« Share the Wealth ... with Socioeconomic Democracy | Main | Tesla's Creative Genius: Intuitive Knowledge predicted Networked Society »

PrintPrinter-friendly version

The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field

We are all familiar with the fascinating swirling motion of water as it pours out of a sink. The scientific name for this phenomenon is vorticity and such a whirlpool is known as a vortex.

In the 17th century, Descartes proposed that the Planets move around the Sun because they are swept around by whirlpools of a subtle matter filling all space.


The double helix nebula - Image credit: M. Morris, UCLA via Space.com

Descartes' theory however disagreed with Newton's law of gravity. If Descartes' theory were correct the theory of conservation of energy would break down and we would have extra tangential forces involved in planetary orbital theory that would have the same mathematical form as the forces involved in electromagnetic induction.

In the 18th century, Bernoulli proposed that space is permeated with tiny whirlpools. If Bernoulli is correct, this would explain the discrepancy between Descartes' theory of gravity and Newton's theory of gravity because Bernoulli's sea of tiny vortices would act like a rotationally elastic sponge and soak up all the large scale vorticity envisioned by Descartes' theory. This in turn would lead to Kepler's law of areal velocity which is essentially a statement of the fact that there is no vorticity in the gravitational field. In mathematics, we know that the curl of a gravitational field is zero whereas the curl of a magnetic field is non zero. It seems that all of Descartes' large scale vorticity may have been sponged off into the magnetic field.

In the 19th century, James Clerk-Maxwell adopted a picture of a sea of tiny whirlpools very similar to that of Bernoulli. He hydrodynamically modeled this sea of vortices in 1861 and obtained the laws of electromagnetism. Maxwell described his theory in detail in his paper 'On Physical Lines of Force'.

But Maxwell's theory was incomplete. He knew that electrical particles were needed in order to act as idle wheels between his molecular vortices but he was never able to establish the exact interaction.

It is here proposed that Maxwell's molecular vortices should be more accurately replaced with rotating electron positron dipoles in which the electrons are orbiting the positrons in central force non-Keplerian orbits. The axial plane of these rotating dipoles would align solenoidally in sympathy with magnetic field lines, such that electrons would be angularly phased above positrons in a twisted rope ladder fashion. Magnetic field lines can then essentially be viewed as helical springs with the Coulomb force providing the axial tension.

Magnetic field lines cross directly between the north pole of a magnet and the south pole of another magnet. We can now easily visualize how they can pull the two magnets together with Coulomb tension. Attracting magnets are essentially being pulled together by helical springs.

When we bring two magnetic north poles together, we observe that the magnetic field lines emanating from each pole spread sideways and away from each other. The ensuing repulsion can be explained by centrifugal force acting in the equatorial planes of the rotating electron positron dipoles.

If we treat an electron as an aethereal sink, and a positron as an aethereal source then the rotating electron positron dipole becomes an aethereal vortex of vorticity H.

The Coriolis force F = vXH will then act on a charged particle moving at right angles to magnetic lines of force. This Coriolis force is clearly the convective component of the Lorentz force of electromagnetic induction.

See 'The Aether and the Electric Sea' here below

or download the PDF version from wbabin.net.

Frederick David Tombe, 18th March 2007
Ormoc City, Leyte, Philippine Islands.

Contact the author at: sirius184@hotmail.com

- - -

The Aether and the Electric Sea
(The Link between Gravity and Electromagnetism)

Frederick David Tombe,
Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom,
1st December 2006, Philippine Islands
(17th March 2007 Amendment, Ormoc City, Leyte)

Abstract. The aether alone cannot explain electromagnetism. In order to explain electromagnetism, we need to have a sea of aether vortices. In order to have a sea of aether vortices, we need to have sources and sinks in the sea. These sources and sinks are what we call electrical particles and it is the 'Electric Sea' of electrical particles that shapes the aether into vortices and causes the fundamental hydrodynamical aethereal forces to manifest themselves in the particular guise of electromagnetism.

The distinction between the aether and the electric sea, and the relationship between them has not been discussed since the time of James Clerk-Maxwell. This paper aims to clarify the relationship between the aether and the electric sea. The gyroscopic solenoidal alignment of the electric sea can reverse a mutually attractive gravitational/electrostatic force into a mutually repulsive electrostatic force. The gravitational and electrostatic forces primarily arise out of pure aether hydrodynamics.

Bernoulli's Sea of Aether Whirlpools

I. ET Whittaker [1] writes

"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."

Bernoulli's aether theory would appear to be the starting point in Maxwell's 1861 paper
'On Physical Lines of Force' [2].

The important thing to note is that the aether alone is not sufficient to explain electromagnetism. We need a sea of aether whirlpools.

Maxwell expanded upon Bernoulli's sea of whirlpools and pointed out that no such arrangement could be possible unless there were idle wheels between the vortices. Maxwell linked these idle wheels with the particles of electric current. Hence Maxwell's sea of whirlpools became a sea of electrical particles.

Lord Kelvin [3] says

"My suggestion is that the Aepinus' fluid consists of exceedingly
minute equal and similar atoms, which I call electrions, much smaller than the atoms of
ponderable matter; and that they permeate freely through the spaces occupied by these
greater atoms and also freely through space not occupied by them."
See Aepinus Atomized by Lord Kelvin.

It was suggested in 'The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field', that Maxwell's idle wheels are electrons and positrons and that his molecular vortices should more accurately be replaced by rotating electron positron dipoles in which each electron is undergoing a mutual central force orbit with a positron. The axis of rotation of each electron positron dipole will be perpendicular to the line joining the electron to the positron. Aether emerging from the positron will cross over and sink into the electron. The rotation of the dipole will hence lead to an aethereal vortex being contained within it. These central force orbits will be non-Keplerian because they will also be subjected to the Lorentz force. The gyroscopic/Coriolis component of the Lorentz force vXH will cause a sea of these dipoles to align solenoidally in a twisted rope ladder fashion, with the electrons angularly phased above the positrons in the axial plane, rendering magnetic H lines of force into helical springs.

The Aether and Mutual Attraction

II. Pure aether hydrodynamics can explain the fundamental force of electrostatics, in which sinks are mutually attractive and in which sources are mutually repulsive. See 'Gravitational Induction and the Gyroscopic Force'.

Mutually attractive electrostatics is commonly known as gravity. It is a common mistake to assume that the aether also serves as the luminiferous medium. Nobody has ever produced the necessary elastic constants that would enable a wave speed to be calculated for disturbances in the pure aether.

The Electric Sea and Mutual Repulsion

III. The transverse elasticity that led Maxwell to the speed of light and caused him to state " - - - we can scarcely avoid the inference that light consists in the transverse undulations of the same medium which is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena - - - " was based absolutely on the dielectric sea of his idle wheels. It was based on the self restoring elasticity of the electrical particles that surrounded his molecular vortices. See part III of his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force' [2].

We need the sea of electrical particles in order to explain the elastic tension associated with both electromagnetism and with cases of electrostatics in which like charges are mutually repulsive. It is a common mistake to try and explain both gravity and electromagnetism using a single medium. Any attempts to do so have foundered on the grounds of inability to account for why gravity is mutually attractive and why electromagnetism is mutually repulsive. We must clearly distinguish between the 'Aether' and the 'Electric Sea' albeit that the 'Electric Sea' is ultimately a sea of aether vortices.

The aether is the link between gravity and electromagnetism. The aether is the deep liquid medium of unknown substance that accounts for the fundamental forces. The electric sea shapes the aether into a sea of vortices. The electric sea can reverse the aethereal force of mutual attraction by a solenoidal arrangement of the vortices. In situations where mutual repulsion occurs either in magnetism or electrostatics, the lines of force emanating from the two bodies will spread outwards and away from each other. The Coriolis force will cause the vortices to align solenoidally and the centrifugal force acting in the equatorial plane of these vortices will cause a mutual repulsion to act laterally between the lines of force.

In the case of orbiting planetary bodies the gravitational field lines will spread out sideways between any two such bodies. The question of friction in space has often been used to undermine the idea of a particulate luminiferous medium. We can now see how the gravitational field lines that spread away from each other in the region between planetary bodies will align and polarize the electron positron dipoles in such a way as to invoke the hovercraft effect. The centrifugal force acting laterally between the radial gravitational field lines will create a repulsion and hence substantially reduce friction.


IV. Electrostatics clearly sits on the fence between gravity and electromagnetism. Electrostatics can be a pure aether hydrodynamical phenomenon in which like negative charges mutually attract and in which like positive charges mutually repel. Gravitation is a particular manifestation of mutually attracting electrostatics.

Electrostatics can also be an elastic phenomena associated with polarization of the electric sea. In this case like charges become mutually repulsive. The reversal threshold and range is discussed in 'Gravity Reversal and Atomic Bonding'.

We will have two forces both acting in opposite directions and each with a different drop-off coefficient. The mutually repulsive force will drop off more steeply than the mutually attractive force.

The Earth's Magnetic Field

V. The origins of the Earth's magnetic field have always remained somewhat of a mystery...

(This section was speculative and has been removed at the author's request - 30 April 2008)


[1] ET Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity; The Classical Theories (London; New York, American Institute of Physics, 1987) p.6

[2] Clerk-Maxwell, J., "On Physical Lines of Force", Philosophical Magazine, Volume 21, (1861)

[3] Aepinus Atomized, Lord Kelvin, Philosophical Magazine Vol 3, No. 15 (Sixth Series) March 1902, p.257ff. Communicated by the author. From the Jubilee Volume presented to Prof. Bosscha in November 1901.

[4] Dr. Menahem Simhony in Jerusalem has put forward a very compelling argument to suggest that space is pervaded by a dense medium of electrons and positrons. See, THE "MASS - ENERGY EQUIVALENCE" DECEPTION

[5] Ian Montgomery and Peter Whan in Australia have proposed that a sea of electron positron couplets explains electromagnetic theory. Full details have not yet been published.

[6] Arden Barker has advocated a sea of electron positron dipoles for the purposes of the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. See A Postulation for the Structure of the Proton and the Neutron

[7] Dr. Allen Rothwarf wrote 'An Aether Model of the Universe' in 1998 in which he envisaged the aether to comprise of electrons and positrons.
His brother Dr. Frederick Rothwarf has recently extended this work in conjunction with
Dr. Roy. See, Quantum Vacuum and a Matter - Antimatter Cosmology

[8] Barnett S. J., "Magnetization by Rotation" Physical Review 6/4 (1915) 239 - 270

- - -

Here is a more recent article of David Tombe, about which he says

"I have finally completed my research into this subject, and my conclusions are in this new 12 page article. The conclusions are refined versions of my same conclusions which you published [in this article].

Basically, yes, there is large scale aether vorticity in the universe in conjunction with planetary motion, but the natural state of affairs will be for it to be quickly absorbed into the fine-grained vorticity of the sea of rotating electron-positron dipoles.

I have concluded that tangential force generates centrifugal force, which is in actual fact a manifestation of positive 'outflow' charge. I believe that I have discovered the explanation for the rattleback 'celtic stone'.

You can find a copy of this latest paper at,


That article covers the issue of vorticity in all the key areas."

PrintPrintable Version



Over the past two weeks, I have been radiating thoughts about physics which would tend to fit or to energize the kind of "double helix" image you are portraying. (One of the images even looks curiously like a "yin-yang", a 180 degree rotation of two whirling vortex soliton spinors... just one small piece...)

However, such images are always only a starting point.

I wish I had more time and energy and support to do what is needed next, but the world has so many other needs...

Roughly, however, to pursue the image...

It is still essential to start with the old Physical Review papers by Hasenfratz and 'tHooft, and Jackiw and Rebbi... and maybe some of the work of Goldhaber and some of the papers they all cite.

The question of spin and statistics was never addressed properly in physics.

The arguments in the classic book by Streater and Wightman, which everyone cites, are essentially circular. They do not really EXPLAIN why fermionic statistics occur, as an emergent phenomenon. To do this well is the next task.

We can see the mountain of future understanding... and it is important to see... but to actually get there, we must walk one step at a time along the path which gets us there.

Who will actually take such a step, in a world as confused as this?

Who will even be allowed to?

Best of luck to us all,


The possibility that aspects of nature can be explained as fluid motions in a frictionless aether dates back to Euler and the Bernoulli brothers. By Kelvin’s circulation theorem vortex motions about closed lines the remain unchanged with time. Therefore many scientists have speculated that vortex motions are a part of the physical makeup of matter, fields, and light. It is interesting to observe by Tombe’s paper that such speculations are still being pursued by scientists. The same speculations are discussed at the end of a paper that can be downloaded from this link. However, this paper deals with an entirely different matter associated with an aether fluid. Namely, if an aether fluid exists its fluid elements must recede from each other in accord with Hubble’s law. Or one must assume that the distance, d(t) between any two fluid elements equals γ(t)d(0), where γ(t) equals 1+t/т, t is time, т is the Hubble age, and d(0) is the distance at the present time, t=0. This expansion of the aether, called R, is the only one that satisfies the modern Copernican view that the recessional motion of the galaxies and the aether appear the same on a large scale for observers in any galaxy of the universe.

In the paper one investigates consequences of this assumption when the aether is an ideal monatomic adiabatic fluid. For this fluid the pressure is the only means of interaction between fluid elements, and the interactions follow Newton’s three laws. For this fluid a transformation exists, in exact accord with Euler’s nonlinear equations, which transforms any fluid motion, called M, superimposed on the stationary aether fluid to an initially, t=0 identical fluid motion, called N, superimposed on R. The motion, N differs from M when t≠0 due to N’s nonlinear interactions with R, called expansion effects. The expansion effects turn out to be a pervasive part of Hubble’s law affecting all aspects of N motions. All parts of the pervasive Hubble law contain simple functions of γ(t) as multiplying factors. For example, all characteristic distances, volumes, and energies associated with the N motion must have respectively γ(t), [γ(t)]^3, and [γ(t)]^-2 as multiplying factors. The fluid dynamic analysis provides evidences in support of the thesis that all forms of matter, fields, and propagations in the universe are N motions superimposed on R. Moreover, the aether is not the light fluid proposed in the past, but a very heavy fluid of density of order equal to the nuclear density.

The pervasive parts of Hubble’s law provide a relation between the Hubble age of the universe and the well known discrepancy between the calculated and observed longitude of the sun. The discrepancy equals 1.23 seconds of arc per Julian century squared. The relation yields 10.5 billion years for the Hubble age. Thereby γ(t) and all pervasive parts of the Hubble law are determined. The pervasive parts of the Hubble law are zero presently, t=0, and change with time, t at the exceedingly slow rates of about one part in 10.5 billion parts per year. Nevertheless, these seemingly minute changes with time suggest fundamental changes to physics and astronomy and resolve many outstanding questions and paradoxes that have puzzled and irritated scientists for many years.

One finds an expanding reference frame which is a preferential frame for the equations of motion of the special theory of relativity. The Relativity principle and twin paradox are gone. One relates three different time scales, the Newtonian, the atomic, and the planetary ephemeris times. The Hubble age and the rate of the Hubble expansion are constant on the former time scale. The Hubble age is infinite and the Hubble expansion accelerates on the latter two time scales. The density of the invisible very heavy aether fluid diminishes as one approaches gravitating bodies and result in gravitational deflection of light. This may explain the large observed deflection of light passing by galactic clusters. Gravitational energy is generated in material bodies proportional to the product of the square of their masses and the gravitational constant and inversely proportional to the product of their radii and the Hubble age, т. This energy is of importance to determine the temperature of moons, planets, and old stars with spent nuclear fuels. The straight line Hubble relation between the logarithm of the red shifts and the order of magnitudes of standard galaxies is replaced by a curve passion through a large group of points observed for quasars. Thus, suggesting that quasars are distant galaxies.

In an Appendix one discuss the possibility that circulation singularities are parts of all forms of matter, light, electric, and magnetic fields. Moreover one describes the possible nature of a photon of light which satisfies the linearized Euler’s equations. An extension of the equations of motion of the special theory of relativity predicts motion of test particles in Schwarzschild fields. It suggests that forward motions of perihelia and gravitational deflections of light predicted by the general theory of relativity are too large by 20 percent, and that gravitational red shifts are correct. This matter is an important input to the ongoing controversy about how much of the forward motion of the perihelion of Mercury is due to the sun’s oblateness.

A Reply to Leif Rongved.

If the aether is the cause of the fundamental forces that act between particles, and if particles are sources and sinks in the aether, then it is not possible to use the language of physics either to describe the aether or to explain how the aether works.

All physical quantities are built up from the concept of a particle in motion. A particle can have velocity, acceleration, charge and mass. See "Charge, Spin, and 'Charge to Mass' Ratio" at,


From these parameters we can derive momentum, force, and energy and we can talk about elasticity and density in mediums that are comprised of particles.

We cannot however use any of this language when we are talking about the aether itself. We can know nothing at all about the aether. We cannot even correctly say that the aether is a liquid. It behaves like a liquid, but this is only because a liquid is merely reflecting the underlying aethereal forces that are acting between the particles within it.

As such, the question of whether or not the aether is expanding or contracting becomes totally irrelevant. The only thing that we know for sure is that the aether is dynamic and that it is permeated by a dielectric solid in which the particles follow a pattern of hydrodynamics and constitute sources and sinks. We know this because of Maxwell's displacement current. See 'The Unification of Electricity and Magnetism' at,


This leads us to a sea of electrons and positrons paired off into central force orbital dipoles and such that the axes of rotation of these dipoles trace out Faraday's lines of force. This elastic solid possesses an aethereal infrastructure of tiny swirling vortices. Within the Earth's magnetosphere this elastic solid is entrained with the Earth in its orbital motion around the Sun, and this explains the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. The Michelson-Morley experiment was effectively conducted within a luminiferous tent. See,


As regards the 'Electric Sea' of electrons and positrons, there is no reason however why it could not be expanding. The references above to Dr. Allen Rothwarf, Dr. Frederick Rothwarf, and Dr. Sisir Roy may yield more information on this idea.

Yours sincerely, David Tombe

A reply to David Tombe.

By the continuity equations, (1.9) and (1.12) in my paper there are no sinks or sources in the aether fluid. If sources, sinks, and doublets exist in the aether they can readily be specified, see for example article 48 in the reference [19] of my paper. The equations of continuity, (1.9) and ((1.12) in my paper, can readily be altered to account for them, and Euler’s equations of motion, i.e. (1.8) and (1.10) in my paper, together with them would then be the governing equations for the aether. In my paper there are no sources or sinks. The aether fluid is assumed to follow Euler’s equations for the adiabatic monatomic ideal fluid, i.e. equations (1.8) to (1.13) in the paper. Your “electric sea” of nucleons, electrons, positrons, photons, etc. are solutions of Euler’s equations in my paper. Moreover, magnetic, electric, and gravitational fields associated with nucleons etc. are simply fluid motions in the aether extending beyond their main activity centers. There are no such fields associated with any single fluid element. The fluid pressure is the only means of interaction between fluid elements.
It is difficult to understand why the assumption that the aether expansion is irrelevant. Is it irrelevant because the aether is invisible? The word “appear” in the last line of my first paragraph of my comment does not mean that one have to see the aether. It simply means that any observers or scientist in any galaxy of the universe are sensibly at rest, or moving at velocities very small compared to the light velocity, relative to the aether, just like we are here on the earth. Therefore, they will get the same results using the same laws of nature we are using here. There will be errors because observers in other galaxies are likely in gravitational fields, on orbiting rotating planets, and moving relative to the contiguous undisturbed fluid expansion, R, just like we are. These motions and fields must be taken into account. This is similar to, when using Newton’s laws, accounting for the fact that reference frames fixed relative to the earth are not inertial reference frames.
What you call an “irrelevant expansion” determines the pervasive part of the Hubble law, and yields all the important finding mentioned in the third and fourth paragraph of my comment. These findings show that Euler’s fluid dynamics equations likely may be the unified theory of mathematical physics. What is irrelevant about that?
One reason for my comments on your paper are the two words “sources and sinks” in you abstract. There are not necessarily sources and sinks associated with vortices in the aether. Look at paragraphs 48, 49, and 50 in reference [19] of my paper. You will find Lord Kelvin’s circulation theorem and corollaries. This theorem of a countryman of yours is of great importance to our both of us. I believe that it may lead to that you and I talk “to” each other instead of “past” each other as we have in our comments above.

Sincerely, Leif Rongved

A reply to Leif Rongved (2)

This argument begins with Maxwell's displacement current. The only way that Maxwell's displacement current can be justified, is in terms of it being a polarization current in a dielectric solid.

The link between displacement current, Gauss's law, the equation of continuity of charge, and the electromagnetic wave equation tells us that EM radiation propagates in a dielectric solid in which the particles interact together under the terms of Gauss's law.

A pattern of hydrodynamics in which the dielectric particles constitute sources and sinks then immediately becomes obvious. Hydrodynamics yields four fundamental forces. These four forces are,

(1) The inverse square law associated with radial inflow or outflow.
(2) The centrifugal force.
(3) The Coriolis Force.
(4) The angular force.

The latter two forces (3) and (4) together form the tangential Lorentz force and this tells us that electromagnetism is a rotational phenomenon.

In order to invoke the Coriolis/Lorentz force, we must have a sea of vortices. These vortices will contain both sources and sinks and will effectively mean that we have a sea of electrons and positrons aligned solenoidally in a double helix fashion in sympathy with magnetic lines of force.

The Earth's magnetosphere is this sea of electrons and positrons and it is gravitationally entrained with the Earth in the Earth's orbital motion about the Sun. The reason for the 1887 Michelson-Morley result then becomes obvious.

You tell me that you don't recognize the existence of sources or sinks in the aether. If you remove sources and sinks from the aether, then you remove Gauss's law and you pull the entire theory of electromagnetism out by the roots.

Yours sincerely, David Tombe

A Reply to Leif Rongved (3)

Further to my reply above, I have since been wondering whether or not we are both talking about the same medium. We need to clearly distinguish between the aether on the one hand, and the electric sea on the other hand.

The electric sea is a dense dielectric solid of electrons and positrons and it is the medium involved in the propagation of light.

The aether is a deeper and more mysterious medium that exists in the space between the electrons and positrons and causes the forces that act between them. The hydrodynamical description of the fundamental aethereal forces renders particles into aethereal sources and sinks. The aether in this sense is not the luminiferous medium. It is not the medium in which light waves propagate nor in which magnetic field lines are embedded.

In your theory, you are presumably talking about a luminiferous medium that can expand and which contains neither sources nor sinks. This would correspond to the electric sea. There can be neither sources nor sinks in the electric sea and it is quite possible that the electric sea could expand. That is why I referred you to Dr. Rothwarf and Dr. Roy.

I think that your aether is actually the electric sea and not the aether at all. People seem to forget that Maxwell's luminiferous dielectric solid was not actually the aether itself, but rather a sea of aether vortices.

Yours sincerely, David Tombe

I'm an absolute novice here, but would a "vortex" and a "string" not appear to have very similar properties?

A Reply to jon c

I'll tell you what a vortex is and you can then tell me what a string is. After that we can decide what the similarities are, if there are any at all.

Pure radial fluid flow implies the existence of a sink or a source. If the fluid flow also possess a tangential motion and hence spirals into the sink, or out of the source, we then have a vortex.

We can usually see a swirling water vortex above the sink hole when we are emptying a bath tub.

More generally, any region of rotating fluid, even in the absence of a sink or a source, is known as a vortex.

So how does that compare to a string?

Yours sincerely, David Tombe

I suppose you refer to Gauss’s divergence theorem in your comments, i.e. as described in article 14 in reference [19] of my paper. Applications of this theorem are very numerous. One of its applications is in electromagnetism as you apparently are aware of. Another application of it is in the derivation of the equation of continuity, which rules out sinks and sources! For this derivation see article 35 in reference [19] of my paper. Therefore, your assertion that absence of sources and sinks rules out Gauss’s theorem is false.
Sinks and sources can readily be introduced as I mentioned in my previous comment, i.e. as described in article 48 in reference 19 of my paper. Here again Gauss’s theorem is involved. In that case Gauss’s theorem require that the aether must flow at speed approaching infinity as it approaches a spherical cavity of radius approaching zero. I think most analysts would not go for such a point singularity. The notion of a “Black Hole” is thought by some to be more believable because the singularity there is over a spherical surface of finite radius. However, the word “Hole” should really be replaced by “Cavity”, and some pictorial representations of it should not look like it is a “Hole”. It takes a persons like Hawking with the royal society behind him to be able to publish their findings of “ Black Holes” widely. They certainly have more clout than sensible science. You will need even more clout for your notions than Hawking for his.
I would like to finish this comment in a more upbeat note. Namely, in reference [17} of my paper one describes a helical wave motions, which is an exact solution of Euler’s equations for a particular ideal fluid. There is no aether sink or source associated with it. Perhaps you can make some use of it.
Sincerely, Leif Rongved

A Reply to Leif Rongved (4)

Before we can continue this debate, you will need to state clearly whether you are talking about,

(1) The electric sea of electrons and positrons that acts as the luminiferous medium and the medium in which Faraday's lines of force are embedded. Or,

(2) The quasi-physical aether that exists in the space between the electrons and positrons and which is the cause of the forces that act between them.

Until you clearly specify which of these two mediums you are referring to, then I cannot properly reply to your comments above.

There will be no sources or sinks in the electric sea as viewed in its entirety, whereas in the aether, the positrons and electrons will constitute sources and sinks.

Yours sincerely, David Tombe

The idea that matter is made up of vortices makes a lot of sense, much more so than the conventional physics’ atomic model, made up of tiny bullets of energy or joined-up strings. It also allows these vortices to combine and form larger bodies of matter which are also vortex-like in nature, the obvious example being spiral galaxies. I commend you (and the other vortex-theorists elsewhere on this site) for promoting these ideas. However, if I understand it right, I think you may have complicated the issue a bit by having both ‘sources’ and ‘sinks’ for your vortices. Another theory, I’ve seen, called Steadybang Theory, only has sources for its vortices, yet it can still account for electro-magnetic phenomena. In it, both electrons and positrons are forms of electromagnetic radiation but spinning as they radiate out, the former one way (which gives it a negative sign) and the latter the other, so that when they meet they annihilate one another. Also in this theory an atom being a much more concentrated pocket of energy is like an electron spinning on itself to form an open spiral torus or helix (the electron is just an open spiral), like a mollusc shell. So separating off part of the outer ring of this vortex produces electrons and the remaining torus will turn in on itself, giving it positive tendencies.
The other advantage of having matter expanding in vorticular form from a source is that it can explain gravity kinetically. If everything expands uniformly, it isn’t noticeable to an observer (whose also expanding) but everything tends to come together. So this theory can explain gravity, electromagnetism and atomic forces all kinetically.
It’s difficult to explain all this in a short posting, but I’m sure if you go to the Steadybang website (www.steadybang.com) you’ll get a clearer idea of how this works.

Apologies - I didn't insert the HTML tag for the Steadybang website correctly in the last post.It should be:- http://www.steadybang.com/

Subject: Double Helix-Interlinks

My book-Plasma Vision of the Universe [1993] includes the DNA-RNA-Helices formations leading to Bio-Energy Aura. Then one needs to search inadeqacy and bring out Comprehensive approach.

Cosmology Vedas Interlinks books help further advancement for readers interested in linking up to Centre of the Universe through Magnetic Fields


Dr Vidyardhi Nanduri promotes the Unity in Science and Philosophy through Cosmology Vedas Interlinks
1. The Science of Philosophy: Divinity, Vedas, Upanishads, Temples & Yoga
2. Philosophy of Science : Plasmas, Electro-magnetic fields and Cosmology
3. Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows
4. Noble Cause : Human-Being, Environment, Divine Nature and Harmony

PLASMA VISION OF THE UNIVERSE-1993 (Reg No: TXU 729718 ) (No# Pages-95, Figures 58)

THE VISION OF COSMIC TO *PREM UNIVERSE-1995 (Reg No: TXU 893693 ) *PREM: Plasma Regulated Electro-Magnetic Universe (No# Pages 148, Figures 56)

• VEDIC VISION OF THE UNIVERSE-1996(Reg No:TXU729719)(No# Pages 137, Figures 35)

• VEDIC VISION OF THE UNIVERSE-II, 1997(Reg No: TXU 893691)(No# Pages 122, Figures 16). It is Based on Vedas,Upanishads and Scientific relevance to Cosmology

• VEDIC VISION OF THE UNIVERSE- Part 3, 1997 (No# Pages 150). Background information on Vedas, Puranas articles on Cosmology

• THE SCIENTIFIC ESSENCE OF COSMIC PHILOSOPHY-1999 (Reg No: TXU 982-556 ) (No# Pages 88, Figures 39) It is based on the science of philosophy and the philosophy of science and integration.

• OM COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS TO COSMOLOGY REVISION-2000(Reg No: TXU 982-559) (No# Pages 94, Figures 16)

• FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE (1996) Background Research Papers: NEWTON to PRESENT DAY (No# Pages 175)(Being updated)

• UNITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN SCIENCE, RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY (Revised Feb. 2002) (Reg No: TX 5-574-909) (No# Pages 100, Figures 17). It includes questions on the cosmos.


• SEARCH BEYOND DARK MATTER-COSMOS YOGA SERIES-I 10^3 LY-Tamasoma Jyothirgamyam TXU 1-282-571(June 2005),Copy rights USA

• Centre of the Universe-Heart of the Universe-Nov 2006 - Copy Rights TXU 1-364-245 -The Science in Philosophy- Pridhvi Viswam Asya DharineemCosmos yoga vision series-II- cover upto 10^5 Light Years



INDEX :Cosmology,Cosmogony,SpaceScience,Philosophy,consciousness,interlink fields, alternate cosmology, cosmology-vedas,Cosmology Interlinks, Space Exploration, Knowledge Expansion, Centre of the Universe , Vision Models of the Universe , Dynamic Universe

DR Vidyardhi Nanduri

Leave a comment


Receive updates

Email updates for new articles

Enter your Email