[David]

Hi John-Erik, No, the Aether is not a reference frame. The Aether is a sea of quantum rotating magnetic fields; thus the Aether is a medium. A reference frame is a perception as seen from an individual point of view within an array of many points of views.

Yes, we agree the Aether is fluid (as a field) and capable of having states of motion which change from point to point.

I quantify subatomic particles (electrons, protons, etc) as quantum Aether units with absorbed strings of mass (the string of mass is dark matter). A subatomic particle therefore is equal in structure to the quantum structure of space, except that it contains that string of mass. By containing the string of mass, I show how the string of mass develops magnetic charge due to its behavior within the quantum Aether unit. I show how the Aether electrostatic dipole contributes a particular electrostatic charge to the subatomic particle. I show how the Aether is the source of gravity, electrostatic force, and magnetic force. I further show that the weak interaction is the proportion of the electrostatic force acting on the magnetic force. I also show how space (Aether) can physically interact with matter.

1. A ray or beam is a macro structure of light, or any long, thin material that begins at a point and extends to another point or as a specific vector. These macro structures obtain their properties from their quantum structures, and the macro structures develop emergent qualities not present in the quantum structures.

2. and 3. According to Dayton Miller, tilting the reference arm in the Michelson Morley experiment had no effect on the data results. The smaller than expected Aether drift measurement was present regardless of the tilt.

https://sota.aetherwizard.com/images/Documents/MillerScience1926.pdf

4. The Sagnac effect occurs within the space surrounding a rotating object and within the space density gradient nearer the surface of the rotating object. A certain amount of space (Aether) rotates with the Earth, which affects the apparent motion of photons much in the same way as the space density gradient around the Sun creates a circular deflection angle (defraction). The very small “inaccuracy” of the calculated circular deflection angle around the Sun is likely due to the Sagnac effect caused by the Sun’s rotation.

It is my view that the Pioneer anomaly is caused by a space density gradient at the outer edges of the Solar system due to the distributed mass of the Oort cloud and the electrostatic headwind of the out-gassing solar wind. However, this is not a calculation that I have made, and I may change my view about the Pioneer anomaly when better data emerges.

[David]

Hi Jerry, I have seen basically the same ideas presented over the years by countless individuals, including myself. The stories I see posted about the Michelson Morley experiment cover a wide range of opinions, perceptions, and plot variations that sound more and more like legend, and myth.

In the end, I have found that the only version of the Michelson Morley experiment that is worth knowing is the version told by the one man who actually did the experiments and worked with the original experimenters; Dayton Miller wrote the article below in Science magazine.

https://sota.aetherwizard.com/images/Documents/MillerScience1926.pdf

Everyone else is a spectator with an opinion (which of course we are entitled to be). Before we make judgments about what the experiment means, we need to be familiar with the history, method, and data of the experiment as told by Dayton Miller.

As for finding our position in the Universe by examining the Aether, it is like a fish trying to determine its location in the ocean by examining water molecules. The fish will ultimately discover that a fluid is incapable of storing information about location due to its fluidity. And if the fish thinks like a Relativity theorist, then the fish will likely conclude that the ocean does not exist.

We must not make the mistake of ignoring the absolute structure of the quantum of water when looking at an ocean; and neither should we make the mistake of ignoring the quantum of space when looking at the ocean of space.

The Aether is absolutely quantifiable at the quantum level. Even the mechanics of the fluidity of the Aether is quantifiable in electrodynamics theory and fluid mechanics (I was reading Maxwell’s paper last night and I am writing a commentary on it). Why would we dismiss the Aether just because the Aether is not frozen like a block of ice?

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  David. Reason: Typo

[David]

The speed of light (I call it the speed of photons because light does not move), is accurate due to lunar laser ranging that has been performed over a forty year period.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4959131/

We can also see the speed of light in certain constants, such as the gravitational constant, and Planck’s constant.

Using Planck’s constant, and knowing to a high degree of accuracy the mass of the electron and the Compton wavelength, the speed of photons is equal to:

c=h/(m.e*lambda_C)

For quantum physics purposes, I prefer a system of units where the unit of mass is the mass of the electron, the unit of length is the Compton wavelength, and a unit of frequency replaces the unit of time. The unit of frequency would be c/lambda_C.

Also, instead of using the elementary charge for the unit of charge, I prefer to use a unit of magnetic charge for the unit of charge. The magnetic charge for the electron is equal to the angular momentum of the electron times the conductance of free space. The relationship of elementary charge to magnetic charge is:

e^2 = 8pi alpha e.emax^2

where

e.emax^2 = h * Cd

Cd is the conductance of space and h is Planck’s constant. Alpha is the fine structure constant of the electron.

By expressing all charge as charge squared the units work much better for physics calculations.

[David]

I have written a post using the latex commands in the article above, but it did not work. I see you are using WordPress as your platform. I use WordPress, too, and found that the plugin called QuickLaTeX is easy to install and works well.

[David]

I have just read your paper. We agree that there is a misunderstanding about the nature of light, however, I explain this misunderstanding in this way:

Electrons in atoms jump their orbitals to produce true quantum photons. All quantum photons are identical and are quantified as:

phtn = h * c

where h is Planck’s constant and represents the angular momentum of an electron. The Aether then carries this ripple of angular momentum, and it is Aether that imparts the speed c.

Atoms do not fire off single photons and imbue the photons with inherent frequency. The frequency component of light is caused when each atomic isotope produces photons in succession at unique frequencies according to the type of isotope. The unique atomic frequencies are the basis of the science of spectroscopy. So light is actually the production of photons at frequencies:

ligt = phtn * freq

Light is not moving; the photons are moving. Light is the condition of space being filled up with a steady stream of photons, all of which are moving at the speed of c, and which some photons are produced at different rates than other photons based on the isotopes involved.

The true photons spread out according to the Compton function such that the amount of angular momentum from any given photon is spread out over a great space, and only a tiny amount of that angular momentum reaches a valence position in another atom. The amount of angular momentum that arrives at another atom is proportional to the distance between the emitter and receiver, which is the basis for the inverse square law of irradiance.

Receiver atoms must fill an empty valence position with a specific quantity of energy equal to the mass of the electron times the speed of light squared. We can call this quantum of energy “enrg” and quantify the light it receives as:

enrg = m.e * c^2

enrg = ligt / c

which is the same thing as:

enrg = angm * freq

where angm is the portion of angular momentum arriving at the valence position from any original photon, and freq is the frequency at which those original photons were produced.

In mainstream physics, there is a mythology of a photon being equal to Planck’s constant times inherent frequency:

E=hf

Photons are not emitted as energy packets; photons are received as a collection of angular momentum to fill a valence position. The observation of filled valence positions has led to the incorrect concept that a photon must have also been emitted as an energy packet, which it was not.

So when physicists are talking about light, they really have no clue what they are talking about since they have quantified light incorrectly. Light does not move; light is the condition of photons moving and spreading out. Light is just space (Aether) filled with photons.

Aether can move! Aether flows and swirls as a fluid. The movement of space contributes to our perception of photon behavior. The physical reality of space must be recognized to properly understand the physics of light.

[David]

Hi John, “Light speed is constant, but in relation to what? Something must define that constant and something must be called ether. Therefore, the same ether must also be defining the reference for speed.”

Yes, I fully agree.

“Light is a behavior of the ether. So, we must use the wave model for light and our problem is that we do not understand the wave model and therefore we use something better understood – namely particles. This is the wave-paticle confusion.”

Please explain to me why waves and particles are the only two choices we have for understanding Aether and light? Is it possible that the confusion is caused by limiting our understanding to just these two choices?

“Another confusion is space-ether confusion. Space is the container of the ether.”

It sounds like you have a theory that separates space from Aether. Could you explain it? Or are you making a postulate that space is the container of Aether?

[David]

Hi Kasim, I hope you do not mind me joining in your discussion with Ken.

“…they say it’s the rate at which time passes that’s affected by motion; and I say that it’s the rate at which clocks run that’s affected by motion because all clocks, moving and stationary, are presented at the same time. This implies that time hasn’t changed; they’re at the same time coordinates.”

Yes, time dilation theorists are saying it is the rate which time passes that is affected by motion, and you are correct to say that it cannot be so since everything is taking place in the same temporal coordinates (present moment). However, the atomic clocks being used in these experiments have been tested to an accuracy on the order of losing one second in a billion years. The clocks are extremely accurate and do not lose any time during the span of the experiment.

I think it is helpful to back up a bit more in understanding the nature of this problem more accurately. The time dilation interpretation came about when Albert Einstein added his hypothetical postulates to the Lorentz transformations. Before Einstein, the relative motions were seen as Aether drift, rather than time drift. The Lorentz transformations were developed by Henrick Lorentz and Henri Poincare to explain the smaller than expected Aether drift measured by Michelson and Morley. Aether is another word for “space.”

When two objects move relative to each other, the space compresses or stretches (as opposed to the time dilating). The compression and stretching of space due to relative motion is what Special Relativity deals with. General Relativity deals with a static effect of stretching and compressed space.

In the case of General Relativity, something in physical matter is causing space to be compressed, and the result is that the space surrounding physical matter is being stretched. The General Relativity equations for the circular deflection angle around massive objects, and the equation for the precession of the perigee of objects in orbit around massive objects, give us a clue as to the cause. In these equations, only half the mass of a massive object is considered in the General Relativity effects. Half the mass of massive objects of normal matter is comprised of neutrons, and the other half of the mass is comprised of electron and protons.

Neutrons decay into electrons and protons, which suggests that a neutron is a bound electron and proton; only the binding takes place when the space of the electron folds over on top of the space of the proton. Thus the neutron has a space density that is twice the space density of a single electron and a single proton. Since neutrons are pinching the fabric of space, the surrounding space is stretched inward toward the neutrons, which creates a space density gradient around massive objects.

When muons pass from space down to the surface of the Earth, they are traveling through a space density gradient. Thus at higher altitudes, muons have more activity per unit length than they do at lower altitudes. When clocks move through denser space, the clock still accurately ticks through each quantum of space. With more space density, the clocks will make more ticks at higher altitudes per Earth orbit than they will at lower altitudes. The clocks still tick at the correct rate, but there is more space density to tick through. This is not time dilation.

Since General Relativity theory unequivocally describes the space density gradient, the Special Relativity postulates of Albert Einstein must be wrong. It is just as Poincare and Lorentz originally understood; there is an Aether, and the Aether has an absolute quantum nature, but the sum of all the Aether units produces a fluid of space with pressure and density gradients. Einstein’s postulates have led everyone astray for over 100 years.

[David]

Hi Jerry, “With the comparison of photons and light to water molecules and a river. The river itself consists of water molecules. So why couldn’t light consist of photons?”

It is my view that light is exactly that, a river of photons; except that the river flows simultaneously through the same space from multiple sources.

“If light (or photons) is caused by electrons that jump their orbitals, it would seem that electrons would continually and steadily have to maintain their jump of orbitals…”

Yes, exactly. We should understand this to be true simply because of the validity of spectroscopy. With spectroscopy we can identify a substance by its light emission lines. This could only be true if the substance was continually producing a stream of true quantum photons at regular (and unique) intervals.

I enjoy listening to other people’s ideas. Even if in the end I do not agree that the idea actually describes physics, I am often impressed with some of the creative insights that people develop.

“I have questions as to if and how the velocity of light is constant.”

After considering these questions, I had come to the conclusion that yes, the velocity of photons (not light) is constant. In the pursuit of my understanding of time and the present moment, I actually found strong evidence for the mechanics of why this is true. Space itself appears to be vibrating between forward time and backward time, which creates the present moment. Half spin subatomic particles see only the forward direction of time, which gives physical matter the appearance of advancing in the forward direction of time within the present moment. The speed of photons is the advancement of angular momentum from one quantum unit of space to the next quantum unit of space in the forward time direction, and at the quantum frequency. That is my view.

“I’ve often thought that light doesn’t travel, that it is possibly instantaneous. or that we see the light that travels towards us.”

I agree that light does not travel. Light is the condition of photons traveling through space. I have spent hours just staring across a brightly lit room and contemplating the nature of the light I see. The most striking observation I have made is that we cannot see light. Our brain interprets electrical signals in our eyes, which have varying energy intensities as light fills valence positions in the eyes’ atoms, and the resulting charge accumulation is carried off as current flows through our neurons.

This is why my house is heated with lights and computer monitors, rather than a gas furnace or electrical heater. Not only do I reap the benefits of the waste heat from various appliances, but my house is filled with light, which invigorates the flora and fauna that dwells within my home. I have many different types of light bulbs to get a wide range of frequencies.

Please do share your ideas and bring them to my attention. I don’t always see a new post when it is created in this forum.

[David]

Hi Ken, “I have not seen the “physical physics” equations in your Aether Theory. I need to see the equations you have that predict time dilation or length contraction that you believe will yield more reliable predictions than at least one of the three SRT equations listed above.”

As I stated before, I agree with the mathematics of both Lorentz’s quantification of the fluid Aether, and also with Albert Einstein’s mathematics which are Lorentz’s quantification of the fluid Aether reinterpreted to mean “time dilation” rather than “Aether drift.” The equations presented involve sound mathematics for the purposes for which those equations were developed.

The issue is in understanding the purpose of the equations. All of the equations you listed describe perceptions of observers, and not physical events. There are no physical physics involved in Lorentz’s equations, just perception physics. Each observer still sees normal physics in their local space from their own perspective (reference frame). Neither observer sees their own rods actually changing lengths or shifting into a different temporal reference frame.

Likewise, there are equations for the Doppler effect that work. There are equations for curved mirrors that work. Optical equations explain why telescopes can make objects far away appear closer, even though the object never actually moves closer. There are equations for all kinds of perceptual situations that work. However, perception is not physical.

There is no need for equations of motion when discussing the physical structure of the physical Universe. Equations of motion are only needed for understanding perception.

The problem with Einstein’s Special Relativity theory is that people actually believe there is a physical timeline where physical matter physically exists in a past moment, and also physically exists in a future moment, such that physical matter could move from one time frame to another time frame. There is no physical evidence for physical matter existing in any other temporal reference frame other than the present moment. Special Relativity theory is smoke and mirrors with good equations that explain how the smoke and mirrors appear to create the perceptions that they do.

The reason we can have these perceptual illusions is because space is discrete at the quantum level, and space is fluid at the macro level. General Relativity theory accurately describes the space density gradient and how Aether appears from the “outside.” The outside of the Aether is explained with Riemann curvature mathematics, while the inside of the Aether remains accurate in Euclidean coordinates. The inside and outside of the Aether functions the same as in fluid dynamics.

I have given you the Aether equation that improves upon the General Relativity equations (which you have not commented on). If you would like to understand more about how the Aether is structured, you can read the second half of this page:

https://sota.aetherwizard.com/aether

The Aether unit is an actual unit (and constant) of physics, and it is more important than Planck’s constant. The Aether is a quantum rotating magnetic field with all the properties that create the physical space of the physical Universe. Furthermore, the Aether is the quantum unit of space that also serves as the container for subatomic particles. Matter can act on space, and space can act on matter because space and matter are essentially the same thing.

To learn how the perceptual mathematics of Lorentz, Doppler, Fresnel, Einstein, and many other perceptual equations work, we must first understand how space is structured and how space contains matter. People also need to understand how forward linear time arises within the present moment; the physical manifestation of time is not the mental linear timeline of a past and future that people think it is.

The equations and units for the Aether Physics Model are all laid out in the book at sota.aetherwizard.com. The APM equations are far simpler than what physicists of today expect because physicists have become heavily immersed in the complex and nested concepts of calculus, and have abandoned dimensional analysis for the most part.

[David]

“If you guys have models, I challenge you to use them to make a prediction, just one, that is different from that of a specific function (i.e a predictive equation) of SRT or GRT. Please provide the SRT or GRT predictive equation as well as your model’s predictive equation for the same relativistic effect.

If you would make just one such prediction, I will spend some time to consider the valadity and reliability of your models.”

I pointed out that Albert Einstein’s work was not different from Lorentz’s Aether work, and I presented a General Relativity equation that made a unique contribution to physics. You agreed that Albert Einstein did not add anything new to Lorentz’s Aether theory, which I appreciate. However, instead of spending some time on the validity and reliability of my circular deflection angle equation, you replied with a claim of having your own model. I am interested in your work if you would provide me a link to it, but I expect you will also honor your word in looking into my work as stated.

Please do not be unnecessarily brief in your replies, as I truly wish to understand your ideas.

[David]

Hi Ken, It is not my view that the mathematics of Special Relativity theory or General Relativity theory are wrong. In fact, I strongly support the math in both theories. What I question is the interpretation of the mathematics in terms of physics.

I could make the same request of Special Relativity theory that you made of us. I challenge you to show how Special Relativity theory makes a different prediction from the Lorentz transformations. Albert Einstein added nothing the the fluid Aether theory of Lorentz other than his postulates. The postulates of Albert Einstein simply changed the interpretation of the Lorentz transformations from an Aether drift to an interpretation of time drift (time dilation).

At least Lorentz developed his Aether theory based on the physical experiments of Michelson and Morley. Albert Einstein produced an hypothetical postulate involving non-physical reference frames based on thought experiments. Where are the physical physics in Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity theory?

As for General Relativity theory, Albert Einstein used Riemann curvature mathematics to calculate a long and complex approximation for the circular deflection angle of photons passing near the Sun. The Riemann curvature mathematics describes a space density gradient. Einstein then took the result calculated in Riemann coordinates for the fabric of space and reinterpreted that result in Euclidean and Minkowski coordinates to incorrectly ascribe the Riemann results in terms of gravity and time dilation. That is not proper physics. One cannot calculate a solution in Riemann coordinates and then claim the result can be seen in terms of a different coordinate system. If you can produce the circular deflection angle around the Sun in Minkowski coordinates or Euclidean coordinates, I would be interested in studying the equations.

However, it can’t be done because the Riemann coordinates are describing the outside structure of space, whereas gravity takes place through the inside structure of space. One cannot directly calculate a Minkowski solution for the circular deflection angle because there is no physical timeline such that physical matter exists in a past and future time frame relative to a time-flowing present moment.

The question of the Relativity theories is not the accuracy of the math; the question is whether the math is being interpreted in terms of real world physics. If you would like to see my rendition of the circular deflection angle equation, which is calculated based on a “matter equals Aether” tensor equation, you can see it in equation 15 on this page:

https://sota.aetherwizard.com/17-the-relativity-theories#gravity_theories

The whole of General Relativity theory can be expressed in Newtonian type physics equations; complex calculus versions are optional.

You will find a unique revelation on the above Relativity Theories page in the meaning of “radians.” I show that radians is actually an Aether-related unit with the units removed. Radians are the numerical portion of the unit of “curl.”

[David]

Hi Jerry. Thank you for the opportunity to share my personal views.

I accept the mainstream established concept of photon production, which states that an electron jumps its orbital and transfers angular momentum to the surrounding space. This sounds very plausible to me.

I see photons are to light as water molecules are to a river. Water molecules are finite particles which flow; a river is the state of flowing water molecules. If we look at a map of a river, the river is almost always in the same location even though the water molecules are constantly flowing.

Similarly, photons are always being emitted and received. Light, however, tends to remain constant. For example, the Sun is always “lit” even though the photons have continued to leave the Sun for billions of years.

To me, light is the condition of photons moving through space; light is not the thing that moves through space.

As for the unit systems, the current metrics fail due to a flaw in the understanding of the charge dimension. In the cgs system of units, the charge dimensions are inherently distributed (charge squared). When charge was added as its own dimension by the French during the development of the MKS system, charge was given only a single dimension. This was a significant oversight.

Although it may have worked giving charge just a single dimension if all units were treated equally, five units in the cgs units remained in their distributed charge notation, while all the other units were converted to single charge notation. The five units that remain expressed in distributed charge notation are conductance, inductance, capacitance, permeability, and permittivity.

This creates problems, such as in the impedance equation. In the impedance equation, the resistance of the wire is notated in single dimension charge, whereas the reactance is calculated from distributed charge units (capacitance and inductance) and should be expressed as magnetic flux, rather than resistance. In the impedance equation, the magnetic flux is added to the resistance, which is not mathematically allowed.

As a “fix” to this problem, the imaginary number was introduced. The imaginary number allows for a distributed quantity to be expressed as a single dimension quantity. The imaginary number in the impedance equation is the proof that the charge dimensions are flawed in the MKS and SI systems of units.

With regard to the definition of the meter, the rounded off bit of the speed of light is due to Einstein’s second postulate; that the speed of photons is the same in all reference frames. If the speed of photons were the same in all reference frames, then the speed of light could not be absolute in the local space of the photon. Different observers going different velocities are forced to imagine that a given photon passing through a given local space can have varying metrics to its velocity.

Although the speed of photons remains the same, the length and time metrics can (and must) stretch and shrink relative to each other in order to maintain the constant speed of c. So if you accept the speed of c is absolute in all reference frames, you cannot then also have the length and time metrics also being absolute in all reference frames, and so the length and time metrics have to be approximated. To give a precise length metric in Relativistic physics is meaningless as long as the second postulate remains inviolate.

My view on the electron size is that the electron mass is absolute. The surface area of the electron is also absolute. The frequency, electrostatic charge, and the magnetic charge are also absolute for the electron. The electron is a true quantum particle.

The key here is that it is the surface area of the electron that is absolute, and not the radii of the electron. The electron is known to have two radii; the Classical radius and the Bohr radius. When you apply these radii as the minor and major radius of a toroid, you get the Compton wavelength squared as seen on this page:

https://sota.aetherwizard.com/angular-momentum#ElectronRadii

In actual electron mechanics, the radii are the relaxed state of the electron radii, but the radii can change when force is applied. Think of squishing a water balloon. As long as the volume of the water balloon remains fixed, you can change the length dimensions of the overall shape.

As I mentioned previously, the Compton wavelength appears in the physical constants as the quantum length of the physical Universe.

[David]

“They countered that tests have shown that on short-haul and long-haul flights, there was a residual time dilation which was cumulative i.e. the longer the flight, the greater was the discrepancy which was still there even after taking out the effects of illusions and gravitational time dilation. I had to accept the findings as I couldn’t come up with an alternative explanation.”

The highly accurate clocks used on long haul flights move through a space density gradient as they increase in altitude. The longer a clock is moving through a higher altitude, the more its clock will be off compared to a clock on the ground.

This is not time dilation; it is a space density gradient.

The Riemann mathematics used by General Relativity theory describes a space density gradient. What a space density gradient means is that space near the surface of the Earth is less dense than space at higher altitudes. It is this space density gradient that causes the circular deflection angle for photons passing near massive objects.

When a clock travels through less dense space, it requires fewer ticks to complete an orbit around the Earth. When a clock travels through more dense space, there are more spaces per circumference, and thus as the clock moves through each space it must tick accordingly.

Think of a flexible flat screen television. You play a Star Wars movie and you can watch the laser blasts move back and forth across the screen. If you bend the screen, the laser blasts do not fly out into the room, they stay in the newly curved surface.

Now imagine a television screen that has three dimensional pixels. You play a holographic movie in these three dimensions of pixels and you can stretch or compress the pixels as you want, but the movie still plays as it always did. This is the space density gradient of General Relativity theory. General Relativity theory is calculating the space density gradient of the pixels in which our physical world plays out. Space can curve, but we still will perceive straight lines in our world in spite of the space curvature.

However, since our physical Universe is not a pre-recorded movie, but is a real time production of physical processes, when we are near the surface of the Earth there are fewer pixels of space for us to move through. When we move to higher altitudes, the pixels become more dense. It literally takes longer to move a foot at higher altitudes than it takes to move a foot at lower altitudes because there are more pixels in the higher altitude foot than there are at the lower altitude foot.

Hence a clock moving through greater space density will have more opportunities to tick within a foot than a clock moving through a lesser space density.

There is no time dilation involved simply because there is no such thing as physical matter in a physical timeline. There is no physical matter in a past reference frame such that physical matter from the present would have a place to temporally dilate into. The only reference frame for physical matter is the present moment. The whole of General Relativity is all about the space density gradient. And this is easily proved by Karl Schwarzschild’s solution, which is based on a maximum length density limit for physical existence.

Not only is General Relativity not a time dilation theory, but General Relativity theory also has nothing to do with gravity. It is only coincidental that the space density gradient is proportional to the gravitational force. The space density gradient is calculated based on only half the mass of a massive physical object, whereas gravity is always calculated based on the total mass of the physical objects involved.

[David]

With regard to magnetism, yes, I noticed your concept of twist and I agree with this. And yes, I am interested in understanding more about your concept of the twist as this is something I have not yet modeled, although I have it quantified. As I see it, the twist in the electron magnetic charge is represented by the fine structure constant of the electron.

I have a magnetic force law equation for the magnetic charge of the subatomic particles that is consistent with the Coulomb electrostatic force law and the Newton gravitational force law. I have succeeded in mathematically unifying all the fundamental forces using simple Newtonian type equations.

A difference between our ideas is that my magnetic charge is a magnetic dipole that is inherent to the Aa. Also, I see the subatomic particles as identical in size to the Aether unit, but with an addition of a string of mass. It is the string of mass within the Aether unit that both gives the subatomic particle its angular momentum and also its magnetic charge. The magnetic charge of a subatomic particle is directly proportional to its mass, and the same mass to magnetic charge ratio is consistent across all subatomic particles and the Aether units.

Your pancake graphic is nearly identical to a graphic I use to illustrate the geometry of c^2, which is a pulse.

It seems like your general concept of magnetism, and the ideas of twist within the magnetism, will be useful to explain the physics of magnetism.

Also, we are in agreement with our concept of mass in matter / antimatter. I see the mass in antimatter as being influenced by a temporal torque. Hence, antimatter has mass spinning to a right spin torque while normal matter has mass spinning to a left spin torque. The key to my understanding is that the torque applies to the temporal dimensions and not to the spatial dimensions. In fact, the right/left spin torque is a temporal dimension of itself, which works together with the other temporal dimension of forward time / backward time oscillation.

The forward time / backward time frequency dimension results in the experience of the present moment. Physical matter, being half spin, spins only in the forward time direction within the present moment. This is why physical matter changes in the forward time direction and why it never leaves the present moment.

The two temporal dimensions of frequency (as opposed to time) work in harmony with two spatial dimensions within the Aether unit, and it is the combination of the temporal and spatial mechanics which generates the double sphere geometry we both anticipate.

[David]

It is too bad the board does not yet function properly with regard to latex. I was able to download your book and spend some time perusing it. I am definitely interested in reading more about your insights into the lattice.

My work has mainly been centered around quantifying the structure of your Aa, which I call the Aether unit (A.u). If the picture comes through correctly, it should be at the bottom of this post. Although my work does not agree with yours as to the exact structure of the Aa, your work does make much progress in explaining the lattice of the Aas.

In my work, I show how the Aether units do have a temporal metronome, and how this metronome translates through physical matter as time.

For me, the most important aspect of your work is in understanding how these double sphere structures interact with each other to produce the natural lattice of space. I have recently worked out the precise mathematics for how physical matter causes the Aether lattice to “curve” but I would like to develop equations (or learn equations that already exist) that can generate an accurate graphical map for the mechanics of the lattice. Your work is already very close to what I seek to achieve.

In my work, anyone can calculate nearly all the known physics quantities using real equations. The equations I use base on the quantum structure of space as seen at the bottom of this post. All the details supporting the below image are in my book, Secrets of the Aether, which is available at sota.aetherwizard.com. I am in the process of updating the website to the fourth edition of the book, so there are still some formatting and editing that need to be done, but the main presentation of the work is now available.

My work also fixes many errors of mainstream physics. Mainstream physics is built on the MKS and SI systems of units, which are fundamentally broken. I have provided a new system of Quantum Measurements Units (QMU). Mainstream physics also only recognizes electrostatic charge; my work quantifies a second type of charge called magnetic charge.

The geometrical constant of the Aether unit below is [latex]16\pi^{2}[\latex]. This is equal to the spherical constant squared ([latex]{4\pi}^{2}[/latex]). If the latex gets fixed, I can present the information much more clearly. We definitely have much to learn from each other.