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