Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

David Thomson: on 4/1/13 at 18:55pm UTC, wrote Thanks for your post of genuine support, Mr. Scobba. Hopefully, you have...

Chris Scobba: on 4/1/13 at 16:51pm UTC, wrote Hello Mr. Thompson, No question here... yet. I just wanted to express my...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:21am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

David Thomson: on 10/1/12 at 17:31pm UTC, wrote "You're obviously only too aware of the size of the majority dismissing...

David Thomson: on 10/1/12 at 16:26pm UTC, wrote Hi Peter, it is good to read your paper sharing similar ideas and insights...

Peter Jackson: on 10/1/12 at 14:18pm UTC, wrote David Nice defrocking of the SM, and good aether model. But missing a...

Hoang Hai: on 9/29/12 at 16:35pm UTC, wrote Thank you David Thomson Based on my research: the separation of the...

David Thomson: on 9/26/12 at 14:05pm UTC, wrote It is an honor to have a published science writer comment on my work. ...


Dr Narayan Bhadra: "STRUCTURE FORMATIONS OF BIOMOLECULES We study a Nano-Structural..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Jim,hope you are well, You could be interested to read some papers on..." in The Nature of Time

Javier Soto del Valle: "As Arieh Ben-Naim [1] says, time does not appear in entropy expressions...." in First Things First: The...

Jim Snowdon: "Picture a single photon moving in space? Where on the photon does time..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Jim Snowdon: "Good Morning Steve! Happy New Year! I can hardly wait..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Dufourny: "Hi, Esa, Nasa, WB, UN ,All governments, the royal famillies, the..." in Global Collaboration

Nicholas hosein: "Iwrote the above when I had perfect clarity." in Good Vibrations

Steve Dufourny: "Dr Chiang, I am understanding. These quars , antiquarks, gluons personally..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

click titles to read articles

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

January 26, 2022

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Calculations of the Unified Force Theory by David W Thomson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author David W Thomson wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:48 GMT
Essay Abstract

In a previous paper, we demonstrated a geometrical model of Aether, which includes a Unified Force Theory. The present paper reveals the calculations and method for proving the unification of the forces and provides additional discussion about the Aether Physics Model and the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

Author Bio

High School GED Self Educated

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Michael Goebel wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 07:30 GMT
Dear Mr Thomson,

Out of all the papers I have read on the subject of the Aether - and there have been many - none has impressed me as much as yours. The ease with which this model generates the known fundamental constants is (to me) overwhelming proof of its accuracy. Being especially interested in electronics, however a total novice in Physics, I would like to ask:

Can you possibly show me how the Aether Unit can be used to account for or how it relates to the permeability u0, permmitivity E0 and impedance Z of free space ?

(only if it is possible to 'dumb it down' to my level!)

One of the most interesting things about electronics to me is that if the mathematics works, then the CIRCUIT will work and so I am *very* interested in learning more about Aether Physics from an electronic point of view.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
David Thomson replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 15:55 GMT
Mr. Goebel, thank you for your enthusiasm.

The Aether unit is a quantum rotating magnetic field. It is a dynamic structure at the root of subatomic particles, light, and forms the mechanical basis for active space.

The Aether has five basic and distinct properties. These properties are represented by the permeability constant, permittivity constant, conductance constant,...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Michael Goebel replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT
My apologies! - I should have read the paper more thoroughly to begin with.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 15:57 GMT
To the moderator: The latex equations looked fine in the latex viewing window, but did not post correctly to the page.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Reginald Reeves wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 20:34 GMT
Hello Mr Thompson.

I enjoysd reading you research findings and had a question for you, if you don't mind ? I think it is possible to be able to introduce the 2 different electrons together on seperate standing platforms and experiment with adding each one to the other in a time differential approach.

From what I read from your research, a perpetual motion might occur just by bringing the 2 fields together within an exact range of each others seperate fields. Thereby creating or allowing a symbionic relationship with the zero point field or at least a reaction to its field may or may not occur.

What do you think ?



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 23:47 GMT
Thank you Mr. Reeves for your question. According to my analysis, the electron does experience the Casimir effect. In fact, the Casimir effect is nearly identical to the calculated strong force for the electron and the difference falls within the range experimentally produced by Steve Lamoreaux.

Also, CERN conclusively proved in 2010 that the Casimir effect generates real photons from the Aether (vacuum) and not virtual photons. When a real photon is generated by the presence of two properly aligned electrons, that photon can be absorbed by certain atoms and converted to an electron and the electron can be put to work. This in essence is "free energy."

However, the energy is not free. There is a cost to everything. The creation of new electrons from the Aether means new matter, and hence, new mass and charge are generated.

If all energy on Earth was generated by Casimir devices, we would end up with excessive electrons, or electrostatic pollution.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Mike Davis wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 06:04 GMT
I am just a beginner in all this, so please forgive me if this is a stupid question but is "empty space" just totally empty and these aether particles in a sort of "dormant" state, waiting to be, like, "activated" or is empty space already full of them ? To put it another way, does "empty space" actually consist of a "sea of aether", (so to speak) or do they "pop in and out" of existence ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
David Thomson replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 06:25 GMT
Hi Mike, this is a very good question.

Aether is the actual structure of space. Space is not a numerical coordinate system. Yes, we can use numerical coordinate systems to map space, but space has dynamic structure.

Aether provides not only the structure for space, but it also provides particle spin, electrostatic charge, and the "shell" for subatomic particles, among other things.

Because the Aether is space, and because the Aether is a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic fields, Aether can be manipulated. This is how General Relativity, the Sagnac effect, frame dragging, positive holes, magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, gravitational fields, and other phenomena of space are possible. It is possible to manipulate space just like we manipulate matter.

The Casimir effect is another example of manipulated space (Aether). The reason why photons are generated from "free space" is because space is both structured and dynamic. This is also quantified and explained in the Aether Physics Model.

We normally think of matter as being the only thing with structure. But Aether units are quantum rotating magnetic fields with finite structure. In other words, fields precede matter in the evolution of the Universe. The idea that the entire Universe popped out of a single point is absurd and simply not true.

Atoms are matter, subatomic particles are quasi matter, and Aether is not matter at all; it is a field. There are even subtler levels of existence than fields, which are also quantified in the Aether Physics Model. Modern science incorrectly assumed that reduction meant breaking things into smaller pieces. There is a progression of states of existence from the simplest (Singularity) to the more complex.

It is because each level of existence has a different state that we need to go beyond the particle concept. Particles are a mid-range state of existence; they are not the most fundamental state of existence.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jorge G. Dewey wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 02:47 GMT
Hello, my question (very basic) was answered to Mike Davis with your usual didactic explanation. Thank you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
David Thomson replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 03:34 GMT
Jorge, I am glad to have answered your question. Relevant to this paper, the Aether is also the quantum of all the forces. Fundamental physics theory in the Standard Model attempts to use particles to mitigate force. By misinterpreting equations and streaks on film, theories have misled physicists to believe that matter conveys force and fundamental structure. The Higgs Boson theory also arose from these erroneous assumptions.

According to the Aether Physics Model, forces are inherent to the structure of space. This is why there appears to be force at a distance. The structure of space conveys the fundamental forces, so by manipulating space in specific ways, it is possible to make and even break force fields. As such, it is possible to build vehicles (or any structures) that are gravitationally isolated from the Earth. It would be fairly easy to build a proof of concept device.

A structure, such as a conductive sphere, could have an electrostatic resonator placed inside of it. Connect the ground plane of the resonator to the conductive sphere and leave the top load at the center of the sphere. Then tune the resonator until an electrostatic standing wave is formed over the sphere.

This will separate the space inside the sphere from the space outside of it and break the gravitational force link and cause the vehicle to become weightless.

So not only am I proposing a new physics theory, but I am also providing an experiment to prove it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Michael Goebel wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 17:19 GMT
Can you further explain,

"As the unified charge equations reveal, the spherical angle, one-spin electrostatic charge equates to the steradian angle, half-spin electromagnetic charge multiplied by 2 to equate spin, and multiplied by 4 to equate solid angles. The fine structure is the magnitude difference of the equivalent spherical angle, one-spin charges."

? please

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
David Thomson replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 21:43 GMT
Thanks, Michael, for the question. There are two types of charges, electrostatic and electromagnetic. In the APM, all charge is distributed. Furthermore, the distribution is over a curved surface. By analyzing equations and constants, we can easily determine the electrostatic charge occurs with a spherical geometry and electromagnetic charge occurs with a toroidal geometry.

The quote...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hitomi Kawasaki wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 11:01 GMT
In Table 2, the last force strength source has an error message. What is that about?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
David Thomson replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 14:18 GMT
Thank you, Hitomi, for your question. The link on Physnet for this reference has been taken down. It is really superfluous as there are already enough references to show that the mainstream physics community cannot yet agree on the relative strength of the forces. The lack of agreement in the physics community shows how little is known about how to measure forces and how to calculate them relative to each other.

The Aether Physics Model provides a definitive, Classical Physics measurement system for the strong force (for each of the electron, proton, and neutron), which has a defined relationship to the other forces. BTW, I show mathematically that the Casimir Force is, in fact, the strong force for the electron.

In the Aether Physics Model, the electromagnetic charge is the strong force carrier at the level of subatomic particles to bind atoms. The electromagnetic charge at the level of atoms is the Van der Waals force to bind molecules. At the level of gross matter, the electromagnetic charge is the source of permanent magnetism. It is also likely the source of diamagnetism and paramagnetism. An analysis of quantum measurements units also shows that the electromagnetic charge is directly responsible for nearly all the electrical units, with the exception of magnetic moment. Magnetic moment is a unit involving the balance (or interaction) of electrostatic charge to electromagnetic charge in a given particle.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Jedi Dufourny wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 11:19 GMT
Hello Mr Thomson,

I beleive that it is not possible to give a geometrical model of the aether. Because this aether is above our physicality.The only one link is these central main spheres,these singularities.These spheres separate the physicality and this aether. The aether so is without dimensionality,without motion, without geometry. In fact this infinite light creates this physical sphere. The paradox is about the entropy and its increasing......this entropy from aether is paradoxal inside the physicality. Furthermore this finite physical entropy incre&ases towards this infinite entropy behind our walls. So it becomes so not relevant for the geometrization of the aether. The only one possibility is so a sphere for this aether, but above the physicality and its laws.Paradoxal but evident.

I wish you good luck for this contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
David Thomson replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 14:38 GMT
Thank you, Steve, for your comments.

My approach to quantifying the Aether is based solely in science. In fact, before I started reexamining the foundations of physics in 2002, I did not believe in the Aether at all. I first discovered that subatomic particles resided in a structure of quantum rotating magnetic fields. It was not until Jim Bourassa challenged me by saying that the...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 14:48 GMT
Thank you also Mr Thomson,

The aether exists, but not like you said.Until soon, I will develop more.I beleive that the main probelm is about the physicality. You know the motions, the rotations of spheres are inside the physicality. We cannot confound the lattices or the space witrh this aether. The aether is above our physicality.See my reasoning about the singularities, these main central spheres, the most important volumes, the codes of physicality of evolution.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny Jedi replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 15:08 GMT
Since Aristote,A lot of scientists, general and universal have tried to explain this aether.I beleive humbly that my theory helps. In facy my works explain the aether,the mind body probelm, the evolution,the entropical principle,the anthropical principle......

They were numerous to try to explain this aether.This infinite light above our walls.I am insisting on the fact that the infinite...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny Jedi wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 15:21 GMT
I like these kind of discussions, it is rare :)

I beleive that Stoke,Fresnel and Maxwell were rational about this aether. The aim in fact is not to experiment or to test it. In fact it exists this aether, but it is essential to differenciate the fact that it exists a physical spheres with rotations and motions of light and a system above our walls without rotations and physicality and dimensionality.

In fact the real interest is to understand the road towards our main central physical spheres.For the two 3D scales,quantic and cosmological. At these walls , the entropy physical is maximum.It is relevant consideringt the polarization m/hv of evolution. We have the universal link fermions bosons and their fields.If the mass turns in opposite sense than mass, so it becomes very very relevant Mr Thomson. My equations help in all humility because the 3 motions of spheres must be inserted and also the volumes of the serie of uniqueness. It permits to quuantize mass.The gravitation is the rotations of spheres ! This gravitation turns in opposite sense than light.This mass increases on the entropical arrow of times.

Thanking you.

Until soon


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Michael Goebel replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 04:10 GMT
Hi Steve,

I don't know if you know the work of Walter Russell, but your comments remind me of him - his basic premise was that there are two primary "forces" that are causal to all others and responsible for all creation ; one of ocmpression (gravity) and one of expansion (radiation)... to my mind, David's Aether Particle geometry seems to resonate (no pun intended) with this way of looking at things...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 13:41 GMT

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regard !


August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
David Thomson replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:14 GMT
Thank you, Hoang Cao Hai, for your insights.

Concerning the Higgs Boson and its weight on the Moon, the point is moot. Weight is not the same thing as mass. An object will have the same mass whether it is on the Moon or Earth.

But there are other reasons why the Higgs Boson cannot be a particle that gives matter its mass. First, mass is simply a dimension. It is like length, frequency, and charge. It is a property, not an object.

Second, nearly all units involving mass are not material. For example, force is a unit equal to mass times acceleration. Force composes from mass, but it is non-material. You cannot weigh force on any planet or satellite. Other units, such as potential, resistance, magnetic flux, momentum, energy, and capacitance, also have mass as one of their dimensions. None of these units are material objects. Units involving mass describe what material objects do, not what they are.

If the Higgs Boson gives matter its mass, does it also give mass to the other units of physics? If there is a particle that gives matter its mass, then there should also be a particle that gives long objects their length, and another particle that gives existing objects their duration. This is all absurd.

Mass is not a "thing." It is a property of a thing. Mass is a fundamental property of both material and non-material existence, just as are length, frequency, and charge.

Similarly, length is a property of matter, but it is also a property of non-material things, such as space. The length (distance) between two planets is just as real and vital to physics as is the radius and circumference of the planet.

When one contemplates the nature of dimensions, the Higgs theory is seen as an awkward mistake in perception. However, the Higgs theory is a natural consequence of the Standard Model. Its absurdity should serve as a warning that some assumptions within the Standard Model are likely to be incorrect.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 16:35 GMT
Thank you David Thomson

Based on my research: the separation of the concept of "weight" and "mass" is a mistake stems from the failure to identify specific "gravity".

Probably just as you wrote "the Higgs theory is a natural Consequence of the Standard Model."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Michael Riversong wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 02:55 GMT
David's theory is so good, he's featured in 3 podcasts on my site Tesla Academy

We are at a point where the whole idea of aether has to be put back into physics. Without it, most current experimental results make no sense at all. With aether, we have many opportunities before us to dramatically increase the efficiency of power generation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
David Thomson replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 14:03 GMT
Thank you for your support, Michael.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ervin Laszlo wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 10:00 GMT
Thomson's Unified Aether model offers a brilliant demonstration of the cogency of rediscvering the Aether (or ether, or unified field) as the basic physical reality of the universe. It lays one of the foundations of a new physics, more realistic and more meaningful than the current approaches, whether based on relativity or on quantum.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
David Thomson replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 14:05 GMT
It is an honor to have a published science writer comment on my work. Thank you for your support.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 14:18 GMT

Nice defrocking of the SM, and good aether model. But missing a logical explanation of CSL for all moving receivers. No worries, I can supply that, and agree most of your proposals, including aether as the actual structure of space, and local background frame as well as source of energy and mass.

I also particularly agree with; "The electromagnetic charge has surface area and...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
David Thomson replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 16:26 GMT
Hi Peter, it is good to read your paper sharing similar ideas and insights into the Universe. Of course, we are both reciting similar theories that were proposed and repeated by several scientists going back to Rene Descartes.

We are limited to nine pages in our papers, so I could not cover all the errors and omissions of modern physics and provide their proper quantification and...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

David Thomson replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 17:31 GMT
"You're obviously only too aware of the size of the majority dismissing ether..."

The prejudice toward discussing Aether is highly irrational and shows just how political our scientific establishment really is.

My greatest obstacle, however, is that I did not receive my education from Academia, which is a huge fraternal organization. Steven Weinberg made it a point to attend the...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:21 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Chris Scobba wrote on Apr. 1, 2013 @ 16:51 GMT
Hello Mr. Thompson,

No question here... yet. I just wanted to express my profound appreciation for your intellectual courage in exploring reality in the absence of formal education. Many may judge you without contemplating the potential that a lack of "schooling" may have contributed to your free association of observable realty without the dogma that appears ever present in contemporary academia. I am a credentialed engineer and I can state unequivocally that most of what I learned in college I taught myself. Ultimately I paid for a piece of paper to show prospective employers.

In addition, I would like to commend your perseverance in the face of "academia" and dogmatic know-it-alls who are little more than educated parrots, incapable of the trivium. The ad hominem drivel they dispense due to a lack of humanity and true understanding is pathetic. You handle it with such considerate precision and factual objectivity; very refreshing to witness such integrity in the face of juvenile antics. I am in awe.

BTW, I have not completed my review of your AMP but to this point am dumbfounded by its organic simplicity, in congruence with the tenets of Occam. Another source material that is of profound importance to me is ancient knowledge, sacred geometry and all things natural/metaphysical. I am convinced this New Age will be grand when as a species we awaken to our true potential. Your work will be instrumental to that end.

Dimensional analysis is of visceral import to me when working through problem solving. I always say that "units are your friend" as they have the potential of defining relationships that may not be obvious. You have brought my understanding to a new level with the distinction between a dimension and a unit.

I very much look forward to learning more, but more importantly promoting your genius to those I know (that will listen).

Thanks for being an authentic human being in world of manipulated/controlled ignorance!

Chris Scobba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
David Thomson replied on Apr. 1, 2013 @ 18:55 GMT
Thanks for your post of genuine support, Mr. Scobba. Hopefully, you have been infected with a desire to investigate these simple relationships, as I have. I am interested in pursuing the truth wherever it may lead. If that bothers those in academia, then that is their problem.

When we realize the entire visible Universe of matter where we reside composes of only two stable subatomic particles, the electron and proton, then common sense dictates that the rules governing these two particles must also be relatively simple. It is the whole misconception of probability functions as particles that makes physics more complicated than it needs to be.

It also helps to understand the simple concept of space being real. Even though space is non-material, it has existence. The existence of space is measurable and manipulable. When two magnets are held near each other and we feel the effects of the magnetic "fields," then we are experience the effects of non-material space acting on non-material space. We are directly manipulating the Aether.

Denying the existence of Aether and then calling it "field" is nothing short of being ignorant. It exists no matter what it is called.

It amazes me that by quantifying the Aether and including it in our physics understanding it makes unifying the forces very easy. This is supposed to be the Holy Grail of physics. There is no rational reason at all to deny this simple quantification of the forces and not give it thorough examination. Hopefully, persons like yourself will help to spread this antidote and heal our sciences from the disease of ignorance.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.