[Jimbo]

There are many theories claiming to be the true TOE and probably all of them have come about by someone who started with the intention of discovering it. FET is different. It all started when I took early retirement at the age of 52 because the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, UK where I worked was going through the process of privatisation. Consequently they wanted to get rid of research projects and concentrate upon money spinning tasks.

For the last 8 years at LGC I worked alone on a project that was loosely described as surface energetics. It started out looking at mineral flotation and ended up with the biocompatibility of medical implants. Because I was primarily an experimentalist I designed and built an apparatus to automatically measure the contact angles of liquids upon solids and how they changed as reagents adsorbed from the solutions onto the solids.

This project was highly successful and my apparatus has been commercially exploited. With it I was able to determine the correct proportions and orientations of carbon, hydrogen and chlorine atoms on a sample of PVC. My apparatus is very simple and inexpensive and my results could only be confirmed at a university using very expensive radiation bombardment techniques.

When I retired I decided to investigate the theory behind my measurements because, according to the experts, the empirical equation derived from my work was not only claimed to be wrong but had been "disproved" 100 years ago. My equation was of the form A = B - C whereas the current equation was A = B + C - D - E - F ....... with different numbers of parameters for each system.

It was true that my equation did not fit most data sets as it stood but this was because no one had allowed for the possibility that molecules reoriented themselves at interfaces. Once this was taken into account then my simple equation fitted exactly to all data ever made in this field.

It then became apparent that every type of atom has a characteristic attractive force. In order to calculate this force I needed to use the inverse square rule to calculate force changes at the atomic level. This proved impossible because, say for example, you could not calculate how much light a source was putting out if you could only measure it from 10m away. You could calculate that at 5m it would be four times as bright, at 2.5m it would be 16 times as bright, at 1.25m it would 64 times as bright and so on. But this would make the brightness infinite at the source and it is irrelevant whether the source is 10m or 1 million light years away.

At this time I did not know that infinities were a problem in many areas and that the only way to get rid of them was to cancel them out by some mathematical trickery. So instead I sought a solution and eventually arrived at a very simple modification. Instead of saying I = K x (I1 x I2)/d^2 I made it I = k x (I1 x I2)/(d + d0) where d0 is some hypothetical distance beyond the source where the intensity really is infinite. For atoms and their attractive force this distance was found to be 1.387x10^-10m This may seem very small but it is crucial when considering large forces at very small distances.

I believe that it may account for the reason that different experiments around the world cannot agree to better than 1% the value of the gravitational constant. These experiments use very large masses separated by very small distances.

Now we come to the real beginning of FET. Having found that "experts" can easily be wrong, I considered that they may also have got the notion of energy wrong. Heat was at one time considered to be a real substance but was "proved" not to be so. But suppose heat, or more correctly energy, was a real substance, what properties would it have?

Because of my previous thoughts about infinities and because the search for the fundamental particles of nature was just creating more and smaller entities, I took the bold step of assuming energy to be a continuous substance.

This was the real breakthrough. Within a short time I had worked out that the spinning of a continuous substance would create a centripetal force that drew in more of that substance and just like a skater spinning faster by folding in arms and legs, the spin rate would increase. So once any motion in a continuous substance was started it would increase in intensity and increase the density within the spinning region.

I called these regions quantum whirlpools and noted that they would be 2-dimensional. Unlike whirlpools in water where the water has to be channeled outwards somewhere and therefore become 3-dimensional, energy would simply be compressed and its density increased. Incidentally, I had made an intuitive guess that the flow of energy into these whirlpools was the source of gravity and I will come back to that later.

If the whirlpools could continue forever then nothing would have been created except for a universe full of black holes. So I reasoned that at some point there would be a limit to the density of energy where the fluid form became a solid. But where was that limit?

My thoughts at this time were also on trying to discover the true nature of photons. I have always preferred to think of them as particles because I can visualise a particle but not a single wave. I noticed that the electromagnetic spectrum had an upper limit of wavelength equal to 3x10^-15m If photons are particles then a particle passing by at light speed would have an equivalent diameter of 3x10^-15m. If instead of moving at light speed it spun on the spot then it would spin at 10^23rps. I took this as a starting point for the spin rate at which fluid energy was solidified.

It was a simple step then to calculate that when the spinning region of solid energy reached a diameter of 10^-15m, i.e. the size of a neutron particle, its surface speed was equal to light speed c. Thus, from the upper limit of the electromagnetic spectrum I had established a link between the speed of light and the size of a nuclear particle.

Next came the problem of what would stop a neutron particle from continuing to grow in size. Being a solid, its spinning action would generate a centrifugal force which would increase as the particle grew in size. So the centrifugal force inside the particle would eventually increase to the point where it became equal to the centripetal force that was compressing fluid energy into solid energy.

The maximum centrifugal force occurs just within the outermost surface and therefore this is where the neutron breaks apart. So the outermost shell breaks away and immediately becomes fluidised again. But the core is still spinning at 10^23rps and therefore the centripetal force forces the fluid energy just released back onto the core. But this overloads the core again and therefore an equilibrium is set up with a smaller core of solid energy (the proton) and a region of fluid energy (the electron) extending from the core to a distance of around 10^-10m, i.e. the size of an atom.

A further simple calculation shows that the amount of electron energy flowing around the core is 10^39 times the flow rate of energy onto a growing neutron. Hence I had shown for the first time ever why the strength of the electromagnetic force is 10^39 times stronger than the gravitational force.

So now we have a theory for the creation of neutrons and how they mature into hydrogen atoms. Note that there are no such entities as separate protons and electrons as the two are really two parts of the same particle.

The hydrogen atom has the correct balance between fluid and solid energy in equilibrium. If extra energy is added then it is retained only if the atom moves otherwise it is immediately thrown off as a photon.

A photon is a packet of energy thrown off of a core of solid energy whose surface speed is c and therefore this is why photons move so fast. The packet of energy does not immediately expand back into fluid energy because, although it is not spinning as such, it is rolling along and therefore effectively spinning and so generates its own centripetal force which keeps the photon intact. The movement of the photon away from the core generates a region between the two that is kept under tension and therefore as a string of solid energy. Hence the photon is tied to its source much like a yoyo on a string. It is the string attachment that starts the photon energy to adopt a rolling action and therefore remain as a viable packet of energy. This explanation also shows how entanglement can occur when two photons are released simultaneously from the same source.

From the strength of the Earth's gravitational field I was able to calculate that the string diameter was around 10^-41m. This string can only come from the photon itself because it cannot come from the source as it is generating a centripetal force that draws energy inwards. So the photon can be considered to be a packet of energy rolling along at light speed generating its own centripetal force and unwinding a string of solid energy. Its centripetal force is directly proportional to the amount of energy it contains so that as it unwinds energy its centripetal force decreases and therefore it expands in size.

Hence a photon that starts out as a gamma ray with 10^8eV of energy has a diameter similar in size to a nuclear particle and as it unwinds energy it grows until eventually it has only around 10^-10eV of energy and has become a radio photon with a diameter of around 3,000m. Its density is then equal to that of the continuum and the two merge together. Hence there is both an upper and lower limit to the photon spectrum.

Next comes the big surprise. The rate at which a photon loses energy is exactly equal to the loss of energy according to the red shift of starlight. Hence the universe is not expanding but is instead in a steady state

I have to end here as I have reached the limit imposed.

[Profpat]

Hi Jimbo:

I'm glad you are at the Your Toe Theory Thread.

Is your Steady State Theory like Hoyles' ? I believe in a Hindu cyclical universe, eternal but going through stages of expansion and contraction. I believe string theorist say that you cannot compact the universe anything smaller than a one dimensional Planck length entity (string), before expansion starts again.

My own Idea has strings making up quarks but had trouble with the size disparity. You may have solved this problem for me when you talk about particle expansion.

If you have time you may want to view my post. It's called An Idea, and would surely appreciate any feedback you may have for me. You can post any questions or comments on my thread.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. I need to review your book site again and try to understand better your above thread before further comment or questions

[Jimbo]

Profpat

My steady state theory is nothing like Hoyle's except that we both believe that matter is still being created today. Hoyle's theory assumes that the universe is expanding but the density remains constant because new matter is being created.

My steady state assumes that neutrons are still being created by the billion and this would account for clouds of hydrogen gas still being observed in various states of evolution. Thus there is a constant loss of fluid energy from the continuum as neutrons grow and mature into hydrogen atoms but this is balanced by the return of energy from photons as they travel through space. In addition, when stars collide it forces nuclear particles together as such speeds that many are prevented from spinning. Once they slow down then they expand from solid energy back into fluid energy and as their is a difference in density of 10^39 the result is a massive increase in the local continuum energy density.

Now a photon particle loses energy at a rate equal to that given by the red shift of starlight which means it takes 10^19 years for a gamma photon to lose all of its energy. However, when a photon passes through continuum energy at a higher than normal background density then it loses energy at an accelerated rate.

So light coming from stars close to a quasar will be red shifted by much greater amounts than those that are far away. Hence quasars can be associated with galaxies with a much lower red shift which is just as Arp has found.

I looked at your idea of an atom but found it to be far more complicated than the FET atom. In FET there is only one particle and that is the neutron which exists in two forms that easily switch places when the two forms of the particle are together in a nucleus. Thus a neutron can become a proton/electron pair and a proton/electron pair can become a neutron. There is no real difference between them in a nucleus because all of the nucleons share their electron energy and as it flows around the particles it binds them together.

I have explained in my second book exactly has these changes occur and why they are accompanied by the apparent release of an electron or a positron. But you will have to wait around 6 months before that book is ready

Thanks for your comments and interest

Jimbo

By the way, how do I register thanks. I am still only just beginning to find my feet with this excellent site.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Jim;

I glad to see your theory posted here. I enjoy reading your posts here and on your web page. I imagine that I will enjoy your book just as much. I feel that your theory covers so many, what will be considered controversial, statements about the make of this Universe, that it should lead to a lively discussion here.
Over the last month I have had many visualizations in my head with the "Vortex" at the centre of my thoughts. Unfortunetaly I could not form them into coherent words to post in my thread and others. It was a joy to see that you had made your own discoveries along the ideals that I was trying to think of, but of course to such a higher and authoritative level.

I considerate it very significant that I could be thinking along the same lines as you, but from a very different angle of thought. You joined this forum within days of me telling Vincent Wee-Foo that he had sparked my imagination for the first time in 15 years with his tread on "The Universal Vortical Singularity". I think that maybe it is time for the Vortex/Whirlpool/Spin to have its day in the sun, instead of just Wave-function/Particle every where you read.

The list of visualizations that I had and have in my mind that you have articulated in your FET theory are many, and I will be posting my thoughts on them here in your thread in the future.

First, because my visualization on Gravity is almost exactly like you describe it in your theory, I am going to contemplate how to word it in my own thoughts so that I can add it to my thread. After that I hope and think that I can refer to your FET Theory for future discussions on the Universe's make up.

I am a FET fan and look forward to the posts of others here in this thread in the future.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Jim;

I had a thought a few weeks ago about the measuring of a wave-function or the particle. I was questioning if when a wave-function is measured could we be measuring the undulating event horizon of a Vortex/Whirlpool/Spin, and when we measure a particle, that we could be measuring the zero-point at the centre of the Vortex/Whirlpool/Spin.

What do you think of this questioning?

[Profpat]

Hi Jim;

I see you figured out the thanks button.

So do really believe new matter (mass) is being "CREATED" or just being formed from the existing energy already out there in the universe.

I believe both of our theories are similiar in that I also basically have one particle the PROTON/NEUTRON which is the same particle just in different forms. One domed shaped one spherical shaped. Mine being shaped from strings to 3 quarks to the proton/neutron. I guess yours are shaped from pure energy. Does your neutron have structure? Does it have the 3 quarks proposed by the standard model?

Well best to you Jim, good luck on your theory,

Pat

[Jimbo]

Let me explain why why my first book contains very little mathematics.

Throughout my life I have been fascinated by science and discovering why things are the way they are. At school and university I was always drifting off during lectures into my own thoughts as I tried to visualise the processes being described. I wanted to know for example by what process light was bent when it entered glass, why it slowed down and then sped up again as it emerged. I just could not accept things unless I could visualise them in my mind.

My heroes of the past are Newton, 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. Faraday believed in forces emanating from wires carrying an electric current, which again is predicted by FET. Young described contact angles of liquids upon solids in just the way I imagined must be occurring in order to explain my experimental data.

Einstein started off brilliantly with his analysis of Brownian motion and the release of electrons by photons. His trouble came when he taught himself mathematics and let the maths dominate his thoughts. Although he argued against the Bohr model of an atom where nothing appeared definite or real, he seemed to have lost touch with reality when he proposed spacetime.

His biggest blunder was when he stated that a mechanical acceleration cannot be distinguished from a gravitational acceleration. In fact they are very different although they are numerically the same. A gravitational acceleration operates simultaneously upon every atom in an object and this is why our bodies cannot sense the acceleration when we are in freefall. A mechanical acceleration, such as in a rising elevator, pushes upon our feet and then sequentially through every atom of our bodies. It is this flow of energy through our bodies that gives us the sensation of acceleration. FET shows in both cases just how these flows of energy are achieved.

When we stand upon the ground the gravitational energy flows into every atom simultaneously but because it cannot be used as kinetic energy to move us downwards, the energy has to flow out of our body and into the ground. It is this flow of energy through our bodies that gives us the sensation of weight.

I therefore decided that I would not use anything but the simplest of maths in my development of FET as it might prejudice my logic. Only when I reached the limits of the theory would I start to perform a mathematical analysis.

Take for example whirlpools. As far as I know, no one has tried to calculate the forces in a continuous substance. I could have spent a long time calculating the forces and their distribution in whirlpools but instead satisfied myself with the analogy of a water whirlpool, where, when items are dropped into it they would circulate around with the flow and speed up as they moved towards the centre.

I later realised that there is a difference between an energy and water whirlpools in that when an object is dropped into water it immediately adopts the same speed as the water. With energy whirlpools it takes time to accelerate to the speed of the energy. At the Earth's surface I calculated the flow rate of gravitational energy to be 11.2km/sec. i.e. equal to its escape velocity. If you jumped out of a plane at 1km and immediately took on the speed of the energy then you would hit the ground in less than 0.1sec. I have shown in book 2 how and why the acceleration is only 9.8m/sec. This rate depends upon the actual energy density of the continuum and this varies from a minimum at the outermost edge of a whirlpool to a maximum at its centre.

Because the Sun draws in continuum energy, it causes the density to decrease slightly the nearer you approach it. Thus, the inverse square rule for Newton's gravity has to be modified slightly to allow for the increased density with distance. This would account for the mysterious slowing down of the 2 Pioneer spacecraft.

I hope this explains the lack of mathematics in book 1 of FET. However, the time is now ripe for a much more detailed analysis. I am still very busy trying to get book 2 ready before the end of this year but if anyone wants to attempt to calculate how stars might behave in a galaxy sized whirlpool you have my blessing and appreciation.

I have been receiving many questions privately as well as from this excellent site and will try to give a weekly update on the most frequently asked aspects of FET.

Jimbo
Originally posted in introdcution

[Jimbo]

Reply to comments posted in introduction, my error!

I should be more careful with my choice of words because when I said that particles arer still being created I meant that they are still being formed by the compression of existing energy. I should have made it clear that it is new whirlpools are that are continually being created.

Quantum sized whirlpools compress energy within them until the energy density at the centre reaches a limit (solid) where it can no longer be compressed. The whirlpool continues to draw in energy and deposit it upon the core at a constant rate because the spin rate stabilises once it has a solid centre. The accumulation of solid energy is a very slow process because the difference in density between continuum energy and solid energy is around 10^39 in our region of the universe.

My first estimate of the time taken to form a neutron particle was at least 10^12 years. When I realised that it was this inflow of energy to grow and maintain neutrons I was able to calculate a formation time of 10^19 years.

Neutron particles are homogeneous and consist entirely of solid energy. There is no hidden structure within them. I am not sure of their shape but they could possibly be disc shaped rather than spherical. Protons have a core of solid energy that is slightly smaller than the neutron and this is because when a neutron reaches a critical size, a shell from the outermost region wants to break away due to the centrifugal force becoming larger than the centripetal force. As it starts to break away it becomes fluidised but the remaining core now sucks it back down. This is a continuous process so that a neutron becomes a proton with an attachment of fluid energy, the electron. Note that a mature neutron and a proton/electron pair have exactly the same amount of energy. This will explain why in book 2 I believe that the notion of mass is not only superfluous it is misleading.

FET requires only three forces, all of which are the flow of fluid energy. The first is the centripetal force and is the most powerful when we consider galaxy size whirlpools. Once a whirlpool has started it is self maintaining. Just as a skater spins faster when arms and legs are folded in, a whirlpool spins faster as it draws in more energy. Or you could consider the whirlpool to conserve momentum and start out at a particular size and then shrink. Thus the centripetal force is due to the spiral flow of energy in 2 dimensions and explains why galaxies probably start out as flat spirals. I also believe that the spiral tracks observed in particle accelerator experiments are examples of quantum whirlpools in operation. These have a very short lifetime because the density of the local continuum energy density will be almost equal to that of solid energy.

The inflow of energy by one quantum whirlpool is what gives rise to gravity. For one particle it is almost negligible but for 10^87 particles (the Sun) then the inflow of continuum energy adds up to the escape velocity of the body. Because the quantum whirlpools will be randomly oriented, the inflow of continuum energy will be from all three dimensions.

Thus gravity is really no more than the conversion of the 2-dimensional centripetal force of quantum whirlpools into their combined strength in 3 dimensions.

The electromagnetic force is related to the rate of flow of the fluid energy in an electron around its proton. This flow is 10^39 times that of the flow of continuum energy onto a core once it has reached its critical size. The flow of electron energy around one core can combine with that around another core to produce a single flow around both cores. This is why 2 hydrogen atoms combine to form 1 hydrogen molecule and why it is much stronger than the gravitational force.

One reason why I think neutrons and protons are disc shaped is because photons are disc shaped. Photons are composed only of fluid energy and because they can have any energy density between that of solid energy and the continuum they are very flexible. They roll along and therefore generate their own centripetal force that prevents them from rapidly expanding back into continuum energy.

Their ability to be compressed and expanded allows them to pass through glass. In book 2 I show that a visible photon that is around 1000 times larger than a typical atom flows between and around regions of higher energy density in the solid. Hence the path taken by a photon is longer than the direct path across the thickness of the glass. Hence photons appear to slow down in dense mediums but actually they are just taking a longer path length.
Note that they are not being absorbed at any time in their transit.

I now have to go but will return tomorrow if possible.

Jimbo

[Profpat]

[quote=Jimbo;55358 .....................

One reason why I think neutrons and protons are disc shaped is because photons are disc shaped. Photons are composed only of fluid energy and because they can have any energy density between that of solid energy and the continuum they are very flexible. They roll along and therefore generate their own centripetal force that prevents them from rapidly expanding back into continuum energy.

Their ability to be compressed and expanded allows them to pass through glass. In book 2 I show that a visible photon that is around 1000 times larger than a typical atom flows between and around regions of higher energy density in the solid. Hence the path taken by a photon is longer than the direct path across the thickness of the glass. Hence photons appear to slow down in dense mediums but actually they are just taking a longer path length.
Note that they are not being absorbed at any time in their transit.

I now have to go but will return tomorrow if possible.

Jimbo
[/quote]

Hi Jim;

Actually a photon wave packet probably looks more like this than just a disc:



A photon is a 2 dimensional transverse wave that has Length, Width, and Height. Ergo the particle effect, yet it is a wave.

Best to you,

Pat

[Jimbo]

Pat

I love your diagram of a photon. I have asked many people to describe a single wave photon but no one has ever been able to.

However, can you explain how, and why it is that when an atom emits a packet of energy it comes out with this shape?

An FET photon naturally adopts a disc shape because it consists of the outermost shell of a core of solid energy. It also moves at light speed because because the shell of the core is moving at this speed due to the core spinning at 10^23 rps and its size of 10^-15m. This is the simplest possible shape for any packet of energy and is in keeping with FET explaining everything in the simplest way with the minimum number of substances and laws.

Can you also explain what forces are shaping and keeping the wave in its original form?

FET photons are spinning due to their rolling action which generates a centripetal force that keeps them disc shaped. Furthermore, an FET photon is tied to its source or to another photon if the two are produced simultaneously by a string of solid energy. This unwinding of the string accounts for the exact rate of loss of energy as seen in the red shift of starlight.

As this loss of energy diminishes the energy the centripetal force is also diminished and therefore the photon expands at exactly the same rate as a red shifted photon. Can you explain how a wave expands apart from saying that the space it occupies is expanding?

Book 2 of FET is devoted almost entirely to the interactions of photons with matter. I explain there, for example, how a photon that passes through a hole smaller than itself has less energy in its emerging part and therefore starts to expand due to the reduced centripetal force. But once the rest of the photon is dragged through the hole the energy is restored to its original value and the photon shrinks again.

It is this expansion of a photon after squeezing through a small hole that allows it to pass through two small holes separated by a distance that could be a thousand times greater than the original diameter of the photon.

The two parts of the photon that have passed through these two small holes can then interact with each other to form the famous banded interference pattern. Note that if the distance between the first hole and the two subsequent holes is greater than a certain distance then the photon will have shrunk back to its original size and cannot therefore pass through the 2 holes and therefore can not give rise to an interference pattern.

In the Michelson/Morley experiment it was found that the pattern did indeed disappear if the separation distance was greater than 3m, i.e. the photon is restored to its original size in around 10^-8 secs.

Can you explain how a wave photon can expand and contract in such a way as to explain the disappearance of the interference pattern in this MM experiment?

Inteference patterns can give rise to more than 10 bands, which means that a single photon has to have at least 10 crests and troughs in order to explain this number of bands.

In book 2 I also explain how photons are scattered in the recognised forms (Rayleigh, Mie, Raman, Thomson, Compton) and how the scattering depends upon the physical size of the photon in relation to the size of the scattering medium. Polarisation is also extremely simple according to an FET photon, even the circumstances where current theories fail miserably. All of the interactions between photons and matter particles are physical effects that have a traceable route for every bit of energy and that do not rely upon probabilities.

One other thing that puzzles me in the wave theory of light is what is it that is waving? Is a photon a packet of energy or is it analogous to a sound wave that propagates by moving particles already existing in the aether? If so, why do they not spread out as sound waves do?

Also, how can wave photons be entangled with each other?

The string of solid energy that links 2 FET photons is incompressible and therefore any movement at one end of the string is immediately transmitted to the other end, even if the two are light years apart.

Experiments with entangled photons have almost reached the point where photons can be captured and held long enough for information to be transmitted between them. When this has been perfected then it will not seem impossible for photons from space to be captured and monitored for information that may be transmitted along them. After all, the idea of sending waves into space and waiting years for a reply is so ludicrous that no intelligent alien is going to attempt it.

I look forward to having FET proved to be the real TOE by aliens congratulating us on achieving a true scientific explanation of the universe.

Jimbo