Apparently the author didn't like the "if" statement about wavelength being proportional to sqrt(A+k)... critical of a young Einstein.

A is the elastic aether force, a priori a constant which we have to determine empirically, and k the (variable) strength of the magnetic field

Would seem to me that if A is constant, it deters from the "intelligent" nature of an aetheric node.

According to further reading from the author, the Unified Force Theory provides for 2 charge "manifestations", so charge is distributed as charge squared.

I like the use of "manifestations" -)

So far so good, two spinning opposing vortices, but like anything with momentum, that inherent momentum is subject to external biases... (RLC // Spring-Mass-Damper)

Seems aether has to be pinned between two high density fields/masses to really get a grasp for high stress/strain elastic behavior, otherwise it flows like a sheet in the wind... A shearing high amplitude bias near 0 K, could produce vortex separation, which would most likely result in either light generation as entropy or a tear in 3D and thus time. Doing so, in a controlled environment at higher temperatures should allow for "conduit" formation between the two receding vortices. As a vortex elongates into a tube, ajacent charge pairs (around the vortex "mouth") would then participate in the process...

It appears to me that the aether behaves like a fine migrative as well as electrophoretic medium that can also gel like an electrorheological fluid in a static field.

A is intrinsically a dominant sub-elastic component of k (the elasticity of aether underlies all other fields), then at a particular magnetic field strength both should exhibit similar elastic behaviour.

A behaves as k does, relative energy density dictates charge flow, but an artificial magnetic field warps charge flow and even more so when charge set separation occurs.

Anyway, I'm rambling...

---

JustaDude, I know you can explain that better...or rather, more easily to comprehend...my head just started bleeding from somewhere...getting dizzy


I know, I sideline a lot...

Just seems to me that the proposed magnetic field around a conductor experiment needs to be refined a bit. We're either looking at subatomic scale or macroscale. At subatomic scale the elasticity of a magnetic field should blur with that of the aetheric unit field. And then magnetism gets superceded by much stronger single node vortex forces.

At the macro scale, magnetic interaction at a distance interacts with the aetheric "grid" field which has different elasticity. The aether in general is soft with respect to its multinode response, but each node has its own "tenser" characteristics.

These studies of the aetheric "grid" involve imposing a geometric field upon a naturally fractal distribution. Experimental magnetic fields are usually well structured, to allow for characterisation of magnetic flux and field. The reaction from the aether is to locally align and conform with the magnetic field.

So aether reacts to a magnetic field and locally "densifies" in response. Being prestressed, any elastic measure misses the "preloading" lighter interactions...

The aether unit in itself is subordinate to ordered structures which resonate with similarly ordered external biases, so vortex shaped magnetic fields should produce more interactivity. Studying an aether field electrostatically results in geometric distortions which are created in the image of what the experimenter is seeking to exploit. Looking at gravitational similies sidelines all kinds of other interesting possibilities.