David Tombe

From Natural Philosophy Wiki
Revision as of 15:57, 14 May 2019 by DTombe (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frederick David Tombe
Frederick David Tombe
Born 1958
Residence Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
Nationality British
Scientific career
Fields Electromagnetism, Centrifugal Force, Coriolis Force, Aether, Gravity

Frederick David Tombe is a physics and applied mathematics graduate who attended Queen's University Belfast from 1978-1982.

Scientific Research in his own Words

I started an undergraduate B.Sc. degree course in physics at Queen's University Belfast in early October 1978 and I took astronomy and applied mathematics as subsidiary subjects. Before October 1978 had ended I had been introduced in the physics course to Einstein's special theory of relativity as well as being taught that centrifugal force is not a real force. In the same month, on the astronomy course, I was introduced to the concept of stellar aberration. This made me immediately skeptical about Einstein's special theory of relativity on the grounds that it seemed to conflict with the phenomenon of stellar aberration. Stellar aberration analysis applies Galilean vector addition to the velocity of light, even though relativity is founded upon the principle that Galilean addition of velocities does not apply to the speed of light. I became even more skeptical when I realized that the symmetry inherent in the special theory of relativity necessarily contained the absurd implication that two clocks in relative motion would both go slower than each other. This is referred to as the "Clock Paradox" and unbeknownst to me at the time, this matter had already been raised by Professor Herbert Dingle among others. I realized though that to oppose Einstein's special theory of relativity would mean having to oppose its foundation principle which is that the speed of light is a universal constant which doesn't obey Galilean addition of velocities, and opposing this foundation principle would have seemed to be at variance with the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. The famous Michelson-Morley experiment had measured the speed of light from terrestrial sources six months apart and found no interference fringes that could be due to the Earth's 30km/sec orbital motion around the Sun. The official conclusion is that light is always measured to have the same speed irrespective of the speed of the source, and if we accept this, then Einstein's special theory of relativity follows automatically from Pythagoras's theorem. At that time back in 1978, I was unaware that alternative explanations had existed in the past and that they involved a physical medium for the propagation of light known as the luminiferous aether. And so unsure how to resolve the conundrum, I concluded that the mystery could only be solved by obtaining a deeper understanding of the physical nature of light. Reading ahead I saw that the linkage between optics and electromagnetism was dealt with in the more advanced courses in future years, and that they would require a considerable degree of proficiency in vector analysis and calculus, and so I therefore took more interest in the applied maths courses in order to prepare myself in advance for when I would eventually embark on one of these advanced courses in electromagnetism. Meanwhile during the period 1979 to 1981, in conjunction with my applied maths courses, I took a considerable interest in gyroscopes and planetary orbits.

I started electromagnetism in earnest in late 1981, and due to my new found knowledge of vector field theory I was able to see that the modern textbook derivation of Maxwell's displacement current was totally unsatisfactory. James Clerk Maxwell was a nineteenth century Scottish physicist who is credited with having collectively formulated all the laws of electromagnetism, and in doing so having united electricity, magnetism, and optics into a single topic. During the winter of 1981-82 I was struggling with three aspects in electromagnetism which appeared to have no satisfactory explanations. I was asking the lecturers these three questions,

  1. What is the v in F = qvxB measured relative to?
  2. Where can we see a formal proof of the theory of conservation of energy in relation to magnetic force? I never doubted that energy is conserved in electromagnetism, but I wanted to see a formal theory in order to get a better understanding of the nature of the electromagnetic forces. Apart from Lenz's law which touches on the issue, no such conservation theory seemed to exist in the textbooks.
  3. The textbook derivation of Maxwell's displacement current is highly dubious. The textbook derivation of displacement current does not derive the rotational term which is used in the derivation of the EM wave equation, and even at that, the irrotational term which is being derived is being added as an extra term to Ampère's Circuital Law, rather than being extracted from within it.

There was a tendency for the lecturers to say that it would all become clear when it is taken in conjunction with Einstein's theories of relativity, but I wanted to first know how these matters were resolved before relativity was invented, bearing in mind that Maxwell's equations were published before Einstein was born. I began to question the lecturers as to whether there is anybody of renown in the physics world who questions the veracity of Einstein's relativity and one of them brought my attention to an article in the Nature journal concerning Professor Herbert Dingle's objections on the grounds of the clock paradox. During that winter of 1981-82, I came across one American textbook, which in a brief paragraph, drew my attention to the fact that Maxwell himself had derived his displacement current differently, and that he had believed in the existence of an aether, and that he had understood displacement current as being an actual physical displacement in the aether. This drove me to obtain material on Maxwell's original nineteenth century papers in the hope that the solutions to the problems mentioned above might be found there, and indeed they all were. Maxwell believed in the existence of a dielectric sea of tiny molecular vortices that are made partly out of aether and partly out of ordinary matter. In March 1982, I concluded that the luminiferous aether of the nineteenth century really does exist, and that it is a dense electric sea of electrons and positrons. This solution then had the additional benefit of solving the riddle of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. The Earth's gravity entrains a region of the electric sea within its gravitosphere, while orbiting the Sun at 30km/sec. The Michelson-Morley experiment was set up for the purpose of detecting an aether wind as the Earth orbits the Sun, however the gravitationally entrained region of electric sea means that the experiment was shielded from the aether wind, which is why it produced a negative result. This negative result didn't confuse Michelson himself, but it seemed to unnecessarily confuse many other people in the years that followed. In May 1982 I asked Professor Benno Moiseiwitsch if he knows anybody who disagrees with Einstein's theories and he told me about Professor Richard A. Waldron who was the Head of Mathematics at the nearby Ulster Polytechnic in Jordanstown. I wrote out a preliminary report of my conclusions and posted it to Professor Waldron. He invited me down to discuss it in June 1982 and at the meeting he informed me about a book by Professor Herbert Dingle called "Science at the Crossroads" which explains all about the omerta in the scientific community. He also explained to me that anti-relativists are divided into two camps and that I am in the aether camp, whereas he is in the Ritzian camp. The Ritzian camp don't believe in the aether but instead have an alternative way of explaining the constancy of the speed of light, which I don't agree with. But although Prof. Waldron and I parted company, he left me with a list of credible anti-relativists some of whom were in the aether camp. When I saw the title "A Magnetospheric Aether Drag Theory" by Dr. Carl A. Zapffe, I went to the Polytech library immediately to obtain a copy. Here was a metallurgist from Baltimore, Maryland, USA, advocating more or less what I was advocating only he lacked any structural details. I knew I had to contact this man soon.

I graduated in July 1982 with a B.Sc. degree in Physics and Applied Mathematics, and by the 2nd August I was at Dr. Zapffe's summer residence in Minnesota. I spent a very memorable week with Dr. Zapffe and his family and he provided me with plenty of literature which opened the doors to a worldwide network of anti-relativists. Among these were Dr. Stanisław Kosowski who I visited in Warsaw the following March during the martial law period, and Dr. JP Wesley, an American living in the Black Forest in West Germany, who I visited on the same trip. From the discussions I learned many aspects of the controversy but I found nobody willing to agree to the electron-positron sea idea. In the following few years, I did a bit of physics teaching, while at the same time being heavily involved in correspondence with anti-relativists worldwide regarding the controversy. In 1985, I decided to completely quit the physics scene altogether as nothing was being achieved. It wasn't until 2004, with the advent of the internet, that I continued the research from where I had left off in the mid-1980s. This was because of the discovery of Dr. Menahem Simhony in Jerusalem following a google search on electron-positron aether. I was amazed to discover that Dr. Simhony was also advocating a dense background medium of electrons and positrons, but as a result of having used a totally different but equally valid approach, based within his own specialized field of Solid State Physics as opposed to the electromagnetic arguments which had influenced me. Dr. Simhony had even taken the matter further to the extent of suggesting a structure for the electron-positron medium. He was advocating that these electrons and positrons should be arranged into a cubic lattice array. While at first I gave this cubic lattice idea serious consideration, I later concluded that it was an impossible structure for the purposes of explaining the electromagnetic forces, and it hence needed to be modified. After further scrutiny of Maxwell's 1861 paper "On Physical Lines of Force" which I obtained from the Royal Society at Carlton House Terrace in London, I concluded that the correct array should be a double helix alignment, and in 2006 I began on-line publishing, mainly in the General Science Journal, Episteme Forum, and ZP Energy. Despite my rejection of Dr. Simhony's cubic lattice structure, it should not be overlooked that Dr. Simhony supplied me with the first authentic derivation of the famous equation E = mc2 which is normally attributed to Einstein. Dr. Simhony showed how this equation is actually just Newton's equation for the speed of a wave in an elastic solid and how it can be applied to electron-positron pair production and annihilation in conjunction with the all-pervading electron-positron sea. I carried this aspect of Simhony's work into my own double helix theory, and on further study of Maxwell's 1861 paper, I realized that Maxwell himself had used this equation in Part III (equation 132). By 2007 I had it all blended together into a concise aether theory. Centrifugal force, despite the fact modern physicists deny it is a real force, is actually crucial to the understanding of magnetic repulsion. Fine-grained centrifugal force is the source of pressure in the medium for the propagation of light, and it's the source of the equation E = mc2. But since it is a consequence of absolute rotation, it challenges the modern paradigm that everything is relative and that there are no absolutes, and so it has been reduced to a fictitious illusion in the literature. Centrifugal force in fact holds the key to the dismantling of the entire Einstein myth.

Abstracts