The model I used for my particle was cooked up by a couple of lads from CERN thought it might ease the shock, assuming someone's following the rational. My prefered and best fitting model goes thus; a tiny highly compressed drop of aether would trap a few photons or EM wave by refraction setting up a standing wave not unlike that of ones electron in its orbit/energyshell/valence , spinning of course and obviously it would explain the mass increase as the 'particle' approached light speed,obviously it would bring the frequency back down or maintain the correct frequency. a complex wave if you like,
Tesla once said If you want to understand the mysteries of the universe think in terms of vibrations and waves, or words to that effect and of course Einstien when asked how does it feel to be a genius ? he replied, I don't know ask Tesla.
way too easy isn't it way too simple, but it work's
I'll try and explain why all those genuinely brilliant minds are still in the dark , adding bits to a dead theory to try and make it work, and failing
It's the observer , our brain's data analysis systems, you probably think that noisy bit in the front of your head is running the show ,its not , all decisons you make are either purely instinctive, you've done it before so do it again , or it takes seven seconds for the pattern crunching machine in the back of you head to process an option , meanwhile it comunicates the decisions by body language and other means to others around , small children are fluent and aware of this communication, as are animals most of the time. I spotted and tested this back in 1997. Five or six years ago I heard a psycologist on the radio, he explained that he had taught himself some simple(very!) body language, his subjects were asked to make a random left/right decision " he was able with 100% accuracy exactly seven seconds" before the subject hit the left or right button. I smiled and my thoughts were, Thats rather long for a random , stable conditions no win or lose of course the full seven seconds, what does he mean exactly? 7 , 7.0 or 7.00 ? (my experiments were opportunistic and in the field) and the i laughed as i pictured his hands poised over the steering wheel of the car. A couple of years later I heard about an experiment , subjects had been convinced of a fact ,then shown the evidence that it was wrong, which they accepted, then they proceeded to answer questions as if the original fact was true. All adults running one of the four basic programs I've identified, do this. Kids run a different system, as they build up evidence they put together a jig-saw puzzle ,if a new piece does not fit the presumed picture, they break it up and build a different picture. The psyc's describe this as a 'plastic ' system , Back in 1997 and for a few years after, I was running the small child program , the learning curve was near vertical, no anger no fear and calm in situations that my peers would have been panicked into stupid responses, although they would have been considered totally understandable, and I had pre- warning of what was coming , awfully usefull.
Any way , yes I realize science has no evidence for an aeither, but I do, and it's peer reviwed, also i can explain why an electron gets from one side of a chloroplast to the other without colliding with the stuff in between, and demonstrate it on my kitchen table, dozens of people have seen me do it and none doubt the evidence but its not for publication.
sos for the spelling stuff to do, hugs and cuddles, geoff.