Copyright (C) 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002
by Lew Paxton Price and Herbert Martin Gibson
It is impossible for a man to learn
what he thinks he already knows.
Back - Main Menu
Page 2 - Ether Detection Experiments
The electron is the subatomic "particle" that is the basis of electricity, magnetism, natural electromagnetic waves such as light, and manmade electromagnetic waves such as radio. It has the property of "spin" which was not a discovery so much as a deduction by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck, resulting from their work on atomic spectra. Since that time, theories have been put forth (Dirac and Kusch) which give rules for spin and supposedly explain why it exists.
When the idea of spin was introduced, it was not readily accepted. It was considered to be a form of angular momentum, but not enough was known to isolate each constituent mathematical term, so this supposed angular momentum was left as a simple product in the equation. By definition, the angular momentum of a rotating body about an axis of rotation is the product of its mass, its radius of gyration squared, and its angular velocity (three individual quantities). An electron has an innate ability to maintain something which seems to be angular momentum that is based upon a theoretical radius of gyration and a theoretical angular velocity, neither of which can be isolated. However, the product of these and possibly one or more unknown constants can be found (four or more individual quantities). This final product can be used, in most instances, as if it actually were angular momentum.
The problem that the new concept continued to present to the scientific community was that the magnitude of electron spin never seemed to change. Spin was always there and every electron had the same mathematical value for it. Regardless of what was done to the electron, this "almost" angular momentum remained. Spin was eventually "explained" by considering the electron to be a point charge of electricity undergoing a dancing motion (Dirac by linking quantum mechanics with relativity). But what is negative electricity? Where does the energy for the dancing motion come from? Does the dancing motion create the energy for spin, or does the energy behind spin create the dancing motion? Quantum mechanics is a science of rules made to fit observations - without adequate explanation as to what causes the rules. Relativity has been found to be flawed for many reasons.
Dirac's "explanation" was first considered to be flawed, but was later modified in a manner that would be less upsetting to anyone of high repute in the scientific community. Although it has never been completely accepted, it has provided an excuse to keep the old theories, and the problem presented by spin has become very unpopular as a topic of conversation among the elite in science.
Electron spin is always present regardless of what is being done to the electron. This can only mean that there is an energy source that causes the electron to maintain a constant angular momentum. A spinning top or gyroscope has energy, but when either is disturbed, some of that energy is lost. Sufficient energy loss over a time will cause cessation of motion. In fact, with the possible exception of certain unseen subatomic "particles", we know of no thing without a known energy source which can maintain angular momentum when its energy is being removed.
Common sense and the law of conservation of energy would lead us to believe that electron spin is impossible, but electron spin is a well established fact that contributes to our quality of life today (with such things as magnetic resonance imaging). So the electron has spin whether we like it or not, and the fact that it exists forces us to conclude that the electron has a source of apparently inexhaustible energy which allows it to maintain its spin.
Every electron seems to have the same magnitude of spin and this magnitude does not appear to change. So the energy source that creates electron spin must have a governing mechanism to enforce a constant rate of spin at all times. This implies that the energy creating electron spin can be increased to offset the effects of any disturbance and decreased when the disturbance is no longer present. No material body in our world of larger natural objects has a means of maintaining angular momentum without an apparent energy source, and certainly no such object has an innate governed energy source to cause it to maintain precisely the same angular momentum at all times.
Page 2 - SPIN
Page 1 - Main Menu - Ether Detection Experiments
We have two obvious choices in classifying the electron: (1) it is a particle with its own embodied energy source and governor, and (2) it is something entirely different. It would appear that the first choice is incorrect or at least subject to revisions which have not been forthcoming. So logic dictates that we examine choice two.
What natural phenomenon, in our experience, has innate and relatively constant angular momentum, its own energy source, and its own governor? Actually several things fall into this category and none of them are exactly what we would call material "objects" such as a top or a gyroscope. The things which exhibit the aforementioned qualities are vortices. The whirlpool, the whirlwind, the waterspout, the tornado, and the hurricane are all vortices. Each has the gyroscopic properties which define spin. Each has its own governed energy source.
A vortex is formed from a medium of some kind. Its energy source is the difference in pressure between the medium and the relative vacuum at its center. The electron behaves as if it were a vortex, indicating that it must have (1) a medium, and (2) a relative vacuum at its center at all times. A dynamic ether medium may be acceptable because Sagnac conclusively proved the existence of ether and others have improved upon his work (see Ether Detection Experiments or Sagnac). But can the electron have a relative vacuum at its center at all times? Our knee-jerk reaction elicits the response: "Of course not." In fact, I have been told many times by those unfamiliar with my work, that this is not in accord with common sense and is therefore not valid. But what is common sense?
When I was three years old I lived upon a flat earth and was aware that the sun would always rise tomorrow. Some adults told me that the earth was a big ball, that the sun did not rise, and that the big ball rotates instead. However, I could see that the earth was flat and I could watch the sun rise. The very idea of a "big-ball" earth rotating was not in accord with common sense. So I would watch the sun rise over the flat earth, knowing full well that there was no big-ball rotation.
The concept of the electron vortex has been examined thoroughly since 1965, and has led to a very complete and cohesive unified theory based upon the existence of a dynamic ether. The theory was published in a series of small books copyrighted in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Since 1999, it has been reviewed by numerous people including engineers, a few physicists, and some people of miscellaneous science backgrounds. Their comments and subsequent actions have resulted in a grassroots movement that is gaining momentum.
Ether Detection Experiments
Back to Vortex
Page 1 - Page 2 - Main Menu
In 1887, Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward William Morley published the results of an experiment which was the successor to a similar experiment which Michelson had performed in 1881. The purpose of the two experiments was to prove the existence of the luminiferous ether. It was supposed that light would travel at different velocities, according to the direction of movement of the earth's surface relative to the ether. A light beam, split to go in two directions at ninety degrees to one another, converged after taking paths of equal distance. When the beams converged they interfered with one another. By rotating the apparatus, a maximum interference was found which showed the difference in the velocities between the two parts of the split beam, and thus showed the presence of ether.
The difference between the light velocities was used to calculate an ether velocity relative to the earth's surface. However, the relative ether velocity that they found was much lower than anticipated. Through the years that followed, similar experiments were performed with much greater accuracy. The last was in 1932 (see Volume 7, Issue 38 of Infinite Energy Magazine, Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments - A Fresh Look by James DeMeo). In the most detailed experiments, a seasonally consistent low relative velocity was found. But rather than acknowledging the results of the experiments and moving on with the information provided, the lower relative ether velocity was considered a flaw in the experiment. The proponents of corpuscular theory later asserted that these experiments had found no relative ether velocity whatsoever, and the myth they started became dogma.
An experiment was performed in 1914 by Sagnac in which a light beam was split into two parts. One part moved along a path which was square in shape. The other part moved along the same path but in the opposite direction. The apparatus was set spinning so that, if there were an ether, the two parts of the beam would move at two different velocities. The interfering parts at the termination point would disclose the existence of the ether. And, in fact, that is exactly what happened. Furthermore, there was no strangeness in the magnitude of relative ether velocity. All was as it should have been. Other similar experiments followed which also proved the existence of the ether. There were no discrepancies between theory and results as had been the case with the Michelson-Morley type of experiment.
Unfortunately, relativity by this time was considered to be correct and many reputations (and egos) could be damaged by the disclosure of the existence of an ether. So the Sagnac experiment was suppressed as were all similar subsequent experiments. Einstein ignored Sagnac and his work.
Today, the same kinds of reputations and egos might be damaged, so physicists in general continue to ignore Sagnac. However, engineers use the "Sagnac effect" when they design their navigation systems for transoceanic aircraft, nuclear submarines, and communications satellites. Without this "effect" the navigation systems could not work properly. For more details, see two articles in Volume 7, Issue 39, of Infinite Energy Magazine, one by A. G. Kelly, and the other by the Correas.
Back to Vortex
Page 1 - Page 2 - Ether Detection Experiments
Back - Main Menu - Next