It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Fidler-Morton Vortex-Electron model requires an aether. New theory of atomic matter.

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:59 PM
- Part 1 of 6 -

The is a summary of a theory that uses physical processes related to gases, & fluids, to explain the nature of the fundamental forces of nature, and reduces them all down to one force - Electro-magnetism. The so-called magical properties of such a luminiferous aether are far less than the number of magical particles, let alone their properties, and assumptions of today's most popular model. Michelson & Morely's work only proved that an aether wind does not flow thru the Earth, and thus the ether they envisioned did not exist.

I've been asked to post this publicly to see what others think of this. This information has been reduced to fit within limits of ATS posts [4000 characters + spaces], and as such will force me to submit it in multiple pieces. I will do my best to answer Q's in a timely fashion - when I'm not working or dealing with family life.

The Fidler-Morton Vortex-Electron model arose during the study of Two-Photon physics. This is not the first time that a vortex-electron model has been suggested, but no previous model actually provided a nearly complete explanation for almost every aspect of physics. 2-photon physics is where 2 gamma-rays interact with one another, or with the nucleus of an atom, and one of the possible outcomes results in the formation an electron-positron pair. This occurs through the creation of a fermion / anti-fermion pair which themselves release "energy" and result in an e- e+ pair being formed. Ignoring the scapegoat answer: "a photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair." (1) The question then for the study was: "How could 2 photons which are fundamental & neutral bodies give rise to a charged pair of particles? What is negative and positive charge?" If this was the result of a physical process, as the interaction between two fluidic/gas bodies, then what form could an e- and e+ take on to trigger charge. Physical processes would require an aether - otherwise we'd be stuck with delayed action at a distance, and like today's most popular theory would require additional particles, like Gauge Bosons, to transfer forces between particles like e- and protons to carry out the effects of the fundamental forces. Note how the most popular theory does not explain the forces, but instead requires additional bodies to transfer the still unexplained forces between bodies.

The study looked at the collision of 2 g-rays, with one passing thru the other. What could this result in? Part of the answer to this lies within the relationship that shows that magnetism & electricity are linked by the square of the speed of light. Which seems to indicate that what ever happened to the conduction of the gamma-ray thru the ether is still contained within the resulting structure of the electron, but has now been transformed to bring about the electrical constant [vacuum permittivity] and magnetic constant [vacuum permeability]. 25 years ago, the description of 2-photon physics was not quite like it is described now on Wikipedia(1).


[1] What was the Michelson & Morely experiment supposed to have proved? They proved that the aether model they envisioned has no bearing on reality. They envisioned that it flowed thru the Earth like water flows thru a fish net. Most experiments, including more recent ones, have shown that there is no flow of an ether through the Earth, and if there is an ether then the only possible reason the experiments would fail is that the ether is being dragged along with the Earth as the planet revolves around the Sun. For more on current information about an Aether Drag Hypothesis look at:


There seems to be some question of others fudging the results of Dayton Miller's experiments to disprove his results in which he showed an ether exists:


posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:02 PM
- Part 2 of 6 -

But what advantage could there be to an ether based model. The main reason is that the F-M vortex electron model can account for nearly all of the observed phenomenon in physics. This is do mostly to the fact that it reduces down the known fundamental forces to just one - Electro-magnetism. Time and time again we have found that Occam's razor applies when two theories try to explain the same thing. The simpler model usually turns out to have the most solid evidence to support it as being more plausible.

It is more than just a contradiction to say that the aether does not exist then show that empty space has measurable properties. Some might say that these properties might be due to the presence of all the non-matter that is not detectable any other way. New exotic particles that have replaced the ether in order to make the most popular model work. Why then does empty space have measurable properties? Few would dispute its dielectric constant, permeability, and impedance.

Instead of an Aether we now have the following to replace it:
- Dark Energy
- Dark Matter
- Gauge Bosons
- Super Strings
- And conveniently enough virtual photons & other virtual particles that come into existence when needed.

But No aether! As that would just be crazy talk, because that would just make the universe too complicated. Not!

The F-M Vortex-Electron model, along with Plasma Physics based models like those from Eric J Lerner's group (4), show that these other hypothetical phenomenon are not needed. Only the aether and electro-magnetism are needed.


In summary:
- Black Holes: observed electromagnetic filaments and gravitational activity at galactic cores are better explained via plasma physics
- Dark Energy: there are alternate explanations for the observed Red-Shift
- Dark Matter: believed to account for Galactic clusters that should not be held together by gravity alone, but removing the galactic interlopers [those actually behind and in front of the clusters] shows that gravity alone can account for these systems
- Gauge Bosons: believed to be the fundamental particles of force exchange between bodies. Note that the force is not actually explained as in how-it-works, instead they just assign a new particle to pass it on
- Gluons: indirectly involved with the binding of protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei. Not needed since high energy electrons can account for the observed effects. EOC [electron orbital capture] shows that electrons can and do enter nuclei
- Gravitons: the vortex dynamics and its affects upon the aether around the standing waves we call protons generate a gradient of FOS that electrons are attracted to and interact with
- Super Strings: no need to talk about the different harmonics of strings to determine the different fundamental forces of nature
- Virtual Particles: are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles. Like static force fields, such as electric and magnetic fields
- Virtual Photons: photons are believed not to exist until needed or drawn out of the dark energy of space. The FM vortex electron models shows that electrons carry, or push, ether and dump, or displace it, as photons

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:03 PM
- Part 3 of 6 -

The FM model simplifies how the following works:
. Electronic Shell Configurations - remember how in high school we were told that pairing an equal number of protons and electrons together created a neutral atom, BUT that if a shell was not full then an atom could give away or add another e- around it. Well there is a simpler explanation for this
. Gravity - caused by the residual charge left over by all atoms to which electrons are still sensitive and attracted to.
. Strong Nuclear Force - is what holds the nuclei of atoms together but could instead just be an electromagnetic side effect, and induced by nuclear electrons dropping the FOS density between protons so that they stay together. See part 6 for evidence of F-M Atomic model

[2] Longitudinal waves can experience interference and be polarizable. Sound waves can be cancelled out, and elliptical shaped waves can be polarized. Circles were thought to rule the universe - then it was shown via the orbits of the planets that in fact ellipses are the norm, and not circles.

[3] What is an electron? What does it do to effect negative charge? The vortex formation slows down the original body of the gamma-ray and this newly formed vortex, or smoke-ring-like structure, rotates about itself, and in doing so affects the fabric in a number of ways. 1: It induces compression of the aether ahead of it, 2: Further compresses the fabric that passes through its center and then the FOS naturally decompresses as it exits the electron, 3: it imparts momentum into the fabric of space to trigger magnetism. The exiting fabric of space reduces the density of the ether/space it passes through and its this now relatively lower density aether that is seen as negative charge. Electrons induce movement in atoms by being sensitive to the gradients around them, and favoring the side that places it more often in a stronger gradient. The pressure differential that is formed pushes/pulls the nuclei towards this region of space.

[4] What are protons & neutrons? As many others have come to believe, protons appear to be standing waves. That trigger compression in the FOS around themselves resulting in the formation of a gradient of dense aether that extends out, and to which electrons are attracted to as a region of more conductive aether. Ultimately giving rise to the Fidler-Morton Atomic Model. And at the same time implying that matter is an illusion and all we really have in the universe is energy and force fields. I would argue that a Neutron is not a fundamental particle because outside the nucleus of an atom it decays within roughly 10.5 minutes. Giving rise to a proton and a pion [an energetic electron]. Where as protons do not appear to decay. EOC radiation shows that electrons do enter nuclei, and since they can enter nuclei we know that they are there. For more on Neutrons see pt 6.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:03 PM
- Part 4 of 6 -

[5] The ionic states of atoms, and the attraction of electrons to nuclei and other charged bodies, along with gravity, can be better explained via the Fidler-Morton Vortex-Electron model, protons as standing waves and the Fidler-Morton Atomic Model. Without the contradiction of charge neutralization versus the filling of electronic shells that all of us are taught in school. Anyone who has taken chemistry remembers being told that an electron and proton have equal and opposite charges, and thus combining the two results in a neutrally charged system. But then we're immediately told that; "But atoms like to fill their shells with electrons, and so..." So, in other words they don't really know what they are talking about. The hydrogen atom is the most nearly perfect counter example of their understanding. It is just one electron and one proton, but is one of the most reactive of the atomic elements. While on the other hand, if you instead look at the helium atom which is normally described as two electrons and two protons it is nearly perfectly neutral, but is an exception to the rule in the periodic table of the elements. [*Note that when you remove an electron from an atom it leaves the atom charged positively by the amount of negative charge you removed, but this is because you removed the negative effect of that electron.*] Ok, so an electron and proton do not form a stable neutral body when combined, and even in the form of a neutron this particle system is unstable outside of the nucleus of an atom, and decays within approximately 10.5 minutes into a proton and nuclear electron. It takes at least two protons and one nuclear electron to form a stable arrangement - called the deuterium nucleus. So, obviously the charges are un-equal. Why then are most atoms willing to either donate an electron, or accept an electron from another atom? The Fidler-Morton vortex-electron model states that electrons are attracted to the density gradients formed around protons, and that as electrons fill a shell they reduce the density of the aether around the nucleus of an atom, and this layer, or shell, becomes less attractive to other electrons. Eventually either additional electrons are not attracted to the atom at all, or new electrons are instead attracted to a region further away from the nucleus and thus start to form a new electronic shell. The electrons are attracted to this other region because it has had time to recover from the activity of the electrons below it and return to normal, and now the FOS further out from the nucleus is a region that electrons find more favorable and thus conduct themselves through it. Since ether densities and electron energies increase accordingly these shells are similar around other nuclei of similar size, and since the nuclear charge increases accordingly, there is a natural pattern of orbits or electronic shell configurations. An atom whose shell is almost full still has enough of a gradient left over to hold onto another electron. While an atom whose highest orbital is quite weak obviously can attract an electron but is more likely to share it or give it up with another atom. In fact, even if an atom can no longer hold onto another electron, its nucleus is still generating a small but weak ether gradient further out from the atom. Electrons can in the presence of a positive electric field, ether gradient, find them selves spending more time on one side of an atom than the other, and thus triggering a variety of effects.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:04 PM
- Part 5 of 6 -

Gravitational effects are similarly induced and occur due to electrons favoring one side of an atom more than another due to the presence of some mass on that side, and the electrons spend more time on this side. In effect creating a lower density region on that side to which the nucleus of the atom is then forced towards due to this FOS, aka ether, pressure differential. The electrons in our bodies favor being on the side of the atoms towards the gravitational center of the Earth, and thus our bodies are drawn towards the Earth, even though the electrons are strongly bound to the atoms and molecules to which they are part of.

[6] Neutrons and protons can form nuclei because nuclear electrons (muons - pions) that help form neutrons create a negative region close to a proton, that then allows this system to pair up with another proton. In such a manner that the two protons are simply sharing the nuclear electron, without either of them really being a neutron or exclusively owning the electron. In other words, a neutron is simply a system of a proton and a nuclear electron. Deuterium nuclei are stable because the electron is attracted to the region between the two protons who are creating between them a denser than normal region in space, to which the electron is strongly attracted to. And once it passes through this region it lowers the density such that the protons unequal pressure gradients pushes the protons towards the center of the lower density/pressure region. As the pressure once again builds up the protons could again move apart, but the electron returns back to this more conductive region again and again once the effects of its previous passage are minimized and it becomes attracted to this region again. Nuclear stability is based on the nuclei having enough electrons and protons to remain balanced. Too many electrons, or protons, will increase the likely hood of electrons nearly colliding with one another or not being able to return back soon enough between a set of protons to keep them together within a nucleus. Recent evidence of the nuclear structure indicated by the Fidler-Morton nuclear model was supported as negative regions around neutrons were shown to exist, and reported in the book the "Fundamentals in nuclear physics." See page 156 of Fundamentals in nuclear physics: from nuclear structure to cosmology - by Jean-Louis Basdevant, James Rich, Michel Spiro. Here is a link to that page:,M1

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:05 PM
- Part 6 of 6 -

[7] What do we know about the Red-Shift that many claim to be as indisputable proof of the Big Bang. It has been said that it is due to either the Doppler shift of the photons, or the expansion of space itself. The only thing we know for sure is that the red-shift happens and is a measurable, and observable effect. In general it does not appear to be 100% linear relationship. That is that two stellar bodies at the same distance away from us may not have the same amount of red-shift. But could this simply be due to some of the stellar bodies moving around the galactic centers coming towards us? The red-shift has at least four possible reasons, or combination of reasons;
1. It is due to motion and thus is a Doppler effect. This implies that some galaxies are approaching the speed of light which is suppose to be impossible.
2. It is due to the expansion of the universe itself. Thus as space expands so do photons. But wouldn't they just get bigger - wouldn't we along with the electrons and protons? Since electrons arise from photons shouldn't they also expand accordingly?
3. It is due to the Compton effect. That is photons interact with matter as it travels towards us, and they lose energy in collisions. But wouldn't this cause their path to change?
4. It is due to photons simply expanding as they travel through space. Some say this is in effect to them losing energy overtime. But I'd argue that this is not due to a loss of energy in so much as the compression and rarefactions of space itself simply causes them to grow larger over time due to the dynamics of this type of conduction.

[8] CMB - Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is touted as being indisputable proof of the Big Bang, but other theories have arisen that are just as good, and since the Big Bang's key assumption is in doubt so are any other supporting interpretations of the data. One moment they are happy with the way it appears, then someone points out that it is too smooth, and then they are back to trying to determine some new phenomenon to counter act this effect. Check out item 7 on the following page:

Or better yet item 2 on the following page:

[9] Fidler-Morton Gravitational Time Paradox - If atomic clocks can be shown to run at different rates for all distances for every gravitational body then how can the universe function with time as a dimension if time is running differently everywhere. Only synchronizing up around other gravitational bodies at certain altitudes and similar distances from other similar masses. Instead these variations in atomic clock rates can be better explained as nuclei relaxing or increasing their hold on the electrons orbiting them depending on whether the clock is moving away from or towards a mass. In fact these time variations, are evidence for the existence of an aether, and that the ether is being dragged along with the Earth around the Sun.

The main reason I'm posting this information is to get feed back, find out where my weak points are or need re-enforcing, and also I'd really like to write a book about this. I was told by one group that they needed to see what others think of my theories as they are not sure what to think, and I stumbled upon ATS. So, here I am. I'm looking for a publisher. And perhaps a co-author or acknowledged ghost-writer as I'm more of an idea man than a writer.

Instead of dictating to the Universe how it must behave I have tried to instead observe how it appears to behave.

Copyright Terrance Fidler 1990 - 2010

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:35 PM
I will do more research on this, but you have pointed out some good things about it. I love ATS.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:45 PM
You could definitely write a book about this. You seem to know enough to blow right over my head which is not really hard

If Sarah Palin can get a book published, then the sky's the limit friend!

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:09 PM
Man, I love synchronicities. Just last week I heard a theory about "The Electric Universe" and then spent almost all of my free time over the next 2 days looking up everything I could find online. I've always loved physics/astronomy and had respect for physicists, but I couldn't understand how anyone could look at the evidence for 'dark energy', and 'dark matter', and give those concepts even a second thought. Instead of saying "maybe our theories of light and gravity are flawed", they basically mutilate those old theories (whose creators would likely slap them for using their theories to degrade the scientific method to a farce) so they can squeeze a new particle or type of energy out of them.

I don't think they mention the aether, but the rest of your post is strongly reminiscent of it.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by Son of Will]

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:18 PM
Can this theory offer solutions that the standard model cannot give? If so, then this theory is better than the others out there.
What does this theory say about quantum entanglement?

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by masterp

As far as Quantum Entanglement goes, I looked at this a while ago, but was only able to come to the conclusion that I would need to see one of the experiments that exhibits this behavior. And more importantly talk to the technicians, or engineers who built it, and possibly experiment with their apparatus.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by masterp

The most valuable solutions that will arise from this new theoretical model will be its usefulness primarily in chemistry [ inorganic chemistry / material sciences and organic / biochemistry] and secondarily for nuclear reactions.

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:03 PM
Excellent work so far. You obviously have a good grasp of the current problems in physics. I suggest that you build your own website and include plenty of graphics to describe your theory. Merely replacing common terms with new ones like ‘ether gradient’ and ‘ether vortex’ doesn’t help me (you may know what they are, but I don’t). Having computer simulations that actually show how gradients and vortexes work will go a long way to explaining your theory.

I would also suggest reading Lee Smolin’s book “ The Trouble With Physics” or (at least) check out his article “How far are we from a quantum theory of gravity” - Section 2 lists all the questions that a new theory should answer.

But before anyone will take you seriously, your FM theory MUST have at least one unique prediction that cannot be explained by any other theory (and that can be tested or verified using today’s technology). Otherwise your theory is just another way of looking at things without providing any advantages over current mainstream models.

Good luck.
If you are interested in looking at other ether theories, checkout the World Science Database:
or my personal site at:

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by pcmhahn

Actually I did make a prediction over 20 years ago using the Fidler-Morton Atomic Model. That negative regions should be found within Nuclei due to the activity of the nuclear electrons. Without them nuclei could not exist. Then in 2008 I stumbled upon the last point of my item number 6:

"Recent evidence of the nuclear structure indicated by the Fidler-Morton nuclear model was supported as negative regions around neutrons were shown to exist, and reported in the book the "Fundamentals in nuclear physics." See page 156 of Fundamentals in nuclear physics: from nuclear structure to cosmology - by Jean-Louis Basdevant, James Rich, Michel Spiro. Here is a link to that page:",M1

The original draft of my book included diagrams and drawings that I did in ink. Not very pretty, and now and then I've looked at computer programs that would make it easier for me to draw some more, but I have not been happy with the results. I'll see what I can do though - either scan the old images, or try something new. I don't have access to all of my older stuff though as that is in another city.

I will check out the links you've included. Thanks.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by ETL71]

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:18 PM
"if you are seeking to publish your work, the best way to do that would be to submit your writings to peer-reviewed journals"

It has been suggested in more than one email, and letter, to me that I should have my work published in a peer-reviewed journal. And I tried more than once some 20 years ago, but as Eric J Lerner has pointed out in his book that even Hannes Alfvén pointed out this is not that easy:

"When scientists are specialized it's easy for orthodoxy to develop. The same individuals who formulate orthodoxy theory enforce it by reviewing papers submitted to journals, and grant proposals as well."

Lerner himself then states that: "The system of peer review - having all papers and grant proposals controlled by a small group of "leading specialists" - has had a profoundly conservative effect on all branches of science, since theorists in particular are reluctant to admit the truth of papers that contradict their decades of work."

To quote Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (23 April 1858 – 4 October 1947):
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Paraphrased to:
"Science advances one funeral at a time."

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:30 PM

Originally posted by pcmhahn
Good luck.
If you are interested in looking at other ether theories, checkout the World Science Database:
or my personal site at:

Wow! That is a gold mine of information. I'm not sure where to begin.

Also, right now most of my life is dedicated to working, finding more work, a better job, and paying enough of my bills. I'm another victim of the latest economic collapse, and recently of a fire that wiped out my latest best-ever job. Damn - things were really looking good financially - then the fire happened. The job lasted all of a month before the fire resulted in my being out of work again, and forcing me to take a job to survive. And the odd job on the side for extra money. It does not leave me much time for this project, but then if I can get a contract to write the book.... who knows.

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:59 PM
I scanned a few of the images [really sketches] from the draft of the book from 1990/1993. I just have to figure out the best way to show them on this site, and if I have to link to them instead to maximize their size - so that the text associated with them is readable. Hopefully they'll be up before the weekend, as I'm going away for the weekend.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:25 PM
The following is my first test image [sketch] for this topic. I played with the size to ensure the text of the original could still be read. It is currently set at 480 by 628 pixels in dimension.

This sketch was used to discuss the topic of photons being polarized, and thus that they must be of a transverse nature versus longitudinal. But I argue that they can be polarizable and still be longitudinal. They simply have to be elliptical in shape to be polarizable. And if you consider that photographic grade polarizing filters still allow 30% of the photons pass through then this means that the angle at which the waves are passing through can be at an angle of 54 degrees out of 180 degrees. Or a passage of 108 degrees out of 360 degrees. If they were physically like the transverse "skinny string" waves often implied in diagrams that means they can be +/- 27 degrees off from being perpendicular and still get through. Not what you would expect given the nature of every drawing that talks about this. Are they fat? Perhaps. Like I'm suggesting, they only need to have a front of material whose overall shape is elliptical in nature.

Or click on the link to see it in a window that you can zoom in or out of and see the whole image. Not sure why the cropping occurred in the image above.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by ETL71]

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:06 PM
The following sketch is that of a Two-Photon Physics reaction that shows the formation of a high energy electron-positron pair from two gamma-rays. It does not show them shedding energy to normalize. It does not imply that the gamma-rays have to have this exact appearance, only that one will penetrate the other and trigger the formation. The electron takes on its "vortex" form and the positron ends up becoming a "standing-wave." Pretty much all aspects of physics with respect to matter, and electromagnetism, can be explained or accounted for due to this form for an electron. Charge, electronic shells, magnetism, gravity. Some have implied that somehow positrons must change/be-converted into protons.

Or click on the link below to see it in a window that you can zoom in or out of, and see the whole image.

More images/sketches to come.

Some twenty years ago, I realized that I should do some computer simulations of these reactions, try and develop the math related to the activity of the electrons around nuclei - and more. I purchased my first computer and a program called Mathematica [similar to MATLAB and Maple], but soon realized that my understanding of the mathematics was inadequate. So, I started to study linear algebra, calculus - and ended up getting side tracked into doing two technology diplomas and an engineering degree.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by ETL71]

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:33 PM
Just wondering, do you hold any credentials or are just a fan of plasma physics?

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in