Neutrinos, Geology, Gravity and the Aether

According to this article, a project is being planned where neutrinos will be used to map out the interior structure of our planet. The result will be something like an x-ray image, with dense and less dense areas mapped out with precision. Much more detailed than what is possible with seismic data alone.

Neutrinos move in straight lines

Unlike seismic waves, neutrinos move in straight lines that do not deflect unless they hit something. They don't bend or curve off when going from one density to another. Every neutrino will either go straight through the planet or hit something. The result is digital in its precision. Areas with high density will show up dark, and low density areas will show up light.

Method and setup

What is required for a complete image is a neutrino emitter on one side of our planet, and a detector on the other. By moving the emitter and detector around, we get an increasingly detailed picture, until we get a complete 3D image. The more we move the setup around, the more precise the image.

What's expected

The expected result is a confirmation of the consensus model, with a super-dense core and several layers of decreasing density. But this model suffers from several weaknesses, including a circular argument where assumed densities and layers are incorporated in the interpretation of seismic data, thus producing confirmation of the assumptions.

But with neutrino imaging, this circular logic will be broken. So, it will be hard to deny any deviation from the consensus model.

What we might find

The non-consensus view is that our planet is hollow, and that its crust is its densest part. That's the opposite of what consensus science holds. So, it will be remarkable if this turns out to be true. Not least because this will upset our understanding of gravity. Because currently held dogma on gravity requires a super-dense core. So, if we discover a hollow rather than a super-dense core, we will require a new model.

What everybody expects to find

As for the two blobs mentioned in the article, everybody expects to have them confirmed. Conventional thinking explain them as a result of a collision with another planet in the early days of Earth's formation. Alternatively, they came about as a consequence of how our planet was formed. However, a mere confirmation of their existence wont tell us why they exist.

What the abundance of neutrinos tells us

According to the article, a 100 trillion detectable neutrinos pass through us every second. So, we can safely assume that the total number is much higher.

This gives us further reasons to believe that neutrinos are extremely abundant. So abundant, in fact, that we can talk about an aether consisting of a mix of neutrinos and low energy photons, the other abundant radiation that we find everywhere around us.

Hollow Earth model

The Nuclear Strong Force Indicates that Particles have Texture

The nuclear strong force behaves in a way consistent with the model of particles presented on this website. Because the force is zero at a distance of about 0.8 fm and at its strongest attraction at a distance of about 1 fm, after which it drops off quickly to zero.

Detailed model of particle quanta

Keeping in mind that the force here described is acting between two particle quanta, we can propose the following detailed model of a single particle quantum:

• It has a radius of about 0.4 fm.
• It has texture with typical hair length of 0.2 fm.
• There are no hairs longer than about 1 fm.

Particle quantum interaction

So, if two such particles interact, we get the following:

• At a distance less than 0.8 fm from center to center, we get strong repulsion due to the particles themselves.
• At a distance of 1 fm we get strong attraction due to a maximum number of hairs being stretched to their limits.
• At a distance of more than 2.8 fm, the force disappears due to a lack of any hairs remaining in contact between the particles.

Conclusion

This is exactly what has been measured, as can be seen from this graph:

Strong force vs. distance

By Bdushaw - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Mass as Aether Interaction

Mass is a central concept in physics. Yet, when people go looking for it by smashing matter into bits, they find nothing but neutral or charged fragments.

It's almost as if mass is hiding somewhere. But where could that be?

Conventional physics

In conventional physics, space is but an empty void. So, the only place to look for mass is inside matter. But decades of looking has revealed nothing.

Some may say that the Higgs Boson is where mass is hiding. But the evidence for this is far from conclusive. So, mass is conventionally thought of as something fundamental to matter. Wherever there is matter, there is mass.

No further explanation is given.

Aether physics

However, in aether physics, space is not an empty void.

Space has many properties. Among other things, it interacts constantly with matter. So, space is taken into consideration in all matters related to kinetics.

From objective analysis we find that there are three distinct types of acceleration. All of them adhering to Newton's formulas, where mass is fundamental.

These accelerations are:

• Linear due to directly applied force
• Angular due to tethering
• Linear due to applied field forces

As we will see, all of these accelerations involve the aether in different ways. Yet, there's a common denominator that makes them identical for purposes of calculations, and this common denominator is what we refer to as mass.

But there is no mass as a thing of its own in the real world. In aether physics, mass is but an abstraction derived from the fact that aether interacts with matter.

To see how this works, we need to look closer at how matter interacts with the aether.

Linear acceleration due to directly applied force

Of the three accelerations mentioned above, acceleration due to directly applied force is the only one that adds energy to matter.

Angular acceleration and acceleration due to field forces don't add energy.

This is because only direct force requires particles at the subatomic to change in size, and hence energy, in order to accelerate. So, adding energy is a necessary part of this type of acceleration.

This is done by the help of the aether, which is limited by the speed of light in order to perform this task. So, we get a time delay between applied force and increase in energy.

This time delay is experienced by us as a resistance to change. Also known as inertia.

So, when we make calculations related to inertial mass, we are in fact dealing with the time delay caused by the aether's inability to act instantaneously.

Angular acceleration

When a moving object is tethered to a central point, either by a string, or by the use of a field force, it undergoes acceleration. But no energy is added or subtracted to the object.

Yet, there's a measurable force involved, and it equates to what we would have to apply in order to achieve linear acceleration of the same magnitude.

So, there's something fundamental going on that connects linear acceleration directly to angular acceleration.

This too must be due to the aether's inability to act instantaneously. But with no energy being added, the mechanism involved must be different.

We cannot use the analogy of a pressure wave in the aether.

But we can nevertheless explain this in terms of matter interacting with the aether. Because all moving particles come with an accompanying pilot wave.

In the case of angular acceleration, there is no pressure wave. But there is a pilot wave, and it too is limited by the speed of light.

The constant need to change the direction of pilot waves, and influence associated particles accordingly, produces the exact same delay as pressure waves.

We can therefore use the concept of inertial mass to make calculations related to both linear and angular acceleration.

Linear acceleration due to applied field forces

In aether physics, the three field forces, magnetism, the electric force, and gravity, have one common denominator. They all operate through manipulation of the aether.

Repelling forces come about when aether particles are drawn into the field between acting bodies, and attracting forces come about when aether particles are expelled.

But this produces no pressure wave. Nor is there any pilot wave involved. Because space itself is manipulated.

So, when an object moves freely under the influence of a field force it does so with its reference frame moving with it. As far as the object is concerned, it remains in a state of rest during its entire flight. It isn't before the object stops moving at the end of its journey that energy is released.

This makes acceleration due to field forces distinctly different from acceleration due to directly applied force, or angular acceleration.

But, we end up with the appearance of inertia nevertheless. Because field forces result in accelerations that are directly proportional to the volume of subatomic particles involved.

This volume is independent of how densely packed the particles are. So, there's a direct relationship between acceleration due to applied field forces and other types of acceleration. Because they too are directly related to the number of particles involved.

Conclusion

Mass isn't something inherent to matter alone. There's no mass inside particles. Rather, mass is an artifact of the aether interacting with matter.

However, as long as scientists deny the existence of an aether, people will keep looking into matter in search of some elusive mass particle that simply isn't there.

By Force.png: Penubagderivative work: Arnaud Ramey (talk) - Force.png and File:Compound_pulley.svg, Public Domain, Link

Field Forces and the Aether

In aether physics, the three field forces; magnetism, the electric force and gravity; all operate through manipulation of the aether.

Zero-point particles are pumped into or out of the field between active objects, which causes these objects to move.

Particles as bundles of strings

But inertial matter is largely transparent to aether particles. The only thing opaque about electrons and protons is the strings from which they are made.

So, when the aether acts on particles of inertial matter, it is only interacting with strings. Because every other characteristic of matter is invisible to it.

The surface area, shape, density, chemistry, or any other higher level property of matter is of no importance.

As far as acceleration goes, the only thing that matters to field forces is the total volume of strings involved. 

Field force acceleration

This means that field forces act on volumes of strings rather than surface areas, or other characteristics of particles.

So, the acceleration produced by a field force is proportional to the volume of aether flux, divided by the total volume of strings involved:

• a ∝ af/sv, where 'a' is field force acceleration, 'af' is aether flux, and 'sv' is string volume.

This can be tested against what we know about field forces to see if it holds up against scrutiny.

Tests

In the case of magnetism, we know that a magnet of a certain strength will accelerate at a corresponding rate, dependent only on how massive it is. The more massive the magnet, the more sluggish its acceleration relative to a less massive magnet of the same strength.

This fits well with our formula, because the more massive magnet has more particles in it, and therefore a larger volume of strings.

The same goes for the electric force. It too accelerates objects depending on aether flux and string volume.

As for gravity, there are no inactive particles involved. Because any addition of strings, in the form of inertial matter, result in a corresponding change in aether flux. So, acceleration due to Earth's gravity is the same for all objects, regardless of shape and density.

Inertia is not part of the equation

Note that there is no mention of inertia in all of this.

This is important because inertia is defined by us as a time delay related to energy transfers.

But for free falling objects under the influence of gravity, magnetism or the electric force, there's no energy transfer. So, inertia, as it is defined by us, cannot be part of our equation.

Mass is not part of the equation either

Similarly for mass, which we view as a mere abstraction, we make no mention of it.

So, once again, we've been able to describe phenomena related to matter and acceleration with no mention of mass.

Conclusion

The three field forces; magnetism, the electric force and gravity; can be explained without any mention of mass.

This goes hand in hand with our definitions of inertia and matter, which are also without any mention of mass.

We remain therefore confident that mass is but an abstraction, useful in calculations, but with no direct existence in the real world.

By Frank Eugene Austin - image had initials 'F.E.A.' in lower left corner. - Downloaded August 25, 2008 from Frank Eugene Austen (1916) Examples in Magnetism, 2nd Ed., Hanover, N.H., USA, p.31, plate 2 on Google Books, Public Domain, Link

A Theory of Matter that does not Include the Concept of Mass

The concepts of inertial and gravitational mass are central to conventional thinking related to matter. Especially the principle of equivalence, which states that the two types of mass are the same.

However, our alternative theory of matter doesn't include mass as anything but an abstraction. Instead, of mass, we have particles with positive and negative charge. Yet, our theory yields identical results to conventional ones.

To see why this is so, we need to compare conventional theory to our alternative.

Inertia

Inertia is conventionally defined as resistance to changes in velocity. No further explanation is given.

However, in our alternative theory, we have an explanation.

Inertia is due to the fact that it takes time to transfer energy from one object to another. So, we end up with a mismatch between the pressure we apply and any consequent change in motion. The delay comes across as resistance.

Energy

Energy is another property that's poorly defined in conventional theory. It's simply a property related to matter and particles like photons.

However, in our alternative theory, energy is defined as surface area at the subatomic. Energetic particles are larger than less energetic particles of the same kind. So, when energy is added to an object, the total surface area of its subatomic particles increases.

With more surface area to cover in order to transfer energy, the time required to do so goes up, and hence we get an increase in inertia.

Gravity

Gravity is conventionally thought of as a force proportional to the masses involved. So, when inertia increases due to more matter, gravity increases to the exact same degree. The acceleration due to gravity is therefore identical for all objects, no matter their size or shape.

However, this too lacks any good explanation.

But in our alternative theory, gravity is due to an imbalance in the electric force. Repulsion between equally charged particles is a tiny bit less strong than attraction between opposite charged particles.

For massive objects, this minuscule imbalance adds up to a measurable force that's always attracting, and it is this force that we call gravity.

This force is proportional to the number of charged particles involved at the subatomic. So, we end up with the same conclusion as the one derived from conventional thinking. The more matter we have, the more gravity we get.

Proportionalities

So, in our theory, we have inertia as something proportional to energy.

Adding energy to an object results in more inertia.

However, gravity is unaffected by energy. Because it's related only to the total number of charged particles involved. The number of charged particles we have at the subatomic remains the same regardless of how much energy we have.

So, when energy is added to an object, inertia increases while gravity remains the same.

Inertia and free falling objects

From this, it appears that we must conclude that energetic objects fall at a slower rate than less energetic objects of the same kind. Because the energetic objects have more inertia, so it's harder for gravity to pull on them.

However, this ignores the fact that no energy is transferred to or from objects in free fall. Inertia, as it is defined in our theory, has nothing to do with free falling objects. It's only when these objects hit the ground that energy is transferred to other objects.

So, gravity is an acceleration more than it is a force. Hence, the principle of equivalence, proposed by Einstein.

The aether

Einstein concluded in his work that space-time must be curved, and that this curvature is proportional to the masses involved.

This is equivalent to our alternative proposal, which involves an aether.

The idea is that gravity is due to aether escaping from in between gravitational objects. This produces a low pressure of sorts that draws objects together.

But this low pressure is not produced by the elusive entity that we call mass. It depends instead on the number of charged particles involved at the subatomic.

With no change in charge when energy is added to matter, the acceleration due to the aether remains unchanged.

So, here again, we see that our model produces results identical to what we get with models based on mass.

Conclusion

There's no need to conjure up an elusive concept called mass in order to explain inertia and gravity. Because a theory centered around charges and the size of particles at the subatomic gives the exact same results.

Scale for measuring weight

By M.Minderhoud - White Background by Amada44, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Polarized Light from Stars and Galaxies

Magnetic fields have polarizing effects on light, and it is through this effect that we know that all stars, including our Sun, have strong magnetic fields.

These fields are generally explained as a feature of electric currents flowing in and out of stars. The overall flow passes through the rotational poles of these objects, and thus we end up with a simplified model of stars having magnetic north and a south poles that align with their rotation, and that we know to periodically flip through pole reversals.

All of this can be explained in terms of current flows. However, there's a secondary polarization that doesn't align with rotation, and this is harder to explain because it doesn't seem to be directly related to any current flow. This is pointed out in this YouTube lecture by Jean de Clemont.

The secondary polarization aligns with the axis of the galaxies that the stars are in, but the magnetic field of galaxies are too weak to explain the relatively strong spike in observed polarization of their stars. Something else appears to be at play, and Jean de Clemont suggests that the secondary polarization is not due to an electric current flow, but rather the flow of a dense and highly fluid aether.

The aether flows with the galaxy, and produces in this way its own polarizing effect, separate from the flow of electrons.

This idea aligns well with the aether proposed in my book, where space itself is an aether that latches onto all sorts of reference frames, ranging from entire galaxies down to stars, planets and even trees and buildings.

The Faraday effect, light getting polarized by a magnetic field

Black Holes and Unicorns

Dividing a number by zero yields what's known as a mathematical singularity. The result of such a division is not infinite, but undefined. In the context of the real world, the result doesn't exist.

Any theoretical formula about the real world will therefore have to omit any singularities that may arise. One would have to put limits on the proposed formula. Consequently, honest scientists should always look out for singularities in their formulas and point out that their formulas break down at certain values.

Singularities are like red flags. They inform us of boundary conditions. In the context of physics, singularities indicate that there are limits to how dense, hot or otherwise extreme something can become before some fundamental mechanism kicks in to rectify things. That fundamental property is in my opinion the aether which makes space quantized rather than linear.

This means that things do not change in a linear manner when things get extreme. For instance, the electric force becomes suddenly weaker when things get extremely close together. The same goes for gravity. Extremely dense objects stop behaving as expected from linear formulas.

However, all of this is conveniently ignored when it comes to astrophysics.

Black holes, also known as gravitational singularities, have properties that are infinite. They are infinitely dense and infinitely hot. They are in other words physical impossibilities, yet they are presented to us as real.

A reason for this may be that it's fun to talk about impossible things. Just like unicorns, we can all form opinions about them. Some even claim to have seen them, even taken pictures of them. Yet, everyone knows deep down that they don't exist.

A picture of an astronomical unicorn, or something else entirely

By Event Horizon Telescope - https://www.eso.org/public/images/eso1907a/ (image link) The highest-quality image (7416x4320 pixels, TIF, 16-bit, 180 Mb), ESO Article, ESO TIF, CC BY 4.0, Link

Redshift Quantization

Back in year 2000, Halton Arp held this lecture on his career as an astronomer, and his findings related to the redshift of Quasars. Of the many things he discovered and recorded back in the 1970s, two things stand out. One was the fact that some Quasars are visibly in front of objects that should be closer to us based on redshift calculations. The other thing he noted was that redshifts aren't uniformly distributed. Some redshifts are more common than others. I.e. redshifts are quantized phenomena.

These findings flew in the face of accepted theory at the time, which held that redshift is uniformly distributed and directly linked to speeds. These assumptions formed in turn the basis for the Big Bang theory, as well as many assumptions related to Black Holes. If Halton Arp's observations were to be accepted as facts, all of this would have to be reconsidered.

This was too much for many theorists to accept, so they made Halton Arp a persona non grata. Instead of considering the evidence collected by Mr. Arp, they ignored it. But the cat was out of the bag and evidence in support of Halton Arp's findings are piling up.

I was reminded of this by one of my readers (cilo) who made a comment about this on my previous post. According to him, the James Webb Space Telescope has collected more data in support of Halton Arp's findings. It appears that the phenomenon of redshift quantization is becoming increasingly difficult to deny.

This means that there's something profound about the universe that current theory isn't able to explain. If we stick to the idea that redshift is purely speed related, we get that some speeds are more common than other speeds. In the context of an expanding universe, we get some distances less likely to contain objects than other distances. The universe around us becomes layered, and this is not what current theory stipulates.

Alternatively, we'll have to accept that not all redshifts are speed related, in which case we have to consider alternative hypothesises of which there are two: One is the tired light hypothesis that suggests that light becomes redder over time due to loss of energy. The other hypothesis, suggested by Halton Arp, is that matter grows more massive over time. Halton Arp called this intrinsic redshift because it says something about the age of the objects observed rather than their distance. I.e. redshifts are intrinsic to objects without regards to distances or speeds.

It should be noted that we don't have to choose one redshift or another. They may all exist together in which case we get a complex mix of factors rather than the clean sterility of conventional astrophysics where only a few variables play a role.

Having established that speed related redshifts can only be quantized if speed itself is quantized, or if matter in an expanding universe is distributed in layers around us, we can go on to consider the tired light hypothesis.

For light to tire without scatter, we require some highly fluid low energy substance to fill the universe, and since no such substance is currently considered to exist in conventional theory, tired light has been dismissed as an impossibility. But if we allow for an aether of zero-point particles we get that light may fade in energy without being scattered. We also get that the light will fade in discrete steps due to the particle nature of the aether. However, these steps are likely to be too small to be the cause of redshift quantization.

The tired light hypothesis is also unable to explain Halton Arp's observation that redshift seems to be independent of distance. Only Halton Arp's intrinsic redshift can explain this part of the puzzle. Objects become redder over time due to mass condensing onto them. But why would mass condensation happen in discrete steps sufficiently large to be noticed by astronomers?

I've proposed in my physics that mass condensation is due to a hypothesized ability of protons to absorb photons. If this is a straight forward process, a proton will grow in mass by a photon every now and again. However, this would show up as a fairly uniform process with many tiny steps. It wouldn't be the relatively large steps that have been observed, so it appears that mass condensation must be something more complex. It may be that photons build up on the surface of protons without making them noticeable larger before some threshold is reached where the photons rearrange themselves into the fabric of the protons. But here, I'm only speculating.

There's plenty of room for speculation at this point, and I'm not going to pretend I have an answer to what may be going on. However, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. Redshift isn't as straight forward a subject as many have made it out to be. Observations don't fit theory, and this gap between observations and theory has been around for some fifty years.

Halton Arp

By The original uploader was Reuben at English Wikipedia. - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Sreejithk2000 using CommonsHelper., CC BY 2.5, Link

Casimir Effect as Polarization

The Casimir effect is a phenomenon in which two neutral surfaces attract or repel each other when in extremely close contact. The effect has been used as evidence for the existence of a zero-point field because the magnitude of the attracting force can be calculated from quantum field formulas. However, there are other ways to calculate this force that doesn't require quantum mechanics.

This YouTube video, pointed out to me by "Escaped Serf" on Facebook, explains how the Casimir effect may be nothing more complicated than polarization of dipoles.

Polarization in this context means rearrangement of charge, which occurs naturally wherever dipoles are free to move in response to nearby charges. Polarization explains why charged surfaces always attract neutral surfaces.

Charged surfaces attracting neutral surfaces

Polarization is the mechanism behind the phenomenon of capacitance. It allows charge surfaces separated by a dielectric to store electric energy. This may in turn explain why gravity is unevenly distributed across the planet.

Uncharged and charged capacitor

Polarization also explains why dipoles align into structures where positive ends hook up to negative ends. This is how chemical bindings are produced, and the phenomenon of sticky light can also be understood in terms of dipoles.

Dipoles hooking up to make a simple structure

Dipoles exist everywhere because atoms are dipoles. There are also good reasons to suspect that photons are dipoles.

The dielectric photon

This in turn explains the phenomenon of electron-positron pair production.

Electron-positron pair production from photon

It also explains the Faraday effect in which light is polarized by magnetism.

Photons polarized by a magnet

With so many phenomena either clearly or probably due to polarization of dipoles and dielectrics, it's no surprise that Hendrik Casimir's first thought was to explain his short range attracting force in these terms.

Casimir initially believed that the force he had discovered was related to Van der Waals force. However, he found the solution unsatisfactory. The calculated force didn't exactly match what he was measuring, and the calculations were complicated. Casimir was therefore delighted to find a simpler way to calculate his force by using equations found in quantum field theory.

However, the Casimir effect will sometimes produce a repelling force, and this has to be quietly ignored for the quantum field theory explanation to hold. Van der Waals force, on the other hand, is sometimes attracting and sometimes repelling for reasons that are easily explained in terms of our current understanding of the atom.

Atomic nucleus surrounded by ten electron clouds = Neon

The electron clouds surrounding atomic nuclei repel electron clouds of other atoms in such a way that only very close contact can lead to attraction. If such close contact isn't achieved, or cannot be achieved, there will be no attraction.

All of this can be explained by Van der Waals force. But there may nevertheless be something additional going on. If we allow for an aether of zero-point particles, as suggested in my physics, we can propose situations where these particles get stuck between surfaces, thus preventing Van der Waals force to fully kick in.

Zero-point particles surrounding an electron

This would lead to real world measurements that deviate somewhat from those predicted by Van der Waals force alone, which is exactly what Hendrik Casimir discovered and frustrated him into looking for alternative explanations.

Electric Conditions in and around the Atomic Nucleus

The proton-electron model of the atomic nucleus, used in my work on physics, appears at first sight to be lacking a mechanism to keep nuclei from falling apart due to repelling electric forces between protons. There appears to be a need for a nuclear strong force to overcome the electric force presumed to exist in and around atomic nuclei.

However, the aether model of the electric force has the electric force reduced to zero where no aether exists. The force is weak in the immediate vicinity of charged particles. It's only at some distance from atomic nuclei that the electric force becomes strong, and behaving according to Coulomb's law.

The nuclear strong force can be replace by the short range weak force that I model as texture in my work.

When we pair this with Morton Spears' simple model of the proton, it becomes even more apparent that there's no need for anything beyond this short range weak force. We need only consider the electric conditions in and around the atomic nucleus to see why this is so.

Morton Spears models the proton as an assembly of 2177 positive and negative particle quanta. 1089 are positive and 1088 are negative. The difference of one positive charge constitutes less than 0.05% of the total number of charged particles. This means that from up close, the proton appears to be nearly neutral. There's close to equal distribution of positive and negative quanta. We have to move away from the proton in order for the overall charge of plus 1 to be registered.

This is in contrast to the electron, which is an assembly of 1 positive and 2 negative charges. An electron attached to a proton will appear from up close as a highly charged negative point on a vast and largely neutral surface.

Relative sizes of neutrino, photon, electron and proton

This means that the electron can perform two different functions inside the atomic nucleus. The electron can stick to protons due to the short range effect of texture, and draw protons towards it due to the electric force.

All atomic nuclei can thus be explained.

Atomic nuclei of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, lithium and beryllium

Deuterium is a simple assembly in which two protons are held together by a single electron. The mechanism here is the short range force I model as texture.

Helium is an assembly of two deuterium nuclei pulled together by the electric force. The electron in each deuterium nucleus draws on the protons of their adjacent deuterium nucleus.

Larger nuclei are thus created through a combination of texture and electric force.

Note that two deuterium nuclei will repel each other from a distance. They have to get close enough for the electric force of the protons to fade in order to form helium atoms. This is the challenge scientists have wrestled with for decades in their quest for controlled nuclear fusion.

Note also that we have an explanation for why tritium is a rare and radioactive particle while helium-3 is a stable isotope of helium. The extra electron in the tritium assembly is ejected due to electric repulsion between electrons, and we're left with the stable configuration of a deuterium nucleus and a proton drawn onto it by the single remaining electron.

We also have an explanation for why the tetraneutron is extremely short lived. Electrons eject other electrons from nuclear assemblies if there are too many of them. There's strong electric repulsion between electrons inside the nucleus, and at the same time little electric repulsion between protons.

Morton Spears model of the proton makes it possible to imagine two protons sticking together without an electron. Negative patches on one proton connects with positive patches on the other, and visa versa. However, this never happens. The electric repulsion between protons is weak, but not as weak as the short range force I model as texture.

On a final note, we can point out that both the nuclear strong force and the nuclear weak force are explained by this model. They are both manifestations of particle texture.

The Tetraneutron

The tetraneutron is a hypothetical stable cluster of four neutrons. However, such clusters are not supported by current models of nuclear forces, so recent news of its existence is a big deal. It means that something is not quite right about the current models.

I'm no expert in nuclear physics, and my particle theory doesn't have much to say on the matter, so I'm not going to weigh in heavily on this particular particle. However, there are nevertheless some interesting aspects related to this latest discovery that I feel competent enough to comment on.

The tetraneutron is extremely unstable, with a lifetime of just 3x10-22 seconds. This compares to a single free neutron which has a typical lifespan of about 15 minutes, so putting neutrons together in clusters is not adding stability. But why is that so? How is it that atomic nuclei with overall positive charges don't blow apart, but neutral structures like the free neutron and the tetraneutron do?

The conventional answer is that there are special short range forces inside the nucleus that prevent atomic nuclei from falling apart, and that these same forces prevent neutrons from bundling into neutral structures. But this explanation is now challenged due to the short lived, but nevertheless real, tetraneutrons.

An alternative explanation presented in my work is that the electric force does not exist where there's no aether between the particles involved. Atomic nuclei are extremely dense, and can therefore be held together with electrons as glue. There's also no need for protons and electrons to be of equal number to perform this function. Each electron has two negative particle quanta, so a good mix for relatively small atoms is two protons for every electron. Larger nuclei will require more electrons to keep things together.

Translated into the language of conventional physics, we get small nuclei with roughly equal numbers of protons and neutrons, and larger nuclei with somewhat more neutrons than protons. However, my preferred model of the atomic nucleus doesn't treat neutrons as fundamental particles. Neutrons are modelled as protons with an electron attached to them.

Atomic nuclei are bundles of protons and electrons held together by the natural affinity that exists between them due to texture. Instead of short ranged forces, we have a mechanism similar to Velcro.

With little electric repulsion between particles that make up atomic nuclei, the relatively weak Velcro-like affinity that exist between negative and positive particles is sufficient to keep things together. However, the larger a nucleus becomes, the more of a role plays the electric force. This is especially so between the electrons which are spread out relative to protons.

If there's too many electrons in a nucleus, an electron may be ejected by the repelling force of other electrons in the nucleus, and we get what's known as beta decay. This loss of an electron may cause the nucleus to fall apart for lack of "glue", and we have radioactive decay in the form of fission.

Seen in this light, tetraneutron decay is a form of beta decay. The structure blows apart due to strong repelling forces between electrons.

On a related note, we can only wonder at the notion of neutron stars, which are supposedly nothing but giant balls of neutrons held together by gravity. If a single neutron decays within 15 minutes, and a structure of four neutrons collapse within 3x10-22 seconds, how is it that neutron stars remain stable for millions of years?

Free neutron decay

Time Dilation Due to Gravity

According to general relativity, clocks slow down in the presence of massive bodies. This is known as time dilation due to gravity. The effect of gravity is in other words similar to the effect of high speeds. Both cause physical processes to slow down.

This is tested and confirmed with experiments, so we can't readily dismiss it. However, there's a puzzling aspect that needs an explanation. Mercury orbits the Sun faster than predicted by Newton.

Orbits are physical processes. Hence, a straight forward solution to the Mercury anomaly would be to have clocks go faster on Mercury than farther away from the Sun. This would make everything look correct for an observer on Mercury. But general relativity tells us that clocks on Mercury are moving slower than clocks on Earth due to Mercury's speed and proximity to the Sun. That's opposite of what a more straight forward explanation would suggest.

Time dilation isn't solving the Mercury anomaly. It's making things worse.

What solves the Mercury anomaly in general relativity is a gravity well that curves space and time around the Sun into a shape sufficiently steep to keep Mercury in place.

General relativity solves the Mercury anomaly and a range of other problems. But the price for this is a model where time is treated as a fourth dimension, and space is a thing that can be curved.

It seems to me that there must be a better solution. My physics predicts that particles of inertial matter become smaller in the presence of gravitational bodies. Physical processes on Mercury are therefore faster than on Earth.

Electron as clock on Earth and on Mercury

This solves the anomaly. But it goes contrary to measurements that confirm time dilation due to gravity.

Time Dilation Due to Velocity

All physical processes, including radioactive decay, slow down for bodies at high speeds. This phenomenon is known as time dilation, or to be exact, time dilation due to velocity.

The phenomenon has been confirmed in laboratories, so a theory of physics cannot be considered complete without an explanation for this.

Einstein explains the phenomenon in his theory of relativity. His explanation relies solely on geometry and the assumption that the speed of light is constant everywhere. It's an elegant solution, and his formula is simple:

observed time = local time/(1-v^2/c^2)^½

where observed time is what a stationary observer measures as he observes a physical process local to the moving body.

Measurements made in laboratories confirm Einstein's formula, so a competing theory will have to produce a formula that's either identical or sufficiently close to avoid being dismissed outright. However, this is no reason to shy away from such a task. It's merely a criteria to strive for in our search for alternatives.

There are plenty of smart people that have issues with Einstein's solutions. Miles Mathis is one such person. He has written extensively about this in his work. However, my project is not so much to disprove other people's work as it is an attempt to break the notion that there is no alternative to currently accepted dogma. I'll leave it to people like Miles Mathis to do the criticism. My focus remains on my theory as an example of an alternative.

When it comes to time dilation due to velocity, I boil it down to relative speeds of particles in the aether. Physical processes slow down when things speed up because the aether within speeding objects slows down in proportion to their velocity.

This yields the following equation for time dilation:

observed time = local time/(1-v/c)

This is close enough to Einstein's equation to allow it to stand for now. However, the discrepancy indicate that some detail is missing in the way I arrive at my equation. The issue may be that energy is distributed along the curved surface of particles, while velocity acts in a straight line. My derivation ignores this distinction. I treat both velocity and energy distribution as linear.

Photon traversing an electron

The curvature of particles may have to be incorporated into my derivation in order to get a better fit with measured results. However, that's a complicated procedure that I'll leave for later. I'll let my function stand for now.

Here's how I arrived at it from the premises of my theory:

---

Observed time = To
Local time = Tl
Speed of aether for the observer = c
Speed of moving body = v
Speed of local aether in moving body = c - v

Observed time and local time are related to the aether as follows:

To/Tl = c/(c-v)

From this, we get:

To = Tl c/(c-v)

To = Tl/(1-v/c)

How Matter Dies

Empty space will produce electrons and positrons if subjected to a sufficiently strong electrical force. This manifests itself as gamma-ray radiation which we find naturally occurring in lightning on Earth as well as various places in the universe. Centers of galaxies produce gamma-rays. Supernovas produce gamma-rays.

Gamma-rays come about when electrons and positrons meet. The gamma rays that we are observing can in other words be explained as a byproduct of space under electrical strain. Electric forces break apart photons in the aether. We get electron-positron pairs. When these pairs recombine we get gamma-rays.

Electron and positron combine to produce gamma-ray photon

However, not all positrons end up recombining with electrons. Some find their way into the production of protons.

I haven't explored the exact mechanism for this is in much detail. However, Paul Leader writes extensively on this. His work is well worth a read for anyone wanting to go deeper into the mechanisms that may be at play in this production process.

The proton is of enormous importance to the existence of all things material. As Paul Leader points out, no atoms and no chemistry would be possible without the proton. If electrons and positrons always reverted to gamma-rays, the universe would be nothing but empty space and radiation. Only the existence of protons allow for structures such as stars, planets and organisms of all kinds, including ourselves and nature as we know it.

Paul Leader and I have different views on many things. But there's much overlap too. Among the things we agree on is the idea that matter is condensed space. This is an idea that he expands on with many insightful observations.

One takeaway is that condensation of space into matter happens wherever we observe a lot of gamma-ray radiation. I'm incorrect in suggesting that gamma-rays are associated with the destruction of matter. Paul Leader suggests instead that matter eventually evaporates into background radiation.

Galaxies have active cores that emit a lot of gamma-rays. This is where matter is produced. It's at the far reaches of galaxies that matter evaporates, and it does so slowly and with little associated radiation.

This can be tied up to what we know about cosmic radiation, which is associated with the destruction of protons. When a proton is smashed to bits, it breaks into pions, Pions are short lived, with several different avenues of decay. Muons are often produced. They exist for longer than pions, but they too decay in less than a second. The end products are nothing but electrons, positrons, neutinos and photon radiation of various intensities.

This is how matter dies. Protons grow trough mass condensation to the point where they become unstable. They break into pions and muons which evaporate into space. What was created under intense electrical stress, and with much observable bravado, dies quietly in the remote and dark outer regions of galaxies.

ESO Centaurus

By ESO/WFI (Optical); MPIfR/ESO/APEX/A.Weiss et al. (Submillimetre); NASA/CXC/CfA/R.Kraft et al. (X-ray) - http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso0903a/, CC BY 4.0, Link

The Size of Muons and Protons

Morton Spears' calculations on the relative sizes of neutrons, protons and electrons leave us with two separate ways to describe the size of particles. We have inertial mass, and we have particle quanta. Particle quanta can in turn be assembled into electrons and positrons which are real world particles that our theory sees as fundamental to matter.

It should be noted that Morton Spears' calculations are less exact than he made them seem. He ignores binding energy. His numbers are based on a best fit. There's substantial room for error. However, we can nevertheless rely on his calculations. We can use them as our starting point, and refine them as we look more closely into the structure of protons.

From previous calculations, we can start off with the following values, rounded off purposely to fit our theory:

• A proton is 1833 times more massive than an electron
• A proton consists of 305 electrons and 306 positrons; a total of 611

Our theory doesn't operate with the 16+ different types of fundamental particles that the standard model uses. Instead, we have 2. They are the electron and the proton.  All other particles, with the exception of the neutrino, are assembles of electrons and positrons.

Particle fragments produced in collisions are subassemblies that can tell us something about the structures they came from, but they are not fundamental. From this, we can conclude that muons, created by smashing protons together, aren't fundamental particles. They are subassemblies.

High energy particles that enters Earth's atmosphere in the form of cosmic radiation are smashed to bits by atoms that they crash into. This produces a great number of muons that constantly bombard us. These particles are naturally occurring and easy to detect. A cloud chamber will reveal their existence.

However, these particles are no more fundamental to protons than fragments of a smashed brick wall are fundamental to brick walls. Fragments of wall contain bricks and mortar, which are fundamental, but the fragments are not fundamental themselves. Likewise, muons are made up of electrons and positrons that are fundamental to matter, but this doesn't make muons fundamental.

With this in mind, we can make some calculations related to the size of muons relative to protons. Wikipedia tells us that muons are roughly 207 times more massive than an electron. If we relate this number directly to the mass of the proton, we get 1833/207 = 8.86. However, muons are proton fragments. There's binding energy in the proton, which isn't in the fragments. It's therefore reasonable to round this number down to 8.

From this, we can conclude that 1 smashed proton should produce no more than 8 muons. If binding energy plays a big role in this, the number of muons produced from a proton may be lower. All we can say with confidence is that we should never see more than 8 muons produced from a single proton.

When we look closer at how muons are formed, we learn that they are not directly produced from protons. There's an intermediate stage. Protons are first broken into pions, and pions subsequently decay into muons.

Pions are 1.32 times as massive as a muon. With a muon roughly 207 times as massive as an electron, we get that the pion is about 273 times as massive as an electron. We can now repeat the above calculation to find how many pions we can get from a proton: 1833/273 = 6.71.

Given that 1 pion decays into 1 muon and 1 neutrino, we now know that protons cannot produce 8 muons. They can at most produce 6.

Pions and muons are fragments, originating from a proton. They are therefore unstable. They fall apart. However, they don't explode into a myriad of electrons and positrons, as we might suspect from our model. They fall apart in stages, with each stage producing a few fragments.

In the case of muons, they break into an electron or a positron, an electron neutrino and a muon neutrino. The neutrinos carry away a small part of the muon's mass while the electron or positron, as the case may be, carries away the majority of the muon's mass.

This doesn't add up with our theory because a proton consists of 305 electrons and 306 positrons. Distributed over 6 muons, we end up with about 51 electrons and 51 positrons for each muon. We must therefore propose some alternative explanation for what has been observed and measured trough experiments.

The alternative explanation is that we are in fact observing a myriad of electrons and positrons in the form of photon. Pion and muon decay is associated with a phenomenon know as bremsstrahlung. This is photon radiation that's taken out of the overall equation when considering how these particles decay. However, if we include this radiation as part of our equations, we'll likely end up with the 50 to 51 photons that we're missing in our calculations.

With this alternative interpretation of the phenomenon of bremsstrahlung, we're still able to defend our theory.

Electron-positron pair combining to form a photon

Nuclear Binding Energy

Energy is size at the subatomic. Specifically, it's the surface area of subatomic particles.

When a particle is stretched or otherwise deformed, its surface increases. This translates into an increase in energy. It also translates into an increase in inertia, because inertia is related to how much time it takes to traverse a particle's surface. Hence, there's a direct relationship between energy and inertial mass.

This explains why the inertial mass of a proton is about 3 times the inertial mass of its constituent parts. Every electron and positron that makes up a proton is stretched out in such a way that their surface areas become 3 times what they are in their un-stretched state. The inertial mass of a proton is therefore about 1800 times that of an electron even though it's constructed from about 600 electrons and positrons.

We also have an explanation for why the difference in inertial mass between a neutron and a proton is more than twice that of an electron, even though a neutron is made up of exactly one proton and one electron.

The electron is stretched out across the surface of its associated proton to such an extent that it attains more than double the surface area of its free state. Neutrinos trapped inside this configuration keeps the electron from laying flat across the proton. It protrudes like a small hill.

The inertial mass of a neutron is in this way greater than that of a free electron and a free proton. The binding energy locked up in the stretching of the electron accounts for the additional inertial mass.

When a sufficiently high energy particle disturbs this arrangement, the electron is released, and it escapes from the proton at high speed together with an anti-neutrino. The binding energy is thus converted into kinetic energy.

Free neutron decay

This mechanism also applies to other unstable nuclear structures, such as uranium and plutonium. Kinetic energy is released when binding energies are broken.

Relative Sizes of the Neutron, Proton and Electron

Onar Åm, who prompted me to embark on my journey into physics some seven years ago, has repeatedly criticized me for a lack of formulas and calculations in my work. I'm of the opinion that a model should be well hammered out before there's much need for detailed analysis, so I have largely ignored him.

However, I did make an analysis of my model to see if it conforms to Coulomb's law, and I had multiple situations in which my model yielded real world predictions. I was for instance delighted to learn about the Faraday Effect, which confirmed my conclusion that magnetism is a form of polarized light.

But there are other things that I haven't looked much into, which I probably should at this point, with my model now pinned down. My work is to a great extent based on Morton Spears’ particle quanta, and his calculations related to the relative sizes of the proton and neutron, to which I've added calculations for the size of the electron, positron and neutrino.

However, I never checked the validity of Morton Spears' numbers. I found this detail irrelevant for my overall thesis. My thinking was that my logic would apply to any set of numbers. The only difference in outcome would be the specific sizes of particles. But now that my model is pinned down, the time has come to look closer at Morton Spears' numbers to get the exact relative size of the four stable particles derived from my model.

In doing this, it should be noted that the proton has recently been measured to be smaller than what was thought in Morton Spears' time. The man must therefore be excused for any deviation between currently accepted numbers and numbers presented by him in his second book on gravity.

Searching the web for fresh numbers we find that the exact relative mass of the neutron, proton and electron are:

• Neutron = 1
• Proton = 0.99862349
• Electron = 0.00054386734

If we add the electron to the proton, we get 0.99916735734. That's less than a neutron by 0.00083264266. We're missing mass, equivalent to more than an electron. This is binding energy converted to kinetic energy when a free neutron decays into a proton, electron and anti-neutrino. We cannot therefore expect our relative numbers to be precise down to the last digit.

Free neutron decay

With this in mind, we can make our calculations:

• We get that the neutron is 1838.68 times more massive than an electron.
• We get that the proton is 1836.15 times more massive than an electron.
• We get that the difference between a neutron and proton is 2.54 units.

From this, we see that the electron comes out a little lighter than we would have liked, and the proton comes out a little on the heavy side. But the difference is negligible, especially in light of the uncertainties related to the exact mass of these things. We can therefore say that the electron consists of 3 units, the neutron consists of 1839 units and the proton consists of 1836 units.

This compares to Morton Spears' numbers as follows:

• MS' neutron = 2180 units; modern neutron = 1839 units; a difference of 341 units.
• MS' proton = 2177 units; modern proton = 1836 units; a difference of 341 units.
• MS' electron = 3 units; modern electron = 3 units; a difference of 0 units.

When we compare these particles in terms of elementary building blocks of 3 (the size of an electron), we get that:

• MS' neutron = 726 blocks and a rest of 2 units; modern neutron = 613 blocks and 0 rest.
• MS' proton = 725 blocks and a rest of 2 units; modern proton = 612 blocks and 0 rest.

Note that the size of an electron in terms of particle quanta does not translate directly into size in terms of mass. Current numbers suggest that a neutron is 1839 times more massive than an electron. Yet it's only made up of 613 times as many blocks. The reason for this discrepancy can be ascribed to binding energy which we have already seen to be a substantial part of the neutron's mass.

The discrepancy between Morton Spears' numbers and modern numbers are due to the fact that the proton is less massive than what was accepted as fact in Morton Spears' time.

However, there's a more serious problem at hand. The proton should consist of an odd number of building blocks, so as to account for its net charge of 1. We cannot have a proton made up of an even number of blocks. Hence, its size must be either more or less than 612 blocks. The same goes for the neutron which must consist of an even number of blocks in order to produce a net charge of 0.

Photographs, Motion and Time

I brought up the subject of time and motion with my ten year old son the other day. When asked if time would stop if all motion everywhere stopped, he replied that such a situation would be like a photograph.

There's no time in a photograph. A photograph may fade and crumble, but the image as such is static. The only reason it changes is that things keep on moving in the world we live in. Chemical processes continue. Photons zip across space. Everything is in motion. But should all of this stop, we too would become like a photograph. There would be no changes of any kind.

However, if so much as one thing started moving, the enchantment would be broken. Once there's motion, time starts up again. Things that aren't moving have merely stopped moving. They are not without time.

Some may object to this and say that time continues even when all things have stopped. However, this would require some sort of meta-verse clock that keeps on ticking when all things in the universe have stopped. Time would have to be something that exists outside of the universe, and to introduce such a concept is to introduce mysticism.

To illustrate this, let us for a moment consider time to be a meta-verse thing. Would we be able to detect a situation where everything stopped in the universe, but time continued to flow in the meta-verse?

The answer is no. Even if the universe was stopped for eons according to the meta-verse clock. Things would simply revert to normal once we let things start moving again. No-one in the universe would be able to detect the meta-verse glitch. It might as well not have happened. The existence or non-existence of a meta-verse clock is irrelevant to our perception of the universe. 

The only way we ever detect time is through motion. Hence, time is relative motion. There's no other way to detect it. We measure it relative to something else. We look for things that move at a steady pace, and we use these as clocks. Should all things stop so that there's no motion and no change of any kind, time ceases to exist, and it will only reappear once motion starts up again.

Clock

By Mettness, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link