Article reference:

Real Physics - The Universe is Mechanical

The ultimate reality of material existence is as elusive as it was a century ago, when Einstein published his early papers. Upon the strength of what might seem an off-hand remark that the ether was "no longer necessary", the aether which had been at the conceptual basis of physics at the time was more or less forcibly removed from the range of acceptable discussion topics in physics. Today we are told particles are made of vortices of energy, which in turn comes in the form of "fields", but the ultimate "stuff" of physical existence remains as elusive as ever.


Spherical electron vortex - Frank Meno

Not satisfied with the "field" concept, several researchers have developed models on the basis of an aether, but one of the charges of those who don't agree is that like fields, aether does not have a physical basis.

Now Frank Meno has proposed a physical model for the aether - a space-filling fluid made up of tiny particles he calls gyrons. The properties of the aether can be mathematically described and modeled using fluid dynamics.

Here is an introduction to the concept.

And for those interested, here is a link to a more complete description of the model on Frank Meno's site. (now from web archive)

Once you are on that site, when you follow the links to "PHOTON" and "ELECTRON", you will see "NEXT" at the bottom of each page. Follow that link - it will scroll you through the rest of the presentation of Frank Meno's model of the aether.

- - -


The above title is chosen to contrast what will be presented here with the fantasy physics that has been promulgated during the past century to the present time. This trend has been sanctified by Albert Einstein who declared that imagination is more important than knowledge. However our universe is already designed, and all that we really can do is collect this knowledge.

Outside of the so-called main-stream physics were made substantial advances, but these have been systematically ignored by the main-stream and the media. Thus, the Internet remains the only forum to report the progress in physics. This article will present the structure of the photon and electron, but since these models are based on previous knowledge, a brief historical outline is included.

The ancient Greek thinkers, and particularly Plato, have determined that we have basically to deal with two things, namely substance, and form. Without a substance there is no existence, and we cannot deal with something that does not exist. As sensible as this reasoning is, most of today's physical theories are based on mathematical concepts in void multidimensional spaces without specifying a substance.

Once it is assumed that a substance exists, then one can inquire about its form. The Greeks concluded that the substance must consist of a multitude of movable parts, which they called atomos, meaning that these parts cannot be cut into smaller pieces. Namely, if these basic parts of substance could break into smaller pieces, then, in time, they would grind themselves into parts with different sizes and forms, causing the universe to change its properties, possibly something non-functional. Since the Greek philosophers did not engage themselves in manual labor, they did not perform experiments to substantiate their conjectures. Consequently, they ended up making some mistakes in their reasoning.

They concluded that in order to account for the great variety observed in nature, there would have to exist a variety of forms among the fundamental parts. Thus, after the chemical elements were discovered in the eighteenth century, Dalton called them atoms, which, as we now know, is wrong because the atoms can be decomposed into smaller parts.

The physicists then concluded that the actual ultimate entities of substance are what they call fundamental particles, such as electrons, protons, neutrons, and so on. This, however, is also not correct because these particles can be converted into energy, whose nature is not described by the current physics. Therefore we still have to explain what energy is, and how energy produces these 'particles', which really are vortices, not particles.

The solution is as follows:

There exist true indestructible fundamental particles of the sort that the Greeks postulated, which I call gyrons, to distinguish them from the mis-named chemical atoms.

These true atoms (gyrons) are much smaller than the electron and proton, and in their motion represent the energy. Energy consists of moving gyrons. The universe is filled with these gyrons, that move on the average with the speed of light in all directions, while colliding with each other. We can call such a substance gaseous gyron-aether.


All gyrons have the same form and size, so that no matter where they are, the physical properties of the aether do not change, and we say that the physical laws of the universe are conserved because they are the same everywhere. If the gyrons are evenly distributed then the space has uniform properties, and is called vacuum. Thus, vacuum is not empty, it is filled with randomly moving gyrons that manifest small fluctuations in their density and speed distributions...

...continue reading here

See also:

Book: Cats, Atoms, Gyrons, Aether, and the Universe


Carl Littmann comments (by email):

Thank you for the Meno ideas on Physics and Etc. (Looks like interesting ideas, indeed.)

 Although I have not gotten a chance to do more than "glance" yet; I think that it would behoove all writers, thinkers, and communicators in this "day and age", to start out by DEFINING, if possible, their "primary concepts": Matter, Energy, Aether, "Material existance other than Aether -- if they believe it also exists other than as just a special "style or acrobatics" of the aether. And further -- depending on if they think it exists -- the propagation of energy containing the image of a thing vs. propagation (travel) of the thing itself -- not merely a image of it, i.e., "wave vs. particle'??

Robert Kerr comments (by email):

Dear Sepp,

All of the new particle theories are unnesseesary. Aether particles are photons. Their pressure is temperature. Have attached a copy of my essay explaining the mechanics.

Bob Kerr


Robert A. Kerr, 13401 Rancho Vistoso Blvd. #180, Oro Valley, Arizona, 85755

Attractive forces cannot account for either the structure of the Earth, the Universe or their material constituents. Fundamentally force is exerted by transmission of energy from mass to mass. Energy equals mv2. Energy defines force. Attraction is an empirical assumption. It is quantified based on the reaction of overtly discernible matter without any causal explanation.

Compression is the source of the apparition of attractive force. Gravitational force is exerted by an overtly undetectable fluid. The fluid has nearly infinite particulate density and particle dimensions are infinitesimal. The pressure of these fundamental particles is temperature. The irresistible force of temperature has not been explained. It is quantitated as the reciprocal of the coefficient of volumetric thermal expansion. Like attractive forces, it is empirically accepted with no reference to a mechanical cause. No explanation is offered as to what causes molecules to separate or coalesce in response to ambient temperature.

( read more... )

Phil Lawson comments by email:

Dr Brian de Silva and I have been writing a paper "The Concept of an Ether in Post-Modern Physics" our primary interest is to generate a math model of the ether fitting an alternate system for the propagation of electro-magnetic waves.

The paper is a sequel to our book "Physics Essays for Advanced Pupils" a 240 page book including Q and A on the topics covered published 12/19/2005.

I have attached a pdf version of the ether paper.

The existence of a material medium or ether for the propagation of electromagnetic waves was an essential requirement for the acceptance of Maxwell’s theory in its early days. However, a series of observations culminating in the Michelson-Morley experiment led to the abandonment of this hypothesis, and its replacement by the special theory of relativity. This forced Newton’s ideas of the absolute nature of space and time to be set aside and in the process showed that Maxwell’s equations for the electromagnetic field retained their covariant transformation properties under the new dispensation. In this paper we revisit the notion of an ether within the context of our exposure over a period of 100 plus years to evolving notions of the physical universe.

Specifically, the object of the research described in this paper is to examine the possibility of describing the physical properties of the classical ether of electromagnetism in terms of an infinitely flexible viscous plasma medium, consisting of elementary particles that carry a magnetic charge -> a monopole. Upper and lower bounds on the particle size can be calculated using cosmological data relating to the mass of the universe and its size. The motion of these particles is described by the probabilistic laws of statistical mechanics due to the random nature of the collisions of the particles comprising the plasma. The particles are subject to a force consisting of an ordered component with a superimposed disordered part. This force manifests itself as a tension force in an ensemble of particles that move collectively as a vibrating string with a determinate group velocity. We model the physics using a canonical ensemble for the probability density from which the pressure exerted by the particles is calculated. The thermodynamic properties of this plasma can then be computed, enabling the susceptibility and dielectric constants to be calculated. The analysis is generalized to include gravitational effects.

A Navier-Stokes like equation is proposed that incorporates classical viscous effects for the ethereal medium and includes Einstein’s cosmological factor. A major focus of our analysis is to construct a self consistent theory compatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment. An added bonus is a first time estimate for the mass of a monopole.

Feedback would be greatly appreciated

Good going!
What did you get for the energy density of the vacuum?

From: "David Tombe"
To: sepp
Subject: Gyrons = Rotating Electron-Positron Dipoles
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:49:32 +0100

I had a read at your gyron article. It would appear that you have a reasonable insight into what is going on behind the scenes. However I can translate it all into the language of plain ordinary classical physics. The clues lie totally within Maxwell's 1861 and 1864 papers on electromagnetism.

Here is my interpretation paper

Space is indeed filled with vortices and Maxwell has used fluid dynamics to calculate the magnetic force. See part I of his 1861 paper. It is linked near the beginning of my own link above.
Yours sincerely
David Tombe

To answer the question by Jan Roos: Unfortunately I can give only a tentative estimate as this parameter is not directly derivable from the observed phenomena. The usual estimate based on ground states may or may not be valid. I tried to play with Planck's units and came also to an extremely high value, possibly as high as 10^110 joules per m^3. Since in a gas energy density is equivalent to the pressure, it is not surprising to observe the great stability in the aether. Fortunately, my theory does not depend on the static pressure, but merely on the observable gradients. It is clear however, that the static energy in the aether will never be available to us for use, and those who are attempting to find a way to use zero point energy will be disillusioned.

Mr. Frank Meno

I can say where you are right as per my own space vortex theory.

You have introduced ether as a substance and you are perfetly right there. But "density" of ether is not required. Fields proportional to acceleration of ether is also okay qualitatively. Electron as a stable ether vortex is a perfect concept. But you should be able to derive relationships from elctron's vortex structure to explain in quantitative terms properties of mass and charge.

For the observed continuity of fields, ether should be a continuous medium. if you further develop your own electron vvortex structure, I am sure you do not need another basic entity 'gyrons'.

A short article from me (Einstein' contribution ..)is available on this site itself from which you will notice where i differ from your views.

Overall, wish you good luck in pursuing this approach but without introducing gyrons.

Best wishes,


Another commment from David Tombe, and my answer... (by email):

Dear Sepp,
I have now been in direct communications with Frank Meno. The debate has only just begun, but I can see that the focus will eventually be on whether vortices alone, unsustained by particle motion, can fully account for electromagnetic theory. Maxwell successfully uses pure vortex theory and fluid dynamics to account for many aspects of magnetism, but he felt that particles had to be introduced as well to complete the picture. On my part, I need the electrons and positrons in mutual orbit under the Coulomb force, to actually drive the vortices, and at this stage, I see Frank Meno's gyrons as corresponding to Maxwell's vortices without the added particles.
Here is my latest article,

Yours sincerely
David Tombe

- - -

Dear David,

I have tried to conceptualize the material manifestation and the forces in this universe in terms of vortex motion but the ultimate question always remained for me: "What is moving in those vortex patterns?" If we say it's energy, that soon leads to the question: "what is energy?". If energy is motion, as some say, that leads back to "what could it be that is in motion?".

Perhaps ultimately we will need to model some kind of basic, all but infinitely small, space-filling particles such as Frank Meno's gyrons to provide the substrate that can be enticed to swirl around in the form of vortices to make our atomic particles and that can sustain the expanding waves we eventually perceive as light.

Kind regards

Basically, many people try to explain electrostatics, electromagnetism, and gravity using one aether.
I have discovered that magnetism is caused by a medium, which itself is made up of particles which interact together under the Coulomb force. I have no clear idea how the Coulomb force is caused. It is probably something to do with an aethereal medium in the space between the electrons and positrons.
Moving on now to Dr. Meno's gyron theory, on first reading I saw gyrons and vortices being mentioned. I concluded from my first reading that the gyrons were vortices and must therefore correspond to the vortex cells in Maxwell's 1861 paper. I then sought some clarification from Dr. Meno because I wanted to know what force law acted between the gyrons.
When he clarified the picture to me, I read his paper again and realised that he was working across two scales. His field theory and fluid dynamics bits were indeed commensurate with Coulomb's law of electrostatics.
But then he changed scales, and he was working with solid particles called gyrons. These gyrons formed a gas of which electrons and positrons formed vortices within this gas. So from my perspective, we had now jumped from the electron positron electromagnetic and luminiferous medium, to a finer medium which was purporting to explain the very existence of electrons and positrons, and the Coulomb force acting between them.
He then applied his fluid dynamics and field theory reasoning to the gyron sea, when in fact it was only applicable on a larger scale to a sea of electrons and positrons. In doing so, he concluded that the gyron sea was the luminiferous medium.
In my opinion, the gyron sea explains absolutely nothing. His logic for claiming that the gyron sea explains EM theory, should have properly been applied to the larger scale electron and positron sea.
It's an extremely subtle point and it caused a lot of initial confusion. However I instinctively knew that the field equations of magnetism could not possibly point to a sea of identical particles, because I knew that the field equations, and fluid dynamics would have to yield the Coulomb force, and hence the EM medium would have to be dielectric. Maxwell's 1861 paper is quite clear on the fact that fluid dynamics and potential energy field equations dictate the Coulomb force.
It was a question of getting more information on the link between his gyrons and his field equations. I then found that there was no link. The field equations ended at the electrons. The gyrons were something else, supposedly to explain the electrons themselves.
Yours sincerely
David Tombe

Dear David,

as suggested, I have replaced the email exchanges between you and Frank Meno with this one comment just above here.

I am sending a copy of this to Frank Meno to let him know of your comment and to encourage him to publish - if he so desires - his own clarification in a further comment.

I think we now have established that you and Frank are practically talking about two different scales of things. Frank is modeling an underlying substance that forms subatomic particles by curling into stable vortices, and you are modeling the forces inherent in the relationship between these subatomic particles on a higher scale, albeit always through vortex action ...

I seem to recall a recent lecture in which dark energy was about 60% of the energy and dark matter about 5% my memory is ?
but I have no reason to differ with these numbers

Frank Meno responds (by email):


Your comment is correct, my gyrons and electrons differ by 20 orders of magnitude, and therefore one cannot consider electrons as basic constituents of the electromagnetic phenomena. Also, David's idea of electron dipoles representing photons has the problem that to produce such electron pair is required about a million electronvolts of energy, while photons in the visible light can be produced with a few eV, and those of radio waves require a much smaller energy.

Dear Frank,
It takes 1.02MeV of energy to separate an electron positron pair. This occurs when a gamma ray oscillates an electron positron pair near to an atomic or molecular nucleus.
EM radiation of lesser energies merely oscillates the electron positron dipoles without separating them.
Your letter above indicates that you think that the 1.02MeV is required to actually create an electron positron pair, whereas in actual fact it is the amount of energy required to split such a pair apart.
Yours sincerely
David Tombe

I wrote to David Tombe:

I think we now have established that you and Frank are practically talking about two different scales of things. Frank is modeling an underlying substance that forms subatomic particles by curling into stable vortices, and you are modeling the forces inherent in the relationship between these subatomic particles on a higher scale, albeit always through vortex action ....

His reply...

Your last paragraph below is correct. There is only one subtle point which you missed. Frank Meno models electrons and positrons out of vortices in his sea of gyrons. Yes. You got that.

I am only concerned with the resulting effect of the Coulomb force which acts between electrons and positrons. (That effect being electromagnetism). yes. You got that.

However, although I do believe that some mysterious aethereal substance exists in the space between electrons and positrons, I don't actually think that electrons and positrons are vortices in this medium. Electrons and positrons are more likely to be irrotational sources and sinks in the mysterious aether.

So where does the vortex come in for me?

For me, the vortex lies in the middle of the rotating electron-positron dipole. The electron and the positron in mutual orbit with each other, drive a vortex in the aether which exists between the two particles.

That is my view.

But in summary, I have pointed out how Maxwell used hydrodynamics and field theory in a sea of vortices to point to the fact that the primary force involved is the Coulomb Force. Hence the vortices must be caused by electron positron rotating dipoles.

Frank Meno is claiming that hydrodynamical modelling is pointing to a sea of gyrons. But it couldn't be, because a gyron makes no dynamical sense. He admits himself that the gyrons don't have any force acting between them.

So he has confused two subjects. His electromagnetic reasoning comes to an end in a sea of electrons and positrons. Yet somehow he manages to jump on further and conclude that it points to a sea of 'Gyrons' in which electrons and positrons are vortices, and that the gyrons explain all the forces, even though no force actually acts between the gyrons themselves.

Yours sincerely
David Tombe

I have actually amended my article and added a new section VI on displacement current. I give further arguments as to why a rotating dipole is necessary to justify displacement current. Have a look at section VI in this link.

Richard Cattermoul comments (by email):

Dear Sepp,

Thanks very much for the link to Frank Meno's extremely interesting and thought provoking ideas concerning the form of the universe. I remember as a teenager my father explaining the aether, though his knowledge of physics was rather scant and only extended to whatever he was taught at school, and I must confess that when at university I was introduced to Einstein's special theory of relativity that somehow made the need for an aether unnecessary, the significance or otherwise of that never really made much of an impact to my understanding of physics. I guess my current feelings are - the universe is certainly made of something, and regretably I now lack the mathematical skills to intelligently analyse or criticize Meno's hypotheses with the accepted ones.

On Saturday 8th April, I and my three children attended a philosophy lecture in Henley in Oxfordshire entitled 'Consciousness, the bridge between science and spirit.' Much of the lecture was embellished with quotes from eminent scientists and philosophers such as Einstein and Ouspensky. Much reference was also made to the quantum mechanical view of nature, namely that a wave like possibility is transformed into a particle actuality when an observation is made by a 3rd party.

Then on the following Tuesday, I attended a lecture at the Royal Society in London delivered by Prof Steve Jones entitled - 'Evolution is correct and creationism is wrong.'

His arguments to support this included - there was once only one language, the human genome is very similar to the chimp genome, human and chimp DNA are very similar. His main argument however was the evolution of the AIDS virus. In the 50s, a chimp that was infected with the AIDS virus may well have bitten a human being. I understand there are now many different strains of the AIDS virus where once there was just the one.

In the 70s, Arthur Janov pioneered the art of primal therapy, and according to his website, his patients if so inclined can relive their feelings as reptiles and fishes.

The Brains That Went Before Us

(original here)

August 2004

The physicist, David Bohm, noted that man is a microcosm of the universe; therefore what man is, is a clue to the universe. That is exactly our point.

What man is, is what man was, and inside the human brain we can find remnants of the fish and reptilian brain. What this means is that what we are is built on the most successful adaptations of what we were. When our patients go back to the most primitive brains in their reliving we see those ancient brains at work. And, I might add, there are never any words in those relivings.

When we consider the nature of consciousness we must, I repeat, we must, take into consideration the brains that went before us, the brains that still reside within us. They help make up our consciousness. After all, the lower animals had to be very aware of where food and enemies were. They certainly had an awareness, and that kind or level of awareness still exists in us. Those "awarenessess" certainly make up modern consciousness. To think otherwise is to adopt an anti-evolutionary stance; to think that the late developing neo-cortex is the be-all and end-all of human consciousness. If we want to understand the origins of the universe, both personal and phylogenetic (of mankind) it helps to delve deep into our internal past. Do animals feel? We descend down into the old limbic system, part of which we share with animals, and find that they do.


As I see it, humans evolved from chimps who were spared concepts and ideas about God. Professor Jones' lecture was so well presented, and his logic and arguments so convincing that it now seems almost churlish to even ponder the idea that a superhuman deity might have somehow intervened in our evolution.

And if we look closely at all forms of life - insects, mammals, reptiles, birds, fishes, the relative positions of the eyes, nose, mouth and ears are all the same, so it is quite likely that all life sprung from the same strand of DNA. Evolution alone would have produced the extraordinary and awesome variations of life. Quite where, how or why that original strand surfaced Lord only knows.

But gradually humans acquired consciousness, intelligence, language and mysteriously, abstract philosophies embodying the idea of a supreme being that in some way intervened in, or was soley responsible for, our evolution. Millions of people across the planet truly believe that it was solely due to a God that Mankind owes its existence.

What is it about our brains that made it possible for humans to develop language, for it seems to me that language makes it possible for us to express our thoughts which makes it possible for us to communicate our thoughts to other people. And with the development of language ultimately comes the development of consciousness. And as soon as we become aware of our own consciousness makes it possible for us to further hone our thinking processes. It may also be that the development of our hands with sensitive fingers and in particular finger tips also made a profound difference to our development.

My next question seems to me to be - how come religion managed to get such a stranglehold on Mankind. Evil minded, power hungry people must have created religion. Other, more gently humane people perhaps figured that religion can't be correct, but instead of rejecting it outright felt they should compromise, perhaps for reasons of diplomacy or deciding they would much prefer to remain alive. History teaches us that when religious institutions have enjoyed huge power, they also tend to be very cruel to nonbelievers.

Frank Meno deduces that the universe is mechanical, and I think I must agree with him. I have toyed with the idea that consciousness / intelligence was perhaps the source of evolution rather than its end product, but as my daughter insisted - consciousness needs a boundary to operate in - our heads that is.

I guess my next question is: does evolution necessarily exclude a spiritual component that is the essence of life but which also embraces all qualities of life and death and therefore also includes cruelty and torture on account of the complete absence of morality and ethics.

In other words, are humans merely very intelligent apes? I can't help thinking that music is hugely significant. Interestingly, all musical instruments require human hands and fingers to play. Daniel Barenboim delivered a fascinating lecture recently on the nature of sound and music, and it could be that our ability to create music has profound significance. Have you listened to Carl Nielsen's flute concerto by any chance, or his wind quintet? I have often thought that if babies or young children with learning disabilities heard his flute concerto, this would make a unique difference to their lives. Quite how I don't know.

Actually, I sometimes think that the music already exists, as if the cosmos itself already has the music built into it. It does however require the genius of composers like Mozart and Beethoven to capture the right sounds on manuscript. I believe Mozart himself suggested that he never actually composed, he heard the music in his head and all he did was write it down.

I really enjoy your articles on money. Years ago, I collected as much information as possible on the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds and consequently, some of what you have written I am already familiar with. Is it not a strange irony that the British Royal Family as well as being hugely and obscenely rich, probably never ever spend any of their own money - except on drugs and alcohol I'll bet.

I understand that the Federal Reserve is privately owned, as are all the central banks. And I am sure that whenever President Bush needs a few billion dollars, all he has to do is click his fingers. And it seems to me that the British government has no problem in getting as much money as it wants. And it also seems to me that economic theory is solely the stuff of journalists to put in newspapers to fool all their readers, since I have never ever understood an article on economics.

Let's face it; in this world nothing makes sense. Bush and Blair are guilty of the most horrendous crimes and yet they are still both in office as if nothing of much significance has ever taken place during their years in office.

A minority of GPs in England are now reputed to be earning in excess of £250,000 per annum; hospital porters about £12,000 a year. A week ago, I visited my local hospital in the hopes of gettting an X-ray on my back but the doctor didn't think it was necessary. Instead he said it was muscular spasms rather than a slipped disk and gave me 3 lots of painkillers.

As a matter of interest, I work for the Rural Payments Agency. This is a government agency that pays money to farmers. The more land you own, the more the RPA pays you. Some one once suggested that England is overcrowded. Nothing could be further from the truth. High population density exists in the towns and cities where you want lots of people cos that's what makes city life exciting, plus lots of people means lots of services can be paid for. What we don't want is lousy living conditions.

But once you get out into the countryside, you see fields as far as the eye can take you - there is so much open space and when the sun is shining, it is truly a glorious and beautiful place to live.

Kind regards


Stoyan Sarg ( writes:

The positive thing about Frank Meno's theory is claiming that the Universe is mechanical. Going further in this aspect it means that the Ether exists and it is material (recent modern experiments about ether drift and the existence of absolute frame of reference confirm this). Frank Meno introduced "gyron" (idea expressed firstly by Wilbert Smith and Joseph Newman), but he does not suggest an exact model, so he is not able to build an accurate kinematics models. According to his words" detailed kinetics of gyrons is intractable". As a result he tries to build a theory by analogy with fluid mechanics, but the lack of an exact model does not allow him to uncover the secrets of Nature and to make predictions with practical importance.  

Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory is based on exact model starting from simple fundamental particles, while using a classical approach and the unbreakable human logic. Its fundamental bases relies on the most economical initial concept, not suggested so far by any other theory.

- Empty Euclidian space without any physical properties and restrictions

- Two super dense fundamental particles able to vibrate and congregate

- A fundamental law of Super Gravitation (SG) - an inverse cubic law valid in empty space.

An enormous abundance of these particles, driven by the fundamental SG law into self-organized hierarchical levels of geometrical formations, leads deterministically to creation of space with quantum properties - physical vacuum and a galaxy as observable matter.

All known laws of Physics are embedded in the underlying structure of the physical vacuum and the structure of the elementary particles. The fundamental SG law is behind the gravitational, electric and magnetic fields and governs all kinds of interactions between the elementary particles in the space of physical vacuum.

A review of my first book Beyond the Visible Universe in which the theory is presented in a short popular form is provided by an official physics books reviewer. The review is under print and is currently available in

Stoyan Sarg  

The Episteme Forum - a place for scientific discussion provided by Italian Mathematics professor Umberto Bartocci - contains several papers by David Tombe. Thanks to Prof Bartocci for pointing this out...

The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field
(An interpretation of Maxwell's 1861 paper "On Physical Lines of Force", parts I to III)
(pdf file)

Maxwell's 1861 paper "On Physical Lines of Force" (parts I to III)* is interpreted, and an improvement is proposed which involves replacing his vortex cells with rotating electron positron dipoles. The cause of magnetism is then explained in terms of a vortex sea of electron positron dipoles, in which magnetic field lines are comprised of helical springs created out these dipoles. The electron positron dipoles are bonded together in a double helix pattern and the resulting helical springs close on themselves in elliptical or circular solenoidal hoops.

Equation 77 in Maxwell's 1861 paper, is the Lorentz force...

Gravitation, Electrostatics, and the Electron-Positron Aether (Ether)
(Based on the 1982 paper by David Tombe, entitled Electrogravitomagnetism)
(pdf file)

PART 1 A unified derivation of Newton's law of gravitation, and Coulomb's law of electrostatics, demonstrates charge to be a property associated with acceleration, and inertial mass to be a measure of the amount of matter in a body. It also demonstrates inertial mass to have an effect on acceleration in relation to electrostatic forces, but not in relation to gravitational forces. The derivation demonstrates from first principles that electrostatics and gravitation are mathematically parallel, despite this apparent difference between them. Einstein was aware that the acceleration of a body under gravity is independent of its inertial mass, but his interpretation of this fact, which led to his General Theory of Relativity, is called into question.
PART 2 Maxwell's displacement current is considered. Attention is drawn to the close association between Maxwell's displacement current and Coulomb's law of electrostatics. It is concluded that an electromagnetic force must ultimately be an electrostatic force in origin, when examined at the microscopic level, and that this can only be possible by introducing an elastic aether comprised of electrons and positrons. Electromagnetism is the manifestation of stresses and strains in the aether, whereas the forces acting between the particles of the aether are electrostatic. The force acting on a charged particle moving in a magnetic field, which we will refer to as 'The Lorentz Force', is then considered. The Lorentz Force is incorporated into Maxwell's equations, leading to a slight modification in the latter. This modification involves replacing the partial time derivatives with total time derivatives, and therefore removing any ambiguity about which frame of reference Maxwell's equations are valid in. They are valid in the geocentric aether rest frame. Maxwell's equations do not, as is customarily believed, give any credence whatsoever to Einstein's postulate of the constancy of the speed of light.

The Unification of Electricity and Magnetism
(pdf file)

Abstract. It is widely believed that electricity and magnetism were united by James Clerk-Maxwell in the nineteenth century. In his 1864 paper ‘A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field’ [1], Maxwell substituted the quantity ‘Displacement Current’ into Ampère’s circuital law and he obtained the electromagnetic wave equation. Displacement current incorporates Gauss’s law and so it would appear that Maxwell had successfully united electrostatics with electromagnetism.

This mathematical unity did not however give any physical explanation for the nature of the link between electrostatics and electromagnetism, and besides that, Gustav Kirchhoff had already established the same mathematical conclusions in 1857 in his paper entitled ‘On the Motion of Electricity in Conductors’ [2] using a completely different method.

The physical link between electricity, gravity, and electromagnetism will now be explained in terms of equation (58) in Maxwell’s 1861 paper ‘On Physical Lines of Force’ [3]. It will be concluded somewhat surprisingly that displacement current is not involved in the electromagnetic wave equation. There exists another quantity instead, that might be accurately described as ‘Changing Current’, which exists perpendicular to displacement current and which has an identical mathematical form. ‘Changing Current’ is a rotational effect and we will conclude that the involvement of Maxwell’s displacement current in electromagnetic radiation should be replaced instead by ‘Changing Current’. It will further be concluded that electromagnetic radiation is a gyroscopic phenomenon involving the coherent transverse propagation of rotations, precessions, and centrifugal pressure.

The Coriolis Force in Maxwell's Equations
(A comparative study of Maxwell’s 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' and his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force')
(pdf file)

Maxwell's 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' abandons the theory of molecular vortices that was a central feature of his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force'. Even after writing part I of his 1861 paper, Maxwell realized that a purely hydrodynamical approach to electromagnetic theory is insufficient, and so he introduced electrical particles and gradually shifted over to a more dynamical approach. This article investigates whether or not any physics was lost as a result of Maxwell abandoning his theory of molecular vortices. The focus of attention is centred on equation (5) of his 1861 paper, as this equation contains components that can be demonstrated to simultaneously represent both the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force, therefore implying that the Lorentz force is a kind of Coriolis force. Since a rotating frame of reference is needed for a Coriolis force, it follows that the Lorentz force must depend entirely on the rotating aethereal substance within Maxwell's vortex cells. The conclusion is that Maxwell made a serious error when he abandoned his theory of molecular vortices, and that the physical explanation for the Lorentz force was lost as a result.

Gravitational Induction and the Gyroscopic Force
(A hydrodynamical theory of gravity that accounts for the gyroscopic force)

Experimental evidence suggests, that when a torque is applied to a spinning gyroscope, perpendicularly to the axis of spin, an induced torque is generated that is mutually perpendicular to the direction of spin, and to the direction of the applied torque. This induced gyroscopic torque exhibits the characteristics of the motion of a charged particle in a magnetic field. Applied mathematics textbooks attempt to explain gyroscopic torque entirely within the context of Newtonian mechanics, and there is no official recognition of the existence of any additional induced forces. This article examines the limitations of Newton's law of gravitation and proposes a more general extension based on hydrodynamical principles. It is shown that gravity involves three additional components that are not catered for by Newton's law of gravitation. These three components link gravity directly with electromagnetism. It is concluded that there exists strong evidence to suggest that gravity and negative electricity are exactly the same phenomenon, and that like poles only repel when they are positive.

Here is a quote from ET Whittaker's history of aethers.

"All space, according to the young [John] Bernoulli, is permeated by a fluid Aether, containing an immense number of excessively small whirlpools. The elasticity which the Aether appears to possess, and in virtue of which it is able to transmit vibrations, is really due to the presence of these whirlpools; for, owing to centrifugal force, each whirlpool is continually striving to dilate,and so presses against the neighbouring whirlpools."

It would appear that this is exactly the starting point in part I of Maxwell's 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force'.

Part I of Maxwell's historical paper is the hydrodynamical part, and it contains Dan Bernoulli's famous equation. I strongly suspect that the reference above to John Bernoulli should really refer to Dan Bernoulli.

Aether hydrodynamics unequivocally points us to a picture of mutually attracting sinks in line with the theory of gravity.

Does the Bernoulli sea of whirlpools and the Maxwell sea of molecular vortices not tell us that an Aether alone is insufficient to account for the forces of electromagnetism? Does it not tell us that we actually need a sea of aether vortices? The vortices are critical for electromagnetic theory. Any aether theory that does not involve aether vortices cannot explain electromagnetism.

Maxwell went further than Bernoulli and demonstrated how a sea of vortices could not possibly exist unless there were idle wheels between the vortices. These idle wheels are the electrical particles that are associated with electric current.

In other words we need both an 'Aether' and an 'Electric Sea' in order to complete the picture. The aether leads to gravity and mutual attraction, whereas the electric sea shapes the aether into vortices and accounts for how that mutual attraction can be reversed into a mutual repulsion. The reversal is obtained by a combination of the Coriolis force aligning the vortices solenoidally, and a centrifugal pressure acting between the vortices in their equatorial plane.

An aether alone cannot explain anything beyond gravity. We need the electric sea as well, to account for electromagnetism and electromagnetic radiation. The elastic constants of the electric sea are critical for determining the speed of light.For more information see,

Yours sincerely, David Tombe

In the above article, there is an issue of semantics over the statement that the aether alone can't explain anything beyond gravity. It can explain electrostatics. However the question then arises as to whether electrostatics is a special case of gravity or whether gravity is a special case of electrostatics. This issue is discussed in more detail on the section entitled 'Electrostatics' in 'The Aether and the Electric Sea' at,

Yours sincerely, David Tombe

Bernoulli and Maxwell both suggested that space is filled with tiny vortices. In his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force' part I, Maxwell hydrodynamically modelled this sea of tiny vortices and showed how centrifugal repulsion between these vortices accounts for some aspects of magnetism.

Centrifugal repulsion occurs between any two objects which possess mutual tangential velocity. It physically manifests itself when the two particles are constrained from moving apart.

The question then arises as to why we do not notice this centrifugal repulsion between spinning objects on the large scale.

The answer is that two large gyroscopes are immersed in a sea of tiny vortices. As such the tiny vortices absorb the centrifugal pressure being exerted by the large gyroscopes, and they disperse this pressure throughout the vortex sea according to the path of least resistance.

See 'The Epicycle Theory of the Atom' at

Yours sincerely, David Tombe

RE David Tombe's comments on Frank Meno's gyron theory (in Sepp's post of May 8, 2006), I've known Dr. Meno personally for 25 years, and my understanding is that his postulation of gyrons wasn't driven by electromagnetic phenomena, but from an effort to understand gravity. The needle-like shape is required, so that gyrons flying like rifle bullets away from the electron and positron vortices can travel long distances before colliding sufficiently to slow down and rejoin the vacuum (relatively slow-moving, tumbling gyrons). According to his theory, it is the resulting sparsity of gyrons in the vortices that produces the inward drift of surrounding gyrons that we call gravity.

RE David Tombe's specific comment:
"For me, the vortex lies in the middle of the rotating electron-positron dipole. The electron and the positron in mutual orbit with each other, drive a vortex in the aether which exists between the two particles."

The problem I see with this approach, aside from leaving the nature of the electron and positron unexplained, is the question of where the energy comes from that drives this vortex. In Meno's theory, it's due to the slight concave shape of the gyrons, which somehow causes them to aggregate, or at least maintain a stable vortex pattern.

Finally, I'm wondering how Mr. Tombe deals with the extremely short lifetime of positronium? I've been thinking about Meno's theory, and have tentatively concluded that, indeed, positron/electron pairs do tend to form naturally, due to the gyron shape, and don't normally pop into existence (remain in the "vacuum noise") due to the disturbing presence of (i.e., collisions with) super-luminal "gravitational gyrons" (rifle-bullet flight mode) zipping around through space.