Physics, Rogue Science?


On this page we will detail a range of unique predictions of the aether-wave-rotation model of light and electromagnetism. Many are unexpected and some are out of left field.


The wave-aether-rotation model offers a physicality that physics has long eschewed. Inherent in any determinist description are a host of causal steps that can be picked over and interrogated. There are therefore potentially a lot more predictions than are detailed here. One is that the direction of rotation of Maxwell’s magnetic vortices is already evident in a host of existing data.
Because of the essential similarity between macroscopic phenomena and this model, hydrodynamic experiment, observation, modelling and analysis can be applied and tested throughout.


The new model offers a mechanism and a speed, and a potential explanation for Mach’s principle.
In a lunar eclipse, the moon will both occlude and focus the Sun’s gravity. Might that explain the apparently anomalous results from the extensive investigations of the 1999 eclipse co-ordinated (and then forgotten) by NASA? Or would the effects be too small?
The waves that mediate gravitation are subject to losses like all other motion, and these need to be accounted for.
Why these gravitational waves attract when more coherent light signals are known to repel is something worthy of examination. In a deterministic model as we have here, this single anomaly could bring the model down. Currently, the only suggestion in the new model is that wave ‘noise’, the total of a great many waves, affects matter differently than more coherent signals that can produce ‘surfing’ effects.
In this model, the inverse square law of gravitational attraction is only a close approximation, and more profoundly the superposition of gravitational effects cannot be assumed. In particular, we are used to assuming that equal and opposite attractions cancel each other out with no remaining nett effect. In this model for gravitation, when attractions cancel, wholly or partially, this is not true of the local wave noise density.
This is especially relevant at the centres of galaxies and offers a potential alternative explanation for anomalous motion. Also to be considered is rotational aether drag, and whether that could be significant at the centre of a galaxy.
Essential to this model is that particle size changes with gravitational field strength, as the mechanism for changes in timekeeping.


The light waves that show the cosmological redshift have also lost energy, but can we figure out the mechanism by which this causes the redshift?
For certain those losses will explain Olbers’ paradox, that the sky is not universally bright.
Under extreme conditions, vortex ring particles will break down, releasing all of their rotational and vibrational energy. There is a clear mechanism in this model for energy in the form of waves to act gravitationally, but only as they disperse, and not for rotational energy. When matter converts to energy, in the existing theory it retains its gravitational effect, but not in the new model.


Changes to timekeeping with motion, as with gravitational field strength, are real.
Clocks might be used to measure gravitational field strength where fields combine, to help with understanding how this combination works.
Clocks can be used to identify the inertial frame in the local Universe where clocks tick fastest, the base frame for Lorentz calculations. Is it the same as that identified by the CMBR? The model offers no reason why it should be.
As a physical basis for these changes in timekeeping, particle size in this model changes with motion relative to this base frame. Are there indirect methods that can be used to measure this change in size?


Light is a longitudinal pressure wave emitted in a wave packet, and we know from observation its wave shape. The new model suggests that we revisit these observations to check if the vibration extends into a second or third envelope.
Light travels at the natural speed dictated by its medium, the aether, adjusted by the presence of further ‘wave noise’. That speed is therefore not constant.
It behaves just like sound does, so physicists can now drag their equipment to rock concerts on expenses, following an appropriate health and safety audit, to see if sound is bent and delayed close to the speakers.
The most curious prediction is that when a vortex ring particle changes its standing wave pattern it does not matter which way the change occurs. ‘Down an energy level’ is the mathematical negative of ‘up’, but the two are physically indistinguishable. Light in this model is emitted in both situations.

Return to top of page