Did This Scientist Just Discover How the Universe Works?

ether-gravity-universe-By Brandon Turbeville

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In an unpublished paper entitled “Man’s Greatest Achievement,” Nikola Tesla described the concept of ether by writing,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

  • Westcoastliberal

    If mass is traveling at the speed of light squared, then I guess Einstein was wrong about that “faster than the speed of light” thingy. And wouldn’t that put our universe is some sorta bubble? And perhaps that dark matter is moving at a different speed or occupies a different dimension or polarization.

    • Bizzawk

      Dude, you’re freaking me out!

    • Mike

      Einstein was already wrong about the sped of light; part of the Theory of Relativity and Special Theory of Relativity only works if the speed of light is constant, which it is NOT — it propagates at different speeds in an atmosphere, in a vacuum, near strong magnetic fields, etc. As the article states, Theory of Relativity only really works on a Solar System-ish size scale; bigger than that, and all kinds of extra maths and fake ideas have to fill in the blanks, and smaller than that repeat. Tesla and many of his contemporaries, as well as the “free energy movement” have all known about the Ether/AEther for decades/centuries. In addition, at the atomic and subatomic levels the speed of light is definitely NOT the fastest thing happening. Per Electric Universe Theory, the electrons in the electron shell around an atom travel so fast that if they could be sent in a straight line, they could travel to Alpha Centauri and back in 2.5 seconds.

      However, I digress. If Fernandez if correct, it changes EVERYTHING about physics.

  • hey

    I thought this was Tesla’s theory. Einstein even confessed that he was wrong and Tesla was correct concerning the ether.

    • Mike

      Indeed. It wasn’t Tesla that actually theorized about Ether, he just came up with a layman’s explanation for it. Fernandez has come up with a formula to quantize/measure Ether.

  • BanishedJester

    I just tried to verify some of these numbers but my calculator is dead and I cannot figure out how to make the scientific calculator on my computer do scientific notation. Dammit!

  • Mark

    Einstein was a fraud, a plagiarist, and a wife beater who abandoned both his children who then died of neglect. His General Theory of Relativity contradicts his Special Theory of Relativity. He was refuted by Sagnac in 1913 and Michelson-Gale-Pearson in 1925. If Einstein was a Gentile, he would long ago have been exposed and left in the dust bin of history.

    Cosmologists have been struggling to keep their anti-creationist cosmological theory alive, but, with increasing resolution of each cosmic probe (COBE in 1990, WMAP in 2001, and Planck in 2013), the cosmic background radiation data are inhomogeneous and anisotropic, exactly opposite what Big Bang heliocentrist anti-creationists need. Ever better data without any fudge factors are consistent with a geocentric creationist universe. The Big Bang and heliocentrist cosmology however requires fudge factors like dark matter (never observed) and dark energy (never observed) in quantities 20 times the actual observed matter and energy of the universe.

    Too bad, too sad for those who hate God and His Creation.

    gwwdvd dot com

    • Heavenly Traveler

      Do you believe matter cam be broken down and the energy holding it together can then be directed?

      • Mark

        Directed? As in fission and fusion weapons?

        • Heavenly Traveler

          No not fission or fusion. I am not a physicist but I read a book called Tao of physics and at the time I was building boot leg on tv boxes. I got the idea of using frequency to counter the power holding a piece of aluminum. It worked, a 11 gram piece of aluminum released enough energy to go through a 6″ steel block a 1.5″ wooden door and 8″ cinder block and 23″ of earth. needless to say the FCC showed up and when they saw what I did they brought back naval intelligence who are thieves and murderers.That was in 1982 and have given much thought to this and believe much more can be done with this.

    • William Burke

      You are just another fraud, using ad hominem headlines off the cover of supermarket tabloids as a weapon of “truth”. You disgust me.

      • Mark

        As if the tabloids constantly talk about the data from COBE in 1990, WMAP in 2001, and Planck in 2013 showing three axes of symmetry intersecting our earth at the center of the universe: (1) the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation dipole aligned with the earth’s equator, (2) the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation quadrupole aligned with the earth’s ecliptic plane, and (3) concentric galaxy, quasar, and x-ray burst alignment with the earth’s equator and North Celestial Pole?

        I suppose you find no hypocrisy in your complaining about “ad hominem” while you personally attack me for providing verifiable information about Einstein. Oy veh!

        • Captain Murica

          Do you have a paper or presentation that shows the results of these experiments? Everything I am reading seems to point to “More work needs to be done” with no mention of earth being any origin (I did see a blurb about a centerpoint for our solar system being not in the sun but askew – mostly because of Saturn and Jupiter).

          • Mark

            The graphics in the movie “The Principle” or in the DVD set “Galileo Was Wrong” make the data crystal clear.

            The “Big Bang” cosmology claims everything in the universe was created from an infinitesimal point explosion. If that were true, the energy and matter in the universe should be evenly distributed (homogeneous and isotropic), but the recent sets of data confirm that the matter and energy are NOT evenly distributed (inhomogeneous and anisotropic). There are three axes of symmetry with the earth at the center. The “scientists” are so wedded to their theory that they didn’t believe the data the first time, so they sent up another probe, more refined. They didn’t believe the data the second time, so they sent up an even better third probe. Same results. The data are consistent with a created universe with the earth at the center, but, rather than admit the possibility of a Creator, the scientists instead make up crazy fudge factors: “dark energy” and “dark matter.” And to make their anti-creationist theory work, they have to invoke fudge factors that are 20 times as large as the actual matter and energy. Of course, nobody has ever demonstrated either “dark energy” or “dark matter.”

            Bottom line: This Big Bang “science” is as faith-based as any other religion.

          • Captain Murica

            Interesting, I’ll check it out.

        • Mike

          I think it’s been shown that everything is at the center of the universe.

          • Mark

            Stellar parallax and stellar aberration data allow “everything is at the center of the universe” interpretation, but not so with the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) data. The several axes of symmetry I have described intersect at a point, not just anywhere, but a specific point right through the center of this planet Earth.

      • Mike

        Another troll? Must be a bad hair day in Trollville. How does you ad hominem attack add anything to the topic? Instead of saying something intelligent to refute Mark’s comment, you just attack. Keep drinking the fluoride buddy, it’s doing its job of lowering your staggeringly low (apparently) IQ.

    • John Miller

      F*ck you and your stupid “God”.

      • Mark

        Such intellect! Tell Him what you think at your personal Judgment. Let us know how that turns out.

      • Mike

        And how does this add to the topic? Oh, it doesn’t. Just another troll.

  • colinjames71

    Electricity, my dear Watson.

    Solving equations does not a universe make. There has to be an ether, he’s right about that, as for the rest, well we’ve heard lots of claims like this from mathematicians doing math, and it all ends in tears. Every time.

    • Mike

      Indeed, instead of maths actually solving anything, all they really do is come up with some type of new equation to try to explain something the conventional theory doesn’t account for. However, whenever these equations are put together, they don’t add up (pun intended) as one set of equations might cancel out or contradict another set of equations that seemed to explain something.

      Electric Universe Theory seems much more feasible than Gravitational/Relativity Theory.

      • William Burke

        Yes, because the Electric Universe doesn’t require the constant utilization of newly-invented props to keep the Relativity/Big Bang!!! side of things going.

      • colinjames71

        Right? It just… makes SENSE. Wal actually mentions in at least one interview how so many people say that very thing to him.

    • William Burke


  • Des

    Could you run that by me again…?

  • yEshUA ImmAnUEl * ben-‘Adam

    “Aether is the Sacred and Secret Fifth-Element that was held in such
    high-esteem by Pythagoras and his students. The Pythagoreans
    understood that Aether was the invisible Life Force that enabled the
    Four Elements of Creation (Fire, Earth, Air and Water) to function,
    interact and create. The Pythagoreans honored Aether by embracing
    the Five-Pointed-Star as their most sacred Symbol. The five points
    of the Five-Pointed-Star represented Fire, Earth, Air, Water, and
    Aether. The Fifth Point of the Star, along with the number Five,
    represented the Spiritual Breath of Divinity: Aether.”
    “And as Aether is the Universal Spiritual Life Force that connects
    and flows through all things, it is through Aether that we, too, are
    part of, and are able to interact with, all things in all realms and
    dimensions…including Divinity!”

    • Ralph Sinamon

      You clearly have not watched the documentary story of the 5th Element with someone named Bruce Willis. It has all of the facts.

  • oooorgle

    Gravity is not the driving force in nature or the universe, it is electricity. It is an Electric Universe. Einstein wasn’t a scientist, he was a mathematician. He even said his theories were not reality.

  • dale ruff

    The way to refute Einsteins ideas is to accuse him of wife beating. Science is hatred. Case closed.

  • Ralph Sinamon

    Makes sense to me……mostly. On the matter of expansion and acceleration, I don’t see any difficulty. Stellar wind. Think balloons and each star is filling ‘its’ own balloon. When these ‘balloons’ walls intercept each other, they “push” against each other and propel each other away. Since the stellar wind is an ongoing process, the on–going pressure continues the acceleration.

  • Interesting work here, but of course, far beyond a layman’s comprehension. Perhaps most physics is, by design and intention. To wit: I vote for the classical spelling Aether to recognize this fifth element in its primary place in cosmology. Further, the Electric Universe model is far more defined and descriptive of observation. Witness planetary plasma scarring as evidenced in earthly geology (Grand Canyon) and Martian topography of incredible scale. Meanwhile, conventional physics must assume that 96% of matter and energy – said to be “dark” and unobserved – to make the tired Relativity model conform to observation. What is odd, is that conventional physics is quite happy with this conundrum and is thus better characterized as one more disintegrating pillar of Scientism, a religion that relies on dogma, acolytes and an unquestioned priesthood. Odd too that Fernandez’s work relies on a heretofore unheard of “Inverse Hand of God alpha number 137.036”. More fuel for the bandwagon of the absurdists.

  • Sky

    Light speed is not the final limit of possible particle velocity – more like near infinity. All this has been proven by Nassim Haramein – Resonance Project. BUT, as main stream peer review physicists can get past all their own assumptions, Nassim’s work remains on the fringe. Good luck to Fernandes!

    • William Burke

      Their assumptions are the Present Dogma, which is an adjustment to the Old Dogma. These people really are among the laziest thinkers on the entire planet.

  • billyjackeng

    The invention of dark energy and dark matter are reminiscent of the “engineering variable correction factor” I used in school, which was that number that can be added, subtracted, multiplied or divided into your answer to get the answer the professor wanted. So any other explanation of the deviation of the universe from the current theory should be considered. It would seem that the equation the physicists are unable to balance is Gravitaional Force=G X M1 X M2/d^2. Rather than create arbitrary dark matter to increase the force by increasing M1(mass), it would seem plausible to change the gravitational constant(G) as a derivative of distance from a black hole. If G increases the closer to a black hole and decreases with distance away from a black hole that exisit at the center of galaxies then dark matter and dark energy are no longer necessary to make the equation balance.

    • Mike

      Sounds good, except that black holes are figments of the imagination, made up with mathematical possibilities. A black hole, depending on who you ask, is either a “place” or any “object” that cannot be seen since light traveling in its direction does not escape (or so the theory goes). When we are shown a “picture” or a black hole with the energetic plasma discharges at the poles, what we are really being shown is a quasar or a pulsar, but not a black hole.

  • William Burke

    Dark Energy is the Joker to Dark Matter’s Batman. Neither is likely to exist, because either and both are concocted out of nothing to shore up the Leaning Tower of Pisa that is the Big Bang Theory. The BBT, if you investigate it, is nothing more than RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE. It’s a total fraud, like “Man-made Global Warming”.

    Both are tossed into the path of the emerging truth, as if to derail a speeding train with a dime on the tracks.

    If there is justice – and I believe in justice because the alternative is to believe nothing – these so-called “scientists” will suffer exposure of their multiple frauds WITHIN THEIR LIFETIME.

  • meme

    Colossians 1 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

  • Joe Chang

    matter/mass attracts matter/mass due to induced em force between all positive and negative charges within matter/mass.

    every atom has 2 force fields, positive and negative. those force fields have infinite range, and they interact and overlap to produce chemical bounding and gravity.

    current atomic structure theory and model is wrong. if a hydrogen atom has only 1 proton and 1 electron, how could hydrogen atom is 3 D in shape?

    in fact, there are 3 building blocks make up atoms.

    proton carries 900 positive charges, electron carries 1 negative charge, enertron carries tiny negative charge, but it has more charge to volume ratio than electron.

    a proton can never be observed by itself, proton is deep hidden within a dense enertron ball. atom is like earth, proton is the core, enertron is the dirt, electron is giant beach ball.

    electron can never get inside of atom radius, that’s why atoms are not compressible, no discharge within atom.

    proton attracts -899 energtron and 1 electron to become neutral charged atom.

    we can not detect enertron because it is too small and attracted by proton more strongly than electron.

    when proton beams impact, in fact is proton/enertron balls impact, enertron balls explode, produce all kinds of em phenomena.

    without charges, there is no force, there is no mass. cus you cannot measure mass without using force.

    1 atomic mass equals to 1800 total charges, no matter the sign of the charge, that’s why proton weight 1800 times electron weight but only carries 1 positive charge, the rest 899 positive charge is used up to balance -899 enertron ball.

    a hydrogen atom is made of +900 charged proton surrounded by -899 charged enertron ball, add 1 electron on the outer sphere.

    the atom has 2 force fields, positive field fp=ke x 900/r^2, negative field fe=ke x -900/r^2.

  • maybeperfect

    Since I seem absolutely convinced of the possibility that God is really the one doing/being everything, I must respect Mr. Fernandez’s (?) postulates as possibly one of the things that can be known to us possible avatars of God’s spirit, whether we are capable of comprehending anything at all, in and of ourselves. I mean, God might be the only one who knows of His own existence for sure, And how would I know whether He does or not?( Or I might not know for sure that I don’t, since that might mean that I claimed to know something which I might not, which might in some way really refer to something that’s really God.)
    After all, there may be an infinite number of ways in which God believes in Himself, since we’re pretty sure no two things are exactly alike, not that there’s anything wrong with any of these things, on the contrary, all may be perfect, no excuses necessary, since God seems to have this infinity thing well in hand so far, or so far as any of us might be able to ascertain, we, as protoplasmic representations as you might, after honest introspection(if possible,) must finally admit our inadequacy as apparently finite manifestations, with regard to actually knowing any thing at all about God, or really anything at all, since all these “things” may patently be part and/or parcel of God as well, so there you have it. It might be useful to look into Goedel, who may or may not have been himself, along with everything else, if you would investigate these ideas further, as long as one bears in mind, that, like Jonah, a human might be able to know a thing (since God may tell him this thing,) But the rest of us might not know whether that human knows whatever he seems to think he knows or not.
    For me, it seems that due to overwhelming bliss and gratitude at seeming to have been, in some measure, capable of noticing the apparent fact of consciousness, and the astounding magnificence of all that I might be conscious of, including all that I might not be conscious of on any number of different levels, I am unable to seem to act, other than to direct whatever intention I may, to the successful accomplishment of whatever purposes God in His possibly infinite wisdom may choose as those which might suit Him best, hopefully in His endlessly continuing existence, if it is, since it would seem preferable to the alternative, to my admittedly limited way of thinking, whatever the ramifications for us as individuals. What reward, or indeed, punishment, could possibly amount to a hill of beans when compared to the miracle of having seemed to have experienced existence, and, perhaps to have even been deemed a needful, even instrumental facet of the unspeakably sublime magnificence I seem to appreciate so much?
    So carry on, Whomever you might be, and Thanks….

  • Chris

    I love where the mass of spent fuel from a tiny rocket booster moves a huge spaceship in the vacuum of space… or where the guy throws the hammer he happens to have and magically propels himself the opposite way in space. Or how about that Earth eh? Magically held in the vacuum of space by “gravity”, despite the example of the guy throwing the hammer! Let us put a small rocket booster on the earth, and leave this place!

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

Send this to friend