From D.W.Sciama's The Physical Foundations of General Relativity(Anchor Books, 1969, page15), "In the inertial case we would want to say that inertial forces are exerted, not by space, but by other bodies. If this makes sense, then inertial forces are not fictitious after all, but are just as physical as any other forces. In consequence, Newton's laws of motion would hold in all frames of reference, and the problem of the preferred role of inertial frames would be solved." [My color emphasis}

From Albert Einstein addresss to University of Leyden, May 5th, 1920, Ether and the Theory of Relativity,"Generalising we must say this: There inay be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. In Minkowski's idiom this is expressed as follows: Not every extended conformation in the four-dimensional world can be regarded as composed of worldthreads. The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether" and Einstein concludes:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

This denial of the innate motion of ether, aka, carrier of electromagetic wave energy, as well as the rejection of rotation in the parameters for defining Special theory were done as a judgment call on the part of the investigator without proof of validity. Out of this oversight, Newton's laws (Einstein refers to as hypotheses) of Space and Time absolutism were inappropriately dismissed. As stated above, even Einstein knew that should ether, aka carrier, exist, Special theory would be on shaky ground if not altogether dismissed. Sciama states no less, Newton's laws of motion would hold in all frames of reference

Arthur Zajonc, author of Catching the Light: The Entwined History of Light and Mind, refers to the case of a blind man, given the ability to see, who is unable to successfully adapt to this new "vision" of the world and abandons use of his new source of awareness (sight) in favor of his older, more comfortable ways of understanding his world - without sight.

Zajonc (page 204) then notes how "scientists rely on a kind of seeing, a capacity for insight, that has been schooled through thoughtful experience." He states that if "the blind cannot be given sight by physical means alone, then how much more true must this lesson be for those organs of cognition that allow us to "see" natural laws....Nor should we confuse these capacities with analytic facility or logic, as valuable as these may be in their own right." He continues, noting, "With it (scientific insight) one (a scientist) sees that which others, staring at the same phenomena, may never see."

The above is a two-edged sword; while superb training and dedication can lead to great wisdom and discovery in each scientist's respective field, such indoctrination can also be blinding.

You may be tempted while reading to quit in the middle of this letter (it's only 7 typed pages). I would ask that if you read beyond this paragraph that you commit yourself to finish the entire letter (at least sometime in the near future), otherwise the essence of what I have to say may not be fully grasped. If nothing else, many of you may find my following comments quite humorous. It won't bother me if you laugh, it improves your immune defense systems which increases your ability to adapt and survive. I am a physician and for the most part, quite serious. The following will discuss some concepts of physics which modern physics has rejected in the past, and therefore can no longer "see", for although science enables the mind through one's various training and observations, it also has the power to "blind" by making one comfortable with how one has learned to "get around" in the modern world of science. I have read from many (including several of your works including Zajonc) and heard from a few of you that "ETHER IS DEAD," . If you define ether as a carrier of light energy, then physics, like Zajonc's blind person, has chosen, perhaps inadvertently, a path with which it is more comfortable, denying existence of ether much like Zajonc's blind man rejected his use of sight, being more comfortable with his "old" means of getting around.

I have been struggling with how to say this so no one gets upset. I think that may not be possible, but to paraphase David Bohm in John Horgan's The End of Science, "So your thought that this is the end could be the barrier to looking further." To "know" the ether is dead is a huge barrier to discovering that it does exist.

Physics missed the ether. There is no other way for me to say it. I think one would want to get on with it (reinstating the carrier of light) sooner than later, but that's not my call. Ok, so actually physics has found the ether, but certainly refuses to acknowledge it, preferring instead to call it vacuum, CDM, Zero Point Field, and Higgs fields (I am not sure about the last one, but the former three are basically ether.) You have an opportunity to review the information available and get on with the "fix" collectively or perhaps individually, or even not at all. My discovery of the ether was not an accident; it was a motivated effort to answer a question. I did not realize some of the ramifications that existence of ether would have in your respective fields until AFTER I knew, without a doubt, that a carrier of light existed. I had not heard of Michelson-Morley or of the dismissal of ether by Einstein until AFTER I knew the structure (as in carrier) existed. (I guess I may have heard this 25 or so yrs ago, but I hadn't remembered it.) Since all of you, through your training, are essentially indoctrinated with ether is dead, carrier of light nonexistence, I had a considerable advantage - I had no clue the ether was dead.

Zajonc concludes, "Once we have learned to see light, surely everything else will follow." So what are some of the ramifications of a carrier of light? Since the carrier spheres appear to spin at rotational velocity of c^2 rotations/second, there is plenty of energy for Professor Haisch's Zero Point Energy fields. Because carrier spheres occupy a specific VOLUME, only discrete positions and discrete change in positions can occur (i.e., quantum movements of energy are allowed and ONLY discrete movements of particles are allowed), therefore carrier of light is totally consistent with, but not dependent on, quantum energies. Because these carrier spheres can have any possible spin and oscillation (although some are preferred), ANY energy state is possible, with rotation velocity, direction, oscillation, and axial precession as variables of a rotating sphere, and as such, would meet the requirements of any super string theory of which Professor Kaku is highly supportive. (I think I may be in deep here, but either way, unless the string theory can adapt to the ether, it will not survive.) As carrier of light, the ether then becomes synonymous with CDM - cold dark matter of space, I don't have a problem with that, tell me yours. It would appear to have a more than enough particle density as required by Professor Wright to create a Compton Red Shift for Professor Kierein's steady state preference. But then as CDM, it also becomes the source of Professor Tyson's gravitational lensing, varying its spin velocity as a function of distance from the mass to which it is closest. And yes, spin velocity, which varies with distance from a slower rotating mass, i.e., our sun or a star, will appear to warp space.

These are just the preliminaries, I am sure any one of you could come up with MANY things I have no clue about or have yet to consider. Michelson-Morley doesn't show any ether on the surface of the earth because the atmosphere is the modified ether and moves with us. Air, elements, molecules, you and I are all ether composites. Even in a high linear wind, Michelson-Morley would show no shift because it eliminates any major shift by a DUAL Doppler elimination due to its 2 ARM - out and back - design. Light waves move differently from sound waves and, in part, due to Hugyens principle. I know most (all) of you will object to this, but light moves from sphere to sphere as rotational waves IN BOTH directions (polarized) at once, it does not move like sound as in linear displacement - this and velocity of movement are probably two of the few differences and more important differences between movement of waves as light vs. sound. The rotational movement in clockwise and counterclockwise direction at the same time is crucial because it dismisses Michelson-Morley as a valid experimental design for detection of an ether as carrier of light waves.

IF you haven't decided to do so yet, why should you still view my webpage? You can't compare my ether force image with Zajonc's Chladni plate (Catching the Light, page 129), unless you do so. So what's the point? The point is the ether energy fields are identical to the pattern shown on the Chladni plate, which are identical to the rotation of the hydrogen atom, of earth, Saturn, the solar system, and any basic energy-force movement. As you probably know, these are similar to vectors associated with orbital angular momentum of an electron in a p orbital (which I reviewed from Barrow, Physical Chemistry, page 272). They are similar energy vector systems. They all show a central solid core, surrounded by an atmosphere (magnetosphere), equatorial line of force = rings of Saturn, Van Allen radiation belts and moon orbital plane of earth, orbital planes of the planets around the sun, and 4 central power lines of the hydrogen atom (from Astronomy, Donald H. Menzel), and as indicated in the plate, spiral energy extended out from 45 degree points which coalesce at the poles for the NORTH and SOUTH magnetic forces of any rotating planet, or sphere.

And they demonstrate unification of force as various expressions of ANGULAR (rotational) momentum. Polar forces ARE strong / magnetism and are polarized by clockwise or counterclockwise spin as matter/antimatter - north/south. Equatorial forces ARE gravity / electric. ?/? pos/neg 45 degree forces are forces between polar/equator - strong/gravity - magnetic/electric = LIGHT

(Anyone wishing to argue or discuss the polarity ?/? of gravity with me is certainly invited to do so since I have my own opinion on the pos neg of gravity; yours may be better than mine.)

From ether structure, there is little (no) doubt what the unification force is. Professor Hawking stated in "A Brief History of Time", that the unification theory would be here before the turn of the century, that it would be simple, and that it would most likely be a group effort.

Ok, I agree, I didn't really unify the three forces mathematically. There's plenty left to be done. But the ether clearly shows where the forces exist, where the vectors are and how quantum fields of energy can be assigned - by discrete amount(occupation of volume) at a discrete position (matrix location as in x,y,z), and with a discrete spin velocity (w), with a discrete direction (clockwise/counterclockwise, spin +/-, pos/neg, north/south, matter/antimatter; they are basically the same with different nomenclature, a semantic nightmare).

There is no proof that ether does not exist. Michelson-Morley was designed for sound, not light, and will have a null result except for extremely high linear velocities of the ether as in approaching the speed of light. Sound waves move by compression due to 3-D (linear) volume displacement, but as viewed from ether theory, light is a spin volume (oscillation position) displacement in a rotational (360 deg) distribution (Huygens) WITHOUT 3-D (linear) volume displacement. The wave-shift result predicted by Michelson-Morley assumed a linear displacement of the carrier which is NOT true for light, which Lorentz had predicted as an intrinsic quality of the carrier. There is no proof that light energy is both wave and particle. Heisenberg has no proof that a vacuum is empty space. The particles' probabilities in his study were electrons, the wave measurements were waves, created by the movement of particles through a carrier of light, the ETHER, not empty space. Heisenberg assumed vacuums were empty space. So if ether exists, why can't we find it? By ether design, the answer is intrinsic, which is basically a restatement of Lorentz's position on ether, and appears to me to be at least five part but may be more.

  1. It spins very fast, on the order of 9e20 (~ c*2) rotations per second.
  2. It is very small, in the diameter range ~1.44e-11 which is very close to experimental results. (I could be off by some power which could easily be in the range of 5/2 pi^2 or so, so for the time being, I won't object (at least not yet) if you want to use physics' electron diameter of ~5.63e-13). In any case, still very small, hard to detect.
  3. Supersymmetry. It looks the same in all directions, equally spaced, all 45 degree angles. All of you knew this already.
  4. It has NO detectable mass as defined by Newton's/Faraday's laws. ALL spheres spin ~ at the same constant velocity, therefore, SINCE there is no change in velocity/induction, there is NO mass/field. A neutrino is a CDM out of position for a very short time until it is rapidly reassimilated to ether set speed and occupation of space without mass. Actually, one can take this one step further and state ALL subatomic particles (some as singlets, some as groups of spheres) are the result of being knocked out of position and are soon rapidly reset to ether speed and position parameters, and vanish.
  5. The 5th quality of the undetectability of the ether appears to me to be known in physics as a standing wave, where energy (mass) is held between the nodes, yet there is NO detectable energy (mass). However, matter (volume) is present, none the less. Space is absolute.

I would now like to discuss two additional prominent supporters of ether theory. We all know Newton would support it, except for the wave theory of light, of course. One of the two others to support ether theory is Lorentz, who as noted on Ned Wright's website links to Special Relativity, and I quote, "As far as this lecturer (Lorentz) is concerned, he finds a certain satisfaction in the older interpretation according to which the ether possesses at least some substantiality, space and time can be sharply separated, and simultaneity without further specification can be spoken of." As this page also notes, "Although he (Lorentz), clearly understood Einstein's papers, he did not ever seem to accept their conclusions." There is a message here.

The second prominent supporter is noted by Michio Kaku in his book, Beyond Einstein, page 47 "There was one physicist, however, who never accepted the quantum view of reality: Albert Einstein. ....First, he did not see probabilities as a valid foundation for an entire theory....."I am convinced God does not play dice." Second, Einstein believed that the quantum theory was incomplete.......Moreover, Einstein, a firm believer in causality, could not accept a nonobjective view of the universe." Professor Kaku does note that Einstein accepted the math of quantum.

To be somewhat fair, I should add that in Ned Wright's same weblink as noted above, Einstein was quoted as noting, "the introduction of a light-ether will prove to be superfluous since, according to the view to be developed here, neither will a space in absolute rest endowed with special properties be introduced nor will a velocity vector be associated with a point of empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." Quite a contradiction from the above position, I should say, Einstein supporting an objective universe, yet rejecting structure (ether). Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot. In any case, keep in mind, special theory was premised on DEVOID of ROTATION. This was not OK. The required VELOCITY vector is rotational and ALL forces and special properties can and do arise from it, including and especially electromagnetic force. Newton's revolving vessel strikes again - absolute motion.

Quantum refers to discrete movements or discrete change of position of PARTICLES. Space - Volume Relativity refers to variable change in positions as observed in WAVES. Time - Mass A carrier of light would define and clarify both. Time may warp, (Doppler) but Space is absolute. However, it appears clear to me that MATTER (VOLUME) and ENERGY (MASS/Linear or Rotational Vol displacement) are NOT interchangeable. MASS and Energy are interchangeable, MATTER and Energy are not!! This, I believe has huge implications for Big Bang. Make me an element or molecule more dense (density per nucleon) than Carbon-Diamond, and I will reconsider Big Bang, until then, Big Bang is dead and ether lives. (I am sorry, Professor Hawking, it doesn't look good for black holes either, there is a principle called the Pauli exclusion principle, and unless someone can show me how you can cram a baseball into a diamond, or better yet, put 2 diamonds of equal volume into the space (volume) of one diamond, there are no black holes of matter eating proportions as presently defined.)

I have been totally serious. Well, almost. If you failed to get this far without laughing, then I can feel good about boosting your immune system, however, I suggest you read it again. (later) In any case, the unification theory will not appear without the ether or if you prefer, a carrier of light waves. And when it does appear, it will be rotational force - that is why all the references I have read come back to "Newton's revolving vessel of water, by means of which he hoped to discover absolute motion." (Relativity and Man, V. Smilga, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Soviet Union, ?1950, page 123). But the key isn't in the sides of the vessel, it's in the CENTER.

Once one has been indoctrinated that the ether is dead, it is going to be very difficult to see that it isn't dead, for as Zajonc notes, "If this opportunity is missed, trying to make up for it at a later time is enormously difficult and mostly unsuccessful." The probability of my failure to convert you to ether existence was well understood by me before you even began to read this. So, at least, Zajonc understands that the success of my efforts to MAKE anyone of you see the ether rests mostly with each one's desire to do so, one's inner light, and less with my good intentions. Ok, so Zajonc does state it also takes " more the work of an educator than of a surgeon," which may leave us lacking in both departments.

In any case, if the unified theory is the goal of physics, then ether, or whatever one wants to call the carrier of force, will have to be reinstated. Until it is, there will be no final theory. As Zajonc and Hawking conclude, when one really sees it, one knows, and the ether or carrier of force structurally DEFINES a unified theory. And if I can get any one of you into the structure of ether, there is really no telling where any of you might take it. However, according to Zajonc, the odds are against this happening. I hope he is wrong. But he appears to be right when he states, "Once we have learned to see light, surely everything else will follow." and at least from what I have been able to see, some of the inconsistencies of present science will most likely become historical footnotes. (Zajonc states everything, I haven't made it that far.)

Atomic Structure - present theory states the nucleus exists as a positive core which attracts a negative "orbiting" electron, with an extremely strong force. Now this might work for an element with one or two charges like hydrogen, but it gets more untenable as the numbers climb. For example, lead would have 82 positive charges in the center which don't repel each other and explode?? The more one thinks about it, the more unacceptable it becomes. With ether, atomic structure appears as Linear aligned (by polar force-strong) synchronized spheres, stabilized by 4 phase "electronic" resonance as in angular momentum feedback. Why 4?, look at the structure of the ether - body centered rotating spheres, each touching 4 top/4 bottom in relation to axial spin. Why is Helium super stable, element 4?; 4 phase balance neutralizes the core, causing it to spin faster (as in lighter) and therefore be out of sync for binding, not only to covalent (gravity) bond but even for intra-atomic (polar/strong) bonding- where's element 5 and 8? Virtually nonexistent in nature! Even 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are barely here when you compare them to other lower elements. One has to go all the way to Gallium at 69 or 71 (Not 70) to find a compound less available in nature than Beryllium or Boron. Only at core 12 (after 1 and 4), does core magnetism overcome Helium's polar weakness to create super magnet - Carbon, but it does so by resonating in the center of a Helium unit at #6, not at a 4 multiple. We can discuss O-16 later if you are really interested, since is appears to contradict what I just stated. If one looks at the 12 most common elements in the universe and eliminates H1 and D2, then 9 of the top 11 are multiples of 4 nucleons. This is not a coincidence, this is resonant structural stabilization of body-centered ether. (And the other two are Nitrogen14 (super stable Carbon plus 2) and Neon22 (noble gas Neon plus 2). Also if one excludes H, D and He mass from universe mass from the data I have seen, (rather old Geigy Scientific Tables), 8 of the top 10 most abundant elements by mass which account for more that 95% of the remaining mass (other than H, D, and He) are nucleon multiples of 4. This is not coincidence, this is resonant structural integrity.

Universal Expansion vs. Contraction? - Big Bang vs. Steady State? - You probably already know this, too, but any elliptical orbit is a resonant orbit, contraction and expansion are completed (balanced) with each completed ellipse (orbit). How significant is this? After recently reviewing a section from John D. Barrow's The Origin of the Universe, I believe it may be significant enough to allow the survival of the General Theory of Relativity within a steady state universe. I know it's all outrageous, just wait till we get to spooky action below.

Subatomic Particles - sheared off parts of the proton magnetosphere (if the proton size is 10e-8, then the magnetosphere would hold 2e9 spheres (@radius 7.22e-12) or 4e13 spheres (@radius 2.85e-13), in any case a lot). Antimatter then is a sphere or group of spheres whose spin is out of sync with the surrounding ether, zero point field, a tremendously powerful spin (c^2), which can flip and correct the axial orientation of small particles in seconds (milliseconds, whatever you use to measure these things.) A positron then is a reverse spin electron - an electron with the wrong spin in the right plane or with the right spin in the wrong plane. You get the idea. The electron is its own antimatter, just flip it over in the SAME plane, and it is now a positron.

Particles are matter (volume-space), Waves are energy (mass-time). Energy moves on particles. They are in some (many, totally?) ways, inseparable. But all that is defined as mass cannot be totally convertible to energy, since there appears to be an absolute space(volume) which prevents further entry of matter (Pauli exclusion). One might be able to add some energy, but one cannot add matter. Carbon diamond appears to me to be this substance. If one calculates free space using symmetry, with body centered spheres, one will always get the same answer, 31.98% empty space and 68.02% filled with sphere volume. I am not sure how much empty space one can get rid of, Carbon diamond would be a good clue, but there is a limit. Electrons are particles, waves are waves of energy transferred by particle. Heisenberg did his experiment in ether.

And finally, how would the ether deal with nonlocality? If you push down on one end of a teeter-toter, the other end goes up at the same time. The ether in physical space would function like a geared system, assuming no slippage. If you turn the wheels of an car with engaged transmission, you can't turn the wheels without turning the gears. You can't move the ether without affecting all the ether, UNLESS slippage occurs, which at times it does, creating friction (surface area slippage or light) or collision (volume slippage or sound). Without slippage, you get spooky action. Simple, outrageous - but appears to be true. Vacuums are not empty space.

The above are just a few of the areas of interest which I have considered. I suspect there are many others that may be just as astounding. If I can get any of you into the ether, you would have a romp. Physics would explode into the 21st century. I wouldn't get too excited about investing in fusion, so far from my review with the ether, it doesn't look too good at this point in ether theory. I could be wrong. Just for fun, look at the emission spectra of Helium and Hydrogen, what do you see? I see He red shifted, which in Doppler terms means its moving away from us faster than H or from de Broglie wave-energy equation, means Helium will weigh less than we think it should, not because it gave up mass, but because it's spinning faster. It appears to have exchanged mass for spin velocity. Something to think about.

I don't have a replacement theory for General Theory but there appears to be need for modification, that's your domain, I have the ether. The ether may be the cosmological constant. I don't know if it is the ether's velocity which is the constant or its volume, occupation of space. My gut feeling is - it is the volume but I don't know. [Of course, volume displacement per second is velocity dependent. Isn't this stuff great?] In any case, unless General Theory can adapt to include ether, it too will be replaced. However, I must hedge my declaration on the dismissal of General Theory since as noted on Cambridge Research on Relativity web URL, general relativity is a classical theory. I doubt one can get more classic than ETHER. The ether is extremely mechanistic. The Cambridge page goes on to state quantum theory is required for black hole and Big Bang, both which I believe will be dismissed by ETHER. And even if they aren't, I don't understand why quantum isn't considered classical theory since the case can be made (according to Gamov, Thirty Years that Shook Physics) that Schrodinger's wave (quantum) mechanics are mathematically identical to Heisenberg's matrix (classical) mechanics. In any case, I can't think of anything more bumpy (quantized) than space occupying spheres of ether. But what it really comes down to is that particles are particles and waves are waves. Again from Cambridge URL, "It seems likely that the discovery of the quantum theory of gravity will require an innovation at least as major as Einstein's in arriving at General Relativity." The innovation is called ether.

ether (Webster) 5. in physics, a hypothetical invisible substance postulated (in older theory) as pervading space and serving as the medium for the transmission of light waves and other forms of radiant energy.

ether (Birkhofer) - a super symmetrical medium pervading space and serving as the medium for the transmission of light waves and other forms of radiant energy. The medium is composed of rotating spheres of approximately 1.44e-11 diameter, arranged in body centered layers with opposing angles between all spheres as 45 degrees. Alternate layers spin in opposite directions such that no two spheres with similar direction spins ever touch. The speed of rotation in a vacuum (in or near Earth gravitational field) appears to be on the order of one rotation for every 1.113e-21 second or 8.98e20 rotations in one second.

Ok, I admit it, I am not original on particles are particles. Evidently David Bohm, in 1952, "proposed that particles are indeed particles--and at all times" (from John Horgan's The End of Science). So you don't have to believe me, believe Bohm, to continue, "Bohr had interpreted the uncertainty principle as meaning 'not that there is uncertainty, but that there is an inherent ambiguity' in a quantum system, Bohm told me "(Horgan).

I hope I have not wasted too much of your time and that you at least got some amusement from my comments. Although I know it highly unlikely, I would love to discuss the above with any or all of you via Internet, letters, or phone. The ramifications of a true, physical carrier of light waves may be more than you suspect, and is most likely much more than I can imagine. If you are still interested, the 5th reason for ether transparency is at the end of this letter.

Dear Reader,

Important item. I am not sure how any of you will accept to the existence of a material, structural carrier of light. Almost all with some denial but I would hope that you would in part adopt the position of John Wheeler (again from The End of Science, John Horgan), "Surely someday, we can believe, we will grasp the central idea of it all as so simple, so beautiful, so compelling that we will say to each other,'Oh, how could it have been otherwise! How could we all have been so blind for so long!' " It was easy, how could anyone look for an ether that was known to be dead. Had I known it to be dead, I wouldn't have, I was too ignorant to know that ether was dead. It's time to shrug the shoulders and move on into the ether. A structural carrier of light will reignite the power and fan the controverial topics of physics for years if not decades to come. It's only a matter of when. If you have doubt, I hope you will read it again. The reestablishment of Ether in the 20th Century (more likely 21st) may depend on it. (Actually, I suspect the ether really doesn't care whether we find it or not.) I do not expect a reply, Zajonc explained why above. I hope he and I are wrong. (about your reply, I mean, not the ether.) Thanks for your time AND future comments and have a great day.

If you leave with nothing else, take leave with this: As great as it was, the Michelson-Morley experiment designed to detect an ether, by its own design allows for only a null result; the Heisenberg experiment done in a vacuum was done in ether. It has taken me 18 months to get to the above level of understanding the ether, any one of you could probably do it much faster, but only if your inner light has any desire to do so.

Sincerely, Dewey Birkhofer.

Return to Homepage ......Return to Cold Dark

Optional Reading - perhaps a "definition" of mass

If one looks closely at the concept of ether as rotating spheres, then the most tenable conclusion is that ALL energy is defined by 2 total KE = mv*2 + Iw*2 as SOUND and LIGHT as Linear displacement and Rotational displacement. But what is actually being displaced and what if there is NO displacement? It's easy to say mass is being displaced, but then what is mass? This question of mass was seriously pursued for years by Leon Lederman (The God Particle), who states," that mass is not an intrinsic property of particles but a property acquired by the interaction of particles and their environment." When spheres "leave" the ether, i.e. are out of rotational sync or position, the rogue particle acquires mass which appears to be a coefficient of friction or drag of the ether in its attempt to reassimilate the rogue. If the rogue can develop a protective timing shield of resonance like hydrogen or helium, it may survive outside the ether with its mass of magnetosphere followers for quite some time as matter with mass, if not, the rogue spheres (neutrinos, positrons, subatomics) return to the ether as matter without mass.

What is being displaced linearly is quite specific - VOLUME (sound) which we have defined as mass; and what is actually displaced rotationally is SURFACE AREA (light) of a sphere but if the object is not a sphere, then rotation creates VOLUME and SURFACE AREA displacement at the same time. IF the mass is a sphere (point mass) and there is NO linear displacement, then mv*2 = 0 and total KE becomes 2 KE ~ Iw*2 or I (theta) @ and for a 1/2 turn (theta), then Einstein's point mass mc*2 MUST = I@. This is the torque for 1 second of one CDM sphere, neutral neutrino, neutral electron, neutral positron, or whatever you want to call it. They are all the same when assimilated into the physical matrix of ether or CDM or Higgs Field, and become transparent with 0 mass. Note here I have brought in Higgs field which when viewed from the ether matrix perspective, becomes spheres. Matter is not created by energy, but fields of energy appear due to the position, velocity and spin direction variances of rotating ether spheres. These fields of angular momentum of spheres then become Higgs fields, Zero point fields, magnetospheres and all fields of force. Also, note that for a constant velocity system, the initial velocity is always 1/2 final velocity so 1/2 becomes 1 rotation and essentially a viciously invisible circle of energy. If mass and energy are the same, then matter and energy are not. Mass as linear energy appears to be convertible but mass as fundamental moment of inertia has inherent volume and as such is not totally convertible to energy. This energy is hidden from us as volume without mass, ether.

Return to Homepage ......Return to Cold Dark