The Dynamic Nature of the Fabric of Space

: a physical model / theory & view of the universe

This page is being editted at this time. May 2011
Links to sites and videos that dispute the Big Bang Theory and support The Big Bang Never Happened.

The following is an introduction to the Fidler-Morton Vortex-Electron model, as well as the Fidler-Morton Atomic 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.
As requested, by a group, I have posted this information on a well known discussion forum web site. The following is a link to the AboveTopSecret web page that this Fidler-Morton Atomic Model is posted on:

Or check for Fidler-Morton Vortex-Electron on:

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] 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:


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:


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 photonns & 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.


In summary:
- Black Holes: observed electromagnetic filaments and gravitational activity at galactic cores are better explained via plasma physics
- Dark Energy: there are alternate explaanations for the observed Red-Shift
- Dark Matter: believed to account for GGalactic 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 fundaamental 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 bbinding 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 itss 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 tthe different harmonics of strings to determine the different fundamental forces of nature
- Virtual Particles: are viewed as the qquanta 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 not 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:,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:

Or better yet item 2 on the following page:

[9] Fidler-Morton Gravitational Time Paradox - If atomic clocks can be shown to run aat 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 - 2011

May 21, 2011

What is the data from which the quark model arose?

From: The Discovery of Quarks by Michael Riordan
[April 1992, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center]

"The first electron-proton scattering experiments at SLAC, in which electrons with energies of up to 20 GeV recoiled elastically from the proton, gave no evidence for quark substructure. The cross section, or probability, for this process continued to plummet - approximately as the 12th power of the invariant momentum transfer from electron to proton  - much as had been observed earlier in the decade [1960's] at lower energies. This behavior was generally interpreted as evidence for a soft proton lacking any core; it was commonly thought that the existence of such a core would have slowed the rate at which the cross section decreased."

"In the first inelastic experiments, which took place in the autumn of 1967, the 20 GeV spectrometer was used to measure electrons that rebounded from protons at an angle of 6 degrees. The raw counting rates were much higher than had expected in the deep inelastic region, where the electron imparts most of its energy to the proton, but there was considerable disagreement among the MIT and SLAC physicists as to the proper interpretation of this effect."

"When the radiative corrections were completed in the spring of 1968, it became clear the high counting rates in the deep inelastic region were not due to radiative effects. A plot of the cross section angle versus the invariant momentum transfer to the proton, showed that the probability of deep inelastic scattering decreased much more slowly than that for elastic scattering. A way to interpret this unexpected behaviour was that the electrons were hitting some kind of hard core inside the target protons."

In terms of the FOS model, protons would appear to consist of a positron core surrounded by a FOS density gradient similar in density to that of gamma-rays. This would provide a "soft" exterior with a core consisting of a positron like body which is basically a standing wave. The wave forces the FOS to itself by acting as a vibrational node triggering compression of the fabric of space around itself. This gives rise to the FOS gradient, and the electrons are attracted to the FOS gradient giving rise to most of what we observe.

Note: I've run across a document [Notions of a Neutron by David L. Bergman ] that states that in "Negative Meson Cloud Model. In 1959, prominent physicists thought that “one aspect of neutron behavior” could be illustrated as shown in Figure 2. “For a small fraction of time, the neutron separates into a positively charged core (proton) surrounded by a circulating negative meson “cloud.”"

So, the Fidler-Morton / FOS model is not entirely unique.

------------------------ Part 3 -----------------------
Update April 25th, 2011
[Work in progress]
What is an antiproton?

Well as many of you know an antiproton is a particle that is the opposite of a proton in properties, but has the same mass. Making the antiproton the alter ego of the proton. And as we all know, or have been told, when matter and antimatter interact they annihilate each other into pure energy. Right? Wrong. The most popular theories and stories tell us that but that is not the whole story, and only through secondary reactions can you approach total annihilation. But you are not going to find that behind the tail end of an antimatter rocket. Instead what the data/facts show is that what happens is that antiprotons and protons interact to produce different kinds of particles that in turn decay [lose energy] and ultimately break down into electrons and positrons, neutrinos and energy. But along the way [95% of the time] break down first into pions then muons and finally into electrons and positrons.

Your probably thinking at this point that ok, if an antiproton and a proton interact then the final outcome is probably one electron and one positron. And you would be partly correct. But that is NOT the normal reaction sequence. The odd thing is that the most common mode of decay is the production of two electrons and two positrons. Odd. The funny thing is that this is exactly what the Fidler-Morton [aka FOS] theory was predicting. I simply have been too busy over the last few years to be aware of the fact that the data was available to me, for the most part, via the internet. But why would the FM model make such a prediction? It comes down to looking at the way antiprotons are produced. They are generated in small numbers as the result of high energy collisions between protons and nuclei with the nuclei of other bodies of matter. The question I asked myself is what would be the most likely consequence of these collisions given that neutrons appear to be protons orbited by nuclear electrons?

In order to discuss the antiproton we should first look at what they initially decay into, and that requires understanding what pions and muons decay into. Pions decay into muons then into either electrons or positrons, and release neutrinos and energy as well.

Pions into Muons into either electrons or positrons.

A neutron decays into an electron, neutrino and a proton.
Neutrons decay into an electron, proton and a neutrino.

A proton in theory decays into a positron and n neutral pions.

A proton in theory decays into a positron and n neutral pions.

Given what we know, pions are just energetic electrons & positrons, and thus neutrons and protons can be described as:

Pions are just energetic electrons & positrons, and thus neutrons and protons

Thus, a proton reacting with an antiproton during a high energy event:

a proton reacting with an antiproton during a high energy event:

Thus the equation 3 shows as predicted by the FM theory, that an antiproton decays into two electrons and one positron.
Or similarly we could simply infer the same thing by subtracting the decay of a proton from equation 0.
Subtract proton [positive pion] still shows an antiproton as predicted by Fidler-Morton/FOS model
As you can see by either subtracting a neutron or proton from the most common event during antiproton-neutron or antiproton-proton annihilation - the corresponding antiproton "equation" outcome is the same, and this is what was predicted by the Fidler-Morton / FOS theory model. This is based on the idea that an antiproton could be a damaged proton surrounded by two damaged nuclear electrons. In effect, a neutron holding onto an extra electron giving it negative charge. But how could that be? The FM model says that nuclei are simply protons held together by nuclear electrons moving in between them. Tear nuclei apart and you are simply separating groups of protons along with some nuclear electrons. So, the antiproton form could come about if you consider that the proton and electrons are not in their normal energetic states. The key idea being that something has happened to the FOS gradient generated by the proton, and probably the nuclear electrons no longer behave the same way due to a loss in their "conductive energy." Eventually I'll start looking for the observed wavelength of antiprotons as this could be evidence to support this idea, as their wavelengths should be greater than that of similar energized protons. Similar to the greater wavelengths observed in neutrons depending on how far along they are in terms of decaying outside of nuclei.

The second most interesting thing I discovered over the last few months is about the quark model. First just as an FYI no quarks are seen and their existence is only implied by the model.

ATS update - future for ATS - current on this site as of November 14, 2011.

 Five items to be added.

1. Sir Issac Newton [1643 – 1727] first proposed that gravity might be due to density gradients of aether forming around masses. However, he could not come up with a mechanism as to why this would occur. But then of course in his era no one new about electrons and protons. Now under the FOS theory series the trigger of the compression of the aether is triggered because protons act as standing waves within the aether and compress the fabric around them selves. Triggering the very density gradients that Newton was proposing.

2. In 2010, Gravity Probe B [aka ProBe] was sent into orbit around the Earth to detect the shear of the gravity well around the Earth. This was to prove that space is something real and not just nothing. How interesting, since this is exactly what the people who support an aether believe as well.

This information came to my attention via the show NOVA - The Fabric of the Cosmos: What is Space? Hosted by Brian Greene.
More about this ProBe. This project was originally proposed in 1959 by Leonard Schiff and George Pugh, and was under the direction of Francis Everitt at the actual time of the final implementation of the project. However, this experiment was preempted by Ignazio Ciufolini, a physicist at the University of Salento in Lecce, Italy and his colleague Erricos Pavlis , who were able to make the measurement six years ahead of Gravity ProBe due to the probe being delayed over and over again.


"In 2004, Cifuolini and Erricos Pavlis of University of Maryland, Baltimore County, measured frame dragging by tracking the orbits of the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II satellites, simple reflectors launched in 1976 and 1992 and used primarily to monitor the motion of Earth's surface. By very carefully monitoring which way the planes of the satellites' orbits turned or "precessed," they measured the effect to 10% accuracy, largely stealing the thunder of the Gravity Probe B team in some researchers' opinions."

"One, the "geodetic effect," arises because Earth's mass creates a kind of dimple in spacetime that messes up the usual rules of geometry. As a result, the circumference of a circle around Earth should be slightly shorter than Euclid's value of 2π times the circle's radius."

"The satellite also confirmed the frame-dragging effect, in which the rotating Earth twists the surrounding spacetime. It's as if the spinning Earth were immersed in honey, Everitt explained. "When it spins, the Earth will drag the honey with it," he said. "In the same way, the Earth drags spacetime with it." "

End of information from:

Instead I propose that this is evidence of the Earth being surrounded by an aetheric mass and its shearing as it rotates about its axis. I wonder if its different shearing values at different points around the globe might be additional evidence for an aether and be different than what the warped space supporters might predict. If they can measure this FOS gradient shearing and warping, then perhaps a prediction of how a FOS mass might affect a body at different altitudes might be different than how Einstein's warped space predicts. I suspect this information might lay within the values of atomic clocks.

3. The FOS series proposes that even neutral masses produce a sufficient FOS gradient to attract the electrons of other masses near by. The Casimir effect is evidence of this.
All atoms are generating either a positive or negative FOS pressure. When an atom is charged this pressure is apparent, and equations using charged particles produces the most accurate information about the forces being generated. But if they are not charged then one needs to currently rely on graviational based equations for determing the force between bodies. But what if one is "neutral" and the other is charged. Then a new pressure equation can be used.

The way in which charged and neutral atoms move or generate "forces" between them selves and other bodies, is an indirect effect of the way electrons orbit around nuclei. When a "distorted" gradient is generated then the electrons spend more time on one side of an atom then normal. Which ever side they spend more time on is the direction in which the atom is forced to move by the electrons. For neutral masses separated by several atomic distances, or even kilometres, this extra time spent on one side of an atom would produce a very weak force. This force is gravity. As opposed to the stronger force generated by charged atoms.

An equation can be developed to show that the FOS gradient in terms of pressure can be used to replace the Electromagnetic inverse and Gravitational inverse square laws. As well as combine the Electro-weak and Strong forces as well. Creating one equation that in essence combines all forces.

4. The limit of stable compression of space is that of a proton, which in reality [predicted] is just a standing wave in space. Anything larger or of a greater intensity simply tears itself apart. Preventing the existence of black holes. Some would point out that black holes have been confirmed at the core of our galaxy, but if you take a look at what is coming out of the center of our galaxy you will find magnetic tendrils reaching out. Our galaxy, and all others, are in effect large dynamic gyros of magnetic and electric fields. And what you see at the core is in fact what could be called a plasma focus. Not a black hole. Many web sites talk about the Electric Universe. And in fact parts of what they say have been confirmed by measurement and observation. Proving that electrics and magnetic fields play a key role in our solar system and galaxies.

5. In the FOS theory series, the way in which electrons form wake dissapation regions produces what is known as the quantum effect of the orbitals of electrons around nuclei. These regions consist of orbital bands that are highly conductive and and other areas that are less conductive. In the less conductive regions the kinetic energy of the electrons is greater than the electrons conduction energy and so the electrons move away from the nucleus, along with the time it takes for the FOS to recover from the electrons passage through the region this forces the electron to precess about the nucleus.

6. As electrons prescess about nuclei due in part to their wake dissipation regions, so to do nuclear electrons [pions] move/precess within nuclei. This means that the nuclear or coulombic barrier is not consistent. It means the barrier fluctuates.

7. Neutrino's. After thinking about Sid Deutsch's thoughts on interference pattern's it dawn's on me that neutrino's may be fragments of FOS that were not quite large enough to become photons. So that their nature is that they are not a normal amout of FOS to become a photon, but enough that they can have an effect on an electron's path. Espicially if the electron is held weakly by an atom or molecule.

8. Since a deuterium nucleus is really two protons kept together by a nuclear electron [pion] then if you could maintain the orientation of the nucleus in one direction the charge distribution should be oblong, with the weakest part of the charge profile being on the opposite sides of the protons, and with the highest charge distribution being where the combined pull of the two protons creates the greatest charge gradient. This might have an application for nuclear fusion since approaching the nucleus may be easier depending on the direction from which another nucleus is coming from.

9. If a neutron is a neutral body that produces no charge, then why is it that the deuterium nucleus show only a regular spherical charge potential. Would not the neutron shield part of space from the positive potential of the proton it is paired with. In fact the charge radius appears to increase not decrease. And what about the tritium nucleus? There should be even more shielding by the two combined neutrons surrounding the single proton. This contradiction would appear to be proof of the FOS theory series atomic model which says that in fact the tritium nucleus is three protons held together by two nuclear electrons. Thus the exposed surface area of the three protons is less than that of three protons. Perhaps more like the area of roughly 1.5 protons based on the exposed surfaces roughly not affected by the two nuclear electrons [pions] keeping them together.
ATS update

August 1st 2011
More evidence for the FM/FOS theory model of the nucleus.

From Wikipedia:   [aka Charge radius]
"Modern direct measurements are based on the scattering of electrons by nuclei.[7][8] There is most interest in knowing the charge radii of protons and deuterons, as these can be compared with the spectrum of atomic hydrogen/deuterium: the finite size of the nucleus causes a shift in the electronic energy levels which shows up as a change in the frequency of the spectral lines.[3] Such comparisons are a test of quantum electrodynamics (QED). Since 2002, the proton and deuteron charge radii have been independently refined parameters in the CODATA set of recommended values for physical constants, that is both scattering data and spectroscopic data are used to determine the recommended values.[9]
The 2006 CODATA recommended values are:[10]

proton: Rp = 0.8768(69) fm
deuteron: Rd = 2.1402(28) fm

Recent work on the spectrum of muonic hydrogen (an exotic atom consisting of a proton and a negative muon) indicates a significantly lower value for the proton charge radius, 0.84184(67) fm: the reason for this discrepancy is not clear.[11]"

In terms of the FM/FOS theory series we can determine the size of the gap that exists between two protons in the formation of deuterium.
Using just the measurements of the charge radius using electrons we can see that there is a gap of 0.7732 fm.  Or roughly less than half  the diameter of a proton.

2 x 0.8768 fm = 1.7536 fm for the diameter of a proton.

Deuterium nucleus - two protons = distance between two protons
[2 x 2.1402] fm - [2 x 1.7536] fm = 0.7732 fm for the gap that exists between two protons in the formation of a deuteron nucleus.
This will prove useful for spatial arragements and limits for nuclear structure, pion [high energy electron size, and again supports the FOS series since it predicts this greater charge radius of the deuterium nucleus inspite of the fact that the 2nd particle is a neutron.

Also note that after reviewing some of Sid Deutsch's work. In particular his book "Return of the Ether: When Theory and Reality Collide" compliments my work well, and answers questions I did not realize my work was providing a potential answers for. I regret I only learned of his work early in the spring of 2011, whereas he passed away around the beginning of 2011. I don't know if he would have supported my work but since my work supports his I can only believe that he might have at least been curious about my work.
ATS update

May 11th 2011
What is inertia?
By definition: "the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force." []

Why does matter maintain its state of inertia?

If you looked at the Fidler-Morton model then you know that it proposes that the key to both gravity and the electronic shells of atoms is the FOS gradient generated by nuclei. Electrons are attracted to nuclei because of the gradient generated, but electrons in the outer shells are also noticeably attracted to other gradients [nuclei] around them and this produces various degrees of electrical cohesion between atoms. But the gradients, and the electrons they attract, are also affected by nuclei even further away to some degree giving rise to variations in gradients around nuclei and ultimately trigger gravitational effects. The electrons in you are also attracted to the Earth and deviate from your nuclei a tiny amount generating your attraction to the Earth. But all the electrons that inhabit the Earth are also drawn to some degree to the Sun. And so on.

I'm contemplating that perhaps the reason inertia exists is that:
As any body moves its gradient density increases on the side towards the direction of motion, and because of this the electrons are attracted to this denser side and in doing so attract the nuclei they are partnered with. And thus the electrons help maintain the density variation of the new gradient and by doing so keeps that body in motion.

ATS update

April 25th 2011
Some additional great news for the Fidler-Morton/FOS Atomic model!
From my point of view this is the tipping point in the FM/FOS Model.

Well it has been a while since I've been able to post anything of significance. After finally getting a decent job not only to pay bills, but also to have time to spare, I've been doing some productive research, via the internet, over the last couple of months. The good news is that once again the Fidler-Morton Atomic Model is supported by the data in one case, and additional support for it looks promising in another case. The first case which clearly supports the FM/FOS theory is related to the structure of antiprotons which has been something that I was worried about due to what I thought was a lack of evidence. How wrong I was! There has been evidence about the nature of antiprotons to support the FM model for sometime. In fact there has been evidence for decades, but until recently I was unaware of the availability of the data on the internet. Some of the data is still not available to me unless I can raise the money to pay for documents that may, or may not, contain the information I'm looking for. I'm not about to spend a few thousand dollars on documents of which only a few might be useful. Most documents simply want to give you their interpretation of the facts and not the facts or data themselves.

Coming soon [next 2-3 weeks]: What is an antiproton?
Part of the reason for the delay is due to copyright issues I have to post the information on my own web site first.

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?

List of sites and videos that argue against the Big Bang and support Eric J Lerner's book: The Big Bang Never Happened
From: : The Big Bang Never Happened Part 1
From: : The Big Bang Never Happened Part 2
From: : The Big Bang Never Happened Part 3

From: : A short comment by Carl Sagan on the Big Bang Theory


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. [To be expanded: Eventually I will graph out the supposed time difference due to time dialation around the Earth to determine "what time is it" at the different altitudes around the Earth, and due this for the Sun as well. If time is passing differently at different altitudes then what does it mean to travel up to that altitude and be in a different time zone? This is Gravitational-Time paradox as proposed by the FOS model. ]

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]

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.]

Antimatter versus Matter discrepancy

Why is there more matter than antimatter in the Universe. This is one of the great questions that has come about due to both the nature of the formation of antimatter and matter at the same time also in part due to the Big Bang Theory. When an electron-positron pair is formed in a two gamma-ray collision these two oppositely charged particles are created, and can combine back together again to annihilate each other and release two gamma-rays. [What does it mean to say that these particles are oppositely charged? Read the section from my book on The Electron  by downloading the pdf or refer back to basic tenent #1 above on this page.]

But before we can hypothesize an answer utilizing the FOS model we need to look at protons and antiprotons. The hypothetical decay of a proton is a positron and some gamma-rays. This has never been observed, but in high energy collisions we can break protons and they do indeed break down into a positron; after first appearing as a pion which breaks down into a muon then finally a positron appears at the end. [For clarity I did not mention the neutrinos or potential gamma-rays.] First lets look at the decay products of an antiproton-proton reaction. At first you might think, since we've been told so by so many people that the reaction should result in just pure energy. But that is not the case. Your probably thinking at this point that ok, if an antiproton and a proton interact then the final outcome is probably one electron and one positron. And you would be partly correct. But that is NOT the normal reaction sequence. The odd thing is that the most common mode of decay is the production of two electrons and two positrons. Odd. The funny thing is that this is exactly what the Fidler-Morton [aka FOS] theory was predicting. This is based on the idea that an antiproton could be a damaged proton [its normal gradient is not longer intact] surrounded by two damaged nuclear electrons [they've lost some energy]. In effect, a 'neutron' holding onto an extra electron giving it negative charge. But how could that be? The FM model says that nuclei are simply protons held together by nuclear electrons moving in between them and thereby reducting the FOS density between protons. In turn, the pressure of FOS density gradients outside of these areas push the protons towards the lower pressure regions created by the passage of nuclear electrons. If you tear nuclei apart then you are simply separating groups of protons along with some nuclear electrons. So, the antiproton form could come about if you consider that the proton and electrons are not in their normal energetic states. The key idea being that something has happened to the FOS gradient generated by the proton, and probably the nuclear electrons no longer behave the same way due to a loss in their "conductive energy."  Why is this important? Because the Fidler-Morton FOS model states that not all antimatter is fundamental in nature.

The only antimatter that ultimately we need to concern ourselves with is positrons. But left as they are they will simply react with electrons and be turned back into energy. The solution to the problem appears to be that under the right circumstance, perhaps inside stars, that the positrons are able to utilize their FOS compression abilities to surround themselves with enough aether to increase their mass and thereby prevent an electron from simply colliding into it. Once it has enough of a gradient generated about itself, and perhaps gained angular momentum, an electron no longer can directly crash into this heavier positron - now a proton. Thus matter would win out over antimatter. But at the same time, the FM FOS model proposes the Big Bang Model is wrong and thus the whole ideal of the battle between antimatter and matter is a moot point. Remember the theory of the Big Bang arose entirely from the premise that photons cannot decay and therefore we must interpret the redshift as 'simply' being due to the movement of the entire Universe away from itself - an expanding universe. [Conveniently putting us humans at the center of the Universe again!] But the only fact we have is that redshift does happen and we know this because if you look at galaxies which are further, and further, away the photons are more and more redshfited. They say that photons cannot simply decay because this would be a contradiction of a well known fundamental property of energy within a closed system. But their assumption is based on a closed system, and not an infinite universe. The redshift does happen it is an empirical observeable fact. Why the redshift occurs is pure speculation/conjecture. There is no difference to the photons if you say they do decay or they cannot decay - their wavelengths are increasing and whether you claim that is due to their decay or instead the universe is expanding and the effect is due to the motion of galaxies moving away from one another is irrelevant since no matter what you claim their wavelengths do increase over time. Remember the principle of Occam's Razor. What is simpler; that photons decay or that the universe is expanding due to some explosion or expansion that is tearing the universe apart? With the Big Bang Theory the degree of complexity almost spirals out of control in comparison to the FOS model.

If photons do decay what would they look like? Jeez lets think about this. Oh yeah, their wavelength would increase over time. Hmmm. Just like we see happening all around us in the Universe!

That's crazy talk. The photons are increaseing in wavelength because the universe is expanding due to an enormous explosion some 14 billion years ago, and this increase in wavelength is due to the doppler effect upon the photons. And besides photons cannot decay as they would violate the ... of the conservation of energy in a closed system.

So, you're saying they cannot decay and the Universe is simply expanding and at the edges of the observable universe the speed of some of these galaxies is approaching a fair percentage of the speed of light. Which would imply that if we see them in their current locations we are really seeing them 14 billion years ago, and since that time they would have moved how much further past the edge of the visible universe given they have had another 14 billion years to move from the locations we are now observing. Also given that their velocites were increase what would their current velocity be? Isn't that a greater improbability than just saying photons decay overtime. And why do you think the universe is a closed system? If its infinite in size then your argument is not valid since the definition is based on a closed system. Not an infinitely open one.


Aether comments [edited by TJF] by Franklin Hu

Wrong turn #1 - There is no aether

This has got to be the biggest and most fatal error of physics to prematurely reject the hypothesis that all of space is filled with a
substance. If I am right, this will go down as even a bigger blunder than the Earth centered universe. This has totally halted significant development of electromagnetic theory by removing the medium by which waves are carried through space.

Now if there is no aether, then there is nothing for waves to travel on and therefore no waves are really possible. This means that everything has to be particles. All interactions now have to happen through particle exchange through the void of space. So light is particles, gravity is particles, strong force is particles and so on.

However, the view is absurd. How can two objects exchanging particles possibly cause an attractive force? It is often described as two basketball players exchanging a ball which each other and the faster they do the exchange, the more attracted are the two players. How ridiculous! Any such exchange would cause a repulsion, not an attraction. There is no way this particle exchange can work! How can serious physicists possibly take this seriously? This makes NO intuitive or logical sense.

We get into all of these problems because we refuse to believe in an aether. If we believe in an aether, then the world is a very simple place. All interactions happen via waves propagated in the aether. There are no particle exchanges required to transmit forces. It has been shown that phased wave interactions can create attractive and repulsive forces - objects emitting in phase waves repel, while out of phase attract. There is no spooky 'action at a distance'. The only way particle A can affect particle C is if goes through particle B. A most sensible chain of cause and affect.

The only serious experiment indicating particle nature of light is the photoelectric effect. However, I feel this can be easily explained if you think that light is generated in specific wave packet quanta. This would have the exact same effect as if a fixed sized particle hit a surface - but it is created by a strictly wave phenomenon. By far the larger experimental evidence shows that light is a wave. We only need the medium (the aether) to make it work.

Since we think that the aether doesn't exist, we make no attempt to detect it directly or to determine its properties or how it could be manipulated. Instead, we spend billions trying to detect particle force carriers and can only guess at the particles shooting out of these collisions. Seems we've spent billions on accelerators, and what do they have to show for it - a few pictures of squiggly lines - perhaps a newly discovered particle here or there. We're never going to be able to figure out how to neutralize gravity with science like this. We are barking up the wrong tree - there are no exchange particles, we should be studying the subatomic interactions of electromagnetic waves through the aether.

Wrong turn #2 - The Michaelson/Morely MMX experiment disproved the existence of the aether.

Always cited as the premier reason why we don't believe in the aether is the MMX experiment. This results of the experiment have been grossly misunderstood. If you read the original paper, they do not conclude that the aether doesn't exist - only that it is moving much slower than the orbital speed of the Earth. The experiment, did in fact return a small positive result and the authors suggested further research. This further research was conducted by Daton Miller who concluded that the aether could be detected. Daton Miller was a professor of physics and would not be likely to make experimental errors or wrongly deduce that his result was not within experimental error. His experiment which was carried out over 20 years under a much better environment was completely ignored in favor of the new 'whiz bang' relativity theory of Einstein apparently that didn't require an aether.

Bottom line, the MMX experiment did not disprove the existence of the aether - although everyone thinks it did. At best, it indicated that the aether (if it exists) moves relatively slowly on the surface of the Earth. This would be like trying to disprove the existence of air by measuring the airspeed while you were inside of an airplane. You say that you expect the airspeed to be 100 mph, because you know the airplane is going 100 mph. You measure nothing inside the airplane, therefore you disprove the existence of air. Of course, this makes no logical sense at all and neither does the MMX experiment.
Foot note: Experimental evidence now in for the atomic model I'm proposing:
Part of my atomic model now has experimental proof, that is the charge distribution around a neutron. I found a hint of it in Wikipedia. 
Fundamentals in Nuclear Physics
By Jean-Louis Basdevant, James Rich, Michel Spiro.
On page 156 they claim to demonstrate that neutrons appear to have negative charge around them, and of course a positive core.

This should take you to the page in question.,M1
Note that the pdf version of the draft for the book has had the diagrams, sketches and pictures removed. The references to them still exist, and so do notes to the author about possible errors, missing information, and other general editing related information.
Click on this link Draft of the Book to download a copy of the draft of the book.
The purpose of this series of pages introducing "The Dynamic Nature of the Fabric of Space" is not only to find a publisher to turn this draft [first posted on the internet on December 1, 2008] into a book, but it is also to earn enough money to pay off my student loans, and hopefully raise enough money to initiate the Farm Robot Project, or at least a robot to aid with my underwater photography. With any luck, and marketing, I will also be able to fund my robotic under water camera platform and observation posts. These would be used to both capture images of marine life, and also provide biologists with another tool to study life in the ocean. Along with this research, hopefully there will be a few patent spin-offs to generate additional income to keep the research and projects going. Presently I'm unable to effectively finance my own projects due to my student debt to which I'm enslaved to my student loan payments.

Along with finding a publisher I'd like to put out the word to mathematicians, physicists, or at least someone better at calculus & differential equations than me, that I have some ideas on the mathematics for the Fabric of Space atomic model. And that ideally I'd like to collaborate on some of the mathematics while completing the book. This would be a great opportunity for someone to start off their career, as the implications for both chemistry and physics are enormous. I'd also be more than willing to collaborate with another author, or ghost writer, or anyone who has an interest in science and can collaborate on the project in terms of writing, etc...

Monthly advertising space, see the following link to the Advertising Sample Page, is available. With preference for repeat customers, and additional spots going to the best, but not necessarily, the highest bidder. The final choice being made at the discretion of Terrance Fidler. Preferred method of payments are bank drafts, e-payments via e-mail address, money orders.


Copyright © 1990, 1993, 2008-2011 by Terrance J. Fidler. All rights reserved.
Other pages by T.J. Fidler: Underwater Photography of the Pacific Northwest & The Farm Robot Research Project
This information was first posted on the internet on December 1, 2008.