Aether Tectonics Exploration of a new way of looking at space and matter and light by Ross Tessien
The other side of the fence
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia in the Southern Autumn of 1996

Wed, 24 Apr 1996

One of the most profound events in my life was seemingly trivial. And yet it later combined with statements of others and eventually led to a methodology for discovery that I use on a daily basis. If you wish to discover new things, then you must, prior to each discovery, set aside your pre conceptions regarding the technology. If I tell you the earth is not flat, you do not need to stretch your mind very far to understand what I mean. But if you lived in a time before this was common knowledge, then your being able to understand this concept would not be so easy.

Just imagine if the leading physicists today told us that the earth, as it turns out, really is flat and our images from space have all been made through a region of space where the light rays completely curve around and it only appears to be round. If you really try to understand that as a fact, then you will understand how difficult it must have been for those in the days of Copernicus and Galileo to accept that despite gravity creating perfectly level lakes everywhere, the earth was round.

Imagine what that must have been like. Engineers of the day in their construction of the monuments must have been routinely using make shift canals of water around a perimeter foundation to level their foundations for important buildings. And now, if the world was round, the water in their "water level" was not flat. Did that mean it was not level and that they should build their buildings leaning inward to get them vertical and parallel? The answer of course is no and yes respectively, but not of a magnitude that they could measure. The concepts in this book, are like that, upside down and I hope, mind bending.

To look beyond the known, one needs, as I said, to set aside ones pre conceptions and look for ways to change ones view of what is around. Sometimes there are obvious things one might try. This is like the step by step progression. But important discoveries are more often made a different way. They are more often made by looking in a completely new and seemingly incorrect direction before anyone else thought to look there. Newton's discoveries and Einstein's discoveries were of this sort. All of us do this but not with such dramatic results. Let me tell you about how I learned to do this and hopefully what I mean will come clear.

When I was around 8 years old, my parents had bought me a "Super Ball" which is a ball made of a rubber that returned most of its kinetic energy to the ball when it bounced and so they bounced higher than any other balls on the toy store shelves. They were brand new and cost more too, and I had waited long to get one.

While playing in my front yard, the ball every now and then would bounce to the side of the driveway into the bushes from where I would retrieve it. In the flowers and shrubs there was some ivy, and at the property line, a fence through which the ball could not go. One time, the ball went into the shrubs seemingly like all the others and I searched for it as usual. However, I didn't find it so I searched again expanding the area. Again failure. (Mind you this is all happening in an area about 10 feet by 20 feet).

I repeated this about ten times at which point I was completely frustrated and fearful I had lost my cherished ball. About that time, my father came out of the house and asked what was wrong. I explained that the ball had bounced no more than a foot high into the bushes right there and would he help me find it as I had searched a dozen times and had not been able to find it yet.

He agreed to help me look, but to my surprise he did not lift a single leaf where the ball had to be. He walked up the driveway and started around the fence. I told him the ball could not be over there because it bounced low and could not get through the fence. One or two minutes later he handed me my ball with the words, "If you cannot find something where you have already looked, look somewhere else."

In my adult life I considered this, unknowingly, in another fashion. I wondered how I could prove something like time travel or faster than the speed of light space craft was impossible. I was trying to lay out the ground work for how I could know what things or projects were solvable and which were not. From this work I learned that it is not possible to prove something is impossible. The best we can do is demonstrate one way after another that we will not succeed at accomplishing a given task. This neither proves nor disproves the viability of any concept. At best, it only establishes a level of difficulty or creativity that would be required if something were to possible.

For this reason, and because my goal in life is to design and to discover new technologies, I decided that it would be best to give up on the concept of saving time by eliminating things that were "impossible". In its place, I decided to assume that all things are possible, literally. Now, if there were such a thing as something that was intrinsically impossible, despite my assumption I would still not find it. If on the other hand, I was considering something most people believe to be impossible but which is completely fine as far as nature is concerned, then I stand a chance of asking the right question to determine how to do it. Now I wouldn't say I would spend very much time on things I think are likely beyond my ability to determine, but I have considered the concept of time travel. I find no validity to the concept either for my body or for a positron in quantum mechanics. I do, however, allow the concept to exist in my mind.

Likewise I have wondered how one might build a transporter like those in Star Trek. On that note, there is a way in principal to do it. You can now move individual atoms with an atomic force microscope. We also have a technology in manufacturing called stereolithography which takes information directly from a computer design data file and constructs a device layer by layer by depositing material until the desired object is finished and then you reach in and remove the new product from the machine.

So, you could remove each atom from a person up on the ship and record exactly where it came from and what type of atom it was. Then, you could down load that information to a computer on the surface of the planet, or across the galaxy. And then finally, another atomic force microscope could work with a bunch of ultra pure baskets of atoms to reconstruct that person or thing, one atom at a time. This is in principal possible today. In practice, of course, it would take much longer than building and launching a rocket to get the same job done. Not to mention the lack of volunteers for being decoded.

So, "Impossible", then, is a word used by those who do not know how, and are afraid that to try and not to succeed would be to fail. I do not consider that failure exists either. All we do on this planet is to gather memories, gain wisdom, and reduce the number of things about which we are ignorant. We are all ignorant about much more than we are not. To me, knowledge of physical things and of spiritual things are equally good. When a physicist tells me that nature is the way it is and it is up to us to accept it as it is beyond our ability to understand, I simply assume that this physicist is looking on the wrong side of the fence, considers finding the ball impossible, and is making up an excuse to explain why he/she has accepted defeat.

I chose to look on the other side of the Unified Field Theory fence, but first, I had to find where the fence was. This took twenty years and a chance review of atomic physics that awoke a long dormant concept that had always bothered me, attractive forces.

The next incident that helped me to shape my approach to problems was when my older brother made the statement that one can view anything at all as either good or bad, beautiful or ugly. I objected to this concept stating that there were things that were intrinsically beautiful to which he retorted, find one. I brought out a picture of Lake Tahoe. This is a jewel of a lake in the California Sierra Mountains. The picture post card showed the lake looking out from a hillside with pine trees and beautiful Spanish moss all framed, I thought, quite nicely. He took the picture and began with the accent of a Russian travel agent;

"Look at these scraggly trees, they are ugly and have no needles to speak of. And look here at this parasite moss hanging from the limbs sucking the life from the tree. What a horrible and pathetic tree this is. In Russia we have beautiful trees, perhaps you would like to import some of them and get rid of these ugly trees. And look at the buildings on the far end of the lake. They dump their sewage into the lake and this lake is all polluted and you even have dead bodies floating down in the depths of this lake. No, no, in Russia this simply would not do".

(At the time they did dump treated sewage into the lake, a practice which was halted long ago. And, there are still bodies that remain preserved in the depths of the lake due to the very cold temperature of the water. Once in a great while after a storm, a body will be found with clothes from the 1920's or whatever the era that the unfortunate individual fell into the water or the boat sank. I love the Tahoe basin and live nearby. It is a wonderful place to visit for summer boating and for winter snow skiing with Squaw Valley my personal favorite ski resort. I hope this keeps the Tahoe tourist bureau off my case for the above comments!)

Well, then my brother changed his voice and went on to describe how beautiful the same Spanish moss was and how clear the waters were and on and on. The point was, that you could make a case for nearly anything you wanted. This is why we have so many lawyers in our country because for some reason we are willing to listen to these contrived tales.

Any way, with this knowledge I got out of a lot of trouble as a child by using reverse psychology before I should have known it existed. I was not a good kid, but I can say that my explanations were creative. My mother always said I should become a lawyer, but I never really liked the profession.

The third thing that I think really cemented the approach I use came when as an engineer, I was at a meeting with the owners of the corporation and another engineer. The task presented was to design a new kind of a connector which would yield better impedance control for high speed computer interconnect. The owner of the corporation began by saying that he wanted to do something like .........this.......... Well, we listened for a while, and then I opened my mouth trying to show how what he had laid out wouldn't work because it ruined the impedance here and there. He cut me off mid statement and said; "I don't care about things or reasons that what I have presented will not work. I want to hear ideas and I want to learn of approaches that will. We are going to design this connector, period."

Well, fifteen minutes later we had laid the ground work for the new connector design. All we needed was to lay out bizarre ideas and to consider the things that might help. I think that was the last time I ever jumped in saying something couldn't work without at the very least biting my tongue first. Still, I find that the inclination is there and I have to continually ward it off. Most physicists reading this to this point having made it past the introduction likely have some holes in their tongues already. I can only say get ready for more.

I believe this is natural for all of us, but it is also the single greatest reason most fail to find new ways of doing things. It is far easier to demonstrate how or why a concept will not work than it is to happen across enough little details to show how it can. But remember from the above comments on Tahoe, that just because you can lay out a case for why something will not work, does not mean that it won't. You can never prove a single thing to be impossible. You likely do not believe this right now but, but I assure you it is absolutely correct. There are many things "WE" can not do, but nothing that we can say that "NATURE" can not do. We can only say what we have observed nature do.

By this I do not mean to imply that it would be fruitful to go look for a lake high in the sierras made of anti water (water made of anti hydrogen and anti oxygen). While there could be some spatial anomaly that creates such a lake for a time, odds are very much against your finding it. Besides, if you did you would explode when you jumped in. I suppose some could turn that glib comment into another mechanism for the extinction of the dinosaurs, the appearance in our universe on earth of an anti lake!

As you read this book, you are going to immediately be inclined to focus on one point or another that is important to you and you think will force my concepts to fail. You will have years of concepts and ammunition with which to succeed at that task. If you read this book with that frame of mind, you will learn nothing, and you may as well consider this a comic strip and have a good laugh. The point is that you indeed will find many ways to "demonstrate" how what you think I said will fail. My concepts do not fit with our current views. But they do fit with our observations once you understand what my comments really mean.

For those of you who are well versed in physics, I would recommend that you consider this a comic strip and to laugh at the "errors" I will make according to accepted theory. In doing so, you will have a reason to continue. I promise you no shortage of upside down interpretations right to the point of considering why your arm doesn't fall off when it hangs by your side. The humor is in how contradictory these concepts are, and how logical and yet incompatible both sides are.

Evidence exists for both views, mathematical calculations exist for both points of view (because the math is the same), and photos and experience exist for both points of view. The humor is in how opposite the phenomena are that are perceived to have taken place. For example, my view requires Black Holes eventually to explode (and I don't mean Hawking vaporization but rather a sudden release of all of the contained energy). I also expect liquids with slow moving atoms or molecules like liquid helium to flow up the vertical side of a container, over the top, and out onto the table.

It is not that observations of these phenomena do not exist, they do, it is rather the ways these observations have been explained that is so different as to make me and hopefully you too, laugh.

Remember, laughter is good for the soul. And who knows, there might be some small thing that really does happen in nature like I say. No matter what, always remember that if you have carefully searched a given region of space for a solution and have not found it, then assuming the solution exists, you can be certain it exists somewhere you have not yet looked. My recommendation is always; "Go Look Somewhere Else."

If a different interpretation exists, that is where you will find it. Following that, you will need to try to tear it down to see if it can stand up to scrutiny.

Ross Tessien

E-Mail: tessien@oro.net

Index Document - Theories of Aether

---

	Aether Tectonics Exploration of a new way of looking at space and matter and light by Ross Tessien
The other side of the fence
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia in the Southern Autumn of 1996