Current technology is not ready for David De Hilster.

            The conference kicked off with Pal Asija presenting Challenging & Defending the Paradigm of Science , a spirited call for extensive debate on a variety of topics. He was then followed by Walter Babin and his paper An Analysis of the Theoretical Foundations of 20th Century Physics. Walter basically summed up what the whole conference was about. His combined view of physics and philosophy are a necessary and fundamental approach that, as Walter points out, many did not follow in developing their theories in the past century. Einstein himself recognized the problem and cautioned many. Einstein himself said; “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” The complete conference schedule of presentations is at; http://conference.worldnpa.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=7&MMN_position=7:7

            The first half of the week many presenters were focused on the failings of Einstein. Joseph A. Nahhas has produced a large body of work in this area. His paper 350 Years in Hiding: Kepler's-Newton's Time Dependent Equations is but one of many. After listening to all, one could only conclude that Einstein was incorrect in many areas. But I think that if Einstein were with us today, he would probably apologize saying it was not his fault and retreat to the solitude of his home on Long Island.

            Another notable and lively presentation was by Greg Volk. The Nature of Eynptor (Entropy) This was followed later in the week by Don Briddell’s The New Science of Structure  that seemed to be in the same vein.

            Of particular interest to me were presentations by Duncan Shaw The Cause of Gravity, and Paul Schroeder Solar System - The Making of Planets - part 2 of The Universe is Otherwise. Both invoked the concept of the “Aether” in their gravitational proposals. Both suggested that gravity is the result of the flow of Aether into a massive body. Duncan Shaw raised an important question in, how could atoms be perpetual motion machines and proposed they are fueled by inflowing Aether. Both spoke of the “Aether” as if it were accepted and known about for decades.

        Subspace (Revised)

            In my previous Subspace paper of June 20, 2008, I was aware that that gravity was referred to by some as “Aether”. In describing Muon decay in that paper, I proposed that some of the loss of mass in Muon decay could proceed as free “Halflets” into an underlying grid that stretched from the space between atoms to the space between galaxies. The grid was composed of free halflets held in suspension by each other. I called it Subspace in the tradition of science fiction becoming science fact. I proposed that Subspace is the Dark Matter. So, Aether becomes Dark Matter. There are those who suggest the Aether (Subspace) flows to create gravity, and Walter Babin (www.wbabin.net) who suggests each particle creates its own Aether. He even suggested to me that “there was no need to invent ad hoc systems” in regard to my Subspace proposal. Walter must always be taken seriously. I admit at the time, the whole idea seemed a bit extreme even to me. But we must press on.

            If the Aether (Subspace) flows, it must go somewhere. If it is consumed powering atoms, it is used up and more must be produced. I say it’s a static system with dynamic properties that carries the difference of potential between charged particles and bodies. In regards to the atom, I had suggested to Duncan Shaw (The Cause of Gravity) that perhaps Subspace is what aids in suspending electrons in orbit around a nucleus. In my previous paper, I had proposed the electron orbited as a quantity of halflets with overall negative charge as instead of particle form. I neglected in that paper to say that Ball Lightning was a good analogy for that concept. But that is for another discussion. If we look at the interaction of two charged bodies in the Subspace medium, it seems the interaction could be considered a flow of potential;

Paul Schroeder Suggests gravity beams in his work Solar System - The Making of Planets - part 2 of The Universe is Otherwise.  I like the idea of gravity beams. In an email to Walter Babin Oct. 22, 2008, I made the comment; “If there is no object in earth orbit, is there no gravity at that point? The answer is; There is no gravity because it takes two to tango when it comes to gravity. There is always the potential for gravity though.”