by Jim Mash
Last Updated 26/09/2017
Fluid Energy Theory
An entirely new theory based upon energy being a real substance

Introduction

What do the creation of matter particles and photons, the structure of atoms, the formation of compounds, the gravity defying feats of gyroscopes, electric currents, the sticking of magnets to fridge doors, the creation of galaxies, the structures of solar systems, dark energy and dark matter, the cosmic background microwave radiation, the motions of stars within galaxies, and all the forces have in common? The answer is that they can all be explained very simply and logically with the same set of rules by Fluid Energy Theory (hereafter referred to as FET). Not only is it the only theory capable of uniting the very small with the very large it does so requiring only one simple explanation for a force.

Our knowledge of the universe has grown slowly through the dedication of many hard working scientists meticulously working to isolate and identify the properties of the myriads of substances that exist all around us. Without this slowly expanding database it would not be possible to come up with theories of how these things came into existence.

With only a small database the chances of coming up with the correct theory are low because only one theory can be correct and all others must be wrong to different degrees. Progress is achieved by replacing one theory with another as more data becomes available. Two thousand years ago the database was very small and it is no surprise that the early theories were flawed. However, history shows that it often takes a long time for one theory to be dropped in favour of another even when the evidence against the former is overwhelming.

The reason for this state of affairs is that once someone has invested a lot of time and effort into a theory they find it hard to let it go even though it is usually far more difficult to modify a theory than to create a completely new one. A typical past example of sticking with a current theory was the attempt to perpetuate the notion that the Earth was at the centre of the Universe with the planets and stars, including our Sun, orbiting around us. Mechanical Earth-centred models requiring great ingenuity were even constructed to show just how the odd motions of the planets could be accounted for even though Nicholas Copernicus declared that the motions of the planets could be better explained if it was assumed that the Sun was at the centre and not the Earth. When Galileo Galilei provided proof that not all heavenly bodies orbited the Earth he just managed to avoid being put to death by agreeing to be imprisoned in his own house and to confess his views and condemn them. Others though were not so lucky and were killed for their non-conformist views.

Today the situation has hardly changed. Although the death penalty no longer applies, many have lost funding for their research and even lost their jobs by daring to challenge current theories such as relativity or the cause of the red shift of starlight or even questioning the view that the universe is expanding.

Probably the first of the visionaries were the early Greek philosophers who laid the foundations for scientific investigations a few thousand years ago. Aristotle wrote that some things are natural while others are due to other causes. He argued that a stone falls because it has a nature within it which causes its motion to its natural place, the centre of the Earth. He also stated that the natural motion of the heavenly bodies is circular.

This view was held for almost 2000 years until in 1644 René Descartes proposed his vortex theory where he argued that motions had to be in closed orbits in space filled with aether. He was attempting to explain the nature of gravity and how it kept the planets in orbit around the Sun. His ideas were strongly criticised by Isaac Newton and apart from in France, Descartes’ ideas were largely forgotten. The main criticisms of the vortex theory were that it did not answer where the forces came from that gave rise to the turbulence that powered the vortices and it did not explain why all the planets lie in one plane around the Sun or why galaxies are mostly flat.

Newton's formulation of his three laws of motion in the 17th century suggested that nature operated like clockwork and it gave rise to the phrase the clockwork universe. Religious leaders embraced this view as it implied that the clock could only have been wound up by a god that devised such perfect laws that once started it needed no further intervention. This explanation of intelligent design is still held by many today as the diversity of life seems to be far too complicated and wonderful to have arisen just by chance.

Because Newton's laws of motion imply that everything follows natural laws, it has been suggested that if we knew the masses and charges of particles and could at one instant determine their positions and speeds then we could calculate not only every event that has happened in the past but we could also calculate every future event. This deterministic viewpoint may be true for all non-living matter but what if it also applies to life forms? It would mean that there is no such thing as free will and we could therefore claim that we are not responsible for our actions. This view was modified at the beginning of the 20th century when quantum mechanics was introduced. This stated that at the atomic level nothing was certain and that events were governed by the laws of probability.

The next major change in thinking came in 1915 when Albert Einstein published general relativity. He proposed that gravity was not really a force at all and that masses distorted space-time to such an extent that planets orbiting the Sun were really moving in straight lines and hence they did not require forces to continually change their directions. At that time he believed that the universe was eternal but changed his mind when in 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that there was a direct relationship between the amount of red shift of starlight and the distance of its source. It was suggested, although not entirely endorsed by Hubble himself, that this was due to the sources receding from us and therefore the universe must be expanding.

This led George Gamow to propose in 1948 that in past times the galaxies were closer together and if you went far enough back in time you would find that all the matter and radiation in the universe condensed into a singularity. This point was then assumed to have coincided with the creation of time, space and the universe in what was soon known as the big bang theory. In the same year, Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle proposed an alternative theory. They also assumed that the universe was expanding but that new matter was continually being created at a rate that kept the density constant and hence the universe was in a steady state and could have existed forever.

Neither of these theories could explain how matter came to be created or what it was created from. Now for the first time it is possible to explain exactly how all matter, radiation and forces came into existence, not out of nothing, but from a single substance that permeates the whole of infinite space. My discovery of the process of creation came about quite naturally as a result of defining just a few simple properties of that universal substance that comply with the known physical laws. Furthermore, the process of creation is still continuing today and will continue forever because once started it is now impossible to stop. It also shows how matter and radiation are continually being recycled so that the universe really is in a steady state.

This book presents a very different picture of the universe to that of the big bang theory. Instead of the universe bursting forth from a fully primed state, FET shows how the universe evolved slowly and methodically from a state of smoothness. I will show that Newton was on the right track regarding the natural forces that control the motions of the planets while Descartes was more correct regarding the motions of the stars within galaxies. Credit must also be given to Michael Faraday for his contribution to electricity and magnetism in the 19th century. He believed that an electric current passing through a wire emitted a spiral flow of invisible lines of force that could be detected by their influence upon a magnetic needle. His insight is totally in line with FET, which reveals just how this magnetic force arises and has a common origin with the flow of electricity in a conductor. His ideas would have led to even more significant advances if Antoine Lavoisier's notion in the 18th century that energy was a real substance had not been rejected.

The motions of stars within a galaxy and of the galaxies themselves are currently assumed to be determined by just one force, gravity. FET though shows that their motions are mostly determined by a different force. In addition to the well known force of gravity as discovered by Newton that explains why apples fall from trees and planets stay in orbit, there is another force that arose before gravity. This other force is the fundamental force that scientists are well aware of but have so far failed to recognise its significance.

It is the centripetal force that arises from a circular motion and accounts for the creation of particles, the formation of atoms and molecules, electric and magnetic fields, the gravity defying feats of gyroscopes and, as already stated, it affects the motions of stars in galaxies. Although gravity, electricity, magnetism and the centripetal forces appear to be distinct forces they are all driven by the same process. All of this will become obvious when you have learnt the secrets of FET.

This theory shows that the particles of the universe are real physical entities, with real properties, and that they were created extremely slowly out of a real substance that was initially at a temperature of absolute zero or rather where the notion of temperature was irrelevant. These particles then gave rise to new forces and to radiation and all of the elements and compounds that exist today. Everything about the universe, including dark matter and dark energy, the nature of light and radiation, the red shift of starlight, neutron stars and black holes, gravity, the background microwave radiation and much more can be easily explained in a clear and logical way.

FET not only provides a simple explanation for the creation of the universe, it unites the big with the small and is the true Theory Of Everything. Einstein spent the last part of his life searching for the TOE without success and many others since then have claimed to have discovered it. Others though can see no simple way to unite quantum theory with relativity and cosmology and have therefore come to believe that there never will be a true TOE. So why do I claim that FET is the true TOE everyone has been waiting for? It is because I am not a mathematician and have not therefore made the mistakes of relying upon what mathematics tells us is possible if observations are extrapolated without regard for there being any limits to the properties being measured or thinking that the mathematical description of a process makes it real.

For example, it has been theorised that when stars only slightly larger than our Sun have burnt most of their fuel they shrink to become neutron stars with densities approaching that of nuclear particles or even further until they become black holes where the density is so great that the gravitational field prevents even light from escaping. FET though shows that there are limits to the density of energy and that neutron stars and black holes do not exist. The data that appear to support the existence of these dense objects are easily explained in the same way that dark matter can be explained by the centripetal force.

It was my background in surface energy plus my determination to show that a single light photon was a particle that could pass through two slits simultaneously that prompted the development of FET. This step was not too difficult and once solved it soon led to a theory that explained atomic matter and radiation, the sizes of particles, electricity and magnetism, how forces operate, why photons move at the speed of light and the mysterious behaviour of gyroscopes. All of these things can be easily understood by anyone with an interest in science including those that baulk at the sight of a mathematical equation.

Why is this theory so simple to understand? It is because it does so using only one substance, one particle, a single basis for all forces, four constants (the density and cohesive strength of solid energy, the resilience of fluid energy and the spin rate of neutrons), three spatial dimensions and an independent time dimension.

FET came about from my studies of the surface tensions of liquids and solids. These studies confirmed my suspicions that those people that were not prepared to question and amend long standing assumptions would be forced to introduce one modification after another in order for their pet theory to survive in the face of conflicting experimental data. My successes in surface energy theory came about simply by questioning the accepted interpretation of the force associated with the surface tension of a substance.

When I started my surface studies the current thinking was that a surface tension was some sort of force acting parallel to the surface pulling the surface atoms together and creating the impression that a liquid has a toughened surface. Hence insects could perform the miracle of walking upon water. That force was said to be electromagnetic in origin and arising from the positive charges of protons and negative charges of electrons that make up all atoms. Even though atoms have equal numbers of opposite charges that cancel out, they were thought to generate an overall attractive force because the charges are distributed in an asymmetrical way. Atoms within the bulk of a liquid or solid are surrounded by like atoms and therefore their forces cancel out in all directions but those atoms at a surface only cancel out in the plane of the surface where they have neighbours leaving an unbalanced force extending outwards.

I had no trouble agreeing with this explanation but I found it hard to accept the next step where it was assumed that this perpendicular force was somehow reoriented through 90 degrees so that it added to the forces parallel to the surface giving it extra strength. Instead I assumed that the force remained acting perpendicular to a surface and this enabled me to link the surface energy of a substance to the individual atoms exposed at that surface. This approach also enabled me to theoretically derive an equation relating the surface energies of two surfaces that were brought together that was identical to the one that I had previously derived empirically from my experimental studies. This equation differed from the accepted equation in that mine had a negative sign between the two surface forces whereas the current equation had a positive sign.

The advantage of my equation was that it could be used without modification to interpret all existing and new experimental data whereas the currently accepted equation needed additional factors with almost every new set of data. Furthermore, I was able to show that different substances have different surface tensions because each type of atom has a characteristic attractive force. By studying many different surfaces I was able to calculate the values of this force for some of the elements. FET has enabled me to understand how this force arises and why different atoms have different values for the attractive force.

My surface energy studies led me to question the concepts of energy and the infinite. The question of infinity arose because I had to use the inverse square rule to calculate the value of the surface energy against distance from an atom and with this equation the force becomes infinite at the atom’s surface. It took me some time to overcome this problem but the answer was a very simple modification to the inverse square law that avoided infinities.

I then turned my attention to energy. Energy was once thought to be a real substance until it was ‘proved’ over a hundred years ago to be no more than a system of accounting for the changes that occur between matter and radiation when work is performed. But then I asked myself, what if energy was a real substance, or at least as real as the many substances that we are familiar with? What properties would it have and how could it account for the vast variety of substances that we see around us? Could it account for the processes occurring at the microscopic atomic level as well as the large scale observations of the cosmos? Could it explain how forces arose and apparently operated across space as if by magic?

I found that not only did it achieve all of these tasks it did so in a totally logical way that united these extremes of size without the need to introduce more than the observed three dimensions of space nor the weirdness of quantum theory or relativity. Once I had identified the properties of fluid energy everything automatically fell into place.

The first revelation was a totally logical description of what neutron particles are, why they always have a particular size, how they are formed, why they have a specific spin rate and how their creation led to the emergence of the gravitational force. The second was a new explanation for the electron, its relationship with a proton and the creation of the electromagnetic force. Then came the photons and why they have a continuous range of energies within upper and lower limits, why they move at light speed and why they lose energy as they travel through space. Following the same logic it soon became clear how it is that what we currently consider to be neutrons, protons and electrons all sit together in perfect harmony to create almost 100 elements from which everything is formed.

The 14th century philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham laid the foundations of the modern approach to scientific theories by his frequent usage of the principle that the simplest explanation of something is usually the correct explanation. As a result, this principle has become known as Occam’s razor (corrupted from Ockham’s) and is often applied nowadays to argue the case between conflicting theories. Thus a theory for the universe composed of a constant amount of energy that has always existed in an infinite extent of space, and evolved naturally by processes that obey just a few universal laws of physics would be simpler than one that required the sudden creation of energy and space. If William of Ockham was alive today he would have no doubt as to which theory is more likely to be correct.

I appreciate that for those that have devoted their lives to science and come to accept quantum theory, relativity and the big bang theory as the truth, it is going to be very difficult to accept a theory that predicts an almost opposite picture of the universe. After all, the big bang theory has been around for some time now and has been picked over and modified by countless numbers of experts whereas my expertise is in chemistry with only an amateurs interest in physics and cosmology.

But how many times you have heard experts pronounce that a certain food is bad for you and then a few years later other experts state the opposite. In 2002 a study by experts came to the conclusion that hormone replacement therapy led to a 41% increase in the chance of a stroke. As a consequence of this almost half of the women using this form of treatment gave it up. In 2007 a different team of experts re-examined the same data and concluded that there was no increased risk.

Almost every year there are warnings of impending doom either from man-made weapons of mass destruction or natural disasters such as asteroid impacts, tsunamis, bird flu, drug resistant strains of malaria, tuberculosis etc. Although it is wise to be prepared for such possibilities, over reacting to them can lead to unforeseen problems and divert attention and resources from the real problems facing man. The most likely reason that this situation has arisen is that headlines predicting disasters sell more newspapers and consequently the voices of reason go largely unheard.

Today the so-called green experts are attempting to prevent others from expressing views different to theirs and have managed to convince politicians that global warming is mostly due to man’s actions. As a consequence governments are introducing penalties and unrealistic targets upon those industries that contribute to CO2 emissions. If they are proved once again to have got it wrong, which will be so if FET is correct, then experts will no longer be held in respect and that will be a tragedy.

Although my surface energy studies were carried out many years before I discovered FET I have not presented my work in the same order. I have divided it into three books. The first has virtually no mathematics and is intended for anyone of any age or background. The second book is for those with a more general interest in science and the third book is for scientists working in the field of surface energies.

This first book describes how I came to discover FET and how it predicts a steady state universe that was created ever so slowly from a cold motionless continuum of fluid energy. The first chapter is dedicated to showing how the big bang theory of creation came about as a result of the misinterpretations of the nature of light and the red shift of starlight.

This is followed in chapter 2 with a prediction of how a different theory of creation would have resulted from knowing the true nature of light whereby photons gradually shed their energy once they have been created. It also shows how misinterpretations of infinity and the infinitesimal have given rise to paradoxes that purportedly rule out a steady state universe and led to the suggestion that electrons are surrounded by virtual particles. Chapters 3 to 7 explain how forces, particles and photons arose and why they have the properties they do. Chapters 8 to 15 describe how the same forces that created the particles also created the first atoms and pulled them together to form stars and galaxies. Dark matter, dark energy and cosmic background radiation are all explained here. In the final chapter I briefly present my views based upon FET for the future of the universe, the Sun, the Earth and mankind.

FET has come at a timely point because it predicts an entirely logical explanation as to why the Earth undergoes regular periods of warming and cooling and in chapter 11 I have presented arguments showing that the present period of global warming is not due to man’s actions but is mainly the result of a natural heating and cooling cycle of the Earth itself.

Book 2 of FET describes in more detail, but again with very little mathematics, how atomic particles come together to form the variety of atoms and molecules that make up all the matter in the universe and why only certain combinations of particles are stable. It describes how the perpetual spinning motion of atomic particles gives rise to the translational motion of photons that then interact with matter to add to the thermal and kinetic energy that gives rise to heat and motion.

It explains why light appears to slow down when passing through a dense medium and how light is polarised. It also explains how matter reacts to gravity and why the weight of an object is significant whereas mass is unnecessary. It explains the electromagnetic force, how electricity flows through conductors, how magnetism flows through anything, how gyroscopes affect the flow of gravity and how birds and animals might use the combined gravitational fields of the Earth and Sun to navigate their way around the planet. It offers new explanations for ball lightning, UFO’s and how over unity energy devices work, and it even presents an explanation for life and consciousness.

Book 3 is based upon the experimental data that I derived from my surface energy studies and presents a mathematical analysis of the results. It explains why every substance has an attractive force at its surface and how these forces can be easily measured. All the surface energy and surface tension data for all the systems that have ever been studied can be interpreted with just one simple equation that reveals which atoms are present at a surface and how closely packed together they are.

It is usual practice in the scientific world to submit new data and theories to established journals in order that they can be refereed and judged worthy of publication. When I attempted to do so with my early surface energy work it was always rejected, mostly on the grounds that my findings went against current theories and that my empirically derived equation had already been proved incorrect. I was so convinced that my work was sound that I decided to develop a theory that supported my experimental work. The result is FET which has become far too large to publish as a single paper and I therefore decided to publish it as a book. This slowly grew into the 3 books that are now being presented.

FET is going to have a major impact upon the world and may soon lead to a revolution in energy production. It even explains where the energy comes from in the many reported free energy devices and may even lead to the development of anti-gravity machines.

I have referred to the work of others on numerous occasions throughout this book but I have not included many references as these can easily be found on the Internet via the authors names. I will though mention that I found the Wikipedia articles particularly helpful. I have drawn upon this source very heavily and I am fully aware that not all information found on the Internet may be reliable. I have though tried my best to verify claims but I cannot guarantee that I have always been successful. I chose to use the Internet so much because it is easier to access than scientific libraries and because you will find there reports that have been refused publication in refereed journals, often because their findings go against currently accepted views. Although I believe the Internet to be a valuable source of information, as a scientist I fully appreciate the continued need for peer reviewed journals.

Those of you that are familiar with Douglas Adams' “The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” will know of the computer Deep thought. It was set the task to find the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. After six million years it said to the philosophers “I have the answer but you are not going to like it”. The same can be said for FET. Physicists, philosophers and astronomers everywhere will be kicking themselves for not having discovered the true simplicity of nature.

Back to top

© Copyright 2008 C. J. Mash. | Site map