It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

Help ATS via PayPal:

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

page: 2
40
share:

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:16 AM

I'm just a "fan" of plasma physics. Not only because of the writings of Hannes Alfvén and Eric J Lerner, but also because I've read a few articles in various journals/magazines on the subject.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:37 AM
Plenty of material in here:

The Americanist

You'll find information inside those blogs (view all).

Dale Pond - Keely, SVP
Marko Rodin - (look for a 44pt Lecture Series) Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein - Vector Based Geometry

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:54 AM
My verdict on the 6-part OP is this: GIBBERISH

From "compression of gamma rays" to electrons functioning as gluons... Cr@p. No bearing on what we observe in nature.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 11:06 AM
I think the easiest way to view the aether theory is like this. Water and ice. If you think the aether is water and all particles are ice. Water and ice are the same just have different energy levels. Same with the aether and particles and this best explains on how the vaccuum of space particles can pop in and out of existence. I wonder if anyone has used this analogy to how the universe works? water funnels can denote black holes where the funnel represents the signularity and the out side denotes the boundary. Much of the physics can still be seen using the fluid dynamics of water such as things speed up the nearer they get to the water funnel etc.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 11:40 AM

Originally posted by loner007
I think the easiest way to view the aether theory is like this. Water and ice. If you think the aether is water and all particles are ice. Water and ice are the same just have different energy levels. Same with the aether and particles and this best explains on how the vaccuum of space particles can pop in and out of existence. I wonder if anyone has used this analogy to how the universe works? water funnels can denote black holes where the funnel represents the signularity and the out side denotes the boundary. Much of the physics can still be seen using the fluid dynamics of water such as things speed up the nearer they get to the water funnel etc.

You can use various analogies to shape your view of the world. For example, you can assume that all things consist of four elements: Earth. Wind, Fire and Water, in different proportions. That explains a lot of things nicely! Also, tobacco smoke is a proven way to commune with the spirits (ask Native Americans).

All of the above has no relation to science.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:09 PM
reply to post by buddhasystem

LOL yeah right. Ever heard of fluid cosmological models????

FLRW model of the universe

In General Relativity, this is modelled by the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model. This model, which can be represented by the Friedmann equations, provides a curvature (often referred to as geometry) of the universe based on the mathematics of fluid dynamics, i.e. it models the matter within the universe as a perfect fluid. Although stars and structures of mass can be introduced into an "almost FLRW" model, a strictly FLRW model is used to approximate the local geometry of the observable universe.

[edit on 28/5/2010 by loner007]

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:27 PM
The following is a sketch that tries to describe the electronic shells that develop around atoms as the result of the activity of the electrons travelling around the nucleus of some large atom - say like Iron [Fe]. The activity of the electrons does not have to reduce the density as much as it simply needs to interrupt normal formation of the gradient so that additional electrons are not drawn any closer to the nucleus. There should be some reduction in the pressure of the gradient forming around the nucleus, as this pressure differential is what causes atoms to change the way they are moving - when there is a pressure imbalance around the center of the atom. I call the "no electron zone" that is the result of a few electrons, forming a shell, the Wake Dissipation Region. Versus electrons sharing one of the designated shells like "K"... where the two electrons can be closer to one another, and whose wakes only affect eachother a small amount, but whose combined wakes have an affect upon the gradient further above them that is more significant.

Electrons further away from the nucleus [regardless whether they are in the same or the next shell up] given their kinetic energy, "conduction" energy and the density of the fabric below them find the fabric above the previous electron more conductive and so do not come any closer to the nucleus. The activity of this electron disrupts/reduces the fabric such that another electron "above it" cannot move in any closer since either the FOS closer in is not as conductive, or a new larger Wake Dissipation Region forms that an additional electron cannot enter permanently into. In addition while the FOS is recovering from the previous passage of the electron through it the electron is forced to change its path slightly to more conductive FOS until the previous path through the FOS has become conductive enough to attract the electron once again.

You can also click on the link below to see it in a window that you can zoom in or out of.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

I apologize that I'm a little slow on posting these images, but currently I'm basically working two jobs. I'm trying to figure out which images to post, and what information & comments to post/make about them.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by ETL71]

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:52 AM
Note that the spacing between shells changes, as the FOS density increases closer into the nucleus and the "conduction" energy increases with the density of the FOS that it resides within. The denser the fabric of space - the greater the "conduction" energy of the electron and the greater its ability to disrupt the FOS.

Similar shells exist across the various different types of atoms because the areas/volumes they disrupt are similar.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:21 AM
The following is a sketch that tries to describe the way a nuclear electron reduces the FOS gradient around a proton to form a neutron. Note: It was great news to find that this negative region I hypothesized about some 20 years ago, turns out to be a detectable feature of neutrons now - as 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. And apparently has been known for sometime. This is solid evidence for the Fidler-Morton Atomic Model that other models, as far as I know [remember], did Not predict. But that have adapted to. [I'm not sure why this link sometimes brings you to the exact page and sometimes it does not.]

The first sketch is suppose to show how the electron travels around a proton and effectively neutralizes the FOS density around the proton such that it is truly electrically neutral. The spacing and elliptical pattern of the path is just an approximation, and not intended to portray exactly what it looks like. Even though someone might think this arrangement is stable it is Not stable and a "neutron" decays in just over fifteen minutes outside of the nucleus of an atom. However, add another proton [second image] and you finally have enough protons "compressing the fabric" to compensate for the activity of this nuclear electron and keep all three particles locked together into forming a deuterium [heavy hydrogen] nucleus. The electron returning between the two protons once the FOS becomes dense enough once more.

The electron wake dissipation region for neutrons and nuclei is referred to the Nuclear Potential Barrier. If the nuclear electrons remain within it, and their companion protons, then the nucleus is stable, if they breach the barrier then we get a radioactivity atom. Radioactivity also occurs when two electrons nearly have a collision when the both simultaneously return to a point between to protons where the FOS has become conductive enough again, and one is ejected due to this collision.

You can also click on the link below to see it in a window that you can zoom in or out of.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2-6-2010 by ETL71]

[edit on 2-6-2010 by ETL71]

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:06 AM
The following is a list of the properties of regular and heavy hydrogen, and water formed from the two different hydrogens. Heavy hydrogen being called Deuterium.

This type of variation in the measurable properties makes sense with the Fidler-Morton Atomic Model. As adding another proton increases the density of the ether [FOS] around a nucleus, and thus would of course have an effect upon its outer electron and the properties of hydrogen.

You can also click on the link below to see it in a window that you can zoom in or out of.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:54 PM
The following sketch and text describes how the residual FOS, or ether gradient, of a neutral atom can be combined with others to still at least attract an electron to some degree. And ultimately with a large enough mass of atoms, like a planet or asteroid, produce a significant gradient triggering a noticeable gravitational field.

The electrons around atoms shift their orbits just enough to spend more time on the side of the atoms facing this mass as they are also attracted to it to some degree, and in doing so reduce the FOS density on this side of the atom so that the nucleus of the atom moves ,is pushed, towards this reduced center of pressure.

You can also click on the link below to see it in a window that you can zoom in or out of.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:56 AM
reply to post by ETL71

In my opinion, Plasma Cosmology holds the key to answering many questions the Standard Model cannot. That doesn't mean the Standard Model is completely wrong, it's just that a new paradigm is necessary which incorporates elements of P.C.. You'll have a hard time convincing the "experts" though. That said, P.C. and it's variants MUST be put out there so more of the younger generation of physicists can give it some serious attention and refine it while the old geezers desperately clinging on to the standard model die out. I have noticed that it's fine for the Standard Model to have serious flaws but as soon as anybody finds something they don't agree with in P.C., the whole theory is wacky. What a load of hypocritical crap!

If you publish it, I will buy it (provided it's not hideously expensive of course!). A U2U would be appropriate to ensure I keep my word.

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 11:00 AM
The following sketch is about electromagnetism in current carrying wires. The first shows two wires with the current flowing in the same direction, and the second shows the currents flowing in opposite directions to each other.

In the first the ether in motion from the two wires, carrying current in the same direction, combine due to the conservation of angular momentum of the FOS.[?] I'm not 100% convinced of that. The only real need is that the free electrons themselves try to move to the center of this flow of ether, and in doing so the electrons who are bringing the wires together start spending more time between the wires and thus create a FOS [ether] pressure differential that drives the wires together. Once combined they are for the most part at the center of the ether vortex and try to stay there, and in doing so keep the wires together.

In the second the ether from the two wires are opposing each other and the electrons must be spending less time between the wires and in doing so not only create a lower pressure region on the outside of the wires, but must be creating a higher pressure FOS gradient between them. Thus driving the two wires apart.

You can also click on the link below to see it in a window that you can zoom in or out of.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

At least one more sketch to come.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:17 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
My verdict on the 6-part OP is this: GIBBERISH

From "compression of gamma rays" to electrons functioning as gluons... Cr@p. No bearing on what we observe in nature.

1. Two Gamma-ray Physics has long been accepted and one of the outcomes can result in the creation of an energetic electron-positron pair,
2. Electron Orbital Capture [EOC] radioactivity is where an electron from the "K" shell of an atom enters into the nucleus of an atom. Often resulting in the proton count of the nucleus decreasing by one, while the neutron count increases by one. In other words one of the protons is converted into an neutron when an electron from the K shell enters into the overly positive nucleus of an atom. Thus electrons do enter nuclei and affect the neutron-proton count.
3. It is an empirical fact that neutrons consist of positive cores surrounded by a negative region. Something the Fidler-Morton vortex model predicts, and something that the 3-quark model can not account for.
4. Neutrons decay into energy, a proton and an electron after approximately 15 minutes after exiting the nucleus of an atom. Thus once again electrons are "seen leaving" nuclei. Thus they were there.

It does not take a great leap of logic to conclude that an electron can enter into the nucleus and cause a negative region form around the proton to convert it into a neutron. And that the presence of neutrons, bearing these negative regions surrounding positive cores, allow larger nuclei to exist.

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:52 PM
It has been suggested that I write a version of this as a magazine article so that more details & facts can be added. And possibly some better and more detailed drawings.

Hopefully I can do this in less than two months. It just depends on my work load and studying for a new job.

posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 09:26 PM
Update
Just as of this month [October 2010] I have accepted an offer on a new job, starting in November, that will allow me to have a work life like the majority of people, and have a lot more time to spend on this project again. Needing to have one full time job and another part time job, to make ends meet, was making it almost impossible to get much done on this project. I have not made much progress on writing a magazine version of the Fidler-Morton Atomic Model. But on the other hand I have at least been reviewing updates/changes in the Standard Atomic model, Quark Theory and the data from which it arises, the General and Special Theories of relativity, .... Not much has change, but more importantly the FM model still works well within most of these base theories. Yes, there is some conflict, particularly with the interpretation of some of the data and results of the quark model. Particularly with the fact the quark model fails on a few accounts to explain some key fundamental concepts such as gravity, negative regions around neutrons, some of the forms of radioactivity and nuclear structure, radioactivity in general, and it still wishes simply to Create new particles and draw upon Virtual photons & particles to account for the way the forces work without actually providing a mechanism for How the forces work. Again reminding me of the old epicycles upon epicycles that people of centuries past tried to use to explain why they believed the bodies that make up our solar system revolved around the earth.

This issue of not enough time has reinforced my conviction that, without a doubt, I will require a co-author for assistance, creative input, and to expedite the process of writing a book and possibly the magazine article. I have had some feedback on possible co-authors but nothing definitive. It would seem that even though I share some similar concepts/ideas with a few other people, whose work I have been either been directed to or discovered on my own, it will be sometime before I'm able to form a partnership with someone.

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:23 PM
Some additional great news for the Fidler-Morton/FOS Atomic model!
From my point of view this is the tipping point in the FM/FOS Model.

Well it has been a while since I've been able to post anything of significance. After finally getting a decent job not only to pay bills, but also to have time to spare, I've been doing some productive research, via the internet, over the last couple of months. The good news is that once again the Fidler-Morton Atomic Model is supported by the data in one case, and additional support for it looks promising in another case. The first case which clearly supports the FM/FOS theory is related to the structure of antiprotons which has been something that I was worried about due to what I thought was a lack of evidence. How wrong I was! There has been evidence about the nature of antiprotons to support the FM model for sometime. In fact there has been evidence for decades, but until recently I was unaware of the availability of the data on the internet. Some of the data is still not available to me unless I can raise the money to pay for documents that may, or may not, contain the information I'm looking for. I'm not about to spend a few thousand dollars on documents of which only a few might be useful. Most documents simply want to give you their interpretation of the facts and not the facts or data themselves.

Coming soon [next 2-3 weeks]: What is an antiproton?
Part of the reason for the delay is due to copyright issues I have to post the information on my own web site first.

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:26 PM
where's the math?

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:58 PM
How do you overcome the Feynman argument?

"This particular idea has the following trouble: the earth, in moving around the sun, would impinge on more particles which are coming from its forward side than from its hind side ... . Therefore there would be more impulse given the earth from the front, and the earth would feel a resistance to motion and would be slowing up in its orbit. One can calculate how long it would take for the earth to stop as a result of this resistance, and it would not take long enough for the earth to still be in its orbit, so this mechanism does not work. No machinery has ever been invented that 'explains' gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that does not exist."
R. Feynman, Lectures on Physics, 1963, volume 1, chapter 7, pp 9-10

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by john_bmth

I take it you mean the mathematics explaining the whole theory. I started down that path a few years ago, and started studying vortex mathematics, infinite series, calculus and differential equations, but I got side tracked into completing an engineering degree instead, and a busy life. I thought the likelihood of me being able to perform the experiments for evidence that were hinted at by the theory would always be beyond my financial means. So, I figured I'd be better off getting a degree in something I liked and that would be more useful to me than trying to pursue the mathematics of something that I might never be able to perform experiments for.

Mathematics is one thing, but actual verifiable measurable data is far more important. As we know from the past, depending on the way you look at something, someone can make up mathematics to just about prove any point they want to make.

Luckily for me one of those key experiments has been completed by someone else, and provides clear measureable data showing something that other leading models did not predict. That is the negative regions around neutrons.

I'm hoping to be able to get back to the mathematics for various aspects of the model sometime soon. That would be more likely and sooner if I can get a contract to write a book about this, and some other peoples work showing evidence and reasoning ...

top topics

40