An Aether of Plasma, Electropons and Positrons, explains how matter is created, and eviscerates much of modern physics and cosmology.

Dirac, Anderson, Miller, even Rutherford all give credence to the reality of the aether and how matter is created.

Electromagnetism does not occur in a ‘vacuum’, it only occurs in a medium, and within these medium which we call ‘space’ matter can be created

If the Aether exists, Relativity and the Big Bang are falsified. If the aether medium is akin to electromagnetic plasma, most of ‘science’ will be rubbished. If the universe is electromagnetic, this will explain the creation of matter and how gravity operates. This is why there is ‘aether-denialism’ in modern society. Entire paradigms, worldviews, power structures and the credibility of ‘science’ would be overturned. The Einstotle knew the aether must exist in some form, the only debate was and still is; what constitutes the aether, and how does it interact with the Earth?

“One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together.”

(Einstein, cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, Aperion, 2000, p. 2)

Einstein admits to the aether and equates it with space. Einstein was forced to hypothesise that the aether was amorphous, or without materiality. This was to save his theory. It was not based on evidence.

Ignore the evidence

In 1928 physicist Paul Dirac predicted Carl Anderson’s 1932 discovery of the positron which predicted that the entire universe is made up of electron-positron pairs¹. Dirac was also part of the quantum world and not a Relativist. The most unique aspect of Dirac’s analysis was that his equation required two sets of electropon pairs, positive pairs and negative pairs.² This is known as Dirac’s ‘sea’.

Neither Dirac, nor Anderson, in any meaningful detail, is taught in ‘higher’ education. The reason is obvious. They disprove the Scientism narrative.

Psalms of lament

The famous Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, amongst many thousands of others, had identified an aether. The interferometer measurements from extraordinarily large and comprehensive experimental apparats which were trying to measure the Earth’s quiet dance through space, had returned a non-null result that was however, a fraction of what was expected. ‘The Science’ ignored this and declared all results to be null. This is simply a lie.

For Relativists these experiments were a disaster. In fact, in the same year (1928) that Dirac came out with his bold equation which predicted the positron’s existence, Michelson was doing his final interferometer experiment to detect the aether that Dayton Miller had found four years earlier. As in 1881 and in 1887, he failed to detect the Earth’s motion, but found a slight fringe measurement indicating most logically, the existence of the aether. It was obvious that Dirac’s equation was just more proof that Einstein had incorrectly interpreted Michelson-Morley and was once again, quite wrong.

The great Carl Anderson, never taught, largely unknown.

The new science of the ‘micro’ or Quantum Mechanics (QM) was also unimpressed with the idea of an aether or with the implications of Dirac’s theory and Anderson’s evidential proof. Heisenberg, the acclaimed leader of QM did everything in his power to destroy Dirac and Anderson’s positrons. He failed. Positrons and electropons are now a part of the ‘standard model’ of physics and cosmology. This is bad news for not only Relativity, QM, but also for the biggest of bangs. Any electropon reality inevitably contravenes the Big Bang as Discover magazine admitted:

“Whenever a normal particle and an antiparticle meet, they annihilate each other, converting all their mass into energy in a pyrotechnic demonstration of Einstein’s famous law, E = mc². And therein lies the source of one of the greatest dilemmas of science.

… that by the time the universe was just 10^-33 of a second old…the temperature had dropped from unimaginably hot to a mere 18 million billion billion degrees. That was cool enough for the first particles of matter and antimatter to condense from pure energy. But to balance the cosmic energy books – and to avoid violating the most fundamental laws of physics – matter and antimatter should have been created in exactly equal amounts. And then they should have promptly wiped each other out. Yet here we are. Somehow a bit of matter managed to survive.”³

For the record E = mc² is wrong and there is no equivalency in the interaction of energy and matter (more below). There is no magical creation or annihilation of ‘matter’. Matter cannot be created ex-nihilo. If, however, we simply accept the dogma of ‘The Science’ as given above, the Big Bang is still disproven. Pace its own gospel, “matter and antimatter should have been created in exactly equal amounts”, yet there is a dearth of anti-matter. They can’t explain why.

The common response to the anti-matter issue is to rationalise that the universe started with neutrinos that turned into electrons, positrons, protons and antiprotons. No proof exists of how this could happen.

In fact, so very few neutrinos have been captured that the ‘birth’ of other molecules from neutrino interaction has never been proven. In any event, such a process would have yielded more protons and antiprotons, leading to an imbalance between matter and antimatter, so it is not a solution. The Big Bang is still busted.

Dirac and Anderson proved how the lattice of matter was formed and provided the simplest explanation to address the matter, anti-matter conundrum. This is where ‘science’ should spend its energy and time and follow the evidence where it leads.

Electropons and light

The Anderson discovery, supported by the mathematical explanation of Dirac, was also important for another reason. It revealed that space consists of very dense yet very stable electropon pairings, perhaps in some type of lattice or crystalline structure. You would think that the massive brains within physics would have figured out that light traveling through this dense medium must be directly affected.

By the 1930s this was not a new idea. Physics had already been conditioned to think in this manner with Einstein’s Nobel Prize winning discovery in 1905 of the photoelectric effect (the process by which a photon of the right frequency releases an electron from metal), as well as Arthur Compton’s discovery in 1923 of the process by which a photon gives momentum to an electron or the ‘Compton effect’.

With the knowledge that light can be affected by and produce physical effects when it interacts with atomic particles, then observing consistent interferometer results of 1-4 km/sec over the course of more than 60 years (i.e., 1867-1932) should have suggested to physicists that light was being physically affected by some kind of substance in space.

Unfortunately, in real life, strong but unproven presuppositions, including that the Earth was revolving around the Sun at a leisurely canter of 30 km/sec, prohibited ‘The Science’ from even considering the ‘aether’ to be real. Since the medieval period and into the last quarter of the 19^th century, the aether was assumed to be the main foundation of classical physics. The aether was the absolute reference for Newtonian gravity and Maxwell’s electromagnetism.

The late 19^th and early 20^th century’s wanton disregard of real world data, which clearly shows that the aether exists, roundly condemns ‘The Science’.

When in doubt, invoke Saint Einstotle, and use words like ‘time dilation’, ‘energy-matter equivalency’, ‘gravitational-inertia’…

E = mc² is wrong

Another reason for ‘The Science’ to reject that electropon pairs already exist and are not ‘created’ ex nihilo, is that it would force a wholly different explanation to such formulas as E = mc² . Such explanations are independent of Lorentz’s complex transformation equations, or Einstein’s tautological and incorrect canons of tensor calculus.

These alternative explanations would be physical, mechanical, and anti-Relativistic. Namely;

• Energy (E) is absorbed into open space resulting in the release of a mass of electrons and positrons (or various other possible particles), which can then be multiplied by the square of the speed of light to calculate the total amount of energy absorbed.⁴ We will discuss this more in a future post.

4 reasons why E=mc2 is wrong. Einstein made very basic mistakes when interpreting this equation.

Plasma

Within the aether and throughout the universe there is a lattice work of electropons which is often called ‘plasma’. That an electropon lattice may pervade all open space and thus constitute the salient part of the ‘ponderable’ aether has been acknowledged for a long time. Plasma physics has demonstrated that electropon pairs play an important role in almost every phenomenon in the cosmos, including stars, neutron-stars, pulsars, quasars and gamma-ray bursters.⁵

Based on much physical evidence, several physicists have shown that an electropon lattice provides one of the most logical, lucid, and thoroughly physical explanations for nuclear and cosmological phenomena. There is no need for the magic of Relativity with the hocus-pocus of spatial warps, time dilations, nor for Quantum Mechanic’s multiple states and uncertainties. All the mystery and confusion created by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics suddenly evaporates once we understand the physical reasons, as opposed to the merely mathematical or theoretical, of why things occur as they do.⁶

For example, the origin of inertia could be explained quite easily.

1. Around every micro and macro-object there are billions of electropon pairs, which vibrate at a frequency proportional to the velocity of the object.

2. If the object remains in uniform motion, so does the vibration energy of the electropon pairs. If there is any change in motion, the electropon pairs act accordingly, changing their frequency and energy.

3. The energy required to change the values for the electropon pairs is equivalent to the inertial energy of the object.

The same principle could hold for gravity. Physicist Robert Laughlin has written on how such crystalline structures transmit their energy:

“The ability of electrons and holes to move ballistically through the lattice is not obvious at all….The resolution of this problem is that the entanglement is rendered irrelevant by emergence. It turns out to be exactly and universally the case that crystalline insulators have specific collective motions of isolated electrons that look and act as though they were motions of isolated electrons….The important thing is that the particle-like nature of the collective motion is exact and reliable.”⁷

This means that within electromagnetism, a free moving electron will simply attract the positron end of an electropon pair. Within space therefore, we have action and ‘stress’. As Maxwell wrote in 1873: “From the hypothesis that electric action is not a direct action between bodies at a distance, but is exerted by means of the medium between the bodies, we have deduced that this medium must be in a state of stress”.⁸

Rutherford and alpha particles

In line with these insights, we have the discovery in 1911 by Ernest Rutherford when he bombarded very thin sheets of gold with alpha particles. He found that, even though alpha particles are 8,000 times larger than the electron, and the metal foil was 400-atoms-thick, nevertheless, most of the particles penetrated the foil with little problem. Only a few, perhaps 1 in 1,000, were scattered, some deflected 90 degrees, others 180 degrees.

A viable interpretation of this phenomenon is that the alpha particles move through the atom as if the atom was almost completely empty. The few alpha particles that were deflected had hit the nucleus of the atom, which means that most of the mass and electric charge of the atom are concentrated at that central point. As it turns out, only a quadrillionth of the atom has mass.

Rutherford’s physical experiments generated alpha particles which did not go through a time warp or a spatial curvature but through the ‘absolute space’ between the nucleus and the swirling electrons of the atom. This ‘space’ is however full of molecules and particles of an infinitesimally small size, proven by the discovery of leptons, muons and gluons and probably others yet to be discovered. It is not ‘empty’ per se.

Bottom Line

The above has outlined real, physical processes which produce matter and which answer the matter-anti matter riddle and which explain the results of the thousands of experiments which can find no movement of the Earth, they are fringe measuring the movement of the aether. Plasma and positrons-electropons offer a rational and tested view of the medium of space.

Rutherford’s results at the other end of the mass scale, without invoking spatial curvature or dilation, have impelled more investigation into the atom. Physicists are now down to quarks and leptons (the theoretical components of protons and neutrons), at dimensions of 10^-18 centimeters in length, as opposed to 10^-12 cm for the atom itself. Thus even the ‘space’ in an atom is not empty and these experiments lend more support to the plasma and electropon lattice model of the aether.

Unfortunately, most physicists still think that the particles appearing in electropon collisions in space are created out of thin air, rather than being released from it, since opting for the latter would mean that space is substantive and that science must go back to the drawing board and discard Relativity, parts of Quantum Mechanics and of course the inane ‘Big Bang’. Not doing just that is a philosophical decision on the part of ‘Big Science’, not a scientific one.

All hail.

next post; a look at Einstein’s prevarications around the aether

Positrons and plasma disprove Einstein, STR and E=mc2. Anderson's 1932 experiment.

===

¹ Paul A. M. Dirac, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 117, 610 (1928a); 118, 351 (1928b). P. A. M. Dirac, Scientific American, May 1963, p. 86. The equation took the form: ∑_β [∑_μ (γ_μ)_αβ θ/θx^μ + mc/ħ θ_αβ] ψ_β = 0.

² This is because the energy-momentum-mass relation of E² = c²p² + m²c⁴ requires both a positive and negative energy, such that ±E = (c²p² + m²c⁴)^½. Some hypothesize that the 2.7° Kelvin radiation is the interface between the negative and positive energy.

³ Tim Folger, “Antimatter,” Discover, August 2004, p. 67-68. Discover notes that “Andrei Sakharov was the first to understand that the Big Bang actually created a crisis for physicists: How could they explain the absence of antimatter and the presence of matter in a cosmos where both should have almost instantaneously vanished?” (p. 69).

⁴ If the product 300,000 km/sec is caused by the velocity (v) of the wave motion of the electropon lattice, then v = (E/m)^½ where m equals the mass of the electron or positron (9.1× 10^-31 kg), and E is the binding energy per particle (511,000 eV or 8.2 × 10^-14 joules), the equation is: v = (8.2 × 10^-14 joules/ 9.1 × 10^-31 kg)^½ = (9 × 10¹⁶ m²/s²)^½ = 3 × 10⁸ m/s = 300,000 km/s = c, the accepted “speed” of light. Since c = v in v = (E/m)^½, then E = mc². (See M. Simhony, An Invitation to the Natural Physics of Matter, Space, Radiation, Singapore, New Jersey: World Scientific, 1994, pp. 172-175).

⁵ Electron-Positron Physics at the Z, “Series in High Energy Physics, Cosmology and Gravitation,” M. G. Green, Royal Holloway and Bedford College, UK, January 1998. Plasma experimenters spend most of their time colliding electrons and positrons at just below luminal speeds producing an array of other strange particles. In fact, different particles are produced depending on how fast the electrons and positrons collide.

⁶ Simhony holds that the density of the electron- positron pairs in space is 6 × 10³⁰ cm³. This is precisely the same value found by another researcher in the field, Allen Rothwarf, although the two scientists worked independently (Allen Rothwarf, “Cosmological Implications of the Electron-Positron Ether,” Physics Essays, 11, 1998). John Kierein finds a similar density to the electron-positron model, and by it shows that redshift is due to the Compton effect (John Kierein, “Implications of the Compton Effect Interpretation of the Redshift,” IEEE Trans. Plasma Science 18, 61 (1990).

⁷ Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe, p. 66.

⁸ James Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 142, 670, 1873. Maxwell also said: “There can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge.”

⁹ Jed Z. Buchwald ‘Histories of the Electron’ Part One, Corpuscles and Electrons, 2004