Can aether compounds be identical with dark matter?

January 26th, 2022

Dear Horst,

Could the aether compounds (see UFT paper 447) be the dark matter that standard physics is fixated on?
Best wishes
Kerry Pendergast

Dear Kerry,

this depends on whether aether compounds have a measurable mass or not. To my understanding they have not. They are more like a special kind of radiation. It is more plausible that the effect of dark matter is a consequence of the angular momentum of galaxies. Indirectly, this also is an aether effect, because the rotation of spacetime is intermediated by rotation of the aether. In our calculations it was sufficient to assume a homogeneous aether so it is not a consequence of structured aether like in aether compounds.


Discussion on Heim, Einstein and Cartan geometry

December 30th, 2021

The fundamental problem of Einstein’s field equation is as follows. At the left, you have the Einstein tensor which is pure geometry. At the right, you have the energy-momentum or – better – stress-energy or energy-density tensor, which is independent of the curvature field. Therefore, the latter tensor does not contain the field energy.
Therefore, Einstein’s theory had some success for explaining small deviations from special relativity in the solar system, but fails, for example, in explaining the velocity curves of galaxies.

Besides this, the approach (“ansatz”) of Einstein’s equation has consequences for the mathematics. The geometric quantities of the left hand side are equated to a physical definition on the right hand side which does not come from geometry so that the region of Riemann geometry is left. In doing so, one has to guarantee that no contradictions appear. However, when Riemann geometry is embedded into a “more complete” geometry, namely Cartan geometry, it comes out that Einstein’s approach leads to contradictions. His approach is only valid as a rough approximation to the higher-level geometry, where torsion is considered to be a minor disturbation.
Heim recognized this problem of Einstein’s equation without using formal arguments like Cartan geometry.

Heim published only few papers and most of his heritage is written on notice sheets. His computation of masses of elementary particles is not well documented, I never tried to understand this, although the results are convincing.

Gauge theory is not compatible with Cartan geometry. Gauge theory leans on a zero photon mass, which leads to a truncated form of electromagnetic waves (no longitudinal waves). However, longitudinal wave solutions are compatible with Maxwell’s equations. This is an argument that photn mass exists, and this falsifies gauge theories. Cartan theory delivers the Proca equation, which is the mathematical formulation that gauge invariance does not exist, and of course longitudinal waves are solutions of Cartan geometry. This is an argument for me that the extension of Riemann geometry by Cartan geometry is a good choice.

A “Trojan horse” to standard physics

December 28th, 2021

Thanks, Kerry, for these clarifications.
ECE2 theory offers indeed a connection to Einstein’s general relativity, so “Trojan horse” is justified. In this context, UFT paper 445 should be mentioned. Doug and I have shown that Einstein’s field equation, although strictly mathematically wrong, can be considered as an approximation to Cartan geometry, when torsion is considered as a higher-order perturbation. This is another “Trojan horse”. We only need some Greeks who bring in the horse to Troja (i.e., the world of standard physics :-).



Chapter 6 of your book introduces us to ECE2 theory.

It allows for simplification by reducing the need to refer to tangent space, when dealing with curvature. However, torsion is still incorporated in the background.

I like page 118, where the pure curvature equations of ECE2 take the guise of Einstein’s general telativity, while the geometric current definitions contain a torsion term allowing for Cartan geometry to enter from stage left.

So ECE2 theory carries the Trojan horse to open up general relativity to a new millenium treatment, which allows for calculations of fields to be better defined.

Best wishes

Kerry Pendergast

The role of charges and masses in Heim and Evans theory

December 27th, 2021

I was asked how charge and mass of matter is handled in Heim’s generalized field theory.

Heim uses Einstein’s field equation and defines a (generalized) energy-momentum tensor for this purpose, which contains electromagnetic and gravitational components. The gravitational components are defined in analogy to the electromagnetic components and contain the gravito-magnetid field, for example. The problem, however, is that the energy-momentum tensor contains charge and mass density terms. In this way, Einstein’s field equations become dependent on explicit sources. This leads to problems of several kinds, in particlular a physical interpretation problem of sources in general relativity, and, as far as I know, abolition of energy conservation.

Heim tries to avoid these problems by assuming that sources are nothing else than “compacted” fields. I cannot say how he treats this formally. Evans avoids this problem in his ECE theory in the same way, but Evans does not use Einstein’s field equations, he uses the geometry equations of Cartan instead. This approach avoids all the problems that Einstein had. There are no sources a priori but only fields, as Heim assumed. In ECE theory, the equations of Cartan geometry can be written in a form equivalent to Maxwell’s equations, for electrodynamics as well as for gravitation. By comparing with Maxwell’s original equations with chages and currents, one can define charge and current terms, which consist of field terms mixed with curvature and torsion terms. The same can be done for gravitation. Unification happens via geometry. If a charge is there, we have electromagnetism, if not, we have gravitation only.

Heim and Evans agree in the point that they do not need sources in their theories. Matter is a “condensed field” of general relativity and spacetime itself may be interpreted as a vacuum or aether field being everywhere. To my understanding, Heim’s theory could be put on a much clearer ground if it would be based on Cartan geometry rather then Einstein’s field equations.
Considering matter as condensed fields leads to quantum mechanics in a straight line, avoiding extra concepts like quantum electrodynamics and similar. According to Evans, all physics is geometry.

Primordial and other constants of physics

December 13th, 2021

Dear Kerry,

the gravitational constant has to do with the aether density, because the latter is connected with gravitation. According to the paper under development, it is a special counter-effect to electromagnetism.
The relativists have shown that Einstein’s cosmological constant obeys the relation
Λ = 8 π ρvac G / c4 = κ ρvac .
kappa is related to the gravitational constant G, and rho_vac is the energy density of the vacuum. However, this is very, very low compared to an aether density. This is similar to the ECE equation

where G connects the matter density with its field. Accordign to Eq. (8.285) of the text book,

G is the factor between vacuum density and mechanical “vacuum charge” q_F. The primordial voltage connects geometry and electromagnetism directly. I would rather compare G with the electromagnetic constants epsilon_0, mu_0. There is also a primordial gravitational constant Q(0), see Eq. (7.21) of the text book.


Am 13.12.2021 um 16:29 schrieb kerry pendergast:

Dear Horst,

Would you agree that the gravitational constant is arbitrary and determined by the mean density of matter in the universe.

Then the primordial voltage defined by torsion in ECE theory, comes from the mean density of matter in the universe.


On Monday, 13 December 2021, kerry pendergast <> wrote:
> Fred Hoyle is famous as a proponent of the steih ady state theory.
> In a radio broadcast in March 1949, Hoyle coined the term Big Bang theory, which caught on around the world in the 70s.
> In 1979, I got as far as an interview to join his team in Cardiff University.
> However, by then their interest was not on the big bang, but on detecting and identifying interstellar molecules in cosmic dust in space. This is why they needed a chemist.
> Kerry

New paper on counter gravitation and energy by momentum transfer

December 3rd, 2021

In Paper 446 on the AIAS web site, theoretical considerations have been made to realize counter gravitation and harvest energy from spacetime itself. The momentum of the electromagnetic field is used to counteract gravitation. The result is similar to the force an electron experiences in a capacitor volume which is the basis for the well known Millikan experiment.

Secondly, a resonance mechanism of the harmonic oscillator is described, where the electromagnetic vector potential is used to create mechanical resonance so that energy from the vacuum or spacetime can be transferred. For a net win of energy, it must be ensured that there is no backward dependency from the oscillator, while the vector potential is utilized or created. One possibility is to use the vector potential of permanent magnets, which is “refilled” automatically by quantum processes, if this field is doing external work.

The writing of the ECE textbook

November 17th, 2021

The oldest version of the textbook I have is from 2017, containing chapters 1 and 2. So I probably began writing in 2016. I took longer breaks in-between, because ECE theory made great progress during that time and I concentrated on working for new articles with Myron.

When you want to explain a subject in an understandable way, you have to have a full understanding of the content first. Otherwise your arguments will not be convincing. I decided that the book should give a self-contained introduction to ECE theory. So I had to begin with Cartan geometry and studied the book of Carroll on differential geometry first. Although Carroll’s book is not written in a strict formal manner for mathematicians, It was still too verbose for my purpose. Therefore, I condensed from it the content that was actually important for ECE theory. This took a longer time.

For the single chapters, I went through the AIAS papers and was surprised at the number of details we had found out. For many subjects, there was a development until the final structure and content was evident. I had to evaluate that and tried to concentrate on the final results. For some subjects, for example the rotation of relativistic line elements, there was no final conclusion. I had to select a final result for each subsection and bring them together under a common view. But this was an exception.

In other cases, I found some additional results by re-thinking the problems that Maron and myself had solved in the AIAS articles. Among them are some break-throughs:
– improved unified description of fluid gravitation
– the intrinsic structure of fields (aether theory)
– self-consistent, parameter-free description of light deflection by matter
– a final consolidation of photon mass with the theory of relativity
– cosmology by aether density effects, different behaviour of matter and radiation
– new examples for the gravitomagnetic field
– new method of energy from spacetime by momentum transfer

Viewd from a retrospective, we have extended the spectrum of using methods of classical physics a lot. In particular, Lagrange theory has turned out to be applicable in fields nobody had suspected, for example cosmology. Perhaps this is the greatest break-through, althoug energy from spacetime is more practically important, as soon as viable technologies have been developed.

I am thinking on an improvement of m theory. Maybe that the velocity vector is used in the gamma factor in an uncomplete form. This would lead to a modification of the equations of motion. If this gives meaningful results, I will describe this in a new paper.
Currently I am working out the intrinsic structure of fields in more detail, as Kerry had proposed. There are some ambiguities about which I have to think further.
I hope to start Volume 2 of the textbook early next year.


Complete version of the ECE textbook published

November 1st, 2021

I am happy to inform you that the first volume of the text book has been finished. The Chapters 9 and 10 have been included, as well as the corrections of John Surbat for Chapter 8. In total, the book is more than 300 pages, this is more than enough for a textbook. At the end, I give an outlook to the second volume.
I have integrated a couple of new results. You already know the intrinsic structure of fields (Section 8.4.). I have added new examples for counter gravitation (Examples 9.11, 9.12). I am planning to publish these results in extra UFT papers. Then I will start the volume on quantum mechanics. While the first volume is more for engineers and practitioners interested in physical background, vol. 2 is more intended to physicists, in particular to chemical physicists, as Myron was.

The text book is in the known place (UFT paper 438):

and the updated Maxima code is in

Have fun while reading.


Intrinsic structure of physical fields

November 1st, 2021

I have added an additional section to chapter 8 of the textbook, on the intrinsic structure of fields. This completes the section of unified fluid dynamics in a suitable way, as I think. The Résumé is:

The path of arguments is based on experimental facts. It is explained what a field really “is”. These ideas are new in the ECE context. Standard physics cannot give an answer to this question. It only knows the effects of fields and ignores this question. Some “out of the box” thinkers like Nicola Tesla and Tom Bearden have given answers to this question, but could not integrate their results into the frame of complete physics. This should have been successfully achieved through the current work.


Chapter 8 of the ECE textbook finished

June 15th, 2021

Chapter 8 on unified fluid dynamics has been finished. This is an important chapter of the text book and provides a new understanding of the aether or vacuum.
The table on historical development has been placed at the end of the introduction now.

We have replaced the document of UFT paper 438 on the aias wb site:

Please check the content.



You’ve provided a great deal of new fluid-spacetime material. I did a single quick read through, but must now study it more carefully.

I’m leaning toward the conclusion that the fluid dynamics formulation of spacetime represents the most ontological description of the physics (i.e. a description of what actually is occurring in our physical realm). This prompts a question about “relativistic” time dilation effects with respect to the fluid aether.

Is it possible that the local time flow is related to the local aether density? Does time transpire more slowly in denser aether? is aether compressed in and near large gravitational masses, or also more compressed in a spaceship traveling at light speed (such as the proverbial astronaut moving near light speed in a rocket not aging as fast as his twin brother still on earth)?



I think you are right, the fluid dynamics formulation of spacetime represents the most ontological description of physics. Many phenomena can only be understood within this background, for example the velocity curves of galaxies.
Relativistic effects are not contained in classical fluid dynamics, because there the flow velocities low. However, when we consider the travelling of light in the aether, your argument is justified. We have developted m theory as a possible solution to this problem. The function m(r) can be considered as a change of spacetime or aether density. We have handled this in the context of the line element of general relativity, including time dilation effects. I will come back to this point next in the chapter of gravitation (chapter 9 of the textbook). The effects of special relativity should be contained in this kind of description, although we did not consider this in the last UFT papers of ECE theory.