Alexander Pope wrote in his epitaph for Sir Isaac Newton, “Nature and nature's laws lay hid
in night. God said, Let Newton be! and all was made light.” To which J.C. Squire in his
epigrams replied, “It did not last: the devil howling ‘Ho! Let Einstein be!’ restored the status quo.”
The famous sci-fi author Douglas Adams hilariously parodied quantum metaphysics with the infinite
improbability drive In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Great book. When mathematicians dismiss the physics
principles of every effect must have a preceding cause and no creation ex nihilo, it's no wonder that modern physics and
cosmology read like science fiction. I think Nicola Tesla said it even better though and I quote, “Today's scientists
substitute mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a
structure which has no relation to reality.” End quote. I know it's a shocker but it turns out scientists can only
really advance science when the physical concepts they are ‘sciencing’ on are real.
Here's why The Theory of Everything may be out of reach for these guys, and even in the case of the EU model of cosmology
can only really rise to a strong hypothesis. If we actually deal in the real universe we can detect with our
senses, augmented by modern technology, uncovering the fabric of reality doesn't seem so far-fetched. This theory would
explain only what we can see and detect, the things that we know are present, and naturally some things out at the
extremes are either too big or too small for us to ever grok, not to mention everything in between that we overlook
because we didn't know it was important. And neither Einstein's relativity or quantum mechanics are really physics. So
we can't use them as a foundation for our new model. Although we should find that the mathematics that work in the
real world still applies. Time to toss a lot of the modern physics and return to the classical physics of a century ago -
the natural philosopher. But the largest hurdle is ourselves. Having the courage to discard your training and prejudices
and be willing to approach the subject from a beginner's mind, is not a small task. Even harder for those who pride
themselves as intellectual. That something absolutely fundamental that the standard model
experts are always missing in all these explanations of gravity and quantum behavior, is of course the electric force.
The electric structure of matter. We're not talking about negative electrons and
positive atomic nuclei - it's deeper than that. Down in the murky depths, all subatomic particles including the
electron, are resonant structures of electric charge of opposite sign that sum to the charge on that particle. The
electron isn't a fundamental point-like particle. It must have structure to provide its dipole magnetic field. There
must be orbital motion of charges within the electron to generate the magnetic dipole. The transfer of electrical energy
between the charges in their orbits must be resonant and near instantaneous for the electron to be a stable particle.
The same model applies to the proton and the neutron. This model satisfies Einstein's view that there must be some
lower level of structure in matter to cause resonant quantum effects - and that's just the
beginning. We can't have a theory of everything until we have a workable concept of the structure of matter that
satisfies the observation that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent. When we accelerate electrons
or protons in an electromagnetic field, the faster they go the less responsive to the field they become. This has been
interpreted as an increase in mass. But charges don't have mass. So, how exactly are they supposed to give the electron,
proton and neutron the property of mass? That doesn't make much sense. The accelerating electromagnetic
field will distort the orbits of charges within the electron or proton. Now it seems the more distorted a particle
becomes, the more easily the energy supplied to accelerate the particle is assimilated in further distortion, rather
than acceleration. Hence the apparent increase in mass. The more you put in, the more they distort, instead of speeding up.
The inertial mass of a particle is a measure of the degree to which it responds to an electric field by
distorting rather than accelerating. It implies that the charge centers of a proton at rest have to be separated more
than those of an electron at rest. And that allows the proton to distort more readily than an electron in the same
electric field and accounts for the differences in the size and mass. Quote, ”What we call mass would seem to be
nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of an electromagnetic origin.” End quote. Henry Poincaré. Science and
Method. A neutron combines the charges from a proton and an electron in a barely stable resonance which decays in
minutes. Its decay must have a cause and may involve the interaction with a neutrino. However, when combined with
protons, it seems neutrons form a new stable resonance structure that serves to bind the protons electrically, despite
the overall positive charge on the nucleus. This idea that normal matter can be annihilated when it touches
antimatter is a confusion of language. Matter can neither be destroyed or created, we know that. It can't be
exchanged for energy either. Einstein's E=mc^2 refers to mass, not matter. Mass is a property of matter, not matter
itself. The mathematical relationship represents the restructuring of resonant systems of charge. What seems
to happen in annihilation, is that the complimentary resonant charge structures of a particle and its anti-particle
combine, so that almost all the internal energy is radiated away and the combined charges form a new collapsed particle of
low internal energy - a neutrino, the most collapsed form of matter we know of. And unlike the so-called
super condensed matter hypothesis the standard model relies on, it's actually real. It's got a teeny, tiny mass, but that
said, the neutrino must contain all the charges required to form two particles - a particle and its anti-particle. Empty
space is full of neutrinos and this is what Wal Thornhill considered the ether to be. These things are the repositories
of matter in the universe. They lay there, waiting for a burst of gamma radiation to expand them into the stuff of atoms. The
weird zoo of short-lived particles created in a particle accelerator and seen in cosmic rays are simply unstable
resonant systems of charge. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass implies that gravity
is also an electrical force. Before Einstein, some noted scientists were suggesting that the gravitational force
between neutral particles might ultimately be due to electrical polarization within the
particles. In 1882, Friedrich Zoellner wrote in the introduction to his book, ‘Explanation of
Universal Gravitation through the Static action of Electricity and the General importance of Weber's Laws’ and I quote,
”We are to conclude that a pair of electrical particles of opposite signs, i.e. two Weberian molecular pairs attract
each other. This attraction is Gravity, it is proportional to the number of molecular pairs.” End quote. It's true,
gravity can be presented as the sum of the radially aligned electric dipoles formed by all subatomic particles within
a charged planet or star. This new electrical concept suggests that Newton's Universal constant of
gravitation, or G, is a dependent variable. G depends on the charge distribution within a celestial body. Highly charged
objects, like comets, look like solid rock. Yet they have a gravitational field that suggests they are fluffy snowballs
Now,they really are solid rock. Looks like our eyes weren't lying to us. As they discharge, they suffer what sometime is
called non-gravitational accelerations. The extreme weakness of the force of gravity compared to the
electric force is a measure of the minuscule electric dipolar distortion of nucleons. Gravity cannot be shielded by
normal electrostatic shielding because all subatomic particles within the gravitational field respond to the
dipolar distortion, whether they're metals or non- metals. But what about magnetism? Ampere's law
for the magnetic force between two current carrying wires is found to be equivalent to the transverse electric
force caused by the distortion of electrons in an electric field. Now, this distortion causes them to form tiny
collinear electric dipoles. That is the magnetic force is simply another manifestation of the electric force. Kind
of looks like a pattern to me. Now the simple electric model of matter has the the great virtue of reducing all known
forces to a single one: the electric force. However, it's got a price. First, it means we need to drop this idea that
nothing goes faster than light. But I don't mind. That idea is weird anyway. Oh, light's fast, but when you're talking
about cosmic distances, light speed is obviously not enough. An arbitrary speed cap like that makes no sense in a model
that requires force to be transmitted by particles. If an electron is made of smaller subunits of charge, orbiting
within its classical radius, then obviously the electric force must be operating at speeds way faster than
light in order for it to remain coherent. In fact, it's been calculated that if released, the subunits of charge in the
electron could travel from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy within one second.
I guess they didn't get the speed limit memo from Big Space. We have direct evidence of ‘faster
than light’ action of the electric force. Gravity is a longitudinal electric force.
In fact, Newton's celebrated equation requires that gravity act instantaneously on the scale of the
solar system. It's been calculated that gravity must operate at a speed of at least 20 billion times the speed of
light. Something like ludicrous speed, I guess. So now we have a candidate for the solar medium. The backdrop that underpins
everything we see and can explain everything that exists. But does this hypothesis rise to the level of a “Theory
of Everything?” Well, join me in episode 3, where we finish making the case for the
electrified model. And then I'll wrap up the series by detailing the reasons why
our hypothesis narrowly misses that mark. I'll see you there.
[Music]