[Music]
The endeavor of science can, and should be seen as a noble effort to bring humanity
out of superstition, but it has its limitations. Most importantly, it must stand on some
metaphysical principles. Alas instead, it has spawned its own
high-end mysticism and myths. The word ‘science’ means knowledge, but
knowledge can come in two types: true and false. The premise being posited
here, is that any scientific thinking that violates axiomatic metaphysical
principles cannot be valid. The worst thing we can do is to
know and rely upon something that is not true. This would be like stepping on a lily pad,
thinking it would hold your weight. I'm going to quote J.P. Claybourne,
author of ‘Why an Ether is Positively Necessary’: ”The belief persists in some quarters
that the concept of an ether as a medium for electromagnetic waves has been
completely discredited. Although it is true that the mathematics of electrodynamics
and Einstein's special relativity operate without reference to details of a transmission medium,
in neither case is the ether concept contradicted; it is simply not addressed.
Also, I quote from another physicist, James Owen Weatherall. “If physicists
can't agree on the properties of empty space, they won't be able to explain the
physics of planets or particles either.” Now, the EU thinking has been primarily
focused on the things that we can apprehend with our senses,
from the microscopic level to the telescopic level, but mostly on the normal,
visible level. On just these three levels, there is an overwhelming abundance of
phenomena and structure that show the universe works electrically, from galaxies down to
cells, down to atoms. Much, if not most of this should be obvious
and would be, if a wrong paradigm didn't obscure the thinking.
For instance, welders and machinists familiar with electrical
discharge machining (EDM), get the electrical cratering and scarring aspects immediately,
usually exclaiming that it's obvious. Electrical engineers often find other
aspects to be easily assimilated and accepted, but many plasma phenomena
on this triune level are not that familiar to scientists. For example Birkeland currents,
double layers, cells and Peratt instability formations have not been widely understood.
And plasma phenomena can be very complex, as well as being outside of our normal experience.
Let me remind us about our limitations. It should be understood that below the
level of the various microscope tools, or beyond the various telescope tools,
when thinking about the material universe, aspects and attributes of phenomena and
structure, cannot be apprehended directly by our senses, our sight
nor by the other senses. We can only do experiments
and get clues as to what we are dealing with, and then we can only build models for
and/or project metaphors or analogies from our tangible experience on these
aspects. I suggest that our ignorance is profound. We don't know what we think we know.
This restricted domain on the lower level includes the basic atomic particles and
we can only get blurry visual patterns of nuclei shape and where they are located and arranged
in material. To this point, theory has claimed that atomic nuclei must be symmetrical
in three dimensions, either spherical, flattened or elongated spherical, as in a discus,
or a rugby ball shape. Now we can confirm that some nuclei are pear-shaped and oriented
in a specific spatial direction. This development actually sweeps away much
current cosmological theory. Even the orbital model of the atom has
not been confirmed and part of the time it must be discarded
in atomic model thinking. On the other end of the spectrum,
we should be mindful that we have only electromagnetic radiation
given off by radiating bodies or structures that we can access through
our telescopes. Sound, tactile sensation, smell and taste are
not available for analysis or consideration. Nothing else comes through, just
light. No direct chemical analysis to determine material or molecular
structure, no physical analysis to determine density, specific gravity,
index of refraction, hardness, viscosity etc. No application of tape measures, scales,
hydrometers or reagents. Just and only patterned radiation to work with.
Thus on the lower levels concepts that we have can be little more than pure speculation.
We have a tendency to project the orbital metaphor on atomic structure, but
this is probably unwarranted. Mainstream thinking has imagined quarks on the lowest level
and the EU, the Electric Universe model talks about sub-sub-atomic particles as
positive or negative ‘subtrons’. The point is that beyond sensationalism
there is little justification to present these physics flights of fancy to the public
as knowledge. Let's be mindful that all our relevant observations have taken place
from a platform within familiar distances within our own Sun's heliopause and essentially within a
platform perpendicular to the axis of the Sun. When considering bodies outside of our
platform in more distant outer space, we are usually projecting from our own
environment and then speculating. We don't know enough about the true
distances, the true sizes and the attributes of the regions, such as any charge differential,
ether density, field strength etc. We can't confidently extend meaningful
values on the decrease of force with distance of the 3-distance
squared formulas. Thornhill is even suggesting that the attractive force
that we call gravity, actually turns into repulsion at some point.
The Electric Universe model lays a theoretical foundation for all of this
on the atomic particle level by positing just and only two
electric charge carriers; negative and positive matter particles.
And just and only two forces: electric attraction and repulsion.
These foundational things, along with sequence, motion, and the aspects and constrictions of the
geometry of three dimensions, account for or undergird all
other physical phenomena, including polarity. Also, in my understanding of the EU model,
the definition of energy is that it is always matter in motion
in relation to the rest of the universe. Not something mystical, nor even a thing
in and of itself. Early theoretical physics accepted the existence of an ether, and
it is only a modern scientific failure to detect it, that has precluded it.
The famed Michelson-Morley type expe- iments and others have so far not given
positive results that are expected, if an ether is present. However, the problem is probably in
carrying aspects of the wave-in-water analogy, or metaphor, along for light waves that
are not applicable. On the other hand, the Earth may carry
along an entrained cocoon of ether with it. Because of some assumptions that
may not be true, science will tell you it has disproved this,
but it hasn't. The measured decrease in the speed of light over the last century
or two, does indicate an ether that is getting denser in the vicinity of the Earth.
Given that there cannot be voids of nothingness in the universe,
the Electric Universe model, because of both sound evidence and reasoning, has confidently settled on
the conclusion that the volume of the physical universe is filled with an ether.
In other words, the existence of an ether is next to being axiomatic.
Currently, the thinking is that this ether is composed of
polarizable neutrinos. Where these are matter particles that have a vanishingly small
amount of mass-energy and dipolarity in their empty state. These dipolar particles can spin axially,
rotate radially, and oscillate. The internal mass-energy would be some
combination of these three internal motions. There would be no skin of course.
If you build a universe of three dimensions that can't have any voids, then you have
only two regular polyhedrons that can fill or tesselate a volume,
those being tetrahedrons and cubes. So, if we must think of
shape, it may be we should think of ether particles having one of these two forms.
On the other hand, neutrino-based particles probably are asymmetrical in shape.
At this point we have crossed the border into a different realm
and are deep into projecting a topological shape metaphor onto it. But, since other more
substantial particles and objects apparently move without friction
through this ether medium, the particles must be quite flexible, if not compressible,
and their surfaces must be without friction. Their vanishingly small mass would
generate vanishingly small viscosity. In conclusion, science is far from perfect
and has a serious problem in being intellectually responsible on these foundational levels.
[Music]