Introduction
It is now some 37 years since my book Physics without Einstein was
published [1] and by year end 2006 my new book Creation: The Physical Truth
will have been published [2].
In writing these and other works my object has been to convince the reader
that our understanding of the fundamental scientific basis of the factors governing
the energy activity of the quantum underworld is thwarted by too much reliance
on Einstein doctrine. The aether must be seen as having an active rather than a
passive role, active in the sense that it abounds in energy and can shed that energy
to create matter.
We need to devise ways in which to tap that energy resource and Einstein’s
theory hinders technological progress in that direction. As shown on page 167 of
my book Physics without Einstein the action of a radial electric field set up by a
concentrated body of electric charge will, in its reaction with the underlying
aether, induce rotation of the aether medium in that body, a state of spin that is
powered by energy inflow owing to a phase-lock as between the quantum jitter
motion of aether within and aether external to that body. See also the further
explanation of this phenomenon at pages 162-163 of my 1980 book Physics
Unified [3]. Aether rotation as applied to the Sun and the Earth is shown to
explain their rate of spin when created.
Since I wrote those books I have become aware of claims made by a
secluded community at Methernitha in Switzerland [4] that could well be relevant,
their apparatus having a Wimshurst machine as a pulsating input voltage generator
connected to a configuration of capacitors having concentric electrodes. Those
claims, attributed to the research efforts of Paul Baumann, are that electrical
energy is being generated in excess of that needed to operate the Wimshurst
machine, meaning that the system is self-powered and is somehow tapping energy
from the environment.
Such claims are classified under the heading of ‘perpetual motion’ and so
tend to be ridiculed by those involved in university physics research. Where, one
wonders, given our urgent need to discover a new source of energy to power our
industries, is there a university research team looking to the aether as our future
supplier of energy? Is the word ‘aether’ ever mentioned by those we rely on to
develop future energy technology? Can it be that Einstein has become a ghost that
frightens anyone from even thinking of venturing on that path to a new source of
energy?
So, as my contribution, I offer insight into the reality of the aether medium
that is our physical underworld and, recently, I have even filed a U.K. patent
application that describes something that a university research team could build
in probing such a possibility [5].
I mention this to put emphasis on the importance of resolving the ‘aether’
issue by down-sizing the relevance of Einstein’s theory and showing how the
aether offers a physical explanation for much of the mystery that pervades the
physics teaching curriculum.
Such a suggestion may surprise orthodox physicists who concur with
commentary such as that by Lord Rees, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge on
page 149 of his book Our Final Century [6]. There, in three consecutive
paragraphs, he highlights briefly three aspects of developments in physics.
Firstly, he quotes a statement by Stephen Hawking that, “It is a tribute to
how far we have come in theoretical physics that it now takes enormous machines
and a great deal of money to perform an experiment [on subatomic particles]
whose result we cannot predict.” Surely that is a statement that also conveys the
message that physicists are lacking in ideas as to how to progress on the theoretical
front and so they suggest bombarding whatever exists in space violently in the
mere hope of discovering something interesting. That means making a convincing
case to justify government funding of particle collider experiments and,
incidentally, the need to suppress the competitive spirit within the physics
community, such as might arise from an interest in aether energy, by urging
unison in order to get such funding. The ‘tribute’ implied by the scale of
government funding is, I suggest, no more than governmental awareness of the fact
that the atomic bomb emerged from such research and, if there are to be further
such dramatic discoveries, then those at the forefront of funding such effort are
likely to have a winning advantage.
Secondly, Rees pays appropriate tribute to quantum theory, as vindicated by
technological devices that rely on the use of lasers. Surely, therefore, this should
tell us that developments based on quantum theory and not Einstein’s differing
picture of our universe should provide the solid foundation on which our
understanding of physics can develop. Quantum theory is the obvious signature
of the aetherial nature of the space medium.
Thirdly, however, Rees then seemingly contradicts this in the third
paragraph by stressing the importance of what he describes as ‘A new paradigm
of twentieth-century science – another astonishing intellectual leap – Albert
Einstein’. Rees tells us that Einstein’s theory ‘might have seemed arcane, but it is
vindicated every time a truck or plane fixes its position via the global positioning
satellite (GPS) system.’
So we are told that Einstein’s theory stands supreme, but where, I ask, is the
physics theory that tells us what determines the basic quantum of action in
quantum theory and connects this with an account of the physics determining the
value of G, the constant of gravitation, and governs also the mass of the
basic matter form, the proton? As my book Creation: The Physical Truth explains,
that can only come from physics that probes the structure of the aether, the
quantum underworld of space, and brushes aside Einstein’s doctrinaire principles.
Hopefully, there will be those who will now read my new book Creation:
The Physical Truth with these thoughts in mind.
Should the reader need to be first convinced that Einstein’s theory can be
challenged I now raise the topic of the speed of propagation of gravitational action.
A Dilemma confronting Einstein’s Theory
When I wrote my 1969 book Physics without Einstein my object was to
show that the aether determined Planck’s constant and regulated gravity, rather
than a questionable set of equations devised by Albert Einstein. Einstein seems
to have derived great credit for his explanation of the anomalous component of
motion of the perihelion of planet Mercury. This was even though that had been
explained by Levy [7] in terms of Riemann’s electrodynamic law as long ago as
1890, some 25 years before Einstein introduced his theory of general relativity.
In discussing this subject at pages 83-87 in my book Physics without
Einstein I presented a different explanation for the anomaly, one based on the
intrusion of a fluctuating aether-related angular momentum term owing to the non-circular orbital motion of the planet. This did not depend upon gravitation being
a force subject to retardation owing to speed of light limitations, as did the 1890
explanation by Levy or that suggested by Einstein. Keep in mind that the
anomalous advance of the perihelion of the planet Mercury was explained in terms
of the gravitation force between two bodies in motion being related in some way
to electrodynamic interaction, the formulations of which introduced the factor c,
the speed of light. The later efforts of Einstein did not explain what it is that
generates the force of gravity. He merely supposed that space is distorted by the
presence of matter and wove the speed of light factor c into his space-time
formulation of that distortion. Whittaker [8] on page 208 of his book tells us that
Tisserand’s adoption of Weber’s law of electrodynamics, based on the speed of
light retardation factor, would account for a 14″ perihelion advance per century for
planet Mercury. This was only about one third of the anomalous excess measured
but, as Whittaker then states, much of this excess could be explained by replacing
Weber’s law with Riemann’s electrodynamic law and a suitable combination of
both laws could give an exact result.
I was influenced by all this when I came to write my 1980 book Physics
Unified. I had seen that planetary motion at speed v introduces a factor (v/c)2 in
the energy term formulation and G, the constant of gravitation as it applies in
Newton’s law of Gravitation, is enhanced by this factor. However, I also saw that,
owing to conservation of angular momentum, this made the related formulation
involving r, the orbital radius, inversely proportional to r3, and, in turn, this meant
that differentiation of the energy equation to obtain a force expression would
increase that anomalous perihelion term by the needed factor 3. So all that was
needed was to correct Tisserand’s analysis by appropriate insight into the
dynamics of the planetary system, given the effect of conservation of angular
momentum upon the retardation term. So in Physics Unified I opted for this as
the basis of Mercury’s perihelion anomaly.
I was wrong and should have realized that the latter account could not be
justified so long as the former explanation, the one I had presented in Physics
without Einstein, was not refuted.
I now know the answer to this dilemma. That (v/c) term becomes negligible
if c, in denoting speed as a factor involved in gravitational retardation, is far
greater than the speed of light. Gravitational interaction is virtually instantaneous
as is electric, as opposed to electromagnetic interaction, in the context of quantum
theory. That denies scope for gravitational retardation as a factor regulating
planetary motion. On that basis Einstein’s modification of the equations governing
the motion of planets fails. One needs an alternative explanation for the perihelion
motion of planet Mercury and I have presented that in my book Physics without
Einstein.
The realization of this has caused me to pay attention to what Tom Van
Flandern has to say in the 1993 edition of his book Dark Matter, Missing Planets
and New Comets [9]. He makes it very clear that the speed of propagation of
gravity is at least of the order of 1010 times the speed of light. Indeed, he gives
eight reasons to justify this between pages 43 and 52 of his book.
So, given that Einstein is deemed to be a genius for giving us a special
insight into what governs where gravity is concerned, and given that his theory
relies so much on retardation by speed of light propagation of the gravity force, but
tells us nothing that enables us to account for what determines G, the constant of
gravity, or to link gravitation with quantum theory, the time has surely come for
rejecting Einstein doctrine.
So this commentary supplements what I have proposed in my book
Creation: The Physical Truth, but there is another item I must mention. It is one
that pleases me for the simple reason that, in developing new theory one is ever
struggling with the testing and rejection of ideas, until a result emerges with the
ring of truth. Yet, here, as a mere afterthought following the reading of the proofs
of my new book Creation: The Physical Truth was an idea that, as it were, spoke
for itself.
Dark Matter: What is it?
Whether it was the title of Tom Van Flandern’s book or reading Chapter 1
of the book by John Vacca, The World’s 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems, [10] that
stirred my interest in ‘dark matter’, I do not know. It may have been the fact that
I do not have a way of checking the statement on page 13 of the Vacca book that
‘scientists in this field [dark matter] indicate that 96% of most galaxies (including
our own) in the observable universe are made out of dark matter.’ Or it may have
been on June 26th 2006, when I read a report by Mark Henderson, Science Editor
of The Times newspaper in U.K. [11], that very soon now highly sensitive
detectors in U.S. and Germany will be able to sense gravity waves arising from
events such as supernovas and collisions between black holes in far-off space. He
states:
“The first step towards gravitational wave astronomy has been taken,
at last allowing us to observe the 96 percent of our universe hidden
to us up to now. We are opening a wholly new chapter in the long
history of astronomy with the direct observation of the ‘dark side’ of
our universe – black holes, dark matter and the reverberations of the
Big Bang.”
It was that 96 per cent factor that aroused my curiosity. I had written a book
purporting to explain how the universe was created and had not discussed the dark
matter issue. Is it really important? That book entitled The World’s 20 Greatest
Unsolved Problems was published by Prentice Hall in USA in 2005. Its 669 pages
concerned the major problems that now confront scientists in the fields of
astronomy, cosmology, physics, astrophysics, biology, paleontology, neuroscience,
geology, chemistry and energy.
Of these problems, it is the energy topic, the last item listed on its book
cover, that is surely the one of greatest importance, given our rapidly-diminishing
oil reserves and the impact this will have on our methods of transportation in the
years ahead. The key scientific question is whether we can find a way of tapping
energy from the quantum underworld of space that governs scientific phenomena
at a fundamental level. That was the topic of the 19th of those ‘unsolved
problems’, whereas the first problem, in contrast, was somewhat academic and
seemingly removed from reality. It was raised on page 13 under the heading: The
Invisible Universe: How Important is it?
Then followed the statement that ‘scientists in this field indicate that 96%
of most galaxies (including our own) in the observable universe are made out of
dark matter’ and the question: ‘How do you know for sure that dark matter is out
there?’
So we are told that there is scientific evidence pointing to the existence of
much more energy in space than we can see as constituting the stars which form
those galaxies.
Sadly, however, the scientists who reach these conclusions from the study
of far-off galactic space are not the scientists who confront our energy needs on the
home front and there is need for an understanding of how energy is shed by the
underworld of space in creating stars and the protons which account for most of
the matter in those stars. Such is my contribution as I record in my new book
Creation: The Physical Truth.
The key message that has to be accepted is that our quantum underworld of
space is constantly, and everywhere, trying to create matter as protons, but it only
succeeds to the extent that there is energy surplus to its equilibrium condition,
energy drawn from space domain boundaries along with angular momentum. To
the extent that it fails in such effort there exists throughout space a quasi-matter
form of proton that can be identified as dark matter. In the book just mentioned
I did show on page 135 why the mass density of such quasi-matter is 5×10-28 gm/cc
and, by deriving the volume of a space domain having a size equal to the cube of side dimension
4.86×1020 cm, corresponding to it being the seat of creation of a star having the
sun’s mass 2×1033 gm, it can be seen that the mean mass density of stellar matter
is 1.74×10-29 gm/cc. This is only 0.0336 times the combined mass density of stellar
matter plus quasi-matter and so here is the answer to that first of The World’s 20
Greatest Unsolved Problems. More than 96% of the matter in our universe is
‘dark matter’, protons devoid of electrons not having become atomic nuclei able
to radiate energy by merger into stellar form. When I discovered what it was that
determined the existence of quasi-matter in space and so derived that 5×10-28 gm/cc
mass density value, it was only with the object of then showing how this quasi-matter was effective in attenuating the frequency of electromagnetic waves
according to distance travelled. My book shows then how this determines the
Hubble constant and thereby disproves the notion of an expanding universe with
its Big Bang creation feature.
Accordingly, even I am surprised that so soon after the final editing stage
of my new book I can point to something there disclosed that explains that 96%
dark matter mass anomaly that was the first of those ‘unsolved problems’. I had
explained that mystery without knowing it existed! I would certainly have
included in my book what has just been disclosed above had I seen this numerical
link earlier.
As to the second of The World’s 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems, this was
How did the Universe Begin?, the issue of creation. Well, my new book having
‘Creation’ in its title, surely should answer that question. However, having just
mentioned that the universe could not have begun in a so-called Big Bang, I can
further assure the reader that it did not originate in the scenario suggested on page
41 of that work, namely: ‘by creation from the collision of two three-dimensional
worlds moving along a hidden extra dimension’. No, we just cannot ever know
how the vastness of space and its energy in electrical form originated, and all we
can do is decipher how optimization and deployment of its energy gave basis for
a structured medium comprising large space domains that shed a commensurate
amount of matter and angular momentum as needed to create the stars. We surely
live in a three-dimensional space medium having time regulated by the quantum
underworld. Stars are what we see and it is their creation that can be fully
explained, once we understand also how protons and electrons come into
existence.
What I did not see in that book The World’s 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems
was reference to the three most important problems in physics, namely what it is
that determines the precise value of the fine-structure constant, the proton-electron
mass ratio and the constant of gravitation. These should have been recognized as
the greatest unsolved problems in physical science as it is still taught at school and
university, but hopefully, upon reading my new book Creation: The Physical Truth there will be enlightenment on this subject. It is important because the
physics involved explains how stars acquired their rotation and that is a pointer to
a route for tapping energy from the space medium. That surely is our greatest
challenge in the future of science. It is a subject on which you will find a
commentary of mine in the 19th Chapter of that book The World’s 20 Greatest
Unsolved Problems but it depends upon the physics disclosed in my book
Creation: The Physical Truth.
As to that dark matter issue, one can but wonder how cosmologists have
already derived that figure of 96% if, as Mark Henderson says, it is not based on
something already observed. However, one must not question the wisdom of those
who guide us in these matters and so I am left to wonder how my new book, which
is bold enough to clarify how matter is created as protons having 1836.152 times
the mass of their electron partners might be received.
As just stated, the spin-off from such research is an indication of how space
releases energy to cause stars to spin, as if deriving their angular momentum from
nowhere, nowhere being the space medium itself. That is a pointer to a way in
which we can tap energy from space itself but how, one wonders, are we to
convince those skilled in matters scientific who are content to look only into the
darkness for evidence of energy release in far-off space?
The Electrodynamic Dilemma
It may seem that the way I have attacked belief in Einstein’s theory by
dismissing the notion that gravitation is not subject to speed of light retardation
and by challenging the link between gravitation and electrodynamic law is too far-
reaching. To meet such criticism I need to enlarge on the account I present
concerning gravity in my book Creation: The Physical Truth. Electrodynamic
action does have a role to play, a very interesting role, where gravity is concerned
but not in the way one expects and I believe what I outline below will interest
research students who seek deeper understanding of the subject.
My Ph.D. research (1950-53) at Trinity College, Cambridge, being
concerned with magnetism, meant that I was familiar with teaching pertaining to
the law of electrodynamic interaction. I therefore knew that two electrons, for
example, moving along parallel paths in side-by-side relationship would
experience a mutual force of attraction owing to electrodynamic interaction. It is
a force that acts directly along the line joining the two electrons and one which
varies with inverse-square of separation distance, as does electrostatic interaction
force, and so the attraction would offset the mutual repulsion attributable to that
electrostatic interaction. However, the electrodynamic interaction force applicable
in the general case, given an arbitrary relative position of the two moving charges
does not act directly between the charges, as does electrostatic interaction or
gravitational interaction.
In formulating the electrodynamic action applicable between two moving
charges, physicists invariably ignore any possible out-of-balance force that might
be asserted by interaction with electric charge that is part of the aether background.
The aether is ignored and yet the formula used by physicists for such interaction
implies force imbalance in the general case.
It is a fact glaring at whoever reads the accepted formulated expression for
the electrodynamic interaction force between two moving electric charges that the
force is not one that acts directly between the charges. We are led to believe that
the electrodynamic forces acting on moving charges are directed at right angles to
their motion. Picture two charges moving with the same velocity, but one being
slightly ahead of the other, and ask yourself how forces at right angles to charge
motion can be in balance. You will see that the accepted theory tells you that
something is asserting a turning couple on the system of matter defined by those
two charges.
If you ignore the aether then, by your belief in standard physics teaching,
you have forces exerted without there being something to account for that action
and that is nonsense. So, does the aether really exert electrodynamic forces that
cause matter to spin?
My approach was to examine how physicists have managed to live with this
problem for so long, well over a century. I then discovered that they were quite
content to accept a law of electrodynamics that gave the right answer when the
force action was averaged for the case where one of the interacting charges
described a closed circuital path. So, in practice, confining attention to what is
measured by experiments, the problem is overcome by assuming integration of
charge motion around a closed loop and so having a formula that works in
situations where one considers that the force acting on a charge is subject to a
magnetic field that is generated by cyclical motion of charge. This is the usual
feature of technology dependent upon electromagnetic force action. Our world of
electrical engineering is not concerned with moving charges that interact in
isolation. It deals instead in terms of current flow around circuital paths and
magnetic fields developed by the numerous electrons that carry such current flow.
So to that limited extent theory does explain what is observed.
Accordingly our electrical engineers live in a world that ignores the aether,
all because of an empirical short-cut that relied on charge interaction always
involving at least one of the charges moving around a closed circuit. With a little
enlightenment, not heeding that short-cut, the electrical engineers of the future
could well find that their world offers access to a new energy resource that does
not ignore the aether.
For the two-charge interaction in the general case it is an inescapable fact
that the aether must contribute to the force action in some way. Thankfully, I
became aware of certain experimental anomalies that crept into electrodynamic
interaction as between moving charges that had different mass, as evidenced by
the anomalous cathode reaction forces that appear where electron flow in the
external part of the circuit loop is complemented by current carried by heavy ions
in a discharge path between anode and cathode.
In solving this problem I developed a law of electrodynamics that had
general applicability to this case where the mass-ratio of interacting charge became
a factor [12]. This settled the choice as between two alternative versions of the
law. Though not needing the mass ratio factor to be other than unity, I then used
this chosen law in explaining the force of gravity in my book Physics without
Einstein where my primary task was that of building a picture of the aether that
would allow the theoretical determination of G, the constant of gravitation. The
point of interest is that the formulation of the law of electrodynamics involves
three terms, one of which cancels to zero for interaction as between two charges
of the same mass if the force is averaged by one of the charges describing a closed
circuit. So, in the empirical formulation of the interaction, being based solely on
normal circuital current experimental foundation, it was arbitrary whether that
particular term existed at all or had before it a plus or a minus sign. I note that I
needed that minus sign to allow two of the three terms to cancel one another,
thereby leaving the third term to account a balanced interaction force with no
associated couple.
Such is the state of confusion that pervades the electrodynamic foundations
of physics as we know it today. This has no connection with Einstein doctrine. It
is merely a pointer to the fact that the Lorentz force law has its uses in the teaching
of electrical engineering if we are content to harness technology that ignores the
aether. However, if we seek to exploit what the aether offers as an explanation of
the mystery of gravitation or as a potential energy source, there is purpose in
recognizing that the true law of electrodynamics is not the one that asserts an out-of-balance couple owing to the aether being involved in the charge interaction.
Remember the point that the out-of-balance couple that accounts for aether
spin and the related rotation of astronomical bodies such as the Sun and Earth, is
attributable to the electrostatic interaction of a concentrated electric charge in
setting up a radial electric field. This is not an electrodynamic interaction. A
coupling with the aether that causes stars to spin is not the same as the force action
that we classify as electrodynamics.
Readers of that 1969 book Physics without Einstein, who might compare the
explanation of gravity with what is now stated in the 2006 book Creation: The
Physical Truth, will therefore be puzzled to find that, in spite of this extensive
interest in electrodynamics, I have now adopted the notion that gravity, as such,
is really an electrostatic force arising from reaction to a repulsion force set up in
the enveloping aether charge. Being based on the same graviton concept, the
theory gives the exactly the same G value in terms of graviton mass but,
seemingly, the electrodynamic effect is excluded. I must explain why I made this
change.
To summarize, the Lorentz electrodynamic force law, though normally
presented as a single vector product expression has a two-term equivalent version
when in scalar product form. It needs a third such scalar product term, the one that
integrates to zero for interaction averaged around a closed circuit, to represent the
true electrodynamic interaction. This was the subject of my 1969 paper [12].
Now, though developing my theory for three decades from 1955 on the basis
that electrodynamic interaction is the primary agent in setting up gravitational
forces, I encountered a problem when I later discovered how to derive that
electrodynamic formula from really basic first-principles rather than as a
combination of empirical plus aether considerations [13]. The electrokinetic
energy of two moving charges is proportional to the square of their relative
velocity. According to Whittaker [8], at page 206 of his book, this became known
from the lectures of Riemann dating from 1861. However, it still needs something
equivalent to Fechner’s hypothesis, the assumption that electric charge in motion
can be constituted by two counter-moving charges of opposite polarity, to derive
an electrodynamic interaction force on such physical foundation. Though
presuming that the aether might have the necessary inherent properties, given the
success of my theory in accounting for gravitation, I have seen reason to for exploring this theme a little further and have now opted for what is surely the correct physical description of the
relevant aether properties.
The system of matter is subject to a quantum jitter motion that is
dynamically balanced by gravitons, a high energy lepton form, that shares the
motion of the charge continuum of charge density σ esu/cc which features in my
theory. There is no relative motion between those gravitons. By their presence
they displace charge that has a repulsive interaction with charge enveloping other
gravitons and, in thereby causing the electrostatic energy potential of that charge
interaction to reduce, energy is shed commensurate with there being a force of
mutual attraction as between the gravitons. So the force of gravity becomes a
reaction to a repulsive electrostatic force set up within electric charge that constitutes the
space medium, the aether.
This revision of what was disclosed in the earlier version of my theory gives
the same numerical results for the formulation of G, the constant of gravitation,
because the quantum jitter motion required matter dynamically balanced by the
gravitons to move at a relative speed c, the ratio of emu to esu units of charge. So
the revised theory that is the subject of my new book Creation: The Physical
Truth, in linking gravitation with an electrostatic force, seemingly avoids the
electrodynamic involvement. This, however, is not the case, because of the rather
obvious question that a critic will raise, namely the question of why, if the
presence of gravitons in that charge continuum can account for a gravitational
attraction force, the presence of matter, which sits also in that charge continuum,
does not further augment that gravitational attraction.
There is an interesting answer. It is because there is in this case motion of
that matter at speed c relative to that charge medium, bearing in mind that the
quantum jitter motion, whether that of the gravitons or matter, is motion at speed
c/2 in circular orbit in the inertial frame of reference. The graviton system and
matter move in juxtaposition in those orbits and so have a relative velocity that is
twice c/2. This means that whatever constitutes the charge system that shares
the motion of the gravitons has, when experiencing the transit of an element of
matter, to be displaced laterally to make a pathway for whatever constitutes the
matter form. Since matter is a composition of spherical charges it is as if spherical
volumes of charge density are split apart by being pushed sideways and then
returning sideways along a reverse path. These lateral displacements will, however, by their symmetry cancel so far as any electrodynamic effect as between two spaced elements of matter is concerned. This then leaves us with the interaction of two moving charges, corresponding to the space taken up by the two elements of matter, but both charges necessarily moving at the same velocity c relative to the elements of matter and so relative to the electromagnetic reference frame applicable to that matter. Accordingly, always provided the charge continuum medium itself has leptonic properties, in the sense that it electrodynamic action can be attributed to countermoving charge pairs of opposite charge polarity, as applies for normal electrodynamic interaction as between moving electrons, there will be an attractive interaction force set up within that charge continuum that exactly balances the repulsion that otherwise accounts for what would be gravitational attraction. In other words, the reaction to repulsive effects as between graviton-occupied voids in the continuum charge that accounts for gravitation is, so far as voids occupied by the presence of matter as such, itself fully balanced by the reaction to electrodynamic attractive effects as between the matter-occupied voids, so leaving the gravitons as the sole providers of the force of gravitation.
There is no net interaction force related to the volume the
charged particles that constitute matter and gravitational action can only arise from
the dynamic linkage with the associated gravitons that provide dynamic balance
as a function of the mass involved. To understand the fundamental aspects of such electrodynamic action one needs to know how the Neumann potential is determined, meaning the physical process involved. This is fully explained in my paper entitled: Instantaneous Electrodynamic Potential with Retarded Energy Transfer that was published in Hadronic Journal, 11 pp. 307-313 (1988), which is of full record on my website www.aspden.org as a paper also included in my 1996 book Aether Science Papers.
The Electric Charge Dilemma.
Since I have not in my writings discussed in any detail the fundamental
nature of the form of that charge continuum of charge density σ esu/cc, it is
appropriate here to comment on this subject.
I can but say that in forming a picture of the aether I presumed it to comprise
electric charge and knew that I would be wasting my time if I just speculated that
it was a kind of gas consisting of electric charges in random motion. There had to
be order if the aether could determine the values of what we describe as physical
constants. Electric charge being the essential composition it then seemed logical
to regard one charge polarity as that of a background continuum with the other
being that of charges of identical size. I could picture a cubic array owing to the
latter charges repelling one another but sitting in a charge medium that neutralized
the overall effect. Then a little analysis indicated that to be in stable positions
those charges would need to be at rest in that background charge continuum but,
overall, the aether would then need to have a negative electrostatic interaction
energy. This seemed possible, given that the charges had energy in their own right
but, if they were all at rest the aether would be a static system devoid of motion
and motion is needed if we are to account for the physics underlying quantum
theory.
So I decided to explore the condition for which that negative electrostatic
interaction potential could be avoided by requiring those charges to be displaced
just enough to assure a zero state of interaction energy. What then resulted was the
vision of the quantum aether, the dynamical motion of which allowed me to
explain the physics leading to the evaluation of the fine structure constant.
Quantum theory became an aether phenomenon, but I had assumed that the
background charge, the continuum to which I had assigned a charge density σ
esu/cc was a uniformly charged medium.
That was just an assumption, but one that gave the right answers. I know
that in considering charge distribution within an enclosing sphere, as for the
electron, I found that the charge was not deployed in a uniform density form but
rather a distribution that assured a uniform pressure within the bounding sphere.
Accordingly, one can wonder why the charge distribution in the medium that
constitutes the background continuum is deemed to be uniform rather than subject
to the constraint of pressure.
I do not know how to answer this and all I can say is that the assumption that it is uniform gives answers that fit what we observe. Nor, indeed, can I or anyone
else ever explain why electric charge can assert an action-at-a-distance force on
another electric charge. We just happen to know that physics supports such a
proposition.
As to the make-up of σ, I have wondered about its mass density and whether
it accounts for the dynamic balance of the related quon charge and could speculate
that it comprises a multiplicity of charged particles that are minute fractions of the
unit proton charge e. However, I prefer not to indulge in such speculation. For
some reason σ is uniform throughout a space domain and, though it may pose a
dilemma, I can but say that it gives the right answers and so must be a correct
interpretation of the physical underworld.
As a final comment on this subject I note that the mass density of the charge continuum
could be very small indeed, which means that a graviton presence is then needed
even in the absence of matter. Such are the questions we face in taking this theory
forward, especially having regard to the explanation of the 2.7 K cosmic
background radiation offered in my book Creation: The Physical Truth.
The Sun’s Temperature
The above was written and placed on this website several months ago but in the intervening period there is one further, quite major advance, that needs to be put on record. This is the theoretical explanation of the temperature value of the Sun. It is so important that it warrants a separate web page
References
[1] H. Aspden, Physics without Einstein, Sabberton, ISBN 0 85056 001 2, www.aspden.org (1969).
[2] H. Aspden, Creation: The Physical Truth, Book Guild Publishing, ISBN 1 84624 050 6, (2006).
[3] H. Aspden, Physics Unified, Sabberton, ISBN 0 85056 010 1, www.aspden.org (1980),
[4] K. Tutt, The Search for Free Energy, Simon-Schuster, ISBN 0 684 86660 9,
Chapter 5, (2001).
[5] H. Aspden, U.K. Patent Application No. GB0523690.6 see figure in web message
(2006).
[6] M. Rees, Our Final Century, Arrow Books, ISBN 0 099 43686 8, p. 144
(2004).
[7] M. Levy, Comptes Rendus, cx, p. 545 (1890).
[8] E. Whittaker, A History of Theories of Aether and Electricity: The Classical
Theories, Nelson (1951).
[9] T. Van Flandern, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, North
Atlantic Books, ISBN 1 55643 268 2 (1993).
[10] J. Vacca, The World’s 20 Greatest Unsolved Problems, Prentice Hall, ISBN
0 13 142643 5 (2005).
[11] M. Henderson, Astronomers reach out to find Einstein’s waves, The Times,
U.K., p. 26 (June 26th, 2006).
[12] H. Aspden, Journal of the Franklin Institute, 287, pp. 179-183 (1969).
[13] H. Aspden, Hadronic Journal, 11, pp. 307-313 (1988).
H. Aspden
20th July 2006
