Subject: New concepts
Sadly, the standard model is committed to concepts and explanations of the forces that are logically flawed. Essentially that model pivots on the claim that nothing has a greater velocity than photons, which travel at about 186,300 miles per second. But, if any material or any particle - travelled at a greater velocity than light, then light would not be able to interact with it. No sooner had light reached it then it would have moved. In effect it would be invisible. At best it may manage a partial interaction which would give an incomplete or shadowy reflection of that material. And if multiples of that particle assembled as a field, which field also moved at greater than light speed, then that field would also be invisible, or at best, only partially visible. Because, obviously, we need light to interact with material to make it visible and the field velocity would exceed light speed. The attached thesis identifies these fields as dark matter.
The paper, ‘on the unification of the forces', further proposes that primary magnetic fields comprise dipoles that assemble in 1-, 2-, and 3-dimensions. They are responsible for electromagnetism, the nuclear forces and gravity, respectively. It proposes that stable particles are composites of this dipole and it is able to reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. So. Not only does this thesis describe and localize the dark force and dark energy but it also depends on a single God particle. The departure from Standard is only in that these arguments are argued logically.
The paper on ’the experimental evidence of a breach of unity’ is the proof that these new concepts may, indeed be correct because that measured unity breach was predicted by the model. Professor Butrouna and Professor Gomez of WCU, have broadly approved the logic to the thesis and simulated the experiment, respectively, which test confirmed the measured unity breach that was claimed in both papers.
Kindest regards
Rosie Ainslie
706 513 3114
;; This buffer is for text that is not saved, and for Lisp evaluation.
;; To create a file, visit it with C-x C-f and enter text in its buffer.
PROLOGUE - A BACKGROUND
Follows is the background to the development of this thesis, which is somewhat atypical and eccentric. This is intended as a prologue for a book that has been written on the thesis and which is intended for the layman.
Like most of us, my adult life was monopolised by the need to earn a living. I was in commercial property development and retired at 50. I promised myself that thereafter I would only occupy my days with the two things that I loved most in life, which was art and writing. I wrote my first novel within the first 3 months of retirement. After this I got engrossed in a series of short stories for children. Both these efforts were sent to Struiks who immediately published my short stories. They also offered to publish my novel provided that I changed its locale from Uganda to Cape Town, to give it a more topical flavour. I never did get around to doing that change.
Physics as it’s known and taught conforms to certain principles, which are widely referred to as the ‘standard model’. This model is distinct from more contentious theories, which are entertained by scientists but not necessarily endorsed. They include the God particle, the Unification of the forces, Dark energy, and on an on, which theories are not yet entirely proven and therefore fall outside that standard. Well, purely by chance and soon after retirement I happened to read one of my father’s books on layman’s physics. The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukov. This book gives a broad-brush stroke introduction to that standard model but is written with a rare clarity that is not often associated with science. I read it at least 3 times, cover to cover.
I had never studied physics at school. Certainly those subjects were available. But I only needed one science subject for my matriculation and, because my interest then was nominal I opted for biology. But now, at the age of 50, I had discovered a new passion. It was physics, and, while my knowledge of the subject was somewhat bereft, my appetite for it became insatiable. Questions abounded. What caused gravity? What was magnetism? What was electricity? I needed to know. And I needed to experiment. I couldn’t actually experiment with the strong and weak nuclear forces or with gravity. But magnets are widely available.
It’s actually rather amusing looking back on it. I first bought about 50 bar magnets, each of them about 10 centimeters long. And then I hung them in clusters to see their interactions. I cooked them to see if this made a difference. I even tasted them. It was an obsessive interest, which was there when I woke up and stayed with me until I eventually went back to bed. Those experiments were hardly scientific. But they added to my curiosity. And eventually I found some small comfort in reading all that I could that was available in layman’s literature. And so it was that my knowledge and understanding of the subject became marginally more defined.
Probably because I spent that month or more, obsessively looking at the interactions of magnets with magnets and coupled with the happy fact that I was never schooled in the subject, I felt free to ask my own questions. The first most obvious question was in trying to determine if there was an actual material property to magnetism. What was that thing that arranged itself as a field? Could there be something there that was invisible? Like a ghost particle?
The real issue at question here is that we need light to make things visible. And we need photons to give us light. And we also know that the speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second. But what if fields, those magnetic or nuclear or even gravitational fields, comprise particles? And what then if those field particles moved at an even greater speed than 186 000 miles per second? Light would never be able to interact with that field. As soon as it reached them they’d have moved. Always they’d be out of reach. At best light would manage a random, or a partial interaction. A chance hit. And then they’d perhaps expose some shadowy indication of something there. But they could never shed light on the actual material itself. It would be moving too quickly.
My second question was this? We’ve all learned that E=Mc^2. In essence this means that if you had the mass of a particle, or in fact of anything, you could then calculate its potential energy. My problem with this was that I had read that a photon has zero mass. Its speed, or better said, its velocity, is about 186 000 miles per second. And yet it has no mass? Nothing? Because whichever way you multiply it, or square it, or do what you will with it, the product of the speed of light and the mass of a photon is zero. How then can it also be so uniquely and so extraordinarily energetic? The standard explanation is that light has a frequency. But is frequency not also a measure of energy? Or perhaps, just perhaps, there may be something very wrong with the basic assumptions of our experts in the field?
That the standard model is incomplete is a little known truth. For example no one actually knows what causes electricity, let alone gravity or the strong and weak nuclear forces. When I finally I realized this I also realized that I would need to find my own answers. But I had no knowledge of math, none at all. If, indeed, I were to resolve anything I would first need to establish some basic rules of logic, which I did, eventually. In fact I formulated my entire thesis from the use of logic applied to scientific questions. Generally and in effect it was simply an eccentric use of the dialectic, and surprisingly I’ve since realized that nothing else would have worked.
Specifically, the proposed answer was, at best, non-standard. The thesis suggests that the unification of the forces is actually shrouded in the mysterious properties of a dipole. This was my concluding deduction. Accordingly, all that was and is, is structured from varying numbers of an unpretentious spherical particle. It has an equitable amount of two opposite charges distributed on either side of an imaginary equator. Not unlike the two poles on our very own planet Earth, except that its charge would be entirely contained within its spherical boundary. And singly, or in composites, or even in field multiples, this little sphere is the only material thing needed to generate the manifold structures of our entire universe. But where it comes from? And why in such abundance? God only knows.
I will never forget the day. It was August 31, 1997. I had the television on and had been up late. Cape Town is on the same timeline as Paris and, at about 11 o clock that evening, it was announced that Princess Diana had been killed in an automobile accident. It was just prior to this that I had finally dared to subject my insights to the ultimate test of numbers. I had applied some tenuous principles of size and velocity to a series of theorized composite dipoles and their proposed inverse proportional relationship. And it had worked out right. My proton was precisely 1836 times greater than my electron.
So it was that I realized that this dipole might indeed be the object of a universal search for the elusive God particle. And, over the next few months, I discovered that composites of this dipole would then generate particles of infinite stability, including the electron, the proton and the photon. It was amazing. Thereafter I was also able to determine the direction that these composites would move inside various fields. And ultimately it was a colleague of mine, Donavan Martin, who resolved the final question. He found the dipole’s required symmetries needed to generate a field.
Well then. If this much was right it may well indicate that the entire thesis may be right. In which case? Space, all of space would therefore be filled with fields of these little dipoles. Varying clusters of evident or measurable matter would, in turn, be trapped inside an all-encompassing universal magnetic field. Dark matter. And I could argue the shape of all those fields as well as determine the number of dimensions needed to sustain this extraordinarily beautiful, this most elegant of systems. It was heady stuff.
For some weeks thereafter I subjected my arguments and conclusions to a rigorous comparison with what was known within the standard model. And I consistently had the real satisfaction of seeing those answers conform to this thesis.
The details of the unfolding argument are the subject of this book. I’ve tried to make this intelligible for the layman when, in fact, it’s presumptuous to propose that it’s even intelligible for academics. I published a paper on the thesis and a paper on its experimental proof. But the first is really a philosophy paper. And the paper that holds the experimental evidence has claims in it that contradict our thermodynamic laws. Sadly, this seems to render the entire thesis somewhat too distasteful for our experts’ consumption.
Here’s the thing. Our science experts depend on experimental evidence to advance science, but with this caveat. Evidence that contradicts thermodynamic laws is self-evidently erroneous and is, therefore, dismissed out of hand. And when it comes to speculation on the property of fields filled with an invisible material? Then indeed, and to a man, they are of the opinion that one is dealing, not with science, but with a rather speculative and adventurous philosophy. Couple this to the proposal that size itself may an adequate description of a particle, as is advanced in this thesis? Then indeed one is flirting with scientific heresy. This is because, in terms of the standard model, a particle’s weight or, better said, its mass, is one of its definitive features. And according to those same experts a particle’s mass bears no correlation to its size. So sadly my proposed particle, my version of the God particle, is not only confrontational but it requires a skill set for understanding it, that is neither entirely geometry nor entirely philosophy.
The universal consensus from our experts in the engineering fraternity has been one of outright dismissal. Measurement’s error! Pseudoscience! But happily it seems that our particle theorists are possibly more persuadable. I finally managed to get one to read the paper, a Professor Kamal Butrouna, of Western Carolina University. I gave him a copy of the paper, as then still unpublished, in July, I think it was, of 2019. He took some two or three months to get back to me. But when he did, he met with me in their library and congratulated me. I was amazed. For the first time in my life I had found an academic who saw some merit in the thesis. To the embarrassment of us both I was moved to tears.
Thereafter he spent some time trying to find a colleague in high-energy physics to collaborate with him to write a proper physics paper on the thesis. But, sadly, he did not succeed. Nor did he have the time to do this entirely by himself. But he did manage to persuade another one of his colleagues, a Professor Rodriguez Gomez, to read it. Professor Gomez is an astrophysicist. Particle physics is certainly not his expertise. But he was, nonetheless, sufficiently intrigued to do a simulation of the experiment. He found those same measurement anomalies, which were claimed in the paper. And such results were undeniably in breach of Thermodynamic Laws. In effect they’re widely considered to be impossible.
He then undertook to repeat the actual experiment if I could supply him with the transistors. And at some considerable difficulty I finally managed this. I gave him the IRFPG50 MOSFET transistors in November 2019. As I write it is now June 2020 and there has been no word. So, of necessity, my hopes here have been put on ice. I have since learned that he’s been promoted and his workload is not as manageable. Hopefully he’ll eventually find time for this.
Meanwhile, through a miracle, my paper on the thesis was eventually published in The Journal of Nuclear Physics. It took a full gestation period of 9 months after submission. But I doubt that anyone other than the reviewer has ever read it. I’ve sent the PDF to a long list of academics without even getting acknowledgement of receipt. Disheartening indeed. But I’ve been told that the advancement of any new ideas depends on one’s attendance at conferences and on a certain amount of explanation. And ideally this should be coupled with some level of accreditation, however nominal. However any kind of attendance at conferences is both beyond my competence and my budget. And I have no accreditation at all. None.
I have now nearly completed a small book on the subject, which is written for the layman. These pages will be its prologue. I am hoping that this may generate a groundswell of interest in the unhappy event that our academics continue to ignore this potential technology. Clearly I’m excessively optimistic. And equally hopefully, I am trusting that this writing may be intelligible to both the layman and the expert. But the former would need to have some real interest in science, which is rare. And the latter would need to be uniquely and perfectly unbiased, which is unlikely. Perhaps God Himself can again intervene. I really need another miracle.
Before I wrap up here I must reference the outrage that my work has evoked. I was under attack 24/7 for about 3 years. I had published a paper titled ‘Experimental evidence of a breach of unity on switched circuit apparatus’. Predictably this attracted a fairly large following and ultimately I was getting up to 750 K hits a month on my blog. Then a veritable team of trolls moved onto that blog and systematically and unmercifully criticized both my work and my lack of expertise. This attack was and is inappropriate because my claim is based on experimental evidence. Their time would have been better spent in disproving those results.
Eventually they persuaded me to subject our experiment to a more rigorous test by taking measurements precisely at the negative terminal of a battery supply. This localized point is certainly not indicative of the energy distributed throughout the circuit and is entirely different to the measurements taken on the ground rail itself. Notwithstanding this, we did as asked and we also did this experiment on line. And we did indeed find a result that appeared to belie our claim. It showed that there was a positive discharge from the battery supply. But this result could not be accounted for in the light of an open circuit. Technically it would have been impossible for that discharge to be released by the battery. It made no sense.
Retrospectively I realized that this was always their intention. They used that video as an admission of failure. My published paper proved that conventional application of the electric force is grossly and unnecessarily prodigal. And that paper also claimed that electricity could be delivered at the smallest fraction of its current costs. While this would certainly appeal to the average user, it would also, most certainly, alarm our energy suppliers, both in fossil fuel and in renewable energy. I am of the opinion that these were the players that were funding my trolls. Certainly that team of 8 or 10 people was permanently on line and on my blog, and for many years.
But left unanswered from that very public video, was the anomalous evidence of a battery discharge onto an open circuit. Engineers know that this is impossible. It just can’t be done. And the only other possible deduction would be that the battery itself was not discharging but recharging. Certainly that was both my claim and the indication of measurement taken both there and elsewhere on the circuit ground rail. And this fact, coupled with the measured evidence of a battery performing in excess of its watt-hour rating was my proof that energy was actually coming from the circuit itself.
But here they showed an excess of positive current on the wrong side of the switch without pointing out the anomaly of this reading from an open circuit. And such a measurement belied a benefit and was more in line with standard predictions. It was enough to throw doubt on the claim. And certainly the release of that video was enough to silence my supporters. Indeed, it was a brutally effective means of discrediting the claim without any need to evaluate its evidence. My trolls moved out of reach after their release of that video.
Be that as it may. I am somewhat of a fatalist and I believe that the blog closure was long overdue. The time had come for me to more earnestly promote this knowledge directly to the academic. I needed to write a paper on the thesis. And now that I have both completed and published that paper, which for me was the most challenging of tasks, I am trying to advance this knowledge more broadly and through my best efforts herein.
What follows is a loose schedule of the concluding claims of this work. They need to be disproved. Because it’s only in the art of disproof that this, or in fact any work in science, can be correctly evaluated. Nothing else cuts it. Nothing else is appropriate. Certainly any opinion, either positive or negative, would simply be an insult to this most noble of all the arts. It’s an art that claims a complete dependency on experimental evidence and the claims here are easily disprovable. Of course they are. They rest on measurement and logic both of which can be evaluated. The following few paragraphs list some of the claims of this thesis, but in its broadest terms.
- Everything that is, is structured from precisely one particle. This includes both material that can be made visible to light, and material that is invisible. This particle is a dipole having the same amount of both positive and negative charge within its structure.
- These dipoles can assemble into strings, which then structure magnetic fields including 1-, 2-, and 3-dimensional fields. Due to the dipoles’ interaction with each other and within those strings, the fields generate a spin making them both localized and orbital. Their velocity exceeds light speed, which puts them out of range of an interaction with light. This renders the fields invisible.
- Invisible 1-dimensional fields are structured as a simple string of dipoles with their ends closed. These strings are responsible for binding atoms and molecules into identifiable structures. In response to a charge imbalance in a battery mix, these binding fields become open strings positioned across a battery terminal. They can then be measured as potential difference. Under closed circuit conditions these open strings move across a circuit from one terminal to another thereby adjusting their charge so that they can then reorganize and balance the binding in that mix. This movement through the circuit is measured as electric current flow. And, subject to a switched circuit in series with an inductive load and that supply source, this electric energy can be delivered without an attendant loss of potential difference to its supply. When and if these binding strings collapse or become chaotic, they manifest as fire. This fire then seeks out new material to bind.
- Invisible 2-dimensional fields are responsible for the strong and weak nuclear force. They assemble in multiple closed strings that are structured on the horizontal plane. These fields are the basic hidden structure of the elements. At critical sizes their strings collapse and disassemble the dipoles in those strings. Then the liberated dipoles transmute into protons, electrons and neutrons all of which, in turn, are dipolar composites that remain inside the boundary of that 2-dimensional field. The number of those assembled composite particles determines the atoms’ type, its complexity and its mass.
- Invisible 3-dimensional fields are responsible for gravity. They assemble and stack multiple two dimensional magnetic fields into the form of a torus. These fields can then be determined by compass and they generate a gravitational force by forcing all matter within that field, to its centre. This resolves that matter into the form of a sphere. Antimatter, conversely, would be forced to the outer boundaries of that field.
- There is a further ultimate and universal toroidal field that holds all matter. When a string from this vast field is broken, the dipoles within those strings spill out into a localized area of space. They form the visible nebula, which, in its early form, is a chaotic assembly of the dipolar material that was previously hidden in its orbiting or string condition. Matter systematically re-assembles from this spillage thereby generating large assemblies of elements as suns. And when these suns spin outside the ambit of that nebula they experience a voltage imbalance from the localized orbit of that universal toroidal field. Not only do they then catch fire but some of their binding fields are discarded. These discarded fields, in turn, generate 2-dimensional orbiting fields of dipoles strapped at the circumference of that star and thereby forming solar systems.
If correct then these deductions indicate that it would be feasible to generate antigravity. And certainly the experimental evidence is that one can generate electricity at a fraction of its cost and through a method that would be far kinder to our environment. But I’m also hoping that this thesis will give reason to desist from any use of nuclear fission for any purposes at all because the indications here are that the potential force of that energy could ultimately degrade the Earth’s magnetic fields. And if used in space it could likely degrade that universal toroidal field. Both are critical.
As mentioned in the paper, there is no patent on any of this technology. The hope is that this will motivate readers of this to both experiment and apply this technology to a myriad of potential uses.
