[analog]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I then considered what the properties of such a substance would be. I wondered how it would react if stirred and it seemed logical that instead of spreading outwards due to the centrifugal force it would be drawn inwards under the centripetal force.

Hi Jim,

I've been following your thread but unfortunately I haven't had much time lately to fully read your theory, or much of anything else for that matter. I do plan to soon do so, because I think I see similarities within our views that would possibly allow for some exchanges of ideas.

I subscribe to an absolute motion framework and autonomous structured matter is thus a condensed volume of aether due to uniform motion, and the surrounding "space" is merely a less condensed volume of the same fudamental substance due to more random motion. The above statement is similar to how I perceive the aether to react due to linear acceleration (one type of uniform motion), whereby causing the further condensation to autonomous structured matter. I think the major difference would be that the condensation due to "centripetal force" would only be perpendicular to the direction of linear motion in my views, and the perceived "centripetal force" would be an effect of the linear acceleration. Absolute motion would actually be the spoon doing the stirring.

regards,

Tim

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Jimbo;

Thanks for your reply and the detailed explanation on how you have arrived to the conclusions and your thought in the process of investigations.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Knowing that the earth has around 3.6x10^51 nucleons, the total flow of energy into the earth must be 1.15x10^34eV/s. The surface area of the earth is 5.1x10^14m^2 and therefore the flow rate comes to 11.3km/s.

Please show us the formula you have used in relationship to total flow of energy into the earth and surface area of the earth that then derived to the flow rate comes to 11.3km/s.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

For completeness, I calculated the flow rate of electron energy around a proton and it gave a figure 10^39 times greater than the flow rate of continuum energy onto a neutron i.e. exactly equal to the relative strengths of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces.

Hence FET shows how neutrons are created and at the same time accounts exactly for the red shift of starlight, the gravitational force of gravity and its strength relative to the electromagnetic force.

This is interesting, please also show us the calculation and formula for the rate of electron energy around a proton that give a figure 10^39 times greater than the flow rate of continuum energy onto a neutron.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Faraday and Young. Newton declared that the universe operated like clockwork with effect following cause. I discovered only recently that he though gravity was the condensation of aether into bodies, which is exactly what FET predicts.

Is there an article that says Newton had thought that gravity was the condensation of aether into bodies? Please show me the link if there is such an article in the Internet. In all other articles I read about Newton's concept on gravity he had critically refuted this notion, particularly had disagreed with Rene Descartes who had proposed this concept with his vortex theory.

FYI, lately I have also came across Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity, in this theory of Nikola Tesla he had amalgamated gravity and electromagnetic force. This theroy explains the relation between gravitation and electromagnetic force as a unified field theory (a model over matter, the aether, and energy.)

Thanks.

[PoPpAScience]

Statement about Nikola Tesla:

"There manifests itself in the fully developed being , Man, a desire mysterious, inscrutable and irresistible: to imitate nature, to create, to work himself the wonders he perceives.... Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance."(Grotz, 1997)

[xxyy]

Hi Jim,

Thank you for the book I just received it in the mail yesterday. I have only read the introduction but I can tell you that I am really excited about this work. Thanks again and I will be back to discuss this theory of yours which I am very excited about.

regards,
Field

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Jim;

Don't see you in here much lately, hope you are hard at work on book 2.

I posted this link and pic in Vincents thread of "Universal Vortical Singularity". I think this would also interest you very much, because it is such a wonderful view of Fluid Energy Whirlpooling into not just a new star, but a solar system.

The most wonderful part is seeing how an arm of the whirlpool has manufactured a "brown dwarf". I think the arm at the bottom with the trailing tail will also concentrate into a "brown dwarf".

I think this pic is very important to the evolutionary thought processes of cosmic understanding.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...et-embryo.html

[Jimbo]

Hi everybody,

I have been very busy this last month and have made some interesting advances.

Some weeks ago someone started a thread on FET on the Bad Astronomy site and I joined in when I saw them being given a hard time. They then all turned on me because apparently at this site the most prolific posters are hard line big bang supporters.

Furthermore, they appear to be only interested in maths and not concepts and when I refused to give them all of the maths that is to be included in book 2 they were soon claiming that FET had failed under scrutiny. Mind you, this was only after I had made a few statements and they had not even bothered to look at my web site. I even offered free books to them but not one of them took me up on this.

I then offered to go through FET right from the beginning and present the maths as I came to it but still they were not satisfied. I also started a second line whereby I would present evidence that the big bang theory must be wrong. I started with the fact that gravity cannot cause a cloud of gas to condense and form a star unless the density is high enough and the temperature low enough. I spent days searching the web and leaving questions at various forums, including Bad Astronomy, but no one could provide the maths to show how gravitational collapse could occur.

I then did some maths myself and showed that the atoms in a gas cloud at 20K were moving millions of times faster than gravity could pull them inwards and therefore all gas clouds would rapidly expand and disperse unless the temperature was well below 10K. One person disputed my maths for the derivation of the escape velocity of a body and this prompted me to do more. I was then able to show that the reason we had two different answers (although both methods gave the same acceleration due to gravity) was that the FET method derived a flow rate of gravitational energy that was a maximum rate that was only equal to the escape velocity of a planet or star as calculated by conventional methods when at the surface of that body.

By combining the FET model with current methods I was able to show that not only do the Sun and the gaseous planets have cores of much denser material than the average I could actually calculate the sizes of these cores. Unfortunately Bad Astronomy threads have a limited time of 30 days and therefore this last calculation was never posted there. So if anyone is interested in seeing the way FET was attacked then visit the site then come back here to continue the arguments.

I have stayed away from here for some time to allow those of you that have my first book to read and digest it. I will be away for the next week but when I come back I will be available to do my best to answer any questions that you may have.

Thanks for the picture of the youngest ever planet Allen. In the link to this article they say that there is a lot of debate about the part that gravitation plays in the creation of stars and planets but the picture fits perfectly with the FET notion of whirlpools existing in all possible sizes that give rise to atomic particles, atoms, planets stars and galaxies. However, from my experience at the Bad Astronomy site it looks as though it is going to be a long hard battle to win over anyone but those that are already highly sceptical of current theories.

Jim.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Jimbo,

I visited that bad astronomy site and found that many of them seem to have personality disorders and give petty and demeaning responses. Perhaps they are not reachable, as they won't even read the book, but there are normal scientists elsewhere who will eventually respond in a civilized way.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Jim;

I have to say that I am highly disappointed to hear that you waisted so much time conversing with those that can not be conversed with. I said to you in my first PM, about the importance of writing your second book, over spending time answering questions in this forum. So, while I have been holding back my questions as to not disturb your writing of book 2, you where off trying to enlighten the unelightenable.

Its funny how I was going to post this link; Null Physics , here for you to see what will happen when you try to express yourself in a forum that has no protection for civil speech, like there is here in Roberts Toequest. While all along you where experiencing it for yourself. For those that are interested, here is the link to Jimbo's escapades in another forum; http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...gy-theory.html .

One can see how in other forums threads, they can get filled with 75% of childish rants, 10% miss quotes, 10% regurgitation's of other great thinkers from the past, and only 5% of actual substance directed towards those that are trying to express their theories. Trying to express one's idea's in those forums is like a Buddhist trying to explain one's self in a Christian web site. I find it utterly amazing to see the shear ridiculousness of the responses from highly educated individuals in those sites. I personally would rather have a grade 2 education, then to be an "highly educated narrow minded ego maniac".

There is a distinct difference between having a civil disagreement with someones idea's and just being a "freak". I mean "freak" in the sense that when ever they don't like what they see, they "freak". If you read the responses to the idea's of Null Physics and FET at the links above, you will see "freaks" flooding the threads with mostly hate in their hearts. I find those people no different then any religious fanatic in the world, they express themselves the same way.

If I knew there was a conversation going on in that other site I would have came in there and gave my two cents worth in favor of your theory. Instead I spent my time reading your book and looking for an appearance from you in this forum. From what I read in the other forum, I feel that you spent to much time repeating your theory, instead of arguing back against their questions. I know that if I knew what you know, I would have came back at them with; "what if what you are stating, is actually this instead?".

I really like your theory and think it has great merit. The question is, are you writing your books for future money or for the sake of expanding the minds of others? I personally do not think you are in it for the money. So, I ask why you do not just have your book 1, totally on your web site for all to read. If one is happy with what they read, they can give a donation to you in thanks. I know I want to give you something for the expense you incurred in order for me to read your book free of charge.

Well I am still filled with questions and opinions about your theory. But, I will wait till you have time for this forum, because I have no interest in conversing in those other forums that are dominated by "freaks".

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Jim;

I thought you might be interested in this link about Zero Point Energy. When I read through this article I just replace Zero point energy, with continuous energy, and I love how they are interchangeable to my mind. Of course one has to ignore their belief in wave fields to see things differently.

Just as they see their ideas of zero point energy being very hard to crack main stream physics, so do I see FET, as being very very hard to get a foot hold against the establishment.

One has to hope someday, that those of free spirit can take hold of some sort of power in the establishment, so that all ideas can be considered in the matter of Physics.

[xxyy]

Jim PopaScience, and All,

Little known to many of you I am the only person on this forum that I know of who is an inventor of a Zero Point Energy device. That is why I can tell you all that it is real and the laws of thermodynamics are DEAD WRONG. That is why I knew FET was real because it mentions of this.

How does FET predict Zero Point energy and Jim are you building a Zero Point Energy Device to demonstrate?

xxyy