"All the world's a stage we pass through." - R. Ayana

Thursday, 21 January 2016

Did This Scientist Just Discover How the Universe Works?

Did This Scientist Just Discover How the Universe Works?
Source of Gravity Defined in Quantized Ether?



Throughout the history of modern physics, scientists have theorized about the existence of “dark energy” or “ether,” a substance that, if it exists, envelops and fills everything – all space and all reality. Ether has often been theorized to be the substance which is the conduit for the life-giving force of the universe.

Yet physicists throughout the years have argued about this concept without ever reaching a consensus even regarding its existence, much less its makeup or nature. Those who argue in favor of the existence of this “ether” run into the problem of a lack of an ability to “quantize” it. Those who argue against it run into the problem of the conventional mainstream understanding of physics which is unable to account for many aspects of reality – both quantum and physical.

In an unpublished paper entitled “Man’s Greatest Achievement,” Nikola Tesla described the concept of ether by writing,

Long ago he (mankind) recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.

If philosopher, chemist, and biophysicist Francis V. Fernandes’ equations are correct, however, we may be at the cusp of a scientific breakthrough that will change the face of the world of physics and the world in which we live. This is because Fernandes claims that he has in fact quantized the mass of ether.


If Fernandes’ calculations are correct, this changes the entire ball game. He himself states that, once the mass of ether is known, solving a number of “unknowns” in the world of physics becomes relatively simple. The question of gravity, relativity, magnetism, and, indeed, energy itself becomes answerable.

Thus, Fernandes says that he went on to solve tens of equations and was likewise able to solve tens of unresolved questions within the field of physics.

For instance, the question of gravity and relativity, according to Fernandes, once the mass of ether is known, can itself be solved. Fernandes suggests the equation below does just that,


But what are the questions surrounding gravity and general relativity?


The Question At Hand


Marianne Freiberger, in her article “Problems Of Gravity,” sums up the lack of consensus on these principles by writing the following:

“General relativity correctly describes what we observe at the scale of the solar system,” reassures Constantinos Skordis, of The Universities of Nottingham and Cyprus. “It all works beautifully at this scale and it has been tested.” The problems arise when you look at the Universe at very small or at very large scales.

At the turn of the twentieth century people realised that at very small scales, in the realm of atomic and sub-atomic particles, the world looked very different from what they had expected. The theory of quantum mechanics grew out of that realisation and posed a new challenge: the descriptions of the fundamental forces of nature now had to be adapted to the new quantum mechanical insights — they had to quantised (see Schrödinger’s equation — what is it? and Let me take you down cos we’re going to .. quantum fields).

The problem is that general relativity stubbornly refuses to comply in this undertaking. “Einstein’s theory cannot be easily quantised; we can’t find a quantum counterpart in the same way as we found one for electromagnetism,” explains Thomas Sotiriou of the University of Nottingham. In fact, the problem of finding a quantum theory of gravity is so challenging, and so important, many consider it the holy grail of modern physics.

Another mystery arises when you look at the Universe as a whole. Since 1929 physicists have known that the Universe is expanding, a fact that came as a shock even to Einstein: stars and galaxies are moving away from each other. Nearly 70 years later, in the 1990s, observations of far away objects also showed that this expansion is speeding up. General relativity cannot explain what causes this acceleration. If we believe the theory, then we must concede that there is something else out there, a mysterious form of energy which drives the acceleration. That something has been dubbed dark energy.

“Dark energy is bizarre,” says Skordis. “It’s not a particle, you can’t detect it in the lab. It’s just a missing form of energy which must have some peculiar properties. For example, it must exert negative pressure, which is what drives accelerated expansion. We just don’t know what causes it.” (See here for more on dark energy.)

Quantum physics offers one explanation for dark energy. According to this theory, the vacuum does not really exist in the sense we usually understand it, as empty space. Instead, particles constantly pop in and out of existence, resulting in avacuum energy, an energy of space itself, which might be driving the accelerated expansion. There’s a number which measures that vacuum energy, called the cosmological constant, whose value particle physicists can estimate. The trouble is that this estimated value is bigger than what observations suggest. And not just a bit: the two values, observed and theoretical, differ by at least 60 orders of magnitude (see this article for more). Although the estimate stemming from quantum physics is rough and perhaps naive, the difference is so big that something is clearly, very wrong.

These problems, dark energy and the need to quantize gravity, provide some of the motivations for meddling with general relativity. And perhaps they are even connected. “The very large and the very small [scale problems] are not necessarily distinct,” says Sotiriou. “It is technically very challenging, but not inconceivable that one could have an extension of general relativity that deals with the large scale problems, which would at the same time have a better behaviour when it comes to quantization. Maybe we can hit two birds with one stone.”

But how does one go about finding such an extension of general relativity?

The Answers?


Fernandes suggests his quantization of ether and his equation below helps answer these questions,


So how did Fernandes arrive at his conclusion? He provides the following information:

Gravity of Earth is Acceleration of Ether

Francis V Fernandes
Dec 2000

Leap of Imagination:


Gravitation energy or force is believed to be weak and nowhere in magnitude to the electric force. I assumed the energy of gravity to be equal to that of the electric energy.

Energy calculated by Newton’s gravitation equation is the same as energy calculated by Coulomb’s electric equation.


Acceleration due to Earth’s gravity,


Back to the question of the speed at which we, the Earth, and matter in general is moving, Fernandes suggests that we/matter are all moving at the speed of light squared.

Fernandes states “I have shown that my discovery of 186-ether is the lower pulsate limit of the Planck mass. Planck actually derived an ether mass. The Planck length times the ether constant ratio K yields the Planck mass. Hence, the Planck mass is an ether mass.”

He continues, “Matter is at the speed of light squared as seen in the matter of earth below. And mass is ether mass on the right side of the equation.”

He continues:

Charge and Gravity unify at 186-ether

Elementary charge, e=186-ether


The ether distribution to the power of 27 zeros in kilograms per radial meter holds good at the atomic and galactic scales.

Fernandes concludes that “Acceleration due to ether is gravity.”


He writes,

Mass of Earth, speed of light and tangential velocity squared are known quantities.

Mass of something is the missing entity. This missing hidden entity is the mass of ether.

Mass of Earth is at the speed of light squared whereas Mass of Ether is at slowed velocity squared.



As depicted above the ether radius is the lower pulsate limit of the Planck length.

Yes, at the heart of the Universe is ether in dynamic pulsate motion by a factor of the Inverse Hand of God alpha number 137.036




The mainstream physics community will no doubt immediately scoff at Fernandes’ claims. However, mainstream communities often scoff at “fringe” declarations until those “fringe” claims eventually become mainstream themselves.

Regardless of how Fernandes’ claims will be received, it is important, for the sake of human civilization and the possibility of greater scientific development that his claims be seriously looked at and that his figures be put to the test.

Fernandes, for his part, is willing for his claims to be put to the test and for his figures to be challenged. He seems to welcome it, so sure he is of the outcome.

If he is right, his work will be some of the most groundbreaking physics related breakthroughs in modern times. We owe it to ourselves to look further into it.

What do you think? Do you have a physics background? Do Fernandes’ equations have merit?

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

- Scroll down through ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section

Hope you like this not for profit site -
It takes hours of work every day by a genuinely incapacitated invalid to maintain, write, edit, research, illustrate and publish this website from a tiny cabin in a remote forest
Like what we do? Please give anything you can -  
Contribute any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!
(You can use a card securely if you don’t use Paypal)
Please click below -

Spare Bitcoin change?

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the random synchronistic search box @ the top left of http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel -  https://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/playlists

New Illuminati’s OWN Youtube Videos -  
New Illuminati on Google+ @ For New Illuminati posts - https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RamAyana0/posts

New Illuminati on Twitter @ www.twitter.com/new_illuminati

New Illuminations –Art(icles) by R. Ayana @ http://newilluminations.blogspot.com

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

We provide a live link to your original material on your site (and links via social networking services) - which raises your ranking on search engines and helps spread your info further!

This site is published under Creative Commons (Attribution) CopyRIGHT (unless an individual article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright holder). Reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged - if you give attribution to the work & author and include all links in the original (along with this or a similar notice).

Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution!

If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible worlds…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com


  1. I tell you one thing, we will not know how the universe works through a set of complicated numbers or mathematical formulas, a bunch of poppycock indeed. No.... Numbers are finite results for limited thinking in terms of attempting to find a primary cause and or effect to how we got to where we are today.

    What if there was no cause and or effect? What if time doesn't really exist, what if space were holographic? How can the theory of EVERYTHING be defined by any kind of number and or language symbol? Doesn't EVERYTHING transcend the notion of our symbolic definitions of what IS or isn't? Can we truly come up with a consensus of the meaning of the universe through our many symbolic interpretations based on value denominations (NUMBERS)?

  2. What is the number of all the energy the universe emits at one given time? What is the number of times energy of one object is transformed into another? How does light equal darkness? How far up can one go? How long does the line stretch? These are limited attempts to define the undefinable, correct?

    How do we even attempt to understand the universe and how it works if there is no limit to it's ENERGY POTENTIAL?

    Our symbolic languages are simply not up to the job of defining anything infinite, and a limited definition is must be used in order to figure out the infinite, correct? We're fooling ourselves, aren't we?

    Lets say, we can sum the universe up by saying that the entire universe is ONE flower, what is the meaning of the flower? And how is it transformed and where does the energy come from? Well we might say, the energy of the flower comes from the sun, but where does the energy of the sun come from? You see, it's endless. There is no beginning and there is no end... Energy is never destroyed it's always transformed into something else. Place a number on that! LOL

  3. You know why most people hate complicated math equations? Because it's a bunch of BS! Numbers are used to deceive us into believing in scarcity. Scarcity or the idea of it is used to control people through our own irrational fears!

  4. We live in a scarcity based (finite NUMBERS) social enterprise that uses our acceptance of our own irrational fear about not having enough to justify our ignorance.

    Is there enough in a infinite universe? Well, figure out that ENERGY is limitless and you'll see how we're fooling ourselves by ignoring how it could potentially work for ALL.

  5. God, I'm beginning to think I actually might be smart. You know,
    I grew up believing how dumb I was, based on all the F's I received on my report cards. Is it any wonder I can think at all?

  6. We distrust all attempts to quantify reality using maths, but not for the 'reasons' you've repetitively enunciated above; when it's impossible to assemble all the relevant factors - as in this case - it's impossible for any math equation/s to describe something (reality) accurately. Moreover, the cosmos is infinite in space and time - as you suggest - which makes it incompatible with all possible notational and symbological systems.
    HOWEVER - quantifying the minimum size (graininess) of 3D timespace reality might very well lead to some major breakthroughs!

    1. And how about this? There is no "minimum size" of 3D "timespace" there is only our limited perception of it through our use of finite numbers. Any finite number or minimum equation always limits creative thought and hence the discovery of energies unlimited potential is ignored in favor of a 3D notion of what it is, when in fact there is probably is no end to any multi- dimensional universe, 3D become infinteD when one rids oneself from the limitations of any symbolic number game.

  7. You got your reasons and I have mine, What does "NOT for the reasons" mean to you? Did I not reasonably state the obvious here through my subjective comments related to the bogus math that attempted to define the undefinable? I'll just use my same old REPETITIVE acronym, I guess... BS!

  8. I'll be repetitive once more.... NUMBERS described in this article are symbols that attempt to define something that cannot possibly be known.

    Numbers in our society are used to LIMIT THOUGHT, for every symbolic number ENDS. So if there is an end to a specific number than thinking beyond the number must also end. An end or limitation to symbolic numbers and thoughts is what our society is primarily based on. Scarcity is the notional mantra used for control as the limitless reality of energy potential is ignored.

    So how do we define the theory of everything when such a thing cannot be defined? We only discuss such matters through numbers because numbers always serve a higher purpose for control. Hence, stupid articles like these must perpetuate themselves to limit creative thoughts which in reality are abundant beyond the idea of any silly number equation.

    1. All the points you've made are eminently valid - and smart.


Add your perspective to the conscious collective