WHAT WE SEE, and WHAT WE DON'T SEE
by Carl R. Littmann, originally written 8-31-2000;
expanded 12-6-2000; simplified and expanded 7-1-2005

**Preface to my article**

(Feel free to skip any ‘Optional’ part, or repetition of what you already know.)

Very basic questions should be asked and not evaded by glib terms like "attraction" between star and planets, or "pulled" by (magic) "fields".  Issues should not be masked by stiltedly guided presentations.

This article starts by discussing the gigantic real physical pressures existing in much of this world (such as pressures we associate with "gravity" and with the interiors of stars and large planets).  It argues for accepting the likelihood that there exists a background of, hard to see, ultra-high velocity real particles or ‘platelets’ to pressurize the vast regions of space, to deliver these high (push) pressures, and thus account for the high pressures in this world.  Many early scientists used the term "aether" to denote such moving material in ‘space’ to account for real pressures.  So I will use ‘aether’, also.  (Incidentally, the gigantic pressures need to be accounted for, regardless of distractions like the Michelson-Morley experiment, which I comment on, in note 2, after my main presentation.)

If one counter argues that "space is empty", I will say, "regardless of whether that ‘s true or not; let’s imagine what sort of ideal gas or fluid flow is needed to produce the ultra-high pressures in our world.”  “And that might also help us analogue the high pressures”.

If one counter argues that "gravitational pressures need not be addressed because they are illusions or because 'warped space-time' solves it anyway", I will say, "then consider the high 'centrifugal' related pressures that arise with a fast spinning proton.  "Consider the counter pressures required to balance it, so that it does not spin apart."

If one counters that a proton may not spin or may not spin fast, I will say, "then consider the high electro-static pressures of many positively charged, 'bunched' protons in a nucleus and the counter-balancing pressures required."  "Or consider ‘Rutherford scattering’, and the high pressures between charged particles.”

If one counters that "all of it is illusionary", I will say, "examine the 'hypothetical' possibility that it is not illusionary anyway, and see what it leads to!"  This Article attempts to do that, not to avoid doing that!  And we will assume "pushing forces", but no "attractive" forces. 

((Optional--I think that many historical philosophers and scientists correctly believed that it was very natural for counter-forces to arise when trying to stuff great amounts of mass into a small, crowded region.  Thus, they considered that a ‘pushing force’ is a “primary attribute” of matter, along with matter’s extension, and resistance to acceleration.  But I believe that many of them correctly chose to reject the claim--that “one part of a mass just ‘naturally’ attracted another—and that that was just another ‘innate’ or ‘primary attribute’ of matter.”  Thus, many wise philosophers and scientists sought alternate ‘models’ and more intuitive explanations as to why masses sometimes “seemed” to attract.  And I will also reject ‘magical attractions’, and I will use the concept of ‘pushing forces’ to explain things, instead!)) 

As for the actions between or around separated bodies, I believe that any proposition that an ‘aether’ is NOT necessary – is an esoteric, irrational, and untenable proposition; and that it borders on the occult.  (Yet, some great mathematicians, leading theocrats, philosophers, and some contributors to science and technology have thought that an ‘aether’ does not exist, or ignored it, or evaded it.  Historically speaking, many have advocated just accepting "Attractive Forces-at-a-Distance" -- even between 'separated' bodies, planets, and stars. They have argued that to do otherwise is inappropriate, unnecessarily complicating, and diverting.  So just “stuff it in the formulas and go!”  And for many long periods, that attitude has been generally the mainstream opinion, although some continued to protest.  In fact, in some cases I think it best to temporarily put aside finding the deep causes of a mystery and solution to major questions, including details--but not denying a cause, nor avoiding the challenge forever.)

Most of the first part of my article, my summary, and conclusion, require a little physics to follow.  For the middle part, a little thermodynamics and patience might be helpful, but is not necessary.  Many people are desirous of a theory that is largely satisfying, and neither evasive nor inconceivable.  My theories are based on an “incredible” universe, but not a “non-credible” universe.  ((I.e., And are for those willing to accept "ultra high (but not infinite) pressures and velocities", and for those who, understandably, have low tolerance for basic contradictions, errors in basic logic, obfuscation, evasiveness and inconceivability.))

Click my ILLUSTRATION

** My ARTICLE**  (WHAT WE SEE and WHAT WE DON'T SEE)

ABSTRACT: 

Using the most basic mechanics, we first consider a ‘proton’ to be made of packed material, and to be spinning like a ball at very high speed.  We consider that that spin should normally cause great centrifugal-like forces and ‘outward’ pressure; and, of course, the particle should fly apart, and disintegrate!  But, fortunately, it doesn’t disintegrate, (even though it seems logical that it should!)  We take a bold and unusual approach to propose that the stability, lack of chaos, and even the ‘unseen’ quantum aspects, are not due to "attractive" forces, nor mankind's "rulemaking", nor mankind’s invoking of mysterious "constants and counter-intuitive laws".  Instead, we postulate a background ‘Aether’ pressure to provide stability, and we offer possible numerical magnitudes for its characteristics.

((Optional Philosophical Note:  The above underlined propositions require humans to extend their cognition beyond merely seeing what most people have already seen …. It involves also “thinking something about the phenomenon —that others may not have thought”!  It involves considering that an observed event, that seems fundamentally unreasonable to us, might be caused by something reasonable but which our senses don’t detect.  Thus we can come to understand its seemingly strange behavior!  (And I think that many people have the capacity to correctly feel that some events, such as ‘action-at-a-distance’, seem ‘fundamentally unreasonable’ even though it often seems to occur!)  Philosophically, “inquiring beyond what we have observed, in order to find a ‘cause’; or even to explore a broader reality which we consider ourselves merely a small part of -- is classified as an ‘objective’ approach.”  And that is rather opposite a ‘merely’ “subjective” approach.))

I.  INTRODUCTION, and some details developed:

Let us further develop our theme and see where it leads.  A proton apparently spins at a very high speed, but surprisingly does not fly apart.  Let us, first, imagine that the proton is like a simple “granular” packed ball, and inquire into how much external aether pressure would be needed to prevent it from flying apart?  (Let us temporarily disregard much of the knowledge of Coulomb, Planck, and Einstein, and see where extreme simplicity leads us.  Let’s overcome whatever scruples, insecurity, fear, or hesitancy impedes our path.  Those have usually been humans’ main obstacle blocking enlightenment, not the grade-school math required!)

For this inquiry, we first use some of the physical values found in textbooks that approximately describe the proton, and we incorporate them into our simple proton model.  Not all readers need follow all of the details, but we first calculate what spinning speed a proton must have to achieve its known spin angular momentum of 0.53x10^-34 [(kgm) (m) (m/sec.)]  Then we will determine the counter-balancing aether pressure required.. 

((For abbreviations, we use:  m = meter;  sec.= second;  kgm = kilogram mass;  j = a “joule” of energy;  h = a “Planck’s constant” worth of angular momentum or 6.625x10^-34 [(j) (sec.)];  p = 3.14 approximately;  newt = a “newton” amount of force.  Incidentally, units of [(kgm) (m) (m/sec.)] are equivalent to [( j) (sec.)] units.  The common designation in some textbooks for the proton’s angular momentum is: (h  / 4p).  Also, for calculating the spinning speed of the proton, we use its radius = 1x10^-15 meter; and its mass = 1.7x10^-27 kgm.  Even if not needed at this time, we also calculate our spherical proton’s density to be 4x10¹⁷ kgm/m³, approximately.  And, generally, the maximum speed of light in space is approximately 3x10⁸ m/sec. as given in textbooks.)) 

Important:  Based upon the proton’s spin angular momentum and above data, we calculate the spinning proton’s speed to be about 0.8x10⁸ meters per second..  That is a very high speed, and a significant fraction of the speed of light!

((Optional Calculation Note:  Incidentally, for a simple bicycle wheel, with long, thin spokes; the angular momentum would be nearly equal to the (spoke’s length) times (the combined masses of the rubber wheel and metal rim) times (the rotational spinning speed of the wheel).  But we made a slight adjustment for the calculation of a spinning solid sphere, since its different mass distribution and shape affects its angular momentum, somewhat.))

Important:  Having calculated the proton’s spinning speed, we next calculate the super-high ‘outward’ pressure which the spinning proton develops.  Then we would know the equally high aether’s counter pressure, which must be exerted on much of the proton’s surface to prevent its loose mass from flying apart.  Our calculations give an extremely high Aether pressure of 1.3x10³³ newt./m², approximately.  And that is likely near the minimum pressure required, not the most likely pressure, which is greater.  ((We will see later, that a more accurate figure might be based on calculating the pressure required as if the proton sphere were spinning half the speed of light, about 2 times the above, and that that aether Pressure would be about (2 squared) or 4 times the above figure.  The surplus aether pressure might tend to add an extra measure of stability to the proton.))

((Optional Calculation Details:  For that above minimum aether-pressure result, we used the following approximate formula and values:

(1/2) (density of proton)  times  (maximum velocity of spinning proton)² equals (the centrifugal-related spinning proton Pressure) which equals (the balancing aether Pressure).

For the proton’s pressure in the preceding example, we then substituted values as follows:

 (1/2) (density) (Vel.)² or (l/2) (4x10¹⁷) (0.8x10⁸)² = 1.3x10³³ newt/m².

Important Points and Preliminary Conclusions:

By using an external pressurized aether to keep our spinning proton model from disintegrating, we were able to dispose of the non-intuitive, dubious notion of “Attractive forces”.  In my opinion, that is a rational step forward!  And even if we used for our proton model--a highly concentrated spinning material ring, instead of our sphere shape; that would not change our main conclusions:  A super-high pressure aether exists in space!  And it pressurizes all of the infinite universe, (except for the most infinitesimally-small sized places or spacings between aether particles or strands).  And the aether is crucial to the stability of the spinning proton, and likely crucial for many other important physical events as well!

II.  OPTIONAL History; other Scientists Tending Toward the Above Conclusions:
Can our Aether keep a spinning proton intact, and maintain other stabilities in the universe, without us having to resort, instead, to such abstractions as “curved space and time”, i.e., to such abstractions as Einstein’s “General Relativity Theory”?In effect, should modern physics discard an aether, and instead create, for every ‘thimbleful’ of billions of spinning hydrogen nuclei, a billion small realms of extremely curved space and time? [1].  I prefer “allowing aether to do the job”!

In the early 19^th Century, the scientist and mathematician, Laplace, also found it challenging to explain various high-magnitude phenomena.  He found that he could not devise a simple, mechanical model for gravitational action without accepting material (aether) speeds of over 100,000,000 times that of light. [2].  (However, he found that he could address some other problems without exceeding light's speed. [3].) In order to solve our problem (i.e., how a spinning proton mass maintains mechanical stability); we have also accepted one aspect of Laplace’s approach to gravity:  We have also allowed our background aether to have speeds vastly greater than light’s!

By postulating a material “aether” with speeds greatly exceeding light's, we have created the ultra-high counter pressure needed to keep the high-speed spinning proton from flying apart, and done that without resorting to a high-density aether!.  (Newton also considered that any high-density background aether was too dubious of explanation to entertain.)

Historically speaking, the famous scientist Maxwell also had some strong beliefs or feelings, which we should consider and occasionally recall:

1.  That ‘Action at a Distance’ (including gravitational ‘Attraction’) is not a satisfying "concept".[4]

2. That energy existing in something other than  material is also not a satisfying concept.[5]
((Thus, considering energy to actually exist inside ‘imaginary’ (‘thin, low volume’) lines and arrows is also not very satisfying, although such markings are sometimes helpful tools in teaching, guiding, tracking, indicating, and calculating.))  Related to that, ‘imaginary fields’ are also not altogether satisfying.

III.  (OPTIONAL), SOME WORDS ABOUT COSMOLOGY AND MY METHODS:

(Optional) Basics:  I ask a bold question, indirectly posed by Descartes, earlier!

What sort of basic universe would you create if you were “God”? (Or to re-phrase that for some agnostics:  What sort of universe would seem reasonable and probable to have always existed?)  For simplicity here, let‘s pretend you were God planning to design the universe.

You might consider going with a total, vast universal Void of infinite “Nothingness”.  Reasonable and I can’t complain!  But perhaps that’s an uninteresting extreme, and apparently not ‘selected’.  You might consider one high-density, non-porous, motionless ‘mud’ or ‘sludge’ throughout.  That is perhaps the other extreme, but still not very interesting, nor selected.  Now, for possibilities in between, almost like considering probable ‘combinatorics’ and multiple paths:  You might consider putting in a variety of different density, non-porous, non-compressible, non-moving materials; filling up, say, only 50% of the universe’s voids.  But the “different density idea” seems unnecessarily complicated, including how they would mix? It would seem like a compromise plan reached by many politicians making deals in a backroom—hardly ‘God-like’.)  How about ‘compressible’ materials, but still non-porous; that is—by using outside pressure, one could compress it from low-density to high-density and it would store and ‘remember’ the resulting internal energy as ‘potential’ (squeezed) energy?  That probably has great appeal to a lot of readers, but I allege it is much too complicated and difficult to be preferred!  (And likely take more than 6 days’ creation work to complete!)

How about sprinkling rather uniformly over the universe incompressible ‘material’ having extension; moving in different directions; having inertia; exerting competitive pressures; and filling up only a small fraction of the universe’s space?  Sounds great, very cost-efficient, lasting, and (if you’ll allow me) “that sort of ‘random job’ might even be accomplished in 6 days, instead of 7 days or more!”  But what about the detailed and general results which would tend to develop from that?  Well--leave that to the material’s competitive interactions to work out, and also as a challenge for humans to investigate, surmise, and calculate!

(Optional) Developing some Cosmological Details:

Let as assume the following, based on the above and what I surmise as the facts: Our universe is not ‘anti-rational’, and should have ‘durability’ as mentioned above:  Our universe is based on a rather uniform “pepper-like” sprinkling of incompressible ‘material’ having extension, various motions, and  inertia.  ‘Once upon a time’ it may have been less uniform, but the aether and certain types of things have had plenty of time to become more uniform, although statistical fluctuations and angular momentums will continue to occur.  It seems to me “combinatorially reasonable”, that if we randomly picked sixty finite ‘pepper particles’ of mass to study, we would find each of those sixty traveling in sixty different directions at 60 somewhat different speeds.  (That is in contrast to having, for example, all of the right side of the infinite universe moving rightward, away from a point, and all of the left side moving leftward, away from the point, and which would eventually leave an infinitely large hole.  That would seem like an improbable, painstaking ‘design plan’.)

In view of the above, let us start with the following useful approximation of our universe, although an over-simplification:  Let us approximate an initial Aether in our universe as like a three dimensional wire screen consisting of many cubic-shaped wire meshes.  Each cubic webbing contributes 12 wire bars, and each bar is either exerting a force against an adjacent bar, or flying in a random direction at likely different velocities.  But we can talk about an ‘average’ mass and velocity.  (The bars, i.e., web material, are made up of very loose material; and although each may be somewhat different, we regard our model as based on the ‘averages’.)

The uniqueness of the aether cage (which is somewhat like a ‘vortex- sponge’) is determined by the constant high density of loose bar material, the diameter of bar, length of the bar, and random velocities of the bars. I believe that those initial aether averages are all that are needed to determine every fundamental feature of our universe that would arise!  That includes all the fundamental stable particles (protons and electrons and their so-called “electro-dynamics”), and the less major stuff like photons, Pions, Kaons, etc., etc.  That aether will determine whether the protons are all large or all small, numerous or rare, and all with great “spin” or all with little spin, (i.e., all with a spin determined by a medium-sized value for “Planck’s Constant” or all with a spin determined by a very low value for Planck’s Constant).

(Optional), Protons, Electrons, other details, and my article’s limitations:  (Note, this section is important and interesting, but nearly two pages long!  So reader may wish to skip to Part IV, “Discussion")

The main goal of my article is to describe our universe’s Aether, and to roughly show how stable elementary particles, somewhat like protons, should naturally arise from that aether!  If that is enough detail for the reader, then he/she may just skim this section, and go to Part IV, “Discussion”, (see above link).

However, we know from experiments that two different elementary particles actually exist, (the electron and the proton), not just one.  So in the next few optional paragraphs, I will try to suggest why both the electron and proton arise.  These paragraphs of my article are more speculative than others, and there may be better explanations for the details, or why the two major particles arise.  

The reader may find my thoughts in more detail, by going to my Homepage, and using the link to my article, Mass Ratios and Similar Geometric Volume Ratios.  (A similar article of mine, shorter and without speculation, was published in a major journal.)  The basic ideas are these: In basic geometry, we can imagine that 3 equal touching big spheres can surround 1 small sphere; and 3 bigger equal touching spheres can surround 3 equal touching small spheres.  And 3 even bigger equal touching spheres can surround three small touching spheres—if one tries a different “packing style” somewhat like chemist do with their different style “close packing of spheres”.  Anyway, the volume ratio, or the average of two ratios, (regarding big and small spheres), is calculated in each case.  And the proton-to-electron mass ratio is noted to rather well correspond to a volume geometric ratio array, (as well as the Kaon-to-electron mass ratio, and the Pion-to-electron mass ratio). 

First, -- for the existence of the ‘Electron’:  Let us imagine that an average aether ‘particle’ has an average energy, and that it “hits” a small glob of matter.  The amount of mass which separates from the glob—or eventually stabilizes--is the smallest amount that can move at nearly the speed of light and yet its energy equal to the energy of the ‘average’ aether particle that hits it.  Because of the large average angular momentums of various aether flows around that initially compact electron, and because of fluctuations and tendencies to vibrate—that electron spreads out like a solid spinning gold ring.  Then it has a greater angular momentum, which more nearly matches its surroundings.  And, actually, it probably forms a hollow ring style, like refrigeration tubing or bellowed sail, to pick up sufficient net stabilizing amounts of aether pressure pulses from various directions, including from its own partly self-shielded directions.

The following may seem unusual, but I think it is a sort of an expansion of Tait’s “dynosphere” bubble concept, or an expansion of Heisenberg’s “granular concept of space”:  Let us think of our very small ethereal ‘aether grain’ as a sort of average sponge ball.  But let us try to apply my previously mentioned concept of “big sphere patterns surrounding smaller ones”.  Correspondingly, we imagine that a big aether pattern also hits a bigger glob of matter.  A big glob of mass separates, and eventually stabilizes with its ‘vibrational’ plus spin energy nearly matching the ‘average’ energy hit of those larger aether patterns.  Unlike the lesser mass electron, the larger (proton) easily develops the angular momentum of its surroundings without spinning as fast or spreading out.  Thus, its greater inertia and other factors allow it to remain as a much more localized concentration of matter than the electron.  (Probably more like a very compact spinning large ball instead of a more spread-out thin spinning hollow ring.)

I am unsure as to exactly why almost all regions of ‘space’, fundamentally, seem to have very appreciable angular momentums, like they are strong vortex-like regions.  That may be due to “just the way the ethereal swirls have always been” and “it tends to conserve that angular momentum”.  Or it might be due to the great spinning actions of the protons in space, ordering or helping the very small ethereal vortices to group into bigger vortices.  And perhaps the spinning electron rings also contribute something to forming those aether vortices, too.  (Although not directly related to that -- maybe the rather constant energy of each electron encourages ethereal balls, equal to it in energy, to gather around itself.  And these, in turn, add a further stability to similar ethereal quantum energy balls scattered all over space). 

That is about all I want to say about the proton vs. electron in this article.  And I will not bother to distinguish in this article, again, between an aether particle and a ‘pattern of aether particles’!

 IV.  DISCUSSION; Some details, the "Background Mass" and "Broader Picture":  The non-specialist may just click my Illustration and my Summary, and skip the below.

As implied, the discourse below contains a lot of nomenclature, equations, and tedious  juggling.  Although the reader is invited to follow all details, we will try to repeat the main points after related groups of paragraphs and also in my Summary.  In the below, we will continue to use some "order of magnitude" estimations, approximations and over-simplifications that should not alter the conclusions. (Some of my discourse is somewhat similar to treatments found in textbooks discussing “Ideal Gas Theory”.)

Let us consider a "background" consisting of many hard to detect, neutral aether "particles". Each significant aether particle has an average ultra small mass, "m_ae ".  (Note, the subscript,  “ae”, as in “aether”)  All of my subscripts are intended to help readers remember what each term denotes.  Each m_ae has an ultra fast "translational" "mean" velocity, "v_ae", in "this or that" direction.  Each m_ae initially has an average distance or spacing, "s_ae" between it and its nearest m_ae significant neighbor.  Thus, each m_ae has a rather vacant small volume surrounding it of about (s_ae )³ volume. 

The aether particle mass, m_ae, consists of ultra high density material, which is the highest density possible in our universe, and therefore the density is incompressible (or nearly incompressible and non-porous).  Thus, we consider m_ae to have a high density, "p_{k max}".  But since each m_ae particle has an empty (s_ae )³ space surrounding it, it helps constitute a rarefied ethereal "spacial density", equal to (m_ae ) / (s_ae )³ , which is a very low average ethereal density, indeed.  And we denote that ethereal density as, "p_{ae includes space} ", in case needed in any calculation later on.  (Reader, note, we have used an italicized "p", instead of using the Greek letter "rho", to denote “density”, but we hope it resembles the commonly-used “rho”, often used in textbooks when discussing density.)

Thus, the kinetic energy "E_ae", of each m_ae aether particle, is (1/2) m_ae (v_ae)².  The kinetic energy per volume, i.e. per (s_ae)³ , is approximately (1/2) m_ae (v_ae)² / (s_ae )³ , and that entire expression has “equivalent dimensions" of pressure.  In fact, let us suppose, that this aether particle, together with all the others somewhat like it, create a real ethereal background pressure, "P_ae", given approximately by:

P_ae = (1/3) [m_ae (v_ae)²] / [s_ae]³or by rearranging terms, P_ae = (1/3) [m_ae / (s_ae)³] [v_ae]²

Now, let us turn our attention to a durable, larger "detectable" mass, such as a proton or other "elementary" particle, (instead of the ‘too-small-to-detect’ aether particle).  That comparatively ‘large’ glob of mass will be denoted, "M_glob"; and we will think of it as a proton, for simplicity.  (We will hope that our developing discussion establishes good reason to believe that our comparatively large glob mass, M_glob, will develop into a stable proton, or other stable particle, and remain stable, even though our treatment will not be very rigorous.)

Let us also assume, for simplicity, that our likely proton, M_glob, and our typical aether particle, m_ae, both exist with equal amounts of kinetic energy.  That concept is known as the “equipartition of energy principle”; and it is often applied to gas mixtures, made up of large and small atoms, such as argon and helium atoms.  In fact, there are some limitations in applying the principle to complicated gases, such as gases made up of hydrogen molecules.  So when we apply it to our glob (proton) and aether particles, which constitute a sort of gas mixture; we will keep in mind that it is only a rough approximation at best.

Applying the “equipartition of energy principle”; let us write that the kinetic energy of the (proton) glob is equal to the ‘mean’ energy of an aether particle:

Using appropriate subscript notation, we have:  "E_{ke of  M glob}" = "E_ae".

Important:  To understand why there arises, in this universe, small discrete elementary particles, such as “protons”, but not just any infinitesimally small stable particles, consider the following:  Let us imagine that a rather large glob of mass has been scraped by an average aether particle, and therefore begins to spin with about the same energy as the aether particle that hit it.  (Another words, “E_{spin of  M glob}" = "E_ae”.  In fact--it may take quite a few ‘scrapes’ before the coerced glob and its vicinity approach a near balance with each “aether particle’s punch”.)  Because of, initially, the rather large glob’s mass, that glob can spin at a rather slow speed and still manifest or contain that average E_ae amount of energy.  (Since E_{spin of  M glob} = E_ae, approximately; we will say that each has “a ‘quantum’ amount of energy”, and that “that ‘quantum’ amount” is the energy of an ‘average’ aether particle.)  The rather large glob’s centrifugal-related pressure is very small because of its slow spinning speed and its large surface, which is exposed to the high-pressure aether.  So, here at least, we don’t have the type of instability that arises when a body spins too fast! 

But now, let us imagine what happens if that spinning glob gets smaller and smaller and the glob must continue to spin at faster and faster speeds so that the “Equal Partition of Energy” continues to exist between that shrinking glob and average aether particle!  ((I.e., another words, so that “E_{spin of  M glob}" continues to equal "E_ae”, or, approximately, that (1/2) [(M_glob) (V_{glob spin})²] continues to equal (1/2) [(m_ae) (v_ae)²].))  Note that when we reduce the mass of the spinning glob, we also reduce its volume correspondingly, because its mass consists of ‘approximately’ incompressible material.  The reader may recall that Pressure has the equivalent “dimensions” of Energy per Volume.  So that when the spinning glob maintain constant energy, “E_{spin of glob}”, but we reduce the glob’s volume nearer and nearer to zero, then at some point the shrinking glob’s mass exhibits such increased ‘outward’ pressure – that it will equal the high aether pressure!  That condition necessitates that there arise a very small, but finite, “Proton”, the minimum stable, highly-concentrated, spinning mass, or ‘elementary particle’, that can exist in our universe (with the “particular” characteristics of the aether existing in our universe)!

((Optional:  The great gyro-like spin of that highly concentrated mass (the proton’s) as well as subtle aether flows arising around it, likely contribute to the unique stability of the proton.  Rene Descartes was quoted as writing, “Give me matter and motion, and I’ll give you a universe!”  I agree with Descartes’ conclusion, but my mechanism-path and my result are somewhat different--since Descartes rejected the “Atomic concept”.  Descartes believed that aether left no infinitesimally small crevices or voids unfilled, but I disagree with Descartes there. (As did the political theorist and chemist, John Locke! And as did the old Greek ‘Atomist’, Democritus, also, of course.)  In fact, if a solid sphere’s equator spun at a constant speed, say “c”, its centrifugal-related pressure would be constant regardless of the sphere’s size.  Thus, my special treatment above is also dependent on my justifying my applying a sort of ‘equal partition of energy’ principle to the case.  And hopefully we have some ‘void or lesser filled space’ between each of my aether particles’ punches, to make that ‘equal partition’ principle applicable!  I.e., And thus make possible ‘elementary particles’ and atoms.))

Important (Related Point #1):  Our particular aether causes protons to arise--as the minimum highly concentrated stable spinning mass that can exist in our universe.  That (along with the ‘equipartition of energy’ and aether pressure) is highly suggestive of the following also:  The proton will tend to exhibit a limited, small, discrete, “quantum” amount of “spin angular momentum” representing a unique, smallest constant value of “that”  for any stable particle.

Optional Related Speculation:  One may scroll back to near the end of “Part III” (under the heading, “Important”) for a discussion of why two major types of particles actually arise, the Proton and Electron.  And why it is--that even significant volumes of aether (i.e., space) seem to have high spin angular momentum, too.  (As mentioned, the spin of the proton, and perhaps the spin of the electron, might help “stir” up many small vortices to form a group of vortices with combined strength comparable to the Proton’s spin angular momentum.)  

Important (Related Point #2): The concept of our rarefied Aether is that it possesses super-high velocity motions, super-high energy per volume, and above all—that it exerts super-high pressure!  That should make very probable--that high-density material systems, which occupy modest volumes, will generally be limited to some maximum travel speed, which turns out to be the “textbook” speed of light, “C”, approximately 3.0x10⁸ m/sec.  We should expect that to be the case, if we note various sensible, familiar equations which are often applied to visible phenomena, but which should also extend to the less visible, for example:

Energy ~ ~ = (1/2) (m) (v)² .  Dividing both sides of that equation by “volume”, we have: Energy/volume ~ ~ = (1/2) [(m)/(volume)] (v)².  Note, the mark ~ denotes ‘approximately’. Since Energy /volume causes pressure, and is pressure; and m/volume is density, we conclude: Pressure ~  = Density x (velocity)² .  Related to that, we have the following:

(The low aether’s Density) times (Velocity of the aether)² = [a pressure of ~ 1.3x10³³ newt/m²] = ~ (the Density of the densest possible concentrated mass in the universe) times (the maximum spinning Speed of that dense spinning mass) ².  That is necessary so that any spinning mass (such as a spinning elementary particle) maintains its stability.  In fact, the universe’s great ethereal pressure probably exceeds the centrifugal-related pressure of such stable spinning dense entity by a “comfortable factor”, say, by double or more — so that other motions, vibrations, and factors are also held in check.  The below “Optional” section also develops and interprets other mathematical expressions, which give insights into why a maximum speed limit for material “bodies” tends to develops, and generally applies:

Optional (Related Point #3): 

The following thoughts, math, and preliminary conclusions are Optional: 

Expressing the above thoughts and words in mathematic terms, we have:

P_{glob spin} = (1/2)  (p_{k max}) (v_{glob spin})² , 

Where P_{glob spin}  is the ‘outward’ pressure of , for example, a proton made up of approximately the highest density of pure, non-porous matter in the universe, "p_{k max} ".  And that "p_{k max} " is also equal to the high density of any pure aether particle, of mass, m_ae.
 

We set, P_{glob spin} = [1/2] (P_ae ), and that allows the aether pressure, P_ae, to exceed “P_{glob spin} ” by at least some ‘safe’ factor.  Since, some pages back, we already established that: P_ae = (1/3) [m_ae / (s_ae)³] [v_ae]² ; we can now write:

  P_{glob spin}  =  (1/2) ( p_{k max}) (v_{glob spin})² =  [1/2] (P_ae ) =  [1/2]  (1/3) [m_ae / (s_ae)³] [v_ae]² ,

or approximately,  (v_{glob spin})  =  { 1/3 [(v_ae)²] [(m_ae/(s_ae)³] / (p _{k max}) }^1/2  .

We see at once, that since the low rarefied ethereal density, [(m_ae/(s_ae)³] is being divided by the very high ‘non-porous’ density of a solid aether particle, (p _{k max}), that that results in a very small number.  And that results in the ratio, (v_{glob spin}) / (v_ae), also being extremely low.  Thus, we conclude that: the highest spinning speed, (v_{glob spin}), that a proton can have (or even the highest velocity that any significant accumulation of mass can have) is many magnitudes less than the typical speed of an aether particle, (v_ae).  And that generally limiting value, for significant mass accumulations, is “the speed of light”, designated “c”.

(When Aristotle wrote that low-density masses lead to high velocities, and extremely low density masses lead to extremely high velocities, he was rather wise about that, at least.)

Optional—continued….  

 [p _{k max}] times [the very small volume required only for typical solid aether particle] = (m_ae). So dividing both sides of that last equation by { [p _{k max}] times (s_ae)³ }; we obtain:

[ultra small Volume required only for solid aether particle] / [(s_ae)³] = [(m_ae/(s_ae)³] / [p _{k max}]. 

But that [(m_ae/(s_ae)³]  term equals our old low rarefied ethereal density, [p_{ae includes space}], so by substitution, we have:

[the ultra-small Volume required only for solid aether particle] / [(s_ae)³]  =  [p_{ae includes space}] / [p _{k max}].  

Thus, we conclude that the ultra-small volume occupied by a typical solid aether particle divided by its own empty lot space, (s_ae)³ that it does NOT occupy  =  the very low rarefied ethereal density consisting of the combined aether particle with its “empty lot” divided by the very high solid aether particle density, itself! 

((Note again, that [(m_ae/(s_ae)³]  gives the rarefied ethereal density on the large scale, i.e., throughout the universe; -- and that on the smaller scale, that same [(m_ae/(s_ae)³] also gives the density of an average typical aether particle and its small lot, i.e., without its generally being encroached upon by another aether particle!))

Very Important; Estimates of Aether’s Density, etc.

Let us estimate the ethereal density of our aether to be:  m_ae / (s_ae)³ =10^-20 kgm / (meter)³, approximately.  That guess is somewhat arbitrary, but the guess is somewhat ‘thicker’ than the density of “a few dozen molecules" of mass per cu inch, as is estimated to occupy ‘interplanetary’ space.[6]  (If the inertia of a rocket allows the rocket to drift through such rarefied space, as if it hardly notices the few dozen molecules/cu inch; then the rocket should not notice a comparable aether’s density, either.  And, indeed, the rocket isn’t much affected in either case!  Also, since our best vacuum techniques still fail to remove a few dozen molecules per cu inch, we surmise that maybe the molecules are getting sticky and hard to sweep out because their ‘spacial’ density is approaching that of the aether’s.).  To make an estimate at the other extreme; let us imagine that our Sun’s entire mass has evaporated and has begun spreading itself far out in all directions.  And let us imagine that the Sun’s now-vaporized matter forms a uniform ‘aether mist’ extending halfway to its nearest neighboring star.  Then our previous estimate (10^-20 kgm/m³) would be somewhat "thinner" than that resulting ratio:  "the Sun's mass" divided by "that large, spherical-shaped volume around it, extending halfway (halfway=2 light years) to the Sun's nearest neighbor star", which is also a typical star.))  So my guess at aether density is a compromise.

There are other methods of estimating ethereal density, each with its own ‘rationales’.  In fact, Nikola Tesla’s estimate is somewhat more ‘rarefied’ than mine.  And his and others’ may be better estimates than mine, because mine is estimated mainly from what we can easily measure around us.  But most others, understandably, may feel that much greater volumes and matter samplings should enhance estimates, even though greater distances may add slight uncertainties.

V.  SUMMARY:

‘Qualitative’ Description of Aether:

There is a very low density, very highly pressurized Aether throughout our universe that provides for the stability of the elementary particles in our universe. And that aether even creates those ‘elementary particles’!  There are also infinitesimally small “voids” in space, so that, strictly speaking, the highly energized aether is somewhat like a porous, ‘vortex sponge’.  The ‘aether particles or platelets’, which ‘fly about in space’, are made of non-porous, pure, high-density matter.  The proton is comprised of similar high-density material, but the proton might be slightly porous, perhaps.

The proton spins at a very high speed, approximately 0.8x10⁸ m/sec., not trivial compared to the speed of light.  Normally, one might expect that the spinning proton to, therefore, disintegrate, but the great aether pressure, keeps the proton from ‘flying apart’, and some subtle aether currents, that arise, also help.  Those subtle aether currents, which are present near the proton and electron, might also relate to electro-dynamics. 

The next question is: Why can’t a proton spin at a constant speed and, at the same time, exist in infinitely small sizes, (not just as a limited minimum “quantum” size)?  After all, with less and less mass, it would not produce a greater outward pressure (if its spinning speed could be constant), and therefore it would still be balanced by the high-pressure aether.

To provide an answer; we have theorized that the energy of the spinning proton must be approximately equal to the ‘average’ energy of an aether particle colliding with it.  So we have attempted to apply that sort of ‘equal partition of energy’ principle to aether particles and protons.  (Scientists also applied that principle to gas mixtures consisting of small and large molecules, when they created “Ideal Gas Theory”.)  Thus, with a fixed “quantum” of energy, a proton can not exist in infinitesimally small sizes, because that would necessitate infinitely increased speeds to maintain that fixed quantum of energy.  And that would, in turn, cause infinite high pressure to arise, and exceed the aether’s pressure, and cause instability, (i.e., as the proton maintained its energy while its mass continued to decrease).  So the constant energy, spinning proton arises and exists as the highest concentration of spinning mass, but yet within the least amount of volume and associated mass possible, without that instability arising!  (I.e., Therefore, the proton consists of a unique “quantum” amount of mass, also.) 

Inserted 8-15-2006:  There is a possible alternate approach, instead of the ‘equipartition of energy’ theory just presented; and that is based upon an ‘equipartition of angular momentum’ concept.  According to that, there must exist an equal amount of angular momentum between the whirling aether vortices and the spinning proton. If the compact proton spins at some given speed (say nearly ‘C’), it must spin with a certain minimum amount of mass to match the ‘quantum’ of angular momentum of the adjacent aether vortices.  If the proton did not spin with at least that much angular momentum, then the proton would be unstable.  Thus, the proton must have that small (but critical minimum) mass to exist.  (Maybe the quantum of proton energy, thus created, also creates equivalent energy quantum regions in the aether.  And these energy quanta form fancy patterns.  From those patterns, different sized quanta of energy may be created in the aether.  And those quanta may help maintain the stability of other particle masses, and maybe even the electron.  Optional:  In Thermodynamics, when a ‘gas’ exists in a small, but sufficiently large, volume; it exhibits ‘viscosity’ due to its particles’ simple ‘translational’ motions.  But spinning motions in whirling small volumes also exhibit viscosity.  Thus, both ‘translational’ and ‘spinning’ motions are likely related, at least under certain circumstances.)

A reasonable expectation based on the conclusions of the preceding sentences is this:  The proton has the lowest amount of ‘spin angular momentum’ possible, but yet a discrete amount of it, a minimum (quantum) amount.  (I.e., But that is definitely more than an infinitely small amount.  Also note, that when comparing two different masses moving with equal amounts of kinetic energy; the faster moving, smaller mass will have less ‘momentum’! )

‘Quantitative’ (Numerical) Estimates of the Aether’s Characteristics: 

We estimated the aether’s ‘spacial density’ to be: (m_ae)/(s_ae)³ = 10^-20 kgm/(meter)³. 

We previously calculated the aether’s Pressure (P_ae) to be 1.3x10³³ newton/meter², approximately.

We calculate typical aether particle velocities ( v_ae) to be 8.8x10²⁶ meters/second.  (The aether must have that approximate speed, so that given the low ethereal density value above, it can deliver the high ethereal pressure, given above.)

From that and the equipartition of energy (i.e., between spinning proton and ‘hitting’ aether particle traveling at v_ae), we calculate a typical aether mass (m_ae) to be 2.8x10^-65 kgm, approximately.  From that and ethereal density considerations, we calculate the typically nearly-void distance between significant aether particles to be roughly s_ae = 1.4x10^-15 meter.

General Overview:

My estimated figures for the aether are only rough estimates.  My main points are as follows:

First, the various constants in nature: (M_proton) and (C) and (h/4p), and the “(G) of gravity”, should all naturally arise, as a result of 'hard to detect' ethereal background masses in action, and their statistical effects.  (In other words, they arise because of a dynamic Aether!!). 

Secondly, nature’s fundamental constants are not created by humans’ wanting them or needing them, nor likely maintained by any ‘extremely pro-active gods’. Nor do those constants result from any so-called ‘attractive’ forces, i.e., The ‘Force of Attraction’ does NOT exist in nature!  It just seems to be there, due to hidden pushing forces!

Thirdly, the universe is infinite in size; and there is, in all volumes, (larger than ultra-small volumes) an ultra-high energy density.  Thus, the unfortunate modern-day Ptolemaic notions of a ‘non-infinite universe’ along with its ‘attractive’ forces within, are both erroneous ‘notions’, and each of those erroneous notions supports the ‘other’.

((We previously mentioned Laplace's calculations and his speculation about gravity’s cause, (i.e. fluid-like mass impulses with speeds far exceeding light's speed!).  Or scroll down to my “Addendum 3”, new thoughts about gravity. Aspects of  m_ae and [m_ae / (s_ae)³ ] relate to the "incompressibility of mass" and the "existence of  voids”.  Those voids are like the open regions between the solid webbing of a fine screen..  Those concepts are what Democritus referred to as the "Void" and the "Being".  Democritus’ belief in “voids” caused him to differ from the "Eleatics" philosophers of his time.[7],[8]  And I think that was a major step forward.))

(Optional), Limitations to my Article:

There are, of course, a variety of ‘stable’ and ‘semi-stable’ particles in physics and many phenomena not much addressed by this article. This is, perhaps, partly because of the article's less than book-length, and also the article’s oversimplifications of ‘space’ and ‘detectable’ particles; the mostly ‘one-way’ discussion of aether’s possible effect on ‘detectable’ particles but not the reverse, i.e. possible ‘feedback’ effects; possible transition region between M_glob and m_ae; and other limitations.  (Other issues, somewhat related to this article, are addressed further in my article, "Problems the Greeks Addressed and Modern Scientists Avoid," from the bottom of page 2 of it to its end.)  And also note other links at my “Homepage” to other possibly helpful articles.

But I do not claim that even all that constitutes rigorously worked out and satisfying answers to all major issues.  And, in effect, as a few Sages have stressed, “Our aim is to help others find their satisfying solutions to their problems, not to impose our vision (at most, a somewhat vague, incomplete and inappropriate substitute) for their finding what they feel are satisfying solutions to their problems!”

VI.  CONCLUDING REMARKS:

In physics, there may seem to be a ‘shortage’ of ‘detectable’ stable particles of somewhat less mass than an electron's, and a surplus of ‘strange’, unexplained Constants, like "C", "G", "h/(2p)", "M_proton", etc.  In a sense, my article also asked, “Could that ‘shortage’ help provide a solution to the surplus of ‘strange’ constants, if interpreted properly?”  (i.e. the ‘shortage’ being the ignoring of the aether and the ‘objective’ need for it.)  Historically, the sophist ‘Protagoras’ declared, "Man is the measure of all things"[9]; but he seems to have missed Democritus' very small atoms or particles.  Could history repeat itself, or likely even worse! (i.e. 2000+ years later, man now misses the aether, instead of the small atoms which he finally has come to accept!) 

Optional--my opinions:  And physicists might over-react and unduly swing to the other extreme:  They may wrongly claim that almost all of the inertia of our cars and things is attributable to what is external of them.  (For example, thinking wrongly, that a car maintains its inertia due to the distant stars, as Mach did!  Or even due to the surrounding aether).  In my article, I credit aether with keeping our cars and things intact!  But I believe that a car’s own internal mass gives it practically all of its inertia (at its normal--much less than light’s--speed).

And physicists may go to other erroneous extremes as well, and try to entirely abandon all ‘force concepts’, instead of only abandoning the ‘attractive force concept’!  I think flaws in some theorists’ cosmologies, philosophies, and logic, and also flawed, muddled notions of “mass”, energy, etc., may continue to plague many theorists in any quest to understand nature.  (And that may also be aggravated by humans’ unwise choice of the level of importance which they assign to each of the various things they have measured or discovered, or think that they have measured or discovered.  And yet, even worse might result if humans didn’t attempt to assign different levels of importance to what appears to them as reality.)

  ---End--- of main presentation.  . 

The readers may skip the interesting peripheral discussions below, and go to the links, Home, Ill., and Ref.

Addendum 1 (Added 7-1-2003)
This Addendum briefly discusses a matter, which I have mentioned in other articles.  We should note that the conventional notion of "the maximum ‘textbook’ speed limit, 'C' for everything"—requires us to sometimes make exceptions.  Let us consider a few nuclei sent northward at 0.75 ‘C’, and a few others sent southward at 0.75 ‘C’.  Suppose one of the southbound nuclei has its southward motion gradually halted, and then that nucleus is sent northward at a little faster than 0.75 ‘C’, and it even passes the northbound group!  We should not hide the approximately 1.50 ‘C’ velocity accumulated, since that one southbound nucleus began slowing down, and thereby parting company from its southbound co-travelers.  (That remains my common-sense treatment for “total ‘parting’ velocities”, even applied adequately for the above high-velocities case!)

Optional:  I believe Einstein’s actual, crucial and major contribution to the world (regarding his “Relativity” papers) was his conclusion--that rather mundane appearing masses, such as a hydrogen molecule, ‘contain’ a drastically greater amount of energy than it would appear. I.e., that it contains an (mc²) amount!  And that is about 50,000,000,000 times greater than the ‘kinetic energy’ that a hydrogen gas molecule appears to have, just bouncing around in our atmosphere.  That huge (mc² ) amount includes the spinning energy of the nuclei, a huge amount.  But that spin was not known to Einstein or to the physics establishment at the time.  Yet, Einstein correctly arrived at his staggering energy prediction, anyway!  And Einstein promoted ‘c’ as a cornerstone concept, upon which--a lot of other things might be developed.

But despite Einstein’s enlightening us about mass’s drastic amount of hidden energy—I strongly believe that the concept of mass and energy should remain (and must remain) as fundamentally different and non-interchangeable concepts.  (So I disagree with Einstein regarding that just mentioned, underlined, issue!)

Also, although not crucial to this article, I conjecture that maybe a mass (m) can move or spin at only speed ‘C’, and yet deliver more total energy than the old “Newtonian ‘kinetic’ energy” amount, (1/2) m[C]², and, indeed, transfer a total, m[C]² , amount, instead.  That is because the surrounding aether provides the additional 1/2) m[C]² amount of energy (or ‘kick’).  I elaborate on that in a different article.  That also relates to the typically occurring equal balance of ‘kinetic energy’ and ‘potential energy’ in stable systems.  

Addendum 2 (Added 9-15-2003)
Optional:  When I chose for the title of my above article, “What We See and What We Don’t See”; I was unaware that Claude Bastiat chose a similar title for his last essay, “What is Seen and What is Not Seen”, in 1850.  Bastiat (1801-1850) was a famous French economist and social philosopher.  His last essay seems to me to do in ‘economics’—some of the things I have attempted to do in physics and metaphysics.

Addendum 3 (Optional, and *new thoughts about gravity--speculative)  Let us say a few basic things about various forces and pressures in this world: Very strong Nuclear forces; ‘moderately strong’ Electric and Magnetic forces; and ‘weak’ Gravitational forces.  The following is a rough overview, but my remarks about gravity are somewhat new and more speculative.

We live in a universe which is based on fluid flow, or the like.  And, roughly, it can be described in terms of Bernoulli’s equation:

  P₁ - P₂  =  (1/2) ( p) (v₂)²  - (1/2) ( p) (v₁)² ,

Basically P₁ is the rather uniform, ultra high aether pressure that makes all major paradigms possible.  The very strong ‘nuclear force’ paradigm involves the application of that very strong aether pressure (P₁) against a glob, i.e., an elementary particle having about the highest possible density, ( p_proton) in our universe. And, therefore, a glob, or  part of the glob, can develop a high ‘characteristic’ maximum glob speed of roughly ( v₂  =  c). And an adjacent glob, or part of a glob, may hardly develop any velocity at all, i.e., (v₁  =  0).  The result is that very strong nuclear forces develop, harnessing roughly the full P₁  =  (1/2) ( p)(c)² aether pressure over its efficient, compact surface!

The merely moderately-strong electric and magnetic force paradigm is likely ‘played out’ because the electron has less mass than the proton.  A compressed electron mass would have less surface area than the proton, i.e., assuming it is the same nuclear density as a proton).  Therefore, the total forces ‘harnessable’ from the aether pressure is less.  Although the ‘free’ electron is likely stretched out and/or fluffed up, to more easily develop a Planck constant worth of angular momentum; that may not greatly enhance the forces it can develop, nor its total energy.  Therefore, its ‘lesser mass’ still results in less force developed compared to very strong nuclear forces.  (That is despite the rather equal ‘pressures’ on a compressed electron compared to a compressed proton.  An analogy is that Von Guericke’s many horses could not pull apart his two large hollow ‘Magdelburg’ hemispheres, but could have easily pulled a small cork off a bottle, with similar vacuum interior.) 

(We speculate, in other articles, that ‘electrostatics’ involves both spinning particles and spinning ‘balls of aether’.  And the ethereal velocities involved in electrostatics are highly directionally, subtle, and greatly exceeding the speed of light by many magnitudes!)

Finally, we get to Gravity, and its weak force paradigm.  (I approach that now, July 2005, from a slightly different perspective than usual.)  The Gravity (weak force) paradigm is ‘played out’ because the cause of gravity is aether; and aether has a very low density, i.e., much lower than the ultra-high proton’s density.  In fact, the ethereal density is roughly 10^-38 times lower than a proton’s density.  (I.e., that low ‘p_ethereal’ must be substituted in our Bernoulli’s equation above.)  So that roughly results in the corresponding force of gravity being10^-38times weaker than nuclear forces.

(The ‘Bernoulli concept’, which we apply here, is that there is a more constricted region between two bodies or ‘gross’ particles, than elsewhere.  Thus, there is an increased ‘flow velocity’ and decreased pressure in that restricted region.  And that results in what we call ‘Gravity’.)

But one might ask, “how can I roughly use speed, ‘c’, for the speed of aether in the above Bernoulli equation and comparisons, since I’ve maintained that a typical aether particle’s speed is roughly about 18 powers of 10 times faster than light?”  Crudely speaking, what may be involved, when gravity ‘arises’, is this:  Protons and other massive particles vibrate, rotate, jiggle, or move at an average speed of ‘c’, and they ‘brush’ against a large pack of aether particles which, on the average, are traveling at nearly zero velocity.  That is because those multi-directional ultra high velocities statistically average out to nearly zero, in that respect.  Or, maybe, in some cases, the average velocity of a large drifting pack of aether particles is about ‘c’, which would accomplish about the same thing.

((We might remember this:  When we receive a 10mph breeze from the north, only a small percent more than 50% of the air molecules are headed southward, (i.e., at few hundreds mph).  And an almost equal percent of air molecules are (at that instant) actually traveling northward, and at almost as fast a speed as their southbound competitors are going southward.  (And, as inferred, there are also east and west directions.).  The net result is only a 10mph breeze)) 

Regarding ‘strong and weak’ natural forces (nuclear and gravitational), perhaps the following is a satisfactory analogy:  If two identical propellers both rotate at ten times per second, one in high-density water, the other in low-density air; then the one in water will cause much greater ‘undertow’ force than the one in air.  I.e., that principle makes it risky for kids to wade in the deep water off ocean beaches!  (That said, however; I still don’t know all the details regarding the interaction between the aether in space and gross matter -- regarding gravity, etc.)  

Optional Note 1: We now mention the following hypothetical supposition, even though it is speculative; only an approximation; and its relationship to my article somewhat mote:  Let us imagine a sphere enclosing an ethereal density in a region.  Then imagine that the aether particles within that sphere have begun to orbit about the axis of that sphere, somewhat like the asteroid belt does around the Sun’s axis.  (Perhaps the aether particles were coerced into doing that by a spinning proton or electron, nearby.)  Let us imagine, as usual, that the ‘average’ aether particle has mass ‘m_ae’, but that it is orbiting at only half its typical velocity, i.e., (1/2 v_ae), for the case of the outer-most orbiting ‘m_ae’ masses.. Imagine that the ‘m_ae’ masses still maintain about s_ae spacings between one another, and that the entire group had a total angular momentum equal to that of a spinning proton, (i.e. h /4p).  Then, in order for the orbiting group to manifest that much angular momentum, the sphere radius “R” of that ‘large spinning vortex’ would have to extend out to:  

  R _{large spinning vortex} = 0.52x10^-10 meter.

That is about equal to the radius for the orbiting electron around a proton as predicted in the ‘Bohr successful model of the hydrogen atom’.  But since I only used very rough estimates for my aether values in my above vortex calculation; I think that any great closeness of my ‘large whirling vortex’ to the ‘Bohr orbit’, is somewhat coincidental.  (I.e., any closeness better than an ‘order of magnitude’.)

Optional Note 2: Very shortly after writing my original (Aug., 2000) article, an earlier paper "Gravity" by Radziyevskiy and Kagalnikova came to my attention, which discusses gravity.  It states that Poincare examined a "modified version" of the Lomonosov-Lesage conception of gravity.  In effect, it states that Poincare calculated a needed gravitational radiation speed of at least 3x10²⁶ meter/sec. to avoid certain contradictions otherwise expected.  This is only a little less than "my calculated" 8.8x10²⁶ meter/sec. as needed to hold the spinning proton together. These similar magnitudes may or may not be just co-incidental, and even my estimate is only a rough estimate. 

Historically, many people have resisted believing that these staggeringly-high magnitudes could exist for matter in our universe.  And many people still reject it, and Poincare was very skeptical, too.  Yet, I am convinced that we must be emphatic and clear about the ultra-high (but not infinite) numerical magnitudes, which are needed, to describe our ‘celestial’ Aether’s characteristics!  (At least, we must mention the ultra-high magnitude of velocities and very-low densities, which common rarefied gases would need to have, to produce the ultra-high pressures in our world.)  If we try to evade that subject (to 'save appearances'?), then I don’t think that we can seriously challenge those, who “are just accepting ‘attraction between separated bodies’ as humans' maximum, appropriate cognitive treatment, on the subject”..

Incidentally (like Laplace), I am talking about important and ultra-high aether velocities, that dwarf anything that Michelson-Morley ever aimed to measure.  Yes, I am aware of Michelson-Morley’s attempt to ascertain some detailed information about ‘their aether’.  There are several theories as to the behavior of aether, and why aether did not affect Michelson-Morley’s experimental results in the way that they may have expected it to.  That is beyond the scope of this article.  (I have read at least one good, likely explanation of why Michelson-Morley and related experiments resulted as they did.  But even if I hadn’t, that whole subject would still remain rather irrelevant!)  I think that Einstein and many physicists of that period sometimes sadly forgot that there exists many much greater force and energy interactions, between separated major entities, than the interactions caused by light.  Rational explanations for the real high pressures in the world and for several different ‘action-at-a-distance’ phenomena require an aether.  And that holds true, regardless of whether light (or a photon) requires an aether or not!  That also holds true regardless of whether my ~ 8.8x10²⁶ m/sec. typical aether particle speed affects the very complex and intricate Michelson-Morley light experiment, to any noticeable extent, or not.

 [References] [Illustration ]

Home

(Readers’ comments always welcome)
For my Email and address, see my Homepage