Ioannis

Hi swansont! Why did you close my thread? You could not afford the truth? There is nothing on my thread that could be called crackpot. Then again why there is this sector of Speculations on this forum? What do you think you are doing? I invite everyone on this forum to visit the closed thread below and to express openly his opinion: [link removed] swansont, you took the chance to close my thread because I mentioned the words "if you fail to understand the above then please close my thread". I did it just to challenge you because I know that I am right about those I mentioned. Since you did not have any arguments against my thread, you liked (your usually tactic as also to every moderator) to remove it because it was annoying in your head (unacceptable because it is true and challenges today's understanding in Physics). I am very, very sorry about you! Web Site: [link removed] Ioannis P.S. Whatever is your relation with Physics or whatever degree of Physics you may have, they are useless in front of common sense! Here you are correct! I did the same on my thread, meaning I observe something that it was overlooked since years. It is a theoretical prediction (without to violate existing laws of physics or formulations). Conclusively, it is better none to present new ideas on this forum since people like swansont will never let them grow because of his own interests. Damn, very scientific behavior! Want it or not, the truth is there and it will not be stopped from such arrogant forums and moderators. Ioannis

Hi ajb! I think you did not understand my arguments. I will respond to you a little bit later this evening. Regards Ioannis

Is it a crackpot the grouping of parameters by giving them a name and especially when these parameters are constants? OK, about the name "aether's tangential velocity", you can say whatever you like. I named it like this because I had a very special reason that I will reveal it a little bit later, if you have the courage to not close my thread. And about h=h, what is the problem there? h=h, proves that the equation is not violated. Now to prove you my claim about the validity of the new expression, please read below: [latex]h f_{ce}=h\frac{c}{\lambda_{ce}}=m_ec^2\Rightarrow h=\frac{m_ec^2}{f_{ce}}[/latex] eq.(1) [latex]and[/latex] [latex]h=r_e \frac{m_ec^2}{V_A}[/latex] eq.(2) Fine Structure Constant [latex]\alpha= \frac{2\pi KQ_e^2}{hc}\Rightarrow h=\frac{2\pi KQ_e^2}{\alpha c}[/latex] and Electron Classical Radius [latex]r_e= \frac{KQ_e^2}{m_ec^2}[/latex] Comment: I mention the Fine Structure Constant and the Electron Classical Radius to remind you that there is no crackpot anywhere. Just a grouping of constants and naming took place. Conclusively from eq.(1) and eq.(2): [latex]f_{ce}=\frac{V_A}{r_e}[/latex] eq.(3) I do not see any kind of crackpot on the above since the value of Planck constant remains the same. The above is something very obvious but it was overlooked the last 70 years at least (from the discovery of the fine structure constant). Please think very carefully (without prejudices) and use your cold logic and knowledge in Physics about the below statement and question: From the moment there is not any single violation on the above equations, eq. (3) reveals us that the frequency (corresponding to Compton's Wavelength) is related with a velocity [latex]V_A[/latex] and the geometrical radius [latex]r_e[/latex] of the Electron. It is known that the frequency of a photon (with Energy equals to the rest Energy of the Electron) is related by: [latex]f_{ce}= \frac{c}{\lambda_{ce}}[/latex] eq.(4) In eq.(4) the frequency equals the ratio between the propagation velocity of the E/M waves in vacuum and the wavelength of the propagating E/M wave (photon). The keywords to define the frequency of a wave, are: The propagation velocity (light speed) and the wavelength which point to an oscillation process. The propagation velocity is just a translational velocity which has nothing to do with oscillation. The wavelength reveals that we speak about an oscillation. Question: Eq.(3) tell us that the same frequency as calculated by eq.(4), is equal to the ration between of an unknown velocity "identity" ([latex]V_A[/latex]) and the classical electron radius. Since the classical electron radius is not directly related to a wavelength (which is actually an E/M Radius) and it is strictly a geometrical radius, then is the ([latex]V_A[/latex]) related to a propagation velocity? The answer is definitely NO! Why? Because the definition of frequency must be depended by a parameter that is related to an oscillation. This means that ([latex]V_A[/latex]) is 100% a tangential velocity. The ultimate consequence is from the moment the Planck constant is related with the previous tangential velocity and since the Planck constant is a property of the vacuum, that reveals that the vacuum or better the entire Universe has a tangential velocity equals to 348.43Km/sec. This results to an absolute rotating frame (the Universe). If you fail to understand the above then please close my thread. I am here to share my discoveries and not to play with imaginative and pointless theories. Of course I do not know or understand everything (I never will because I am just a human) and definitely the above is not crackpot, just plain logic. Those who insist that is crackpot, they fear about the revealed truth. Regards Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ Ioannis Hi Kramer! If you are Physicist or even a person with interest in Physics and honest you may realize the above is not crackpot since there is not any violation of what we know. The value of the Planck constant remains intact. Crackpot are those who change the values of the constants (with re-normalization techniques) just to feet to their ideas. I did not do that. And about some semi-indications about this tangential velocity, go to my web site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ and on the web page I have a list with some old experiments where they were trying to measure our velocity in absolute space. The column with the velocities they measured (after a later re-processing of the data) they reveal indirectly what I mentioned above. If you my thread remains open, there are more surprises under way where at least will amaze you, not impress you but because they are undoubtedly true! Regards Ioannis

swansoft, Well, please give me some time (I have some other obligations today) and I will develop my argument about your answer, but I will post a little bit later in the evening. Kind Regards Ioannis

Hi Staff! Then why is it exist in the literature? Could you tell me what is the physical size of the Electron? Why the below info exists which relates the fine structure constant with the classical electron radius, as also why is it still used in Thomson scattering (in some cases)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius From the moment the previous formulations (electron classical radius, fine structure constant and thomson scattering) exist in the literature and they are not fictioned (not of my imagination), then the challenge remains open. Regards Ioannis

Good Evening everyone! I understand that the subject of this thread looks like to challenge accepted Science. Well, I would advise caution to those who would like to provoke this thread since what you are going to read below, it is actually mainstream Physics: Planck Constant [latex]h=r_e\frac{m_ec^2}{V_A}=6.626068\bullet10^{-34}Joule/Hz[/latex] [latex]V_A=\frac{KQ_e^2}{h}=\frac{\alpha c}{2\pi}=348.43Km/sec[/latex] Fine Structure Constant [latex]\alpha=\frac{2 \pi KQ_e^2}{hc}\Rightarrow\frac{\alpha}{2 \pi}=\frac{KQ_e^2}{hc}=\frac{V_A}{c}=\frac{A.Tang. Velocity}{Prop. Velocity©}[/latex] [latex]r_e:[/latex] Electron's classical radius [latex]m_e:[/latex] Electron's mass [latex]c:[/latex] Propagation Velocity of light in vacuum [latex]V_A:[/latex] Aether's Tangential Velocity (Universe Tangential Velocity) Comment: Do not be surprised from the above since it is mainstream Physics (I did not add anything). The mystery of the fine structure constant is finally solved. It is the ratio between the Tangential Velocity of the Charge (due to its self-rotation) to the Propagation Velocity of light in vacuum. Question(1): Is it possible the [latex]V_A[/latex] to be a propagation velocity or something else? (Please use the above information for your arguments or whatever else you like) Question(2): if [latex]V_A[/latex] is Tangential Velocity, what are the consequence on cosmology and on quantum world? About the development of charge and mass, will be revealed (you can do it by yourself too) after the solution of the above Questions. Anyone may participate on this challenge and especially the Phycisists of this forum (I will be very glad to hear their opinion!). For those who are interested about my research, they may watch a brief Theory Presentation on my web site. Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ Kind Regards Ioannis Xydous Electronic Engineer Switzerland

Hi John! I am glad to hear you. Yes you are probably right about your assumptions and I understand what you mean more or less (it is a long time that I was involved with Nyquist theory). Anyway, now the sampling frequency with the measured signal if it is not appropriate filtered or the sampling frequency is not the right one (when there are signals with above the half frequency of the sampling rate) it will have by products from the mixing of frequencies. I have done this experiment some weeks ago and you can see this oscillation on the first 200 seconds when you measure the ambient field (no magnets). I would like to make another experiment with other sensors too, just to compare but at the moment I do not have much time since I must find a new job (I will be jobless from 1st of July since the company closes permanently). About the power lines the ADC-24 Data Logger (24-Bit resolution) has an option to suppress the 50Hz noise (in Analog input) which is always selected. The ADC-24 has a very low sampling speed around 10 Hz due to high resolution and product requirements. The sensor has a bandwidth of 20KHz and the analog output of the GM08 is unfiltered. The A/D conversion was selected on 666msec and the sampling rate to 1 sample/sec for the ADC-24 Data Logger. OK, let us make the following assumption for the moment: We suppose that we do not trust my measurements because it was not taken the necessary precautions. On the Exp#1 I used very reliable data from USGS National Geomagnetism Monitoring Program (link is provided on my web site). These data were Earth's surface Magnetic Field measurements from the Honolulu station. I suppose that they have a more accurate equipment there. After the theoretical analysis and after the analysis of the data (downloaded by the USGS), I discovered (I believe) that inside Earth's Magnetic Field (on the surface) there are permanent two oscillations 8.6mHz and 17.3mHz superimposed on the main oscillation of Earth's Magnetic Field. As I write on my paper, someone must search relative flat regions to uncover these signals otherwise the long period oscillation dominates and these frequencies have very small almost undetectable amplitude. Now the question is: I found these frequencies during the running of the experiment with the Nd Magnet. Is this accidental? Now if you go to my web site: www.ioannisxydous.gr and you click on the link for the experiments, you are able to download all the excel files from USGS as also that I recorded. If I am wrong then I need someone to show me, where I am wrong. It would be greatly appreciated your help on this matter. If you could apply an FFT (if you know how in Excel) on my data, I would like to have a copy if you do not mind. I am open to discuss everything about the experiments as also about the theory. Your feedback about the experiments will be greatly appreciated! (They are simple experiments and Exp#1 does not need to make a measurement or a setup. You could download data from USGS and to make your own analysis) Best Wishes Ioannis Xydous Electronic Engineer Switzerland

Dear All, I just updated my web site. There you will find a link (Aether's Detection Experiments) about the strongest indications (or evidences) about the Aether's existence, which is proved theoretically as also experimentally. Best Wishes Ioannis Xydous

For those interested on Aether, below there is an interesting experiment: Aether Experiment Regards Ioannis Xydous

Thanks michel123456 for your support, but when someone has an alternative solution on the most pressing issues in Quantum Physics and Cosmology and additionally has almost all the most important equations on-line (Web Site) then it does not need to convince anyone. Those who try to convince are the politicians. I am not a politician. I brought my work on public and I am open to discuss it with those who have spend some time to read it. Otherwise by trying to develop arguments to those who has not even visit my web site, I find it useless. As Thales said "The wisest of all is the TIME, because it discovers everything!" 600 B.C. Meaning in today's words, "Only time will tell". I do not have anything else to say. I registered to many Forums with just to have the luck (like lottery) to find some open minded probable Scientists or free researchers where they would like to discuss of what I have to offer. I think this forum is one of the many, I visited. Farewell! Ioannis (Just Nobody) P.S. The reason I filled the entire Web Site with equations is that first they are very important (give an alternative solution) and secondly to trigger people's interest (mostly those who are intuitive and not those who are expecting every word on my paper to be presented like that of the most famous peer reviewed paper). michel123456, I am very self-confident of what I discovered, but in our case does not help. The forum must make the first steps. What I had to say, I said it as also all you need to know is found on my work. For one more time, the politicians are trying to convince. Science does not need politicians. It needs mathematical proofs and experiments. Some of them are found on my paper as also indications exist also on the Internet. There are many subjects that could someone discuss on my work. From Aether to Casimir, Nuclear Force, Complete Coulomb Force, Neutrinos, Cosmology and much more. The people must not be caught on the word "Aether" since today's Science denies it (I proposed three experiments where on one of them is given the results by me, who analyzed Earth's Magnetic Field Data). The Aether's Velocity is not added to equations it was always there in the fine structure constant. All equation presented can have removed the Velocity of Aether and instead of it to have the fine structure constant in formulations (then would not be so irritating for some people. This means those people lack of scientific intuition. This is not arrogant but a fact.). Regards Ioannis

I thought that I have to write something more, but I already have written. John and other you already won! Farewell! Ioannis (Just Nobody)

Ok, John! I will not try to convince everyone! I am just looking of some feedback about what is written on my work. Again I am not a physicist. If you call the Vacuum as free space or Space-Time or Aether, what is your problem? Did those who mentioned in the past knew what is all about? One more post will come in a few minutes and then I will disappear. I am not interested in close minded (not intuitive) conversations which bring only negative aspects and resistance to think alternatively. Did you download my work or visited my web site? If not, then it does not make sense to discuss anything with you. Farewell! Ioannis (Just Nobody)

Hi michel123456! Thank you for the warnings and your kind words! Well I am looking for a real feedback negative or positive. I have some indications of where I stand, but this is not enough. If they will not be interested on my work, it is simply their problem. I am planning just a couple or just one more post on this forum. If nobody will be interested, I will let my thread to vanish into oblivion. I do not care and I am not interested to convince everyone. Those who have some elementary intuition, they will be interested to read (this is the reason I put the most important equations on my web site). The rest and the strong minded, they will try to be caught on some not good looking descriptions or comments or words, by loosing the entire "forest". Have a nice day! Ioannis Xydous Web Site: ioannisxydous.gr (Google it) Electronic Engineer Switzerland

Hi John and everyone! I just would like to give the definition of what Electricity (due to charge) is from the words of Tesla himself: http://www.svpvril.com/svpweb16.html Tesla quotes: In his 1891 A.I.E.E. lecture at Columbia College, Tesla said in pertinent part (emphasis mine): "What is electricity, and what is magnetism? "…We are now confident that electric and magnetic phenomena are attributable to the ether, and we are perhaps justified in saying that the effects of static electricity are effects of ether in motion". In his statements, Tesla was balancing the various arguments in preparation for his decision: "…Electricity, therefore, cannot be called ether in the broad sense of the term; but nothing would seem to stand in the way of calling electricity ether associated with matter, or bound ether; or, in other words, that the so-called static charge of the molecule is ether associated in some way with the molecule." Now check the below part of my work: This is one of the strongest indications that:a) The Tangential Velocity of the Aether cannot be zero and b) The charge is associated with the mass and the spinning Aether, exactly as Nikola Tesla stated. I will look forward for your comments! Ioannis Xydous Web Site: ioannisxydous.gr (Google it) Electronic Engineer Switzerland

Dear swansont and John, If you insist on this point then you won. I cannot present evidences about the null result since even these indications (not evidences) about some non zero results concluded by those who attempted to detect a probable existence of Aether, I am not able to research their method or theory. It needs much time to spend to understand the ideas in regards to the detection of Aether as also to experiment with those. If I would spend so much time to research what all of those people attempted in the past as also to provide a probable experimental similar setup, I would never develop my work. Indeed my work is based on much intuition, comparison and knowledge combinations as also and on what some people achieved or not by measuring this velocity of Aether. If it is a fact that the light speed is reduced in different directions or when a rotating Michelson interferometer shows some frequency shift on a laser beam, then there is a high probability that the Aether has a zero translational velocity and 348 Km/sec Tangential velocity. Note: Just think why all of these experiments need a rotating frame or change of direction in a light beam for something to be recorded. Does it have to do with the Aether (or space medium) rotation? (Stationary Aether but spinning) Again I have to say that I was inspired by Rhythmodynamics in regards to write and to search about the Aether as also I am not a Physicist. Nothing more and nothing else. The rest of my work is pure inspiration of myself. If the work is wrong then it is wrong. This is the reason that I would like to discuss it with open minded people of the Scientific community or free researchers. I found some links of interest about the non zero value of the Aether's Tangential velocity: http://www.helical-s...r-drift-exp.pdf Stefan Marinov Experiments http://www.helical-s...Mes_abs_vel.pdf In my paper, I have a much simpler Experiment (#1) which does not need a set up (or even laser beams or artificial rotating frames). The rotating frame is the earth itself and instead of laser beams I use the Magnetic Field lines of Earth. But the Experiment #3 which uses a Nd Magnet with a co-rotating detection coil (simulating the Exp.#1 on the Laboratory), could be the ultimate proof of Aether's existence. Maybe some day soon, I will try it. It could be easily modified without to use a rotating platform but just some partial rotation of some rads. Note: Those experimenters of the past who tried to detect the Aether, they did not have a theoretical result which shows a value about the Aether's velocity. They were searching blindly. Then how could you determine a fixed Aether velocity when the measurements have so much divergences and were taken in different time of the year? Their methodology probably cannot be the ultimate and completely reliable way to detect a probable stationary but spinning Aether. If you think by the moment I cannot explain the null results of other experiments of the past that my work does not worth to be read, then just do not read it. Ioannis Xydous (Go to Google and write my name. The web site will come first in the search list. Or check the link on my profile.) Electronic Engineer Switzerland

John very funny comics. Congratulations! I always like people who have a creative expression just because life does not get boring (I hate routine) as also makes life more interesting and purposeful. Well in the past was a theory of the luminiferous Aether, which came just out of the blue as also the Ancient Greeks also spoke about (Where the Gods live according to them). My work is 53 pages and if I would try to explain everything in detail and from where they came from, then I would never finished. My inspiration to speak and to search about the Aether was Rhythmodynamics of Yuri.N.Ivanov, although he does not have any kind of formulation about the Aether, but intuitively he supposes its existence. In my work, the Aether is present in almost all formulations and is the "soul" of the entire work. Then what could it mean according to your opinion this strange value of velocity? Why in Cahill's Analysis there are three past experiments (with the purpose to detect a probable existence of Aether) that measure this strange velocity with a value very near to that I discovered theoretically? If you ever read my work, the meaning of the fine structure constant is that at the critical distance (half of the electron's radius) in case for an electron, the Electromagnetic forces vanish and this happens due to the Aether presence, otherwise without the Aether this could not occur and the fine structure constant could not exist or it would have value equal to 1. But this conclusion would give a different or not a Universe at all . Have a nice week! Ioannis Xydous (Go to Google and write my name. The web site will come first in the search list. Or check the link on my profile.) Electronic Engineer Switzerland

John, Read Cahill's column where after re-analysis he gives the following results: 1887 Michelson & Morley 330 Km/sec 1925 Dayton 430 Km/sec 1927 Illingworth 368 Km/sec The zero value is the translational velocity of the Aether, which means it is stationary. The 348 Km/sec is the Tangential velocity of the Spinning Aether (but stationary, no translational motion). All the experiments for the detection of Aether which took place in the past are based on the measurement of the speed of light in different directions (if you expand your thought it is like they measure the speed of light in a rotating frame). The truth starts to be revealed by the Fine Structure Constant The above can be found on the link of the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....ucture_constant Now see how can be re-arranged the above equation: It is exactly the result found initially in eq. (8.2) or the eq. (66.1) in my work where there the ration is expressed as ratio between the two velocities (Aether's and that of speed of light) As you may understand this discovery was hidden under our feet! (Again remember about the influence of the 100 years which Science took the partially correct but complex way which cannot give the real truth. This is the reason that the Unified Field or a theory of Everything is almost impossible using this complexity like the multi-dimensional String Theories which are completely impractical and in the sphere of fantasy.) The influence of Quantum Physics and especially that of Special Relativity made Science to not even dare to think differently, although the truth was very near to it. John, it does not make sense to disagree to any of the above since any kind of new theory or proposal needs to be read first, then if there is something worthy, the reader must do his own research. I am researching at least the last 12 years by experimenting, reading hundreds of patents and Scientific papers and using my strong scientific intuition, knowledge on different fields by combining even unrelated theories and sciences, where an idea coming out of the blue, it gave me the opportunity to develop the paper "The secret of the Electron-Positron pair". The start was very difficult and the theory initially had a completely different and almost wrong formulation. I spent a lot of months and thousands of hours to develop my work. Something that I forgot to write about is that the fine structure constant excludes the existence of fractional Charge which points to nonexistence of Quarks (page 21 of my work). They use fractional charge and other parameters to explain the nuclear force properties of the protons and neutrons. All of these paradoxes are solved by accepting that the speed of light varies with distance, opposing the second postulation of Einstein. I do not claim it only myself, but the fine structure constant has exactly this interpretation. The fine structure constant which was thought a mystery, is not a mystery any more but the ultimate truth. Take it or leave it! Science was blind or was playing the blind at least the last 100 years! (The same happens with politics. Pure and real Science does not exist today. A large percentage is manipulated by the interest of Business.) You will not find something similar in the entire Internet which explains and answers with simple formulations to the most pressing issues of Quantum Physics and Cosmology. If I am correct about my theory then I predict a second global crisis, the Crisis in Science. But until then please do not shoot the messager. Who am I to claim something like that? Just NOBODY! Best of Luck Ioannis Xydous (Go to Google and write my name. The web site will come first in the search list. Or check the link on my profile.) Electronic Engineer Switzerland

OK John, here you are! See attachment (1): It is a print screen of the data table on Chapter 5. Ioannis Xydous (Go to Google and write my name. The web site will come first in the search list. Or check the link on my profile.) Electronic Engineer Switzerland

You have to go at the Chapter 5 of the link: http://www.cellularuniverse.org/AA1Aether&Cosmology.htm There you can see from year 1881 to 2001 several attempts to measure a probable existence of Aether. John, how do you expect to have directly verifiable results via my theory since is something that challenges Physics from its foundations? I wrote how my theory can be directly disproved and this is only by proving wrong the Complete Casimir Force. Try! ( I also do not know 100% that it could be correct. But when you reach to any conclusion and you would like to discuss, then we see.) Aether theories are discarded since years and are not official accepted by today's Physics. My work, I believe has a clear content and straight which can be read by everyone (You do not need to have graduated from a University) and from the other side, I present the Experiment #1 which does not need a set up, where by analyzing (using your EXCEL S/W and downloading Data from the address: http://geomag.usgs.gov/data/) Earth's Magnetic Field Data, someone could reveal the Aether frequencies (Main Frequency and due to Coriolis effect. Total two frequencies.). You have to read the corresponding chapter about the Aether detection in my work. The rest is your resistance to be open to something new for whatever reasons. I am also not going to convince everyone since I find it stupid. Those who can understand, having also some intuition, at least they will read my work. If they comment it, is another thing. Best Wishes Ioannis Xydous (Go to Google and write my name. The web site will come first in the search list.) Electronic Engineer Switzerland P.S. Do not waste time to read my work, if you think so, but I have to warn you the content is related to a theory which describes everything in creation (Unified Field Force: Theory of Everything) where central stage has the Aether. When appears a new theory needs some evidences that is correct. I do not have these evidences but some indications. The reason to discuss my work in a Physics Forum is just to receive some feedback and to see where I stand. If I am wrong then I am wrong. But it is completely non-scientific and not serious your direct proposal to give you verifiable predictions, without to have even read my work. If I knew that I am 100% correct, then I would not come to such kind of forums as also think how resistant is the scientific community against a person like me who I am NOBODY (not belonging to scientific community) and just a simple Electronic Engineer (from a Technological Institution). Thales "..The wisest thing in the entire creation is the Time because it discovers everything.." 600 B.C . What I know for sure is that my name is Ioannis and not TIME. Hi swansont! You are right about "proved". But for them at that time is a "proof" even if we do not like it today. If you are a PhD Physicist in Atomic Physics according to your profile, then you are the suitable person on this thread. I wish you will show some interest and to read my work! In any case, thanks everyone! Ioannis Xydous (Go to Google and write my name. The web site will come first in the search list.) Electronic Engineer Switzerland

Hi John! Please read first my work, it is not so difficult to follow or visit the web site to take a taste. OK, since you are challenging me (in a good sense), I will give you some indications: There are a lot of experiments made in the past that proved an existence of Aether, although official Science never admitted (They are not innocent and keep in mind that an influence can hold more than 100 years, even if the information is partially true.). After re-analysis by Cahill of some past Aether Experiments, you will see that the value is near to what I have calculated (3.48E5 m/sec or 348 Km/sec). Go to this Link:http://www.cellularuniverse.org/AA1Aether&Cosmology.htm The Planck length and all Planck Units are wrong (concluded by me and partially by Integral team), concluded the Integral Project Team, where they support that the Quantum length is below the 1E-48m, which makes all Quantum Gravity theories invalid, including some of the String Theories which are based on the known Planck Length (1.616E-35m). Go to this Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630111540.htm Recently searching on Internet I discovered a paper of Wilhelm Weber written back in the year 1847, where his experiments with currents led him to the discovery of the Complete Coulomb Force as it is in my paper. This is one of the strongest indications although his paper was not adapted by the today's mainstream Physics. I have the link on my LAPTOP, if you are interested. The Coulomb Force according to a lecture of Feynmann, by finding accidental a chapter on the Internet, he speaks about the deviation of the Coulomb law around the distance equal to Compton Wavelength for a particle. I have this link too, but not on my Desktop PC where I write to you now. The ultimate known experiment is pair production (Electron-Positron) using a heavy nucleus and an approaching gamma photon with 1,022MeV Energy at least (threshold). How the photon disappears and gives its position to a pair of matter? How a photon could disappear? Is this not related of the vanish of its Wave properties? From the moment you have a theoretical stationary nucleus or Electron and the only thing that moves on that Setup is the gamma photon, is not logical to say that the photon disappeared due to the Interaction with the Strong Field of the stationary charge (opposing force against the motion of the photon) which resulted to the gradient decrease of the photon velocity (or frequency or momentum it is the same thing at the end) and ultimately to its vanish (zero frequency or zero velocity or zero momentum) and appearance of the matter and Anti-matter? This is exactly the point where Einstein went wrong (meaning below the distance equal to the Compton Wavelength for a present particle. This distance is different for an Electron and a Proton since they have different Compton wavelengths). Experiments by Ioannis Xydous: a) Succesful measurements of the speed of light inside special materials (even down to 800 m/sec!!!) , b) I created motion with a special Electromagnetic device (table top experiment) which does not have moving parts. The device covered a distance of 1 meter with a velocity of 0.5 cm/sec. With this experiment as also in theory I proved with my own calculations the validity of the acceleration formula of Yuri.N.Ivanov which makes both theories compatible. Challenge: The simplest test of my theory is someone to check if the Complete Casimir Force is correct (it is simpler than the Nuclear Force since it is very difficult to find reliable and accurate information about the Nuclear Force. Much confusing information exist on the Internet.) or the Nuclear Force between two protons. If the Complete Casimir Force is wrong or the Complete Coulomb Force (today they use some modified Coulomb formulas like that of Yukawa for distances below the Compton wavelength for a particle) is wrong, the most probably everything is wrong in my work. I need the feedback from the scientific community, where until today never had. Best Wishes Ioannis Xydous (Go to Google and write my name. The web site will come first in the search list.) Electronic Engineer Switzerland

Good Evening everyone! My theory is called "The secret of the Electron-Positron pair" (the paper can be found on the Link of my profile or by Googling my name: Ioannis Xydous. The secret is related to the appearance of a repulsive force (which at the end as you could read through my work is related with the Casimir Force) at very small distance (2.27fm and below) between the Electron and Positron. From the moment the pair possess opposite charges, we expected the Coulomb Force to be always attractive. The discovery of the repulsive below the 2.27fm, resulted to the revelation of existence of Vortices which are directly related with the Aether. The conclusions of this is the following: Like Vortices or like Anti-Vortices at critical distances, create a Repulsive Force Opposite spinning Vortices (Vortex and Anti-Vortex) at critical distances, create an Attractive Force The speed of light below the distance equal to the Compton's wavelength for a present particle is reduced, opposing the second postulation of Einstein (Einstein is correct above the distance equal to the Compton's wavelength for a present particle) The reduction of the light speed below the distance 2.12E-12m for a stationary Electron, revealed the existence of a massless Vortex (cannot be measured in our real world directly) which is the condensed Aether trapped inside the mass of the Electron This massless stationary Vortex has a Tangential Velocity equal to 3.48E5 m/sec (Aether's Tangential Velocity) As you will read on my work on the chapter General Theory of Aether, there it is revealed the connection of the Planck constant with the Aether as also the connection of the Charge with the Aether Every created matter in the Universe is born spinning with the Tangential Velocity equal to 3.48E5 m/sec (Aether's Tangential Velocity). Spinning created mass points to the existence of Charge (Neutrinos have imaginary Charge) The above findings revealed new discoveries: Variable speed of light with distance from a stationary charge (opposing the second postulation of Einstein) Complete Coulomb Force (where the known Coulomb Force below the 1E-12m fails) Nuclear Strong Force between two protons with exact Force and Energy diagrams Complete Casimir Force Properties of the Universe (Age, deceleration (opposing to what is today believed), dimensions, Temperature) Quantization of length, time, frequency, mass Disproving the Planck Units and introduction of their new values Primordial Black Hole Mass exact calculation Dirac's Magnetic Monopole (Rotating potential due to the Aether presence) Three easy Aether's Detection Experiments without to use Laser beams. The first one does not even need a set up, but just on line Earth's Magnetic Field data The connection between the Aether and Neutrinos Exact calculation of the imaginary mass of all Neutrinos and the prediction of a fourth Neutrino (Proton Neutrino). Neutrinos are massless (as seen from our material world (real)) longitudinal half waves which are able to surpass the light speed only inside a Field. When they exit from a Field they travel with the minimum velocity equal to the speed of light. This discovery explains the change of flavour in Neutrino properties Complete Magnetic Force (using the discovery of the Magnetic Monopoles) Unified Field Force: Gravitational, Electromagnetic, Nuclear and Weak Forces are described by a single Formula Metaphysical implications: Aether's connection with the Psyche (Soul) All of the above and more are proved using simple mathematical formulations which can be followed by a student or graduate of a High School (No need to have a University degree). The only thing is needed additionally is much interest in Physics, knowing the Basics like: Coulomb, Gravitational and Magnetic Forces, the phenomenon of matter creation and its basic formulation, fine structure constant, Planck constant and Coulomb Charge formulas, Casimir Force. These are the basics that must anyone understand to be able to read my work. I will look forward for your comments (Do not reply on the above before you read my work since it will not make sense.) and I would be grateful if you could forward my work to an open minded Physicist, just to receive comments from the Scientific community too! Best Wishes Ioannis Xydous (Go to Google and write my name. The web site will come first in the search list.) Electronic Engineer Switzerland

Hi All! As you already have seen, the link to the web site is banned! Just Google my name and you will find it! Regards Ioannis Xydous Electronic Engineer Switzerland

Hi everyone! I just registered to this forum. Please you are welcome to visit my Web site: <link removed by mod> Aether's Tangential Velocity New expression for the Planck constant Unified Field Force Complete Coulomb Force Complete Casimir Force Nuclear Strong Force between two protons (using constant speed of light) Aether's detection using on line Earth's Magnetic Field Data Electron-Neutrino imaginary mass And many others like: Dirac's Magnetic Monopole, Universe Force, e.t.c I would be very happy for serious responses and comments by the members of this forum! Best Wishes Ioannis Xydous Web Site: <link removed> Electronic Engineer Switzerland