The Heavens Declare His Handiwork

Previous Page               Next Page

Thomas Lee Abshier, ND

Author, Speaker
Naturopathic Physician

Christian Counselor

Medical Consultations

Marriage Counseling
Seminars, Speaker
Books, Articles
Audio, Video

(503) 255-9500
Portland, Oregon

Field Concepts

By: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND

Last edit: 3/4/2009

Limitations of the Field Shell and Force Particle Model:

In developing the Theory of Absolutes, the E field was initially conceptualized as radiating out from each Dipole Particle in a “Field Shell”.  The Field Shell was hypothesized to have a thickness and a spherical geometry centered on each Dipole Particle.  

In the Field Shell model, every DP emits a Field Shell every Moment from its Absolute position in the Matrix.  This implies that successive Field Shells are not concentric if the Dipole Particle is moving.  This brings up the most controversial point of the theory.  The speed of the Field Shell has a radial component equal to the speed of light in the Absolute frame, but every infinitesimal increment of the Field Shell also has a component of velocity perpendicular to the radial velocity.  Thus, the Field Shell would have to be divided up into many small increments of area to be able to carry both a radial velocity and a component of perpendicular velocity.  And, since the speed of light varies according to its environment (the permeability (mu) and permittivity (epsilon) of each increment of local space the ray passes through), the Field Shell must be divided up into small increments to accommodate the variance in its outward light speed.  

The computational complexities associated with a contiguous Field Shell cast doubt on the accuracy of that model.  The Force Particle model allowed for the same spherical emanation of densely packed particles, and accommodated the need for an incremental variance in velocity due to environment and source velocity.  The Force Particles carried an Electrical, Magnetic, and Gravitational (EMG) vector reflecting the source.  

The Field Shell model has been retained as a teaching tool and possible modifier of the Theory because of the ambiguity of the exact mechanism by which force is transmitted.  Both the Field Shell and Force Particle hypotheses have elements of merit, and both have deficiencies without modification.  The universe may utilize elements of both methods to actually manifest the phenomena of nature.  If the Force Particle is given a finite dimension, and the Field Shell is broken into finite areas, the two conceptualizations (Field Shell and Force Particle) are similar in their modeling of force transmission.

The “Field Shell” may be a unitary contiguous entity or a collection of infinitesimal areas that act as a contiguous entity.  The Field Shell acts on all particles, distant or close, with an unbroken wall of Field sweeping past, and influencing every Dipole Particle in the universe.  But, to implement the inverse square law, the Field Shell would have to compute distance and unit area for every increment on the sphere at every moment.  Such a calculation, while possible, is sufficiently complex that it is less likely than the automatic computation of the inverse square law that arises simply by particles spreading out and targets being hit fewer times at greater distance from the source.  

The Field Shell model gives a perfect inverse square effect because of its mathematical precision and effect on every particle on the outward expanding Field Shell.  But, this level of perfect influence on every particle, by every other DP in the universe at every Moment, may not be how the universe actually works.  If we use the metaphor of Quantum Mechanics, we see that the universe interacts in discreet units, as noted by discreet implementation of time, distance, and energy.

Thus, assuming that all phenomena are quantized at some level favors the Force Particle  model, which is an inherently discrete mode of force transmission.  But, the difficulty with the Force Particle model that the Force Particle is needs to have more than a single dimension of position, and/or the Dipole Particle likewise should have more than a single dimension.  If both DP and FP are single dimension points, then the two will have a vanishingly small possibility of colliding and thus transmitting force.  Thus, the Force Particle and/or the Dipole Particle must possess the property of area to provide the possibility of intersection of areas and force transmission.

Thus, Force Particle model will be modified to give the Force Particle and target DP a cross sectional area.  Again, they will not collide and produce the transmission of force as one dimensional points will only intersect when the angle of alignment is absolutely perfect.  This makes collision extremely unlikely, and would not implement the inverse square law.  

The Field Shell model was rejected because of the complexity of calculating the inverse square law by the Dipoles and Field Shell.  Ultimately, Occam’s Razor ruled in favor of a Force Particle model (modified so that Force Particles and/or Dipole Particles presented an area).  This choice was made because of the natural manifestation of the inverse square production of force on Dipoles with distance.

The quantization of Force Particles, means that at large distances from a Dipole Particle, that the effect of any one DP will be intermittent.  This may or may not be a deficiency of the theory since it is unknown whether all DPs influence all other DPs in the universe at every moment.  In other words, in the real world, another DP may be only intermittent in its effect on other DPs.  In which case, the Force Particle model, with a finite area of cross section, would model reality well.  Certainly the light of distant galaxies is a quantitized emission, and this may be the model reflected by the individual Force Particles.

With the Field Shell broken into infinitesimals, and the Force Particles given finite cross sectional area, the two models are essentially equivalent in their implementation of the transmission of force.  The deficiencies and caveats of the theory are noted so that those interested in adding to this work will be able to do so without being concerned that there the theory is inflexible.  Future researchers and theoreticians should confirm or deny these assumptions based on additional experimental evidence.  The Theory is intended to be an ongoing collaborative development that accurately documents the programming of God’s Universe.