NETHER UNIFIED THEORY
(Portuguese Translation by Marcelo Moreira Jr.)
This website is largely dedicated to the Nether Unified Theory or simply Nether Theory. The name "Nether" was chosen because "ether" tends to connote the old ether concept of a static substance with certain postulated properties which were not known. Nether has certain mythological connotations which make it a likely candidate for a name and, consequently, it has been chosen as the name for dynamic ether which is very different from the old ether and which has properties which are known to those who have the ability to see what is available (as you will see as you peruse this site).
Before his death, Einstein was working on what he called a Unified Field Theory. Nether theory is the Unified Field Theory in the sense that it unifies all fields. However, "field" is a mathematical term implying that the math is the dominant feature of the theory. Nether theory is more than that. It is the concept behind the math and uses math as it was intended to be used, as merely a tool for concepts that can be visualized.
Nether Theory is also a grand unified theory and a theory of everything. However, it is such an obvious and elegant means of showing how and why everything works that it seems pretentious to make a big deal of it with a big title. If it had not been for egos and reputations creating politics leading into a blind alley, Nether Theory would have been so obvious that any name including the word "unified" would not have been unnecessary.
A unified theory is composed of many pieces. On this website, some of those pieces are addressed in detail with the math to back them up. It will take most of the readers a year or two to digest all of the math back-up. Yet this back-up is less than what was necessary for others to use in backing up their own theories. As you will discover, Nether Theory is relatively easy to understand (it is written here for the educated layman) once one has mastered the concept of gravity. Of course, this site was created after the seven little books in the series Behind Light's Illusion were written. This series is much more detailed and filled with information that is not found here. It has been put in E-book form and is available on CD for those who wish to know more.
Judging a Unified Theory
1. Answers versus Questions
Any worthwhile theory should be able to explain the pertinent empirical evidence in a way that provides more logical answers than new questions. Theories which create more questions than answers should be considered essentially invalid. For instance, particle physics continues to explain the universe in terms or more and more transitory particles. Each new question is answered with a new particle especially tailored for that question. There is no logical explanation of how the new particle does its job and the new particle is, in essence, merely a label which masquerades as an answer. Is it logical that hundreds of particles are necessary for the universe to function? How does each one work? Why are many more being discovered every year? How can a particle of light slow down when moving through a lense and then speed up again once it has exited? How can an electron spin at the same rate even after it has been disturbed? It appears that particle physics solves nothing and creates more and more questions.
2. Empirical Evidence
Any true unified theory must, by definition, explain all empirical evidence from all correctly performed experiments of the past. This means that all correctly performed experiments provide empirical evidence for the unified theory. Therefore, no new experiments are required for a newly proposed unified theory to be correct. Those who claim that new evidence is required are not thinking very clearly.
3. Occam's Razor
The best theory is usually the one that is the least complex while still explaining all the empirical evidence in a logical manner. Although most theoretical physicists and science magazine editors ceased to pay attention to this principle long ago, engineers still adhere to it.
4. Secondary Considerations
When a theory is presented in a manner that is almost impossible to comprehend, it is very likely that the one presenting the theory does not understand it either. Before one begins to take a theory seriously, it is best to see if it is presented in a language and in an order that can be understood by most semi-intelligent people. For instance, using words like "utilize" instead of "use" (they mean the same thing), indicates that the author is more interested in showing his wonderful vocabulary than in educating the reader. The use of words designed only for specialized branches of science can be all right when presented to others of that specialty - or they can be a means to isolate everyone else from what is being said. Since most specialized branches of science do not understand all of the words from other specialized branches, someone interested in presenting his theory clearly would do well to use language the others can understand. However, many theories are presented in an obtuse manner in an effort of bluff the reader into accepting them.
Just as words can be misused, math can be misused to confuse or intimidate. Only the most easily understood math should be used to explain various points in a theory. Use of calculus where algebra is adequate or algebra where arithmetic is adequate, is indicative of an author's ego problem. Yet math of some type should be used to confirm parts of a theory when applicable, and failure to do so indicates a possible problem with the theory.
Remember that when a theory is correct and presented properly, it will sell itself. There is no need to impress the reader with the author's command of the language or of math.