[General] The New Aether

Thu Jul 30 11:53:28 PDT 2015

Tri-vector! Flux capacitor! Poynted! LOL!

Poynting vector in a static field, where E is the electric field, H the magnetic field, and S the Poynting vector <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector#Static_fields> 

From: David Mathes [mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: 30 July 2015 19:19
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
Cc: 'Joakim Pettersson' <joakimbits at gmail.com>; 'Nick Bailey' <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; 'Manohar .' <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com>; 'Ariane Mandray' <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

John W,

I should have parsed the thoughts better. Yes, there are many currents that should be poynted out.

Ahhhh, the tri-vector bit. Perhaps adjusting the tri-vector in the flux capacitor will allow my Mr. Fusion system to work again. (grin)

Best

David

  _____  

From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> >
To: John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> >; 'David Mathes' <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> >; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> > 
Cc: 'Joakim Pettersson' <joakimbits at gmail.com <mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com> >; 'Nick Bailey' <nick at bailey-family.org.uk <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> >; 'Manohar .' <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com <mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> >; 'Ariane Mandray' <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> > 
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Hello guys,

John, the displacement current isn't mentioned because it is an old thing: the term Maxwell added to make his equations forever his (they all existed before him EXCEPT for the displacement current term (the second one in the vector bit in the equation)).

David - I see where you are coming from, but you are using the word "current" to mean pretty much everything. For me the current bit is the vector bit. The tri-vector bit is the "magnetic current". The areal bits are what we usually call the electric and magnetic field. In the standard model there  are other "currents' as well: the weak current and many others. I" just going for a single current though and seeing how far that gets me.

Regards, John W.

  _____  

From: John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 12:24 PM
To: John Williamson; 'David Mathes'; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Cc: 'Joakim Pettersson'; 'Nick Bailey'; 'Ariane Mandray'; 'Manohar .'
Subject: RE: [General] The New Aether

John:

Sorry John, I was having a humorous  moment, and threw out that quip to get your attention. But never a truer word and all that. I took a look at your position statement. There’s no mention of displacement current there, you only mention electromagnetic field once, and your equation refers to and . But these aren’t really fields, they denote the linear and rotational forces that result from electromagnetic field interactions. And it takes two to tango. Why do the electron and the positron move the way that they do? 

An electron and positron orbiting around their

common centre of mass. This is a bound 

quantum state known as positronium.

Because each is “a dynamical spinor in frame dragged space”. Hence they move linearly and/or rotationally, like a cyclone and an anticyclone in some microsecond death dance. Like this:

Neither is surrounded by a field of force, the linear and/or rotational forces are only there when the electromagnetic fields interact. If we only see linear force because the electron and positron were initially motionless with respect to one another, we talk of an electric field E, but there is no such field. The fields that are there are two “spinor” electromagnetic fields. And to make these things you need the displacement current itself, to “pivot” the light into a closed double loop spin ½ spinor path, wherein what was a field variation propagating linearly at c now looks like an all-round standing field. Light is alternating displacement current. Have a look at this <http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/olive/ode/physicsworld/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=UEhZU1dvZGUvMjAxMC8wOS8wMQ..&pageno=MzM.&entity=QXIwMzMwMA..&view=ZW50aXR5> . If it wasn’t alternating we wouldn’t have vacuum impedance. It’s like you’re in a canoe on a flat calm ocean, and along comes a big oceanic swell wave. You ride up the slope, and the tilt of your canoe denotes E whilst the rate of change of tilt denotes B. One’s the spatial derivative of potential, the other is the time derivative, but they’re two sides of the same coin. At the top of the wave your canoe is horizontal and momentary motionless, but you’ve been lifted up. E and B are zero but the four-potential is at a maximum. There was this upward current of water that did this. Now before it goes back down freeze the frame and hold that picture whilst I send another  wave past you. It rides up the big oceanic swell wave.  As it does, it changes direction. Not because of some derivative E or B field that isn’t really a field. Light interacts with light in similar fashion. Light displaces light, and if one wave displaces another into itself, it displaces itself. It’s like your pivot picture, but there aren’t two orthogonal fields at work, it’s just displacement current doing what it says on the can.   

Regards 

John D

NB: your document has the word “both” repeated in the penultimate paragraph.  

From: John Williamson [mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk] 
Sent: 30 July 2015 07:48
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> >; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >; John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> >
Cc: Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com <mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com> >; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> >; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> >; Manohar . <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com <mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> >
Subject: RE: [General] The New Aether

Hello John D,

I'm intrigued. Just which bit of the "displacement current" do you think I do not get?

I have taught this, and the distinction between particle current and quantum mechanical current in 4th year courses so it would be good if I could take it to a deeper level.

In particular, are there any terms missing from my first equation in the position statement attached? If so what?

Regards, John W.

  _____  

From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 7:25 PM
To: John Duffield; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

John

The photon fields rotate. Why?

A photon in the electron has a second rotation involving precession. The c is closed or at least nearly closed (knotted, Hopf structure)

No vacuum, spacetime, additional dimension required. 

The displacement current may be a symptom, not a source.

D

  _____  

From: John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> >
To: 'David Mathes' <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> >; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> > 
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:41 AM
Subject: RE: [General] The New Aether

David:

What causes the twist or rotation, at least on a local scale?

Light. Light is displacement current. It displaces things. Including light. It displaces its own path into a closed path. Space waves. Space warps. Space is displaced. Space is twisted. Quantum gravity is nothing to do with it. The proton and the electron “exchange field” as they move together. The hydrogen atom has very little in the way of a field left. But when two hydrogen atoms attract each other gravitationally they don’t exchange field. The field is doubled up. 

NB, spacetime isn’t space. It’s an abstract thing, it combines the time “dimension” with the space dimensions, so there is no motion in it. Curved spacetime is actually inhomogeneous space. There is motion in that. The electromagnetic field is curved space. It’s like gravitomagnetism, think frame-dragging, and it’s just waves, there are no speedboats. The particle is just a stress. A “pulse” of four-potential.  

In the JW and vdM model, the photon on a curved path due to something internal to the photon, but they haven’t gotten the hang of this displacement current thingy yet. The particles are waves, and the waves are just waves in space. There’s less to it than meets the eye. 

Regards

John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: 28 July 2015 17:59
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

John D, John M, John W et al

In discussions and conferences, I've always wondered if every speaker was correct in their assertions and data, how could one create a unified model, and in doing so, no matter how eclectic or kludged that model, perhaps just perhaps lead to insights that eventually to a unified theory. 

So the following gendanken attempts to combine the various a few viewpoints to construct a framework of compatibility.

In the case of the rotation diagram by John D, what causes the twist or rotation, at least on a local scale? To me, something topologically is missing from the pictograph as if some magician or physicist waved their hands and all of a sudden, in the near field we have a twist or a torsion field. I write this off to a good start on analogy but falls short of a reasonable geometric or topological reason for the local field twist. A third element - a missing parameter - needs to be included.

Can we combine "spaces waves" and "space is twisted" into a coherent theory? Or do we have the correct theory of spacetime, one presumes quantum gravity?

IMHO there is a failure to properly distinguish between spacetime and the vacuum.  Spacetime is a convenient vehicle for one to hitch a new theory to. After all, it's mainstream and one doesn't have to fuss with all those details about quantum things whereas the vacuum may be full of particles that are mostly harmless, benign masses that do not respond to the current sensitivities of sensors. After all, the vacuum is not a void. So what is in the vacuum may be a quantum soup be stirred.

Now the JohnD model is similar to that of a circulating particle creating a wake. A speedboat on a lake going in circles (e.g. recovering a skier) or a rotating rock dropped into water are concrete visual examples of the wakes created by a circulating particle.

An ideal model would begin with an isentropic and incompressible liquid with low viscosity. As the particle moves through the vacuum/spacetime, small disturbances are continually generated over a wide frequency spectrum, and therefore, wide spectrum of wavelengths as well. If the phase velocity is less than the velocity of the particle, then constructive interference results and shock waves are formed. Perhaps these quantum shock waves form the basis for both E and M fields?

Can one of the 4Pi elementary particle models (Williamson/van der Mark, Gauthier, others) of the electron help in this topological waving and twisting of something? Perhaps. John and Martin have the right direction with an electron model is constructed from a curving photon. The photon appears confined to a path that at a distance after many cycles the accumulated paths look like a ring  torus where the photon creates a knotted path. (Villarceau circles or Clifford torus?)

In the JW and vdM model, is the photon on a curved path due to something internal to the photon or external in the universe? How does the photon within the electron interact with spacetime or the vacuum? Or more generally, how are mass, charge the curving photon related? 

Beyond the ring torus model, Gauthier does have a set of spindle torus models that might assist in explaining the twist. A charged and curving photon is proposed. As a 4Pi model, zbw is satisfied. The twist is more pronounced in the spindle torus than the ring torus.

If there is a photon within the electron, that might begin to explain the twisting action. However, One then needs to ask why the photon itself curves and twists. 

Why does the photon in the electron dance the jitterbug?

What's inside the photon? That leads us to the quanta of the photon model, a level below that of elementary particles. 

Is this new level of particles massless? For now, that appears to be a good dividing line between elementary and quanta levels?

What is the quanta in the photon interacting with: spacetime, vacuum, small dimensions, or something completely different?

So one might consider the possibility that a rotating quanta is interacting with the surroundings to produce a photon. The directionality of the photon leads one away from a quanta that may be a spherical model to more of a cylindrical model where one dimension is completely different than the other two which are the same. Now an ellipsoid meets the asymmetric condition of a photon as do a number of other topologies.

In a parametric model such as Gauthier's, the transition between models is continuous, and one can have morphing from sphere to torus to cylinder along with variants. 

However, the question remains...are the wave/particles  interacting with spacetime, the subzero vacuum, or something completely different?

David

  _____  

From: John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> >
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> > 
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 1:38 AM
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Chip Vivand All:

I agree with John that QED doesn’t have much to do with it. Feynman couldn’t even explain a magnet. But even though I’m a relativity  guy, I don’t think that helps either. Instead I think it’s best to go way back, and take a tip from gravitomagnetism here. Check out this NASA article http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/ where Tony Philips talks about vortices, just like Maxwell did <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force> , and says “space is twisted”.  Then think of an electromagnetic field as something similar. Combine the radial electric field lines with concentric magnetic field lines for electromagnetic field lines like this:

Error! Filename not specified.

There’s a torus in the middle <http://members.optushome.com.au/walshjj/toroid2.jpg>  causing what is in essence frame-dragging, wherein the electromagnetic field is “twisted space”. Or you might call it a “twist field”. Now imagine you were heading into it. For some strange reason this works best if you hold out your arms like you’re a kid playing planes. What happens if you head into it? You turn.  If you have relative motion with respect to this twist field, and you didn’t know it, you would call it a turn field.  That’s what a magnetic field is. A turn field. We don’t talk of rot and rotor for nothing, electrons don’t go round and round for nothing, see this picture <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Electron_beam_in_a_magnetic_field.jpg> . The Lorentz force is merely the combination of linear “electric” force and rotational magnetic force that results when two (or more) charged particles interacts. They move like cyclones and anticyclones. 

Error! Filename not specified.

The simplest magnet is the current-in-the-wire. There you have two opposite sets of twist fields which cancel. However one set is moving, so there’s a net turn field: 

 Error! Filename not specified.

That’s a magnetic field. Bend the wire into a solenoid to emulate a bar magnet, then bend that again to make a horseshoe magnet. A magnet is a magnet because all the electrons are moving the same way. In a solenoid they go round in a circle of wire, in a bar magnet they go round domains, but there’s not much difference really.  

Regards

John Duffield

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 28 July 2015 03:01
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Hi Vivian and Michael

Thank you for your responses.  

The interesting thing to me is the fact that when you rotate the disk, there is an electric potential generated across the disk, but when you rotate the magnet there is no net electrical potential generated. Naively one would expect the same results at any time the disk or magnet are rotated relative to each other, but this is not the case. It is like the magnetic field is, in a sense, “stationary” in space, regardless of whether the magnet is still or rotating.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 8:28 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Hi Chip,

Magnetic lines of force don't exist. They are a convenient representation of an observed magnetic effect such as the lines that iron filings form when placed in a magnetic field. You can't corral them by getting a magnetised wire to draw them in and so concentrate them. At least I couldn't when I was tried the experiment many years ago. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) specialists are more experience in magnetism than myself and maybe one of them can give some more information. IMHO, the reason for the noise generated when the magnet was rotated was because of the non uniform nature of the magnetic's field. When the stator is rotated it is also moving through a magnetic field. I am not aware of Einstein's relativity theories have anything to say about magnetic fields. Over to QED experts. 

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson

On 28/07/2015, at 1:46 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi All

A friend forwarded this video regarding magnetic fields.

It is quite interesting.

 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE

I am interested in hearing your views and thoughts on this phenomenon.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:40 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Thank you, John, W, Vivian R. and John M.

As a part of the facilitating system, I am pleased to see that the overall contents of the discussion are conducive to collective learning.  Collective learning is at the core of the  unusually successful evolution of the human neural network compared to all other species. The best part of the collective learning is that I do not need to spend all my life to find out that my logically self-consistent and elegant theory is based upon postulates that are insufficiently connected with the ongoing natural processes. We need system engineering thinking in all human endeavors; we need collective and iterative thinking.

Thanks to all of you that the forum is maintaining its serious enquiry of nature; rather than telling nature how she ought to behave!

Chandra.

PS: I owe a separate personal reply to John M.; will do so in a couple of days.

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 12:45 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Joakim Pettersson; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Hi John M,

I think you are confusing proof and disproof. There tends to a be a popular mis-conception that an experiment can "prove" a theory. Not so, an experiment may be consistent or inconsistent with a theory - no more. This means that a well-constructed experiment may, in a sense, disprove a theory, but not prove it. If an experiment is inconsistent with a theory - within the realm of validity of that theory - then that theory should, in the proper operation of the scientific method, be either modified or discarded.

Now you have raised some questions below, not of any of our models, but of science as it stands. Though this has little or nothing to do with the subject of the upcoming conference, I am going to try to help you by answering those questions, within the context of science-as-it-stands. I'm not then going to enter into further discussion to defend those theories for you - this is not my job and I have neither the time nor the energy for it. If you want to go deeper into this you can read the papers on it by Feynmann and others, or look into one of the many textbooks on QED. This is a one off. I will answer in blue.

  _____  

From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ] on behalf of John Macken [john at macken.com <mailto:john at macken.com> ]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:52 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Vivian and All.

I have been away and was not able to answer Vivian’s objections contained in her July 17 post dealing with my paper titled “Energetic Spacetime: the New Aether”.  On several of her points she demanded that I had to be able to show the experimental proof in order for a point to be valid.

This is not so. Viv was talking about a discrepancy with experiment.

  I must admit that as I read this comment I wondered why this demand was being directed at me.  Everyone in this group including Vivian and Chandra has offered theoretical models which lack experimental proof.

This mis-states the position of others.

In fact, most progress in physics happens when a theoretical prediction is made which initially lacks experimental proof.

Not so. It is discrepancy with the existing body of knowledge that usually drives folk to question. The initial driving discrepancy may not, indeed, correspond with what are later seen as "successes" of a model.

The experimental proof then follows as the idea matures. 

No theory is ever "proven" by any one experiment.

For example, general relativity was purely theoretical until the bending of light by the sun’s gravity was experimentally measured in 1919.  The experiment would not have been performed without the theoretical prediction. 

Oh yes it would. Photons would have been known to carry energy and momentum. there would have been an argument like that in Martin's "light is heavy" and someone would have looked at how these move in a gravitational field by now.

General relativity remains unproven. It is only the case that, to first order, General relativity is consistent with the facts.

Another problem is that objections were registered without also addressing the arguments I gave to support my conclusions.  The central point was that there is no support for my contention that vacuum energy has energy density in excess to 10-9J/m3. However, before addressing this point, I want to discuss the competition to my model of particles and forces.  The competition has the electrostatic force being transferred by virtual photons.  There is absolutely no experimental proof that virtual photons transfer the electrostatic force.  In fact, there are numerous reasons to doubt this.

John, there is a theory called quantum electrodynamics (QED). It is consistent with a vast range of experimental phenomena. Have you ever studied it? I'm going to give some trite answers based on that theory - and which I could have answered as a postgrad back in 1980. I will not come back to defend them because I myself do not think QED is complete, but I have better things to do than to regurgitate things you could read from a big book. I recommend "Landau and Lifshitz - QED". Anyway, showing that someone else has a problem - even if you had done that which you have not - does not then prove that you are right.

For example: 1) How is attraction achieved?

As I have said before in many posts: virtual photons can carry negative 4-momentum squared.

2) How does an electric field achieve measurable energy density from “virtual” photons?

You have a lot of them.

3) What exactly is a virtual photon? (size, wavelength, frequency, etc.)

Stupid question. Any size, any wavelength , any frequency. Even "real" photons can do that.  A virtual photon is a theoretical construct in the theory of QED. Read the book.

  4) How does a virtual photon locate a distant electron?

Good point. This is relatively hard. It is dealt with in QED by assigning a probability to emit (based on the fine structure constant) and a probability to absorb (ditto). The primary interaction matrix element then goes as alpha- squared times some geometrical factors.  You need to understand as well that, as the distant electron becomes more and more distant the "virtual" photon becomes less and less virtual and more and more real. In fact, even for a few tens of wavelengths, the exchange photon is 99.9999 percent "real". There are higher order effects for exotic kinds of interactions (virtual photons!). These, if calculated - give pretty much exactly the effects observed in experiment. 

To understand the deeper implied point better, however, you need to look first at Carver Mead's keynote talk at last years SPIE conference. Then look at Al Kracklauer's translation of Tetrode's paper (look on his website), then read Wheeler and Feynmann's paper then try to understand how this can still be consistent with causality (this is hard and may take you some time. Think - energy.).

  I could go on, but you get the point. 

I could go on but you get the point.

Also, the competition says that the gravitational force is transferred by either the geometry of curved spacetime or by virtual gravitons. Both of these also have problems.  Curved spacetime is fine to explain a particle following a geodesic, but there is a real force when two masses are physically held apart.  Where does this force come from?

Easy: masses share the "bend". Many hands make light work. All that sort of thing.

Curved spacetime does not explain the gravitational force. 

Oh yes it does. Do you think no-one would have noticed? Many others in the group ... Viv, David, Reg, Al ... know much more about this than I do. It would be good for you to talk to them at the conference.

In other words, there is no experimental proof that the geometry of spacetime can generate a force corresponding to the gravitational force. Also, gravitons have many of the same problems previously enumerated for virtual photons.  There is no experimental proof of gravitons.

True - as far as I know. Unless someone in the wider group, more specialist or widely-read than I knows better? David? Reg? Al? The fact that there is no proof for someone else's theory has little, or no, bearing on your own though. Also, while there is no experimental "proof" for gravitons there is no experimental disproof either. No inconsistency with experiment then. Also gravitons have absolutely nothing to do with the upcoming conference.

My explanation of both the electrostatic force and gravity is based on the idea that vacuum energy is real.  The uncertainty principle implies that the distance between points varies by ± Planck length (Lp) and perfect clocks in flat spacetime can differ by ± Planck time (Tp).  This simple insight is the basis for the wave-based energy density of spacetime.  This energy density has been calculated and shown to be vastly different from the observable energy density which averages10-9 J/m3. It is also the basis of everything in the universe – all particles, fields and forces. No extra dimensions are needed.  How come when people freely propose extra dimensions there is no chorus demanding experimental proof?  However, when energetic spacetime is assumed, then objections are heard even though there is numerous reasons to believe that the vacuum has energy density.

I think the main reason for this is that energies and masses on this scale are simply not observed. When people make up extra dimensions they do so usually in an area where they ought not to be observed - being very small or only manifesting at an absurdly large energy scale. You start in an area where such energies and masses - if they are energies and masses - should by easily observed by looking out of the window.

Unlike virtual messenger particles transferring forces, this wave-based particle model has real predictions which were easy to prove correct.

This statement is simply not true. QED predicts, it is true, but it also calculates. So far, with the possible exception of tiny discrepancies in the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon w.r.t. that of the electron, its calculations agree exactly with experiment. It calculates to many decimal places. Experiment is still catching up with extending those decimal places by further orders. Down at one part in a million or less. You have shouted a lot about your model - but the only actual number I have seen calculated from it -  the electron charge- is out by more than two orders of magnitude.

For example, the first set of predictions were that both the electrostatic force and the gravitational force were the result of waves generated by fundamental particles at the particle’s Compton frequency.  When these forces were expressed in the natural units of the particles, they would reveal that gravity was a nonlinear effect that scaled with wave amplitude squared and electrostatic effects scaled with wave amplitude to the first power.  In other words, it should be possible to prove or disprove whether this model was correct by doing either a calculation or an experiment which tested this relationship.  In the paper Spacetime Based Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity equations 15 to 23 show that these predictions are correct.

I looked at this, but all you seem to have done, to me, is plugged in Newton's force law - and a set of other well-known relations in your equation 13, provided only that you also plug in a value of the electron charge which is more than two orders of magnitude out. This is not, in my a book, a prediction. Also, even after all of this, you seem to get no further than Newton's law of gravitation.

  I have subsequently generated other equations showing the close relationship between the gravitational force and the electrostatic force. This “foundation” paper was previously attached to my posts and is also available at <http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf> http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf

 <http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf> 

Both the Newtonian gravitational equation and the Coulomb law equation have been experimentally verified. 

To a first approximation. The Newton theory is modified, as you know in GR and the Coulomb law breaks down at short distances (the running coupling constant).

Therefore, showing how there equations are related by a square is the same as doing an experiment.

Oh no it isn't.

The fact they are related by an inverse square shows only that both are consistent, to first order, with being transmitted by a conserved fluid in 3D. No more and no less.

If you are looking for predictions which have not been experimentally verified, I have those also.  In chapter 9 of my book I discuss an electric field experiment  that should be possible but difficult. However, even then I am able to show that it is possible to verify the accuracy of the prediction with a thought experiment.  Suppose that it was possible to increase the intensity of a laser beam to arbitrarily large powers.  If the beam is focused to 1 wavelength in diameter, then the prediction is that it should be possible to reach a condition where the properties of spacetime would achieve 100% modulation of the vacuum energy density at the laser’s wavelength.  Spacetime should be incapable of transmitting more power than the predicted 100% modulation level through the focused spot.  Imagine that this experiment was performed by some advanced civilization.  At great expense, they would discover that this prediction was correct.  The 100% modulation level corresponds to the level that makes a black hole.  Once the black hole forms, no further light could be transmitted through this volume of spacetime – just as predicted.

Dear John, you seem quite safe to me for the time being with this experiment. I tried doing the sums. Perhaps I made a mistake so correct me if I am wrong. The poor old laser, if blue, would need a  power source rather larger than that which could be obtained by annihilating the entire universe with an equivalent antimatter universe- since the energy contained in a 200nm (Half the wavelength of blue light) cube in your model, to get to "the 100 percent modulation limit" far exceeds the energy of the energy of the entire universe by many many orders of magnitude. This is going to take some serious engineering. Do the sums.  Also, I would not recommend having a go at this as annihilating the whole of our universe, just to "prove" a theory would not necessarily be a good idea.

Finally, the “New Aether” paper contains a new calculation which gives the “interactive” density ρi,

The fact you put "interactive" in quotes is telling.

energy density Ui, mass mi and energy ei encountered by a gravitational wave with angular frequency ω and reduced wavelength λ.  Ignoring the numerical constant k, these equations are very simple:

ρi = ω2/G

Ui = Fp/λ2

mi = Zs/ω

ei = Fpλ

These are all explained in the aether paper.  I know that none of these will not be completely satisfying, but they are given because they imply that different frequencies encounter different amount of energy density.  Only Planck frequency encounters 10113 J/m3 energy density.

If interactive, these interactions are huge on a human scale. You should be able to feel them by waving your hand. You do not.

If you have no need for a higher frequency than the Compton frequency of the Higgs boson, then you need not concern yourself with energy density higher than about 1046 J/m3.  This also happens to be the energy density of the Higgs field from QED. 

The Higgs field is not in QED. It is an additional part of the "standard model".  QED deals with just the interaction of light and (charged) matter.

John, a general comment. I have been putting a lot of effort and time into this for your benefit and for the benefit of others in the group. I like some of what you have done, and have been doing, and there is some serious content in some aspects of your ideas. Attacking others, especially physics-as-it-stands, is a waste of everyone's energy and talent. It is beginning to piss me off. Please stick to either developing your own ideas, or posting (preferably constructive) criticism of things that are actually in the theme of this conference.

John M.

Regards, John W.

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv at etpsemra.com.au <mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> &unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> &unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> &unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150730/fa7d28eb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 12362 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150730/fa7d28eb/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 320 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150730/fa7d28eb/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150730/fa7d28eb/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 5863 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150730/fa7d28eb/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 10259 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150730/fa7d28eb/attachment.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14810 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150730/fa7d28eb/attachment-0001.jpeg>