn all their fuel, the red-shift turns out the light of those stars more than 12 billion light years away,

The only problem with this version introduced by TJ Fidler, unlike all other plasma based versions, is that it re-introduces the concept of an aether. Why take such a negative start, and taint the perfectly good plasma physics based theories? Because with the conception of this newest model that starts at the sub-atomic level, it proposes a solution for how all matter interacts and reduces the 3[4] fundamental forces down to one. Just electro-magnetism. Previously the four [EM, Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces, and Gravity] were reduced to just three forces. The Electro-Weak Force, Strong Nuclear Force, and Gravity. As electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force were shown to be one and the same. It resolves the problem of the paradox of the valence shells around atoms and the issue of electrically neutral atoms. As well as how electro-magnetism & electrostatic forces arise from one phenomenon.

The Fidler vortex electron model dismisses the Michelson & Morely aether model as aether flow is seen by electrons as a magnetic field, and an aether density gradient is seen by matter as a gravitational field. Thus implying a stiff aether dragging model. With evidence of the existence of the field being detected by atomic clocks as changes in the rate of frequency resonations. The further outside of a gravitational field the greater the increase in the rate of frequency resonation. Causing the clock to gain time.

The red-shift of photons along with proposed plasma based scattering mechanisms related to the CMB can account for Olbers' Paradox. And does not dismiss a Steady State universe nor support the Big Bang universe.

*[The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble in 1929[2] after nearly a decade of observations. (Wikipedia)]

[For the moment forget the social desire of many to adamantly, even aggressively push for the support of the Big Bang theory even when faced with failure of the theory. What we need to look at is what triggered the Big Bang model.]

What this article is about is a comparative study between the dominant Big Bang theory and a Plasma Physics based cosmology that re-introduces the topic of an aether, where the latter more surprisingly simplifies the nature of the universe unlike any theory before it. Without an aether - photons have become virtual and don't exist until needed or released, and unobserved theoretical particles are required to transmit forces between the known observed particles like protons, electrons, etc as well as between hypothetical particles like quarks. Given how much an aether simplifies nearly everything, and provides answers to paradoxes[?] about how matter interacts it makes this new model something worth investigating. The entire subject[?] arose due to the study of Two-Photon physics during which a new vortex electron model arose that seems to account for electromagnetism and electrostatics unlike any model before it. Some say that the aether debate is long over, but their wrong, Michelson & Morely merely proved that the aether they envisioned does not exist. Not that no aether exists. But what would be the point of re-opening this idea? Because if an aether does exist then a new aether model could be used to explain the nature of the universe in a much more simple way. And clearly the Occam's Razor principle supports this new aether universe, far more than the current Big Bang universe. This new aether theory arose as the result of studying the deflection of photons around stars due to the gravity of the star. And led to a new vortex electron model uncovers a new atomic model that has recently been supported by new experimental evidence about the existence of a negative region close in to neutrons.

A theory should not be supported because it allows people to keep their hopes alive for the existence of time travel, door ways to other dimensions, parallel universes, worm hole travel, ghosts, and faster-than-light star drives. A theory should be supported because it makes the most sense and has the empirical data to support it.

Can the Compton effect account for the Red-Shift instead of a Doppler shift of the photons? But would it not induce scattering as well?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix
The basic tenets of the model:

0. My contribution to this work is the structure of an electron - a new vortex electron model, and how it interacts with protons, and the fabric of space. This in effect is a new atomic model, encompassing charge, magnetism and gravity. And this new model for an electron finally answers the question of where do photons come from. Virtual photons are not needed to account for how they suddenly appear, seemingly out of no where. Almost every thing else has already been described by someone else in the past. Although some of the material and evidence is fairly recent. The model arose during the review of electron-positron annihilation research and its counter part of Two-Photon Physics where Leptons can be created. Evidence to support the model stems from Electron Orbital Capture first discovered by Luis Alvarez. A type of radioactivity that allows an electron from the "K" shell to enter a nucleus to in effect convert a proton into a neutron. This occurs because the nucleus of the atom in question is too positive, and thus the nuclear potential barrier that would normally keep the electron out is too weak and the electron is drawn into the nucleus by the excess positive charge. Additional experimental evidence that has come to light, has to do with mapping the charge distribution around protons and neutrons. This appeared in a book that came out in 2005. The "Fundamentals in Nuclear Physics." By Jean-Louis Basdevant, James Rich, Michel Spiro. On page 156 the book shows the result of research that indicates that neutrons appear to have negative charge around them, and of course a positive core. This is cited in Wikipedia as the 5th reference on the page about Atomic Nucleus.

1. The charge generated by an electron is opposite in nature to that of a proton, but is not equal in magnitude to the positive charge generated by a proton. If it were otherwise then the hydrogen item would truly be an electrically neutral body, just like the helium atom. If you remove an electron from an atom yes you leave it positively charged by the same amount you removed, but only because you removed this amount of negative charge. So, what I'm saying here about unequal charges is mostly in terms of nuclear related charges. Standard chemical interactions, and charge balancing are related to removing, and adding back, electrons to atoms and molecules. Think about how we were told in high school that the positive and negative charges are opposite and equal. But the reason that oxygen still wants to more electrons in spite of having enough protons is that the shells need to be filled around atoms. A contradiction that is now solved with this new atomic model. The valence shells of atoms are based on the electrons ability to neutralize the positive charge being generated while also collectively forming a reduced charge barrier. Its this grouping of electrons to effectively cover an area, along with the given FOS density at a given distance from the nucleus of an atom, that produces similar shells across different atoms. Evidence for the charge of an electron not being equal to that of a proton, comes from the half-life of the neutron. Outside of a nucleus the neutron breaks down after about ten and a half minutes. But add another proton, forming deuterium, and the two protons and the electron now form a stable system. There is now more than enough positive charge to keep the electron within the nucleus in the formation of a neutron.

2. Photons are ejected from atoms when electrons take up one of the available orbital positions around an atom. An available position is usually due to an electron having being forced to leave an orbital position around an atom in the first place by a variety of means [radiation, heat, eletricity,...]. The photons arise when eletrons quit accelerating into a region of space around an atom, and due to the electron having pushed additional FOS into a region of space already filled. The extra FOS is ejected from the electron, as it cannot keep this extra material within its vortex body. Simply because it is just too much material, and the orbital maneuver prevents the electron from holding onto this extra fabric. Photons are for the most part a by-product of how electrons interact with the fabric of space and their influence upon it. While neutrinos are the by product of more energetic interactions of nuclei, protons, ... and some electron related events.
[ I have also been wondering if high energy electrons, approaching the speed of light, shed energy in the form of photons when they move into space that cannot sustain the velocity they are travelling at. The reason for this is simple, the electrons are in effect pushing some of the fabric of space ahead of themselves as it becomes compressed before it enters the vortex and are actually attracted forward to this denser fabric, but they are also being conducted by the general FOS that they lay within. So, when they enter a new FOS density region of lower conductivity they slow down, and the fabric no longer rotates as rapidly inward into the vortex of the electron, and thus some of the excess fabric the electron was pushing ahead begins to expand and is released in the form of a photon. ]

3. Protons, as many other have also come to conclude, appear to be standing waves within the luminferous aether. The charge generated by a proton might be created by wave action on its surface, and in effect compresses the fabric of space onto itself. And in the process generates a rigidity/density gradient of the FOS around itself that is positive charge, and this gradient is the source of FOS pressure that induces protons to move when there is a pressure differential around a proton. Electrons can cause an unequally distributed drop in the pressure around a proton, and induce the proton to move towards what it sees as the lowest pressure region. Driven to do so by the relatively higher-pressure region on the other side of the proton which pushes the proton towards the lower pressure region of space.

4. A neutron is a dynamic system of an electron and a proton. But this is a nuclear electron (pion) and it is a more effective negative body than a proton is a positive producing body. Since the charge generated by each is not complimentary this results in the neutronic system being inherently unstable. Which accounts for the fact that, if a neutron is by itself, a neutron decays with a half-life of approximately ten and a half minutes. It takes at least two protons to generate enough positive charge to indefinitely hold onto a nuclear electron. [Experimental evidence now in: see foot note 1 near the bottom of this web page]

5. Atoms and nuclei are in effect really mechanical systems obeying the laws of particle dynamics and probability. With the electrons competing for areas of positive charge within the nucleus and between protons. Collisions and near misses between electrons trigger some of the known forms of radioactivity.

6. The force of gravity is in fact a weak electromagnetic affect of left over positive charge generated by atoms. Since positive fields affect electron paths they tend to spend more time on the sides of atoms facing larger masses of atoms. This preferred presence on one side of an atom draws the entire atom towards the center of mass.

7. Magnetism is predominantly a by-product of momentum induced by electrons on the fabric of space. This momentum originates from the photons that the electrons are derived from. The angular momentum of photons is well understood and plays an important role in both classical & quantum mechanics. For without it the angular momentum of atoms would not be conserved when photons are emitted from them. Electrons that are free to move, or loosely held, are easily influenced by movement within the fabric of space itself.

8. The time dilation seen in atomic clocks flown around the Earth are due to changes in oscillation frequencies and not to changes in time. The oscillation frequency changes due to electrons moving in closer[?] to nuclei as the external FOS gradient pressure drops. While inversely, the electrons could relax their grip[?] on a nucleus as the external FOS gradient pressure increases due to being deeper within a gravitational well.

9. There is only one fundamental force in the universe and that is the electromagnetic force. The weak and strong nuclear forces are just expressions of variations of the electromagnetic force within nuclei. And gravity, is just an effect of the residual, or left over, positive charge of atomic nuclei. Gravity is not even needed in computer simulations of the formation of solar systems, and galaxies any more. And in fact it is now shown by plasma physics that only electromagnetism is needed to account for most of what we see in the universe. Hannes Alfven's work [and others like Anthony Peratt] on how plasma physics can produce solar systems and galaxies, along with the work of Eric Lerner shows that celestial objects like Black Holes are not even necessary at the centers of galaxies. And that Quasars are not what we actually thought they were. Plasma processes can not only generate and better explain the observed jets of matter that have been observed at the center of galaxies, including our own. But their is no need of black holes - the ultimate extreme expression of an independent gravitational force.
* Trapped magnetic energy, squeezed by the pinch effet, can do the trick even better. [pg 239]

10. Photons decay over time. The most common example of this is the majority of the observed red shift for most galaxies and stars, and has been misinterpreted as red shift due to motion. Motion induced red and blue shift in photons is apparent for stars that are relatively close to us, but the majority of the red shift observed for the more distant stars is time induced. This red shift has been misinterpreted and resulted in the theory of the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang. The inverse square law does not hold here. And saying it must hold true - is catamount to trying to dictate to the universe how it must behave because we say so. The inverse square law holds for situations in which the particles of the medium in question wish to move away from one another. Like the collisions of gas particles in the air around us. They are forced to occupy the same space due to gravity holding the atoms in place around the earth, and interact with one another through collisions. Like billiard balls on a pool table, but with all of them in constant motion. But the aether is a different kind of medium, and the fact the inverse square law does not hold provides us with some clues as to the way it is different than a gas that is composed of atoms.

[Additional information from draft of book: In E.J.Lerner's book (The Big Bang Never Happened) he states that "In the past four years crucial observations have flatly contradicted the assumptions and predictions of the Big Bang. Because the Big Bang supposedly occurred only about twenty billion years ago, nothing in the cosmos can be older than this. Yet in 1986 astronomers discovered that galaxies compose huge agglomerations a billion light-years across; such mammoth clusterings of matter must have taken a hundred billion years to form. Just as early geological theory, which sought to compress the earth's history into a biblical few thousand years crumbled when confronted with the eons needed to build up a mountain range, so the concept of a Big Bang is undermined by the existence of these vast and ancient super clusters of galaxies.”
And since then members of the faith for the Big Bang, have not yet been able to come up with a new factor to account for these galactic structures. Part of which was an attempt to start with a premise that the Big Bang, must have started out "lumpy." More information can be found on his site: The Big Bang Never Happened. So, if actual observational evidence, says the premise of the Hubble expansion is wrong, then whether we like it or not, it seems that photons decay. Or more appropriately, the material that makes up the photons simply becomes more dispersed over time due to the physics of their propagation, and we interpret that as decay.]

The Dynamic Nature of the Fabric of Space

: a physical model / theory & view of the universe

The Dynamic Nature of the Fabric of Space

: a physical model / theory & view of the universe