🚀 go-pugleaf

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:10:42 -0800
To: Claude Rifat <cyrano@twics.com>
From: Ross Tessien <Tessien@oro.net>
Subject: Re: Commentaires sur les travaux de Finkelstein
Cc: David Ritz Finkelstein <david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu>

Greetings All;

Claude has sent me a number of things on your work, so if you are
interested, here is a little more of the work I have been doing.  My
work
is based more on observation, astro physics, but those were initiated
based
on expectations that arose from the fundamental thinking on my
theoretical
work.  

I am very busy right now and in the middle of incorporating a new
company,
so I haven't been able to respond to most of your messages Claude.  

Ross

>>
>>The comments are a bit too broad in scope for brief comment.  I gather
>>Tessien has not seen my book, Quantum Relativity, which summarizes my
>>progress as of 1996. 

Correct, I have not.

>>Physical theories swallow their parents alive. The parent theories go on
>>working inside the child.  The theory I seek must first swallow quantum
>>theory and general relativity. It must then cope with some of the many
>>phenomena and relations they do not cover, especially the particle
>>spectrum. To undertake the search for such a theory without first mastering
>>the parent theories seems too reckless for me, like setting out to climb
>>Mt.Everest bare-handed without ropes. Yet if we master them too well we may
>>get stuck in them.

I completely agree that this is the norm.  But as you mentioned, our
present way of thinking can become a trap to novel discoveries.  It is
my
belief, based on fundamental thinking coupled to expectation, and
finally
to experimental observation, that some of our most cherrished concepts
have
a subtle but important error hidden in them.  And this error has led
to
astro physical confusion for decades.  

I chose a fundamental approach I expected to go no where, and it was
based
on no presently held tenet.  I made one simple assumption, "There
exist in
nature, no *tensile* means for transferring action".

This assumption, after years of work, has resulted in  dynamic and
geometric descriptions for the geometries of things like electron,
photon,
nucleon, mass, etc.

Had I begun with the pre-conceptions of present physics, I would have
been
convinced that energy and mass are the same thing, just in two
different
forms.  But because of this new approach, it is clear to me that mass
is
"amount of aether", and that the universe is an ocean of aether, that
"particles" are localized high density resonances in that same aether.


what this means is pretty simple and shocking.  Our interpretation of
mass
to energy conversion is wrong.  Instead, we should be studying the
effect
of two standing waves interferring and interacting, and hence fusion
leads
both to the acceleration of the new resonant geometries, AND, to an
emission of the excess aether the new geometries of resonances (aka
particles) cannot confine.  In short, fusion leads not only to the
acceleration of the particles, but as well, to pushing the rest of the
universe away from that location via the emission of a new patch of
buzzing
aether.

This has tremendous cosmological concerns, alters GR substantively,
and
perhaps most importantly, explains what gravity is.  This model
**anticipates** the nuclear strong, weak, electric, gravitational,
**and**
cosmological forces simply by virtue of the fact that the resonances I
work
with interfere with one another in that many different ways.  No more,
no
fewer.  (well, actually there are other more subtle interactions of
less
importance, and these are known to us too in BEC's, condensed matter,
phase
transitions etc.

The best part, is that when you go looking at stellar evolution with
these
thoughts in mind, you see the writing on the walls for our present
thinking
being changed.  Mass to energy conversion, and ergo the belief in the
equivalence of mass and energy is what is keeping GR and QM from being
unified.  I have the concepts, understand the approach that must be
taken
technically, and have the experimental observations to back up what I
am
asserting!  The evidence is everywhere in astro physics once you know
what
to look for and how to seek it.

I would not have discovered this if in advance, I had learned QM in
detail
because I would never think to challenge the equivalency of mass and
energy, nor would I have challenged the notion that attraction forces
exist.  That, is the trap that present physicists are in today.  They
believe in forces of attraction.  Even the Casimir effect which is
clearly
a result of the QVF outside the plates *pushing them* toward one
another is
thought of erroneously as a force of attraction by most.  "What
difference
does it make" is what is usually said.  And at first, it seems like
there
is no difference at all, but on closer inspection, if you work with a
wave
mechanics instead of a particle mechanics, then it makes all the
difference
in the world.

It takes a long time to realize it and get comfortable with it simply
due
to the fact that we grow up believing that gravity and magnets pull on
one
another.  But the fact is, everywhere you think two objects are
pulling on
one another, you can invert your thinking and look to wave energy
arriving
from the rest of the universe to be pushing them toward one another.
This
fails miserably if you think in terms of particle physics.  But it
succeeds
beautifully if you work with wave mechanics and wave interference
interactions by thinking in terms of momentum delay, and momentum
refraction in regions of varying aether density.  But it does get
complicated to understand that you must think not only of momentum and
motion, but rather in terms of the relative phase of that momentum as
well,
where phase is measured against the dynamic structure of spacetime.  

And you cannot think in terms of a spacecraft moving through space,
you
must instead think in terms of a bunch of waves, precessing through
the
ocean, where the medium of the ocean isn't moving, but the waves are.
This
is similar to a surfer, stationary out on the ocean with the waves
moving
underneath.  The waves move, but the water essentially does not.

>>You and I and Tessien probably agree that space-time is best treated as a
>>physical medium, and that the cosmological constant might reflect the
>>energy-momentum-stress content of space-time. There is enough to do to keep
>>us all busy for a while.

I go a step further.  I don't treat spacetime as a medium.  I treat
spacetime as a universe wide global topology of standing wave energy
IN, an
ocean of a medium.  "Spacetime" like a topology of sound standing
waves in
a room full of air.  Sound is not air, and air is not sound.  I treat
particles as localized standing waves IN the same ocean of medium.
Thus,
particles are nothing but localized standing waves in ***phase and
frequency lock*** with the wave energy that is spacetime.  Spacetime
thus
drives the resonances of, "particles".  With that, force fields simply
fall
out as the distortion to the wave geometry of, spacetime, near a
localized
resonance, aka particle.  The entire structure reduces to the study of
coupled resonances.

The most fundamental resonance particle is the electron, a spherical
resonance.  Muon and tauon are just larger versions of the same
spherical
geometry.  Protons and neutrons are just clumps of muon resonances all
buzzing in unison with 9 muons in a helical sort of geometry that is
hard
to describe in words.  And forces are simply the interaction of
various
resonances with various other resonances.

strong:  spherical resonance coupled to spherical resonance
weak:   exchange of spherical resonances at different phase angles
electric: spherical resonance, which distorts the spacetime topology,
then
converges           back into a distant spherical resonance.
gravitation:  *frequency* interference of local resonances with
Doppler
shifted wave energy arriving from the deep universe.  Hence,
gravitation
pushes objects toward one another due to mutual filtering of the noisy
quantum vacuum.
cosmological:  this results from the emission of aether during mass to
energy conversion inside of stars, ie, exothermy anywhere it occurs.  

Well, that is what I am working on in a nut shell.  And I have a huge
amount of astro physical observational evidence accumulated to explain
what
I am describing as soon as I can get the book written on these
concepts.

>>
>>Yours in the quest,

Good Luck.........

Ross