ONE

NETHER AND GRAVITY

The surest way to corrupt a young man is to teach him
to esteem more highly those who think alike
than those who think differently.
--Nietzsche

ELECTRON SPIN: In 1925, it began to be evident that each electron has a quality that has been called "spin" and an associated magnetic moment. This was not a discovery as such--it was a deduction by two men called Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck that came as a result of their work on atomic spectra. Since that time, successful theories have been put forward (Dirac and Kusch) which give rules for it but do not, in my mind, explain why there is electron spin.

When the idea of spin was introduced, it was not readily accepted. It was considered to be a form of angular momentum, but not enough was known to isolate one mathematical term, so it was left in the spin equation. By definition, angular momentum is the rotational momentum of a spinning object--its mass times its rotational velocity about a center multiplied by a distance (radius) from that center. An electron has an innate ability to maintain something which seems to be angular momentum based upon a theoretical radius which cannot be found. However, the product of mass, velocity, and this theoretical radius, multiplied by something else, can be found. And this final product can be used, in most instances, as if it actually were angular momentum.

But the real problem that spin was giving to the scientific community was that spin never seemed to change. It was always there. Regardless of what was done to the electron, this  almost-angular-momentum  never seemed to change. This could be "explained" as a point charge of negative electricity undergoing a dancing motion (Dirac by linking quantum mechanics with relativity) which gives it spin. But then what is negative electricity? Where did the energy for the dancing motion come from? Is it the dancing motion that creates the spin, or is it the spin that creates the dancing motion? Quantum mechanics is a science of rules made to fit observations without adequate explanation as to what causes the rules. Later, you will see that relativity is incorrect. As I see it, a credible reason for innate spin was avoided and innate spin was "explained" in a manner that would not upset anyone in the scientific community.

THE REAL PROBLEM: Electron spin in always there regardless of what is done to the electron. This means that there is an energy source that causes the electron to maintain a constant angular momentum. We know of only one class of things which can do this. This class is that of the vortices we call whirlpools, whirlwinds, tornadoes, water spouts, hurricanes, and the like. A vortex is composed of a medium such as air or water which is in motion. Its energy is furnished by the pressure difference between its medium and the relative vacuum at its center.

If we assume that the electron is a vortex, then we must assume that it has a medium which would be what we know as space, and a vacuum at its center. The assumption that space is actually a substance which can create a vortex was not considered possible in 1925 and is still considered to be impossible by orthodox physicists--because there was an experiment performed in 1887 which "proved" that space was not a medium through which light could travel as a wave. The conclusions derived from this experiment were not re-examined in 1925 because they had become a part of scientific dogma.Heretics in science could be chastised in 1925, and can be chastised now as well. Loss of tenure or of one's scientific reputation was--and is--the price of heresy. But there was a flaw in the experiment of 1887. It was a flaw in scientific thought rather than a flaw in the excecution of the experiment.

THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT: In 1887, it was thought that electromagnetic radiation (light) traveled through a medium which was what we call "space". This medium was called "ether". The ether was supposed to be at rest while matter, which was separate from ether, moved through it.The earth rotates at about 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, moves at about 67,000 miles per hour in its orbit around the sun, while the sun moves at an even faster rate about the center of our galaxy. This would mean that the surface of the earth would be moving at some velocity relative to the supposed stationary ether. It follows that the movement of the ether relative to the surface of the earth would be of the same magnitude as the supposed movement of the surface of the earth relative to the ether. These velocities are small compared to the speed of light, which is about 186,000 miles per second. Nevertheless, it was thought that light moving parallel to the surface of the earth would be moving at one velocity when ether was moving with it, at another velocity when ether was moving against it, and at still another velocity when ether was not moving relative to it.

The experiment was made with a table (its surface parallel to the surface of the earth) upon which was a single-frequency light source. The light was sent from the source and split into two beams. One beam was sent at right angles to the other. Both beams traveled the same distance and were routed to arrive at the same point. In theory, the two beams should have traveled with slightly different average velocities. This would mean that they would arrive out of phase with one another and this phase difference could then be detected as interference. The experiment was performed in an admirable manner with utmost care so that vibration, warping of the table, and other possible sources of error could be avoided. In the end, however, there was almost nothing to indicate any phase interference within the limits of the ability of the apparatus to detect it. This was interpreted to mean that there was no ether or any other medium in space through which light traveled.

ERRORS IN HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION VS THE ALTERNATIVE: Had electron spin been attributed to the tangential movement of a vortex, the ether could not have been seen as static. Instead, it would have been considered dynamic--always in motion. Furthermore, if the electron were to be considered a vortex, then other subatomic particles should also be vortices. Because everything in the universe is composed of subatomic particles or energy, then the whole universe would be made of ether in some form of motion. Thus, a large mass such as a planet, composed of many vortices, would be made entirely of dynamic ether. So the ether's chief motion would be toward the planet, creating what we call gravity.The foregoing paragraph does not provide the foremost reason for the failure of the Michelson-Morley to detect the ether. There is more to be said before the reason for this failure can be understood. So now we need to discover what gravity actually is. That will allow us to see why such a carefully executed experiment failed.

GRAVITY: Let us consider each subatomic particle to be a vortex made of dynamic ether. Since it is not really a particle, we can call it a vorticle. Since dynamic ether is not really ether as it was defined in 1887 (ether theory was based upon a static or non-moving medium), then we may call it nether instead. This is the name in Greek myth for the underlying substance.The center of a vortex has the equivalent of a vacuum. You may wonder what happens to the nether when it reaches the center of a vorticle. Where does the nether go? The explanation is too complex to explain at this point, but will be covered later.Let us consider gravity to be caused by the movement of nether (dynamic ether) toward a large group of vorticles (subatomic particles). Each vorticle alone, without other vorticles near it, would bring in nether in a fairly normal manner just as a whirlpool brings in water. If two vorticles are placed beside one another, then the rate at which the nether enters their immediate volume of space increases. If we were to create an invisible theoretical sphere with the vorticles at its center, we could say that the nether moves past the surface of this sphere on its way to the vorticles. The rate at which it moves past the spherical surface will increase as the number of vorticles at its center increases.

If the theoretical sphere is a large one, its surface will have a large area. If the theoretical sphere is a small one, its surface will have a small area. The same amount of nether must flow through the surfaces of both large and small spheres. The larger the sphere, the less will be the nether velocity moving through its surface. The smaller the sphere, the greater will be the nether velocity moving through its surface. If we look at the nether flow at some distance from a planet (large sphere), the velocity of the nether toward it will be very small. As the nether moves closer to the planet (small sphere), its velocity will increase. So the nether will accelerate as it moves toward the planet, and this acceleration is what we call gravity.The planet might be likened to a funnel without sides. The nether flows toward the planet (the bottom of the funnel). The space very far from the planet is the top of the funnel. So a planet creates a strange kind of funnel into which the nether can flow. The flow of the nether into the funnel is also like water flowing along a river. When the river is wide and deep, the water flows slowly. When the river is narrow and shallow, the water flows very rapidly.However, the nether is not only mobile, it is compressible. A gravity funnel like a planet might be considered to be like a kitchen funnel but with a different shape. If we liken the nether to a bag of marshmallows (which are also compressible), we can more easily see the next step in this explanation. First, we grease our kitchen funnel. This way, there is essentially no friction along the sides of the funnel. This is like a gravity funnel which also has no friction along its sides because it has no sides. Second, we place the marshmallows into the kitchen funnel and push them through it. As the marshmallows move from the top to the bottom of the funnel, they compress in the two dimensions of the funnel cross-section, and expand in the dimension running between the top and bottom of the funnel. In a gravity funnel, the nether compresses in the two tangential dimensions of a theoretical sphere with the planet at the center, and expands in the sphere's radial dimension.

The tangential nether compression is along the two dimensions tangent to the surface of the sphere, causing a tendency for the nether density to be inversely proportional to the square of the radius of the theoretical sphere (r to the minus 2 power). The expansion of the nether is along the length of the radius of the theoretical sphere and is inversely proportional to the square root of the radius of the theoretical sphere. This causes a tendency for the density to be proportional to the square root of the radius of the theoretical sphere (r to the 1/2 power). Thus, the actual density is the result of the two tendencies and is proportional to r to the minus 3/2 power. The velocity of the nether is inversely proportional to the square root of the radius (r to the minus 1/2 power).The result of all this math is that gravity still works with the same old inverse square law, but it works because there is nether acceleration--and all things are made of nether in one form or another.Using math, it is possible to compute the velocity of nether at the surface of our planet. The equation for this is: v = sqrt (2rg) in which v = nether velocity, r = earth's radius, g = the gravity found at the surface of the earth, and sqrt = square root (because there is no square root symbol on this keyboard). However, it should be mentioned that the velocity of the nether is never actually there in the sense that is true velocity. This is because the nether moving toward a celestial body is constantly accelerating and never actually moves at a constant speed. The velocity found with the foregoing equation is the instantaneous velocity of the nether at a particular point. When this point is on the earth's surface, the nether velocity is slightly less than seven miles per second.

WHY THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT FAILED: The nether flowing into a gravity funnel is compressing in two dimenions which are tangent to the surface of a theoretical sphere with a planet (or sun, moon, whatever) at the center. When there is relative nether velocity such as that caused by the earth rotating on its axis, it is reduced beyond the point at which it can be measured--because of the nether compression.Think of a car moving along a track that is circular with a radius of 100 yards. The car is moving at a velocity of 100 feet per second (about 68 miles per hour). We are looking at this motion from above in a helicopter. We can make measurements to see that the car is moving at 100 feet per second. Now, suppose that we compress the scene (just as the nether is compressed when it moves within a gravity funnel) so that the track has half the radius (50 yards). We now notice that we can measure the car's velocity as only 50 feet per second (half what it was). We now compress the track a bit more so that it is only 25 yards in diameter (one quarter of what is was) and we measure the car's velocity as only 25 feet per second. We continue to compress the track until it has a radius of only one inch. It now has a radius that is 1/3600 times as long as it was at the beginning. The speed of the car has been reduced to 1/3 inch per second (.0189 miles per hour). However, the speed of the car is now lower than we can measure with our apparatus, so we mistakenly conclude that the car is not moving at all.This is what happens with a Michelson-Morley type of experiment. The nether compression reduces the relative velocity of the nether in a horizontal direction until it is lower than we can measure with our apparatus.

THE NETHER: The nether has a unique set of qualities. First, it is frictionless. Second, it has inertia. Third, it is compressible and expandable. Fourth, as we shall see later, it is lazy (conservative). It prefers to take a path that uses the least energy.

Once set in motion, nether maintains the same motion until something else alters it--but friction is not one of those altering things. Centrifugal force is necessary for a vortex to exist, and centrifugal force is caused by altering the path of something which has inertia. Stated another way, altering the path of something with inertia is the only source of centrifugal force.

THE ACCELERATING EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE: At the time of the big bang, ours was a universe made of nether that exploded outward and is still exploding. Any explosion is simply a rapid expansion of a medium under pressure. The pressure within the medium (air, water, nether, whatever) causes a more rapid expansion with the passage of time. It is the inertia of its fluid that prevents immediate and sudden expansion. Lately, the universe has been found to be flying apart at an accelerating rate. "Dark energy" has been proposed as an "explanation" for this phenomenon even though naming something is not the same as explaining it. Actually this "dark energy" is merely the pressure within the medium we are calling the nether.When the universe began, the nether was very dense and the pressure within it was very high. Its own inertia slowed (and still slows) its expansion, but its inertia was (and is) always giving way to its pressure, so the expansion of the universe accelerated, still accelerates, and will continue to accelerate, with the passage of time. To make this point abundantly clear, the universe has had an accelerating expansion since it began and will continue to have one into infinity or until it meets something with pressure equal to or greater than its own nether pressure.

MORE ABOUT EXPLOSIONS: When a medium under its own pressure rapidly expands into a surrounding vacuum, the acceleration relative to a fixed point outside the medium is greatest at a point in its outermost fringe. This is because there is a greater distance for the fringe to move within a given time interval. If we move the point inward toward the center of the explosion, there less distance for the medium to move in this time interval and, therefore, less acceleration. There is no acceleration of the medium when the point is at the exact center because here the medium does not move.The pressure and the density of the medium creating the explosion is essentially the same throughout. For geometric reasons, the acceleration must be proportional to the distance from the center, and the inertia must be proportional to the inverse of the distance from the center. At any particular point within the medium, the energy needed for the increased acceleration balances the energy attempting to prevent increased acceleration. The result is a fairly uniform accelerating expansion, meaning uniform in the sense that it is about the same throughout the medium at any point in time. So when one is viewing the explosion from a point within the medium, the expansion appears to be the same in all directions.

Bearing this in mind, different results in regard to the accelerating expansion of the universe might be obtained when measuring light sources in various directions. However, the differences would be due primarily to the differences in time for the light to reach us. Because the universe is a big explosion, its expansion is accelerating and will be different from one time to the next. The light will pass incrementally different time zones of expansion on its way to us.

As the universe expands, the nether pressure decreases. The force that is created by the nether pressure is proportional to the nether pressure. The density or mass per volume of the nether is also proportional to the nether pressure. F = ma where F = force, m = mass, and a = acceleration. Shown in a different form, a = F/m. If both F and m are proportional to nether pressure, "a" remains constant. So the rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe should not vary appreciably from one time to the next.However, all of the foregoing is based upon a creation in which the nether universe is not rotating. If the universe were formed while rotating, the centrifugal force would vary from one part to another and influence the theorized constants. The math and reasoning involved for a rotating universe is more complex than I wish to show here.

DERIVATION OF THE GRAVITY/NETHER VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP

r=radius of theoretical sphere above a celestial body

g=gravity at theoretical sphere above a celestial body

v=velocity at theoretical sphere above a celestial body

H=the distance between the two theoretical spheres

Let us hypothesize two spheres (cross-sections of a gravity funnel), one above the other, and use the earth's surface as the lower sphere (called "e") with an upper sphere (called "a"). We want to find the average gravity, g_ave, acting upon a body falling, between the two spheres. The difference between v_e and v_a is the increase in nether velocity between the two spheres. Gravity, g, is an increase in nether velocity which is usually given as the increase per second. [(v_e--v_a)/H] would be the increase in nether velocity per foot (unit of time). To find the increase in nether velocity per second, we must multiply [(v_e--v_a)/H} by the average number of feet in one second. [(v_e + v_a)/2] = vave, the number of feet/second. So, [(v_e--v_a)/H](v_e + v_a)/2 = gave, between the two spheres. H = [r_a--r_e], which is the difference between the radii of the two spheres.

Therefore: gave = [(v_e--v_a)/(r_a--r_e)] [(v_e+v_a)/2] or (v_e²-v_a²)/2(r_a-r_e)

Average Gravity Equation 1: g_ave = [(v_e-v_a)(v_e+v_a)/2]/(r_a-r_e)

There is a second formula for average gravity between the two spheres which is merely a way of determining how much of the gravity at each sphere must be used for the average. This formula may be used as a cross-check for the first formula.

B = 1/[r_a/r_e]+1] g_ave = Bg_e + [(1-B)g_a

Average Gravity Equation 2: g_ave = g_e{1/[(r_a/r_e)+1]} + g_a{1-{1/[(r_a/r_e)+1]}}

For our proof, we begin with average gravity equation 1. 1A below comes from knowing that nether velocity varies in proportion to 1/r^1/2.

1. g_ave = [(v_e--v_a)(v_e + v_a)/2]/(r_a--r_e)   1A. v_a/v_e = r_e^1/2/r_a^1/2

2. g_ave = [ (v_e²--v_a²] / 2] (r_a--r_e)            2A.   v_a²/v_e² = r_e/r_a

3. 2g_ave (r_a--r_e) = (v_e²--v_a²)                  3A.  v_a² = v_e² (r_e/r_a)

4. 2g_ave (r_a--r_e) = {v_e²--[v_e² (r_e/r_a)]}

5. 2g_ave (r_a--r_e) = v_e² [1--(r_e/r_a)]

6. 2g_ave (r_a--r_e) = v_e² [(r_a--r_e)/r_a]

7. 2g_ave = v_e²/r_a

8. 2r_ag_ave = v_e²As the height between spheres a and e is reduced, r_a approaches r_e, and gave approaches g_e. When the height is zero, r_a=r_e and g_ave=g_e. And we have the next equation.

9. 2r_eg_e = v_e²

10. v_e = (2r_eg_e)^1/2  

So for any hypothetical sphere:

11. v = (2rg)^1/2  or  g = v² / 2r