by Carl R. Littmann, originally written 8-31-2000;
expanded and/or simplified-12-6-2000, 9-1-2010

**Preface to my article

(Note:  Reader may alter letter Size or style by downloading or ‘copying & pasting’ content to ‘word-document pad’; and clicking ‘Size 14’ or whatever pleases reader.  Also, feel free to skip any part of article designated, ‘Optional’, or any section repeating what you already know.)

AIM of Article:  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, but instead issues and shortcoming disclosed.  I believe that most people, since the age of Kepler and Newton, have long accepted that all, or nearly all, of the world’s events follow ‘mathematical formulas, equations, and such descriptions’. But I think the wisest scientists have dared to inquire why certain events ‘follow that math’ -- when such behavior still seems magical’, despite its ‘following the math’!  So we seek to deduce and find such hidden causes as would to de-mystify that.
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, platelets, or small structures of some sort -- 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 is 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 analog the high pressures.”

If one counter argues that "gravitational pressures need not be addressed because they are illusions or because 'warped space-time' solves the mystery 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.  And that ‘pressure’ will enable us to avoid the dubious notion of so-called ‘attractive’ force, there.  And perhaps we can propose explanations for all so-called (mysterious) ‘pull’ forces in terms of more intuitive ‘push’ forces, although sometimes hidden."

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 like-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 in our attempt to seek intuitive explanations! 

((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 hard, energized, or vibrating 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 ‘naturallyattracted another—and that that was just another ‘innate’ or ‘primary attribute’ of matter.”  And, of course, to also reject the notion of “one body ‘attracting’ a distant body when there is absolutely nothing between them or around them!”  (I.e., that is sometimes referred to as rejecting an “alleged to occur: ‘action-at-a-distance’.”)  Thus, many wise philosophers and scientists sought alternate ‘models’ and more intuitive explanations for why masses often behaved ‘as if’ they attracted one-another.  And I will also reject ‘magical attractions’, and I will use the concept of (hidden) ‘pushing forces’ to explain those things, instead!)) 

As for as any proposal “that forces are caused to arise on one body due to a distant body, but (allegedly) without anything between them or around them nor the affected body touched by anything”, I believe that proposition is an esoteric, irrational, and untenable proposition.  And that that proposal, which ‘denies an aether or anything between the affected bodies’, 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 consensus, 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 my article, my summary, and conclusion, require only a little physics to follow.  For any section that might require more knowledge or attention, the reader is pre-briefed and invited to ‘skip it’, and a clickable ‘link’ provided to help do so!  (Sometimes such detailed text is even offset to avoid cluttering – for example, ‘a section where a little thermodynamics and patience might be helpful’.) 

Many people desire 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 the existence of ‘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  (allow a minute for old ISP to download illustration)

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 – which it seems to do.  We consider that that spinning 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, at first glance, it seems logical that it should disintegrate!)  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 and action to provide stability, and we offer possible numerical magnitudes for its characteristics, along with illustrations.

(((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’ (defined earlier), seem ‘fundamentally unreasonable’, even though they often appear to us to occur, based on our limited capacity to detect the ‘hidden’!))  Philosophically, “inquiring beyond what we have observed, in order to find a hidden ‘cause’; or even to surmise and 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 now further develop our theme and see where it leads to.  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 to explore the basics!)

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 roughly 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 to keep it from ‘flying apart’. 

((For abbreviations, we use:  m = meter;  sec = second;  kgm = kilogram mass;  j = a ‘joule’ worth of energy;  h = a “Planck’s constant” worth of angular momentum or 6.625x10-34[(j) (sec.)].  And, incidentally, regarding those latter ‘units’ (or ‘dimensions’) of angular momentum; one [( j) (sec.)] amount is equivalent to one[(kgm) (m) (m/sec.)] amount.  Regarding other abbreviations; π = 3.14 approximately;  newt = a ‘newton’ amount of force.   The common designation in some textbooks for the proton’s angular momentum is: (h  / 4π).  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.  Sometimes we may use the notation, ^, denoting that the previous term or number is ‘squared’, ‘cubed’, or ‘raised to a power of 10,’ for example, E = mc^2, or 1000 = 10^3.)) 

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 spaceAnd it pressurizes all of the infinite universe, (except, perhaps, 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

((Incidentally, the simple notion of:  “A proton containing one positive charge and, say, half of that charge on each ‘hemisphere’ (so each hemisphere repels the other - because ‘like half charges repel’)” -- also would necessitate “ultra-high ‘ethereal’ push pressures around the proton’s surface to keep its hemispheres from ‘flying apart’.”))

II.  OPTIONAL History; other Scientists Tending Toward the Above


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, instead, to ‘allow aether to do the job’!

In the early 19th 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 matter 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 or ‘attractive’ forces!  (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.))  So, related to that, ‘imaginary fields’ are also not altogether satisfying.


The below is a very interesting, but a somewhat meta-physical, (optional) discourse.  So reader may wish to click: “Very Important, Aether’s Density”, and first go there, and perhaps later return to the optional discourse directly below.

(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 an option 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.  (And to go with that ‘total compact fill’ would have required requisitioning a gigantic amount of material, anyway, an unnecessarily large task and amount!) 

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) energyThat probably has great appeal to a lot of readers, but I allege it is much too complicated and difficult to be preferred!  Elementary mass would have to, so-to-speak, ‘store in an innate long memory’ – without getting too ‘fatigued’ to ‘remember’ – that it must eventually push with decreasingly outward pressure again, after the squeeze against it was gradually released. (‘If you will allow me’; “such ‘creation’ would likely take more than 6 days’ of work to complete!”)

How about sprinkling rather uniformly all over the universegranules made of one 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, simple, 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, conceptualize and calculate!

(Optional.....Cont’d....) 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, and unnecessarily 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 assume that the pepper-like particles or grains are each ‘flying every which way at different velocities’; and that they eventually collide with one another many times, and (being initially loose in structure) that they spread out into something like ‘soap bubbles’.  Because of the initially imagined ‘randomness’, let us imagine that the bubbles differ in size, energy, vibrating or spinning velocities, and amounts of aether involved.  But, due to the initial disorder; almost all bubbles have some amount of ‘spinning’ or spin, i.e., angular momentum associated with them in the volume of space they occupy -- compared to their neighbor ‘bubble’ that also has some amount of angular momentum associated with its volume, also. 

Let us imagine that there exist an ‘average’ amount of angular momentum in a typical volume of space, for example, by considering the following:  Say, a typical amount of ethereal angular momentum exists in a typical small volume of space, before we enter into its neighborly slightly bigger spinning ethereal volume with its slightly different amount of angular momentum in it (and, incidentally, with a likely different spinning orientation).  And then, we proceed to enter its adjacent volume, i.e., its neighbor, say, with a slightly smaller volume of spinning aether and with a slightly smaller amount of angular momentum.  But the basic idea is that there arises an average amount (‘quantum’) of angular momentum in a typical small volume of space. 

((We accept that, if we were inside of an average stationary, fixed small volume of space, that the total amount of angular momentum in that volume would fluctuate.  But we postulate and imagine that within such a properly chosen small volume, there occurs - over time - an average amount of angular momentum, that is, roughly, equal to a Planck’s Constant’s worth (or roughly one-sixth of that or whatever).  I.e., in fact, Planck’s Constant is a fundamental constant in physics with ‘units’ or ‘dimensions’ of angular momentum!  (See approximately near the bottom of page 3 above, for its value.)

((Actually, it is likely that each of the above mentioned typical spinning bubbles has a substructure of ever thinner-walled bubbles inside of them.  And in the crevices between bubbles, there would also be ever thinner-walled bubbles – in those ever-smaller realms, too.  And that those sub-bubbles also move around and track along with the main outer spinning bubble in that main small quantum volume of space discussed in the previous paragraph.  There may even be ethereal current around it or through openings in it to help keep it stable.))

So a big bunch of our aether ‘bubbles’ are somewhat like a classical ‘vortex-sponge’.  The uniqueness of each bubble that develops is determined mainly by the following:  1) The constant high density of the incompressible aether material in our universe (as ‘full’ as anything can get); 2) The average percent of that ‘fill’ (of that aether in our universe) as compared to ‘non-fill’ (the ‘void’) in our universe. So, I think our universe is, by far, mostly ‘rarified’, (so for each 1 ‘full’ small volume, there is a relatively large average void of surrounding volume – i.e., about 1 with 20 zeros following it – quite a large multiplication factor for our comparison of ‘full space’ to ‘void space’);  3) The average ‘pressure’ in ethereal space, which arises from the ‘ultra-large energy per each small volume of ethereal space’ – is another important ‘independent factor’.  And that arises due to the average magnitude of the great velocities associated with those aether bubbles (which includes ‘spinning velocities’, the bubble’s internal velocities and the bubble’s velocities relative to its neighbors).  4) The average separation between the centers of those (spinning) ‘bubbles’ (i.e., between each and its neighbors -- that average small ‘quantum’ volume – that feature also helps determine ‘uniqueness’).

I believe those 4 basic ‘specifications’ for our universe’s aether (most of which are ‘averages’) -- are all that is 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 – in other words, even the value of Planck’s Constant, itself).  I guess that’s the sort of thing that Descartes had imagined when he allegedly said, “Give me matter and its motion and I’ll give you the universe”. 

VERY IMPORTANT; Estimates of Aether’s Density, etc.
Incidentally, after reading my main sections below: ‘Aether’s Density’, and etc.; reader may later return to click ‘my ‘(Optional) Misc. Details - Offset Section’, if desiring more conceptual details.

AETHER DENSITYLet us estimate the ethereal density of our aether to be 10-20 kgm / cu. m, approximately.  That guess seems somewhat arbitrary, but the guess is a little ‘thicker’ than the density of ‘a mass of a few dozen molecules 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’s 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.  That latter, ‘what is at first hand’, has some appeal.  But many others, understandably, may feel that much greater volumes and larger matter samplings should enhance estimates, even though that involves greater distances, and that, itself, may introduce slight uncertainties.


Qualitative’ Description of Aether and Elementary Particles:
There is a very high pressure, highly energized, very low density aether throughout our universe that provides for the stability of the elementary particles in our universe. And some of that aether even condenses, like clouds into raindrops or sleet, to help create our ‘elementary particles’!  There are also infinitely many infinitesimally small ‘voids’ in space.  So, strictly speaking, the highly energized aether is somewhat like a porous, classical ‘vortex sponge’.  Thus, the aether particles, platelets, or bubbles, which fly or spin about in space, are like exoskeletons forms – each exoskeleton made of high density non-porous (condensed) ethereal material – but each encompassing a relatively empty interior space.  And there is also mostly empty space in the ‘grooves’, say, between each major exoskeleton bubble and, say, the roughly twelve bubbles that surround it and which are somewhat similar to it. 

Also, there are many (countless) small volumes of aether, spinning or lunging about, that likely indirectly help to bring ‘structure’ to small globs of condensed matter, i.e., the latter - which therefore forms ‘elementary particles’.   (Again, click the link near the top of page 3 of this article to see an illustration that helps summarize this article!)

The proton is comprised of very high-density and compact material, like a billion small exoskeletons compressed together to form a small, thick, rather hard spherical bone or little gold ring, i.e., with most of the air and low-density stuff squeezed out of it.   Perhaps the proton insides might be slightly porous, but it is still mostly pure solid, especially compare to ‘ethereal space’.  So, to repeat: the proton is about the highest density entity possible in our universe, and a contrast to the aether’s (ethereal) low density, about the lowest sustainable density in our universe!

The proton spins at a very high speed, roughly 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, which also arise, likely help.  Those subtle aether currents, which are present near the proton and electron, might also relate to electro-dynamics. 

Quantitative’ (Numerical) Estimates of the Aether’s Characteristics
We estimated the aether’s ‘spacial density’ to be: (mae)/(sae)3 = 10-20 kgm/(meter)3(That low density is due to ethereal space being mostly empty, like old-fashioned ‘cotton candy’.)  And that is about the lowest (sustained) density possible in our universe! 

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

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

We estimated an actual very high density for our incompressible aether substance, to be roughly 4x1017 kgm/m3, and we also chose that density as our rough estimate for the density of our (densely packed) protonThus, the proton has about the highest possible density of anything in our universe. (That, incidentally, utilizes a major aspect of the old ‘Bohr liquid drop model’ of the nucleus.)

Important Note: (the density of the aether times its ‘average’ velocity ‘squared’) roughly equals (the density of the ‘elementary particle’ times its ‘average’ velocity ‘squared’).  I.e., the limit of, say, the proton’s traveling speed being roughly ‘C’; and perhaps its average spinning speed - a quarter to a half of that (C).

General Overview

Our Main Text continues below with a ‘General Overview of my article; but any reader desiring more details can click, ‘(Optional) Extended Summary – Offset Section’. 

((The only thing I want to say, below, about those optional details is thisThere may exist ethereal substructures in the aether (and most of them housed inside larger spinning structures of aether). And those small ‘sub-structures’ may typically have an ethereal mass (mae) equal to roughly 2.8x10^- 65 kgm.  And the spacings between those small sub-structures may be roughly sae = 1.4x10^-15 meter.))

General Overview ..... resumedReminder -- my estimated values for the aether are only rough estimates.  My main points are these:

First, the various constants in nature: (Mproton) and (C) and (h/4πp), and the ‘(G) of gravity’, should all naturally arise, as a result of 'hard to detect' background ethereal 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 natureIt 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  mae and [mae / (sae)3 ] relate to the ‘incompressibility of mass’ (i.e. its innate ‘extension) and to the ‘existence of  voids’, respectively.  Those voids are like the open regions between the solid webbing of a fine screen, (or the vortices in a ‘classical vortex sponge’).  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.  Addressing that subject here in detail would have lengthened even more this already too long of article.  So see my ‘Homepage’ for my (separate) article about the “variety of ‘stable’ and ‘semi-stable’ particles in physics, and the ‘ratio of their masses’.”  (Other issues, somewhat related to this article, are also 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 other links exist at my ‘Homepage’ to other possibly helpful articles – and a link at end of my present article transfers readers to my ‘Homepage’.
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, here, is to help others find their satisfying solutions to their problems; not to impose our (non-perfect and likely non-wholly satisfying) solutions to their problems!”


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/(2π;)’, ‘Mproton, 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’ mainly being the ignoring of the aether, instead of rightly embracing 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 opinionsAnd 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 abandoning only 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, or aspects of reality.)

--- End --- of main presentation,  See links below, as follows:

  HOME, ILL., and REF.

As said, the above concludes the ‘Main Presentation’ (Main Text) of this article; but below we add some interesting comments and thoughts about related subjects.  The reader is invited to read or skim-over it, at reader’s leisure:

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, and even if it disagrees with some interpretations of ‘Einstein Special Relativity Theory’!) 

We could even enhance and expand my above paragraph by adding to it ‘photons’ -- some sent northward at ‘C’, and some sent southward at ‘C’.  But I think the above is sufficient for the reader to understand my general (common sense) view and concerns.

Optional:  I believe Einstein’s actual crucial and major contributions to the world (regarding his ‘Relativity’ papers) were as follows:  First, 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 100,000,000,000 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 in those early Einstein years.  Yet, young 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 wisely 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’s likely view, 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, can transfer a total, m[C]2 , amount, instead.  That is because the particle’s 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.

In my opinion, a second great Einstein contribution in one of his ‘Relativity’ papers was as follows:  He proposed that “when a star or emitter radiates m[C]2 amount of radiated energy – that that star or emitter loses an ‘m’ amount of mass”.  This is especially important, in my opinion, because it infers that a surprising additional bundle of energy -- an additional (1/2) m[C]2 amount of ‘hidden’ energy -- is also emitted during that event.  So that is an additional amount -- beyond the simple (1/2) m[C]2 amount of kinetic energy -- that students, etc., might expect as likely to be associated or deliverable with the event, (an event seemingly traveling at the speed of light, ‘C’.)   

I think the other great Einstein contribution (this time his ‘General Relativity Theory’) was as follows:  His prediction that an atomic clock slows down when so positioned near (or inside) a massive body, i.e., such that a high potential gravitational field exists around there, compared to if, instead, that clock were way out in rather empty space.  In fact, as if the clock, when near a massive body, had fallen from outer space to near that massive body, and thus has develop a high ‘relativistic’ falling speed.  I.e., even though, say, that clock is now held at rest near that massive body, and no longer falling!

What is seldom realized is this:   Suppose that clock were located near the center of that massive body, in a buried room with strong sides, (where a person’s own weight is nearly zero because he seems ‘pulled’ by ‘gravity’ with nearly equal forces in all directions).  According to Einstein’s general relativity theory, the clock at the center of that massive body is still ‘slowed down’!  (I.e., even though a person down there would feel as if he were in nearly empty far out space -- without ‘gravitational weight’ or forces, and not moving north, south, east, west, etc.!)  That is a case of Einstein ‘seeingsomething that would seem hidden from most people’s view, feeling, and consideration!  One might ‘feel and calculate almost nothing’, no net gravity, i.e., as if the so-called ‘gravitational pulls’ there, i.e., toward north, south, forward, backward, to the left, to the right, all cancel and give ‘zero’ affect.  But Einstein would say ‘no’; something about all of that ‘adds up to slow the atomic clock down’, and ‘not just “all cancels out to leave the ‘atomic’ clock alone!”  “The clock ‘feels’ something, anyway, even if you can’t!”)

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 and related issues -- 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, (including, I think, aether’s).  And a major aspect of that can be roughly described in terms of Bernoulli’s equation:

  P1 - P2  =  (1/2) ( p) (v2)2  - (1/2) ( p) (v1)2 ,   ((note (p) denotes fluid density))

Basically P1 is the rather uniform, ultra high aether pressure that makes all major paradigms possible.  The very strongnuclear force’ paradigm involves the full application of that very strong aether pressure (P1) against a glob, i.e., an elementary particle having about the highest possible density, say, a proton’s density, ( pproton), in our universe. And, therefore, a glob, or part of the glob, might develop a high ‘characteristic’ maximum glob speed of roughly ( v2  =  c), and an adjacent glob, or part of a glob, might hardly develop any velocity at all, i.e., (v1  =  0).  The result is that a very strong nuclear force develops, (an internal, or very close-by, ‘Bernoulli-related suction’) harnessing roughly the full pressure available: P1  =  (1/2) ( p)(c)2 ‘aether pressure’ over its efficient, compact surface!  (That, together with subtle external ethereal flows and external ethereal structures, may enhance great particle stability!)

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’ and smaller ‘effective’ surface area still results in less force developed compared to very strong nuclear forces.  (That is despite the rather equal ‘pressure’ differential 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 directional, subtle, and greatly exceeding the speed of light by many magnitudesThus, some of their interactions can be relatively strong despite the very low density aether that usually separates them.)

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 ‘pethereal’ must be substituted in our Bernoulli’s equation above.)  So that roughly results in the corresponding force of gravity being 10-38 times weaker than nuclear forces.

(The ‘Bernoulli concept’, which we apply here, is that there is a more constricted ‘flow’ region between two bodies or ‘gross’ particles, than elsewhere.  Thus, there is an increased ‘flow velocity’ and decreased pressure in that constricted region.  And that results in what we call ‘Gravity’, i.e., what develops when ultra low-density aether is flowing in that constricted region, instead of a high-density fluid.  And that is why the ‘gravity’ that arises is a comparatively very ‘weak force’.)

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:  In between two or more ‘ponderable’ masses, such as two protons, the average velocity of a large drifting pack of aether particles is about ‘C’.  That does not mean that most of the ‘individual’ aether ‘particles can’t also have different velocities, in various different directions, and each aether particle going much faster than ‘C’ by many magnitudes!  An analogy is that a ’10 mph’ breeze may exert forces on sail boats, but that doesn’t mean the individual air molecules are moving at only ‘10 mph’ – almost all those air molecules are moving at almost the (high) speed of sound, over 700 mph, individually speaking, (and that is the source of our substantial ‘atmospheric’ pressure!)

(Perhaps the gravitationally applicable ‘ethereal drift’ is do to the following:  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, in turn, drift at only about velocity ‘C’ as a group.) 

Thus, perhaps regarding ‘strong and weak’ natural forces (nuclear and gravitational), the following additional analogy may be helpful:  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 completely all the details regarding the interaction between the aether in space and gross matter -- regarding gravity, etc.)  

Optional Note 1:  In the following paragraph, we further speculate about the density of aether, and roughly the maximum size of spinning balls of aether (which may relate to the size of an atom).  And also that theorized ‘spinning aether ball’ may relate to roughly the amount of ‘angular momentum’ represented by the ‘magnitude’ of Planck’s constant. 

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, or visa versa.)  Let us imagine, as usual, that the ‘average’ aether particle has mass ‘mae’, but that it is orbiting at only half its typical velocity, i.e., (1/2 vae), for the case of the outer-most orbiting ‘mae’ masses.  Imagine that the ‘mae’ masses still maintain about sae spacings between one another, and that the entire group had a total angular momentum equal to that of a spinning proton, (i.e. h /4π).  (Numerical values for entities represented by my symbols are given elsewhere in my above article.)  Then, in order for the orbiting group to manifest that much angular momentum, the sphere radiusR’ of that ‘large spinning vortex’ would have to extend out to roughly: 

  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 Bohr’s successful model of the hydrogen atom.  But since I only used very rough estimates for my aether values in my above vortex-like calculation; I think that any great closeness in accuracy of my ‘large whirling vortex’ to the ‘Bohr orbit’, would be somewhat coincidental.  (I.e., any accuracy better than an ‘order of magnitude’.)

Optional Note 2:  A Few Comments on the Michelson-Morley Experiment, Etc.

Incidentally (like Laplace but even more emphatically), I have postulated important ethereal actions, vibrations, and ethereal currents at dozens of magnitude faster than light, i.e., 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 Michelson-Morley may have expected it to.  Of course, the ‘Lorentz-Fitzgerald’ structural ‘contraction’ is one possibility, and there are other theories, too.  (It is interesting to note that a photon’s or pulse’s wavelength is sometimes not even constant in a vacuum, unlike the constant ‘speed’ of light that is considered to be a constant in vacuum.  For example, wavelength increases when light travels upward from, say, a mine-shaft -- versus an unchanged wavelength when that same light travels horizontally.  Thus, even the number of wavelength ‘nodes’ when a length is measured experimentally in vacuum may sometimes differ from the length as determined by measuring light transit times.  Experiments ‘using supposed number of wavelengths to calculate or represent exact light transit times’ may at least sometimes be suspect.)  Much detailed speculation of various possibilities and interlinked actions is beyond the scope of this article. 

The main point is this:  Regardless of whether one is satisfied or not with any theory for “the cause of the generally non-expected ‘outcome’ of the Michelson-Morley experiment”; the following fact remains:  The Michelson-Morley experiment is an irrelevant distraction when addressing more basic questions.  The Michelson-Morley experiment is not really relevant to whether you believe that gravitation and other various cause-effect actions between bodies occur with ‘nothing between them or around them’ and ‘nothing flying between them’!  That is the old ‘action-at-a-distance’ philosophical question.  Newton, Maxwell, Pauling, and many others believed (as I do) that just accepting that ‘some body causes a distant body to change – but without anything occurring between or around the separated bodies’ ....... is not an appropriate, satisfying, or acceptable conclusion to those even minimally competent in ‘Natural Philosophy’. 

The ‘exotic’ theories of “so-called ‘bending or curving of space’, and attempts to ‘marginalize Euclid’ and others’ geometric concepts” are very unsatisfactory ways of facing, constructively, the philosophical issue of the ‘appearance’ of ‘action-at-a-distance’ – the ‘phrase discussed earlier in my article!  (I view those ‘exotic’ theories as too often an attempt to avoid facing the legitimate main issue -- distractions.)

Thus, I think that Einstein and many physicists of that period sometimes sadly forgot that there exist 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 of some sort.  And that holds true, regardless of whether light (or a photon) requires an aether or not!  That also holds true regardless of whether my theorized ~ 8.8x1026 m/sec speed for a ‘typical aether particle or medium vibration’ affects the very complex and intricate Michelson-Morley light experiment, to any noticeable extent, or not. 

What is also often forgotten is what even Einstein admitted though-out his lifeThere is no good (satisfactory) model for the ‘photon’, nor a well-established comprehensive and consistent model for ‘light’!  (In my opinion, that should help us to avoid over-confidence when we try to draw too drastic and bizarre of conclusions based on any ‘subtle and complex’ light experiment!)

 [References] [Illustration ]

Carl R. Littmann

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