The Electric Universe understanding portrays the prevailing cosmology as
substantially misguided, and challenges almost every facet not established by
rigorous experimental and testing results. In other words, the scientific method.
Here is a quote regarding this view from Halton Arp, “After all, to get the whole
universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years merits
monumental embarrassment and should induce the modicum of humility.” The Electric Universe paradigm
development has been primarily focused on the things that we can apprehend with
our senses, from the microscopic level, looking down, to the telescopic level, looking up.
But mostly on the directly tangible level. On just these three levels, there is an
overwhelming abundance of evidence, both in phenomena and structure, that show
that the physical universe aspects, galaxies down to cells, all work electrically.
Much if not most of this should be obvious, and would be, if an extensively
faulty paradigm hadn't taken hold of academia and mainstream cosmology,
and thus didn't obscure the thinking. For instance, welders and machinists familiar
with electric discharge machining, get the electrical cratering and scarring
aspects immediately, usually exclaiming that it's obvious that these are not primarily from impacts.
Electrical engineers often find other aspects to be easily assimilated and accepted.
But many plasma phenomena on this triune level are not that familiar. For example,
Birkeland currents, double layers, plasma cells, red sprites, blue jets, plasma elves
and Peratt instability formations. And these haven't been widely understood.
Also, plasma phenomena can be quite complex, besides being outside of our normal experience.
Let me just mention a few major aspects out of a dozen or so in the prevailing
cosmological paradigm that are misguided or faulty. The most egregious is the Big Bang which
was introduced by Georges Lemaitre in 1927, and which was buttressed by the
equally egregious Theory of Relativity by Einstein. Quite simply, ‘Relativity’ is unnecessary
because the finite universe is the needed frame of reference for everything inside of it.
Until recently, thanks to the James Webb Telescope, the Big Bang has been the prevailing view.
Another, ‘redshift equals distance’, has been thoroughly discredited by Halton
Arp and his associate astronomers. And another, ’stars powered by nuclear fusion’,
the fusion actually takes place on the surface of the photosphere, not in the
core, and is driven by the impinging Birkeland currents. The fifth is ‘gravity’
instead of electricity being the foundational force at work in organizing,
structuring and controlling the physical universe of galaxies, stars, planets etc.
Let me reiterate a few frank reminders about our investigative limits.
It should be understood that, below or above the directly tangible level, we
have to rely on only one of our senses - sight, vision. Below the level of the various
microscope tools, or beyond the various telescope tools, when thinking about the
material universe, the aspects and attributes of phenomena and structure
cannot be apprehended directly by any of our five senses. We can only do
experiments and get clues as to what we are dealing with and then we can only
build models for them and/or project metaphors from our tangible experience upon them.
I suggest that we don't know what we think we know. This restricted domain on the lowest
level includes the basic atomic particles and we can only get blurry visual interference patterns of nuclei,
their shape and where they are located and arranged in material. Until lately, theory has claimed that
atomic nuclei must be symmetrical in three dimensions, either spherical or flattened spheroidal.
Now, we can confirm that some nuclei are pear-shaped and thus pointed in a direction.
This development, the implication of which is not widely understood, 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 thinking.
Take a look at the stellar work of Edwin Kaal, who developed the Structured Atomic Model
known as SAM, a significant improvement over the inadequate orbital model.
As an ex-chemist, long uncomfortable with the orbital model, I favor a most dense packing model.
But Kaal must be given great credit for going in the right direction. On the other end of the spectrum we
should be mindful that outside of our limited solar system exploration via
rocket probes and satellites, we have only electromagnetic radiation given off
by radiating bodies or structures that we can access through our telescopes.
No direct chemical analysis to determine material or molecular structure.
No physical analysis to determine density, specific gravity, index of
refraction, hardness, viscosity conductivity, etc. No application of tape measures, scales, hydrometers.
Just and only patterned electromagnetic radiation, visual and radio astronomy with which to work.
So, down on a more fundamental level again, concepts that we have often can be
little more than speculation. We have a tendency to project the
orbital metaphor down to the atomic level but this has already been challenged.
Mainstream thinking has imagined quarks below the atomic particle level,
and the Electric Universe 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 or fact. Let's also be mindful that all of our
relevant observations have taken place from a platform within familiar,
non-redshift-determined distances within the heliopause, and essentially within a
platform perpendicular to the axis of the Sun. When considering bodies outside this
arena of our platform in more distant outer space and beyond that, we are projecting from our own
environment and then speculating. We actually don't know enough about the
true distances, the true sizes, and the attributes of the region such as charge differentials,
ether densities, field strengths, etc., to confidently extend meaningful values on the decrease of force within
distance squared. Electrical Universe theoretician Wallace Thornhill even suggests that the
attractive force that we call gravity actually turns repulsive at some point.
The Electric Universe lays a theoretical foundation for all of this on the lowest
particle level by positing just and only two electric charge carriers of negative and positive matter particles,
just and only three dimensions, just and only two forces, electrical attraction and repulsion.
Being a stickler for a correct terminology, I point out that the traditional four,
electromagnetism, gravity, the strong nuclear and the weak nuclear, should not be called forces, but rather force
sources or initiators. Not to mention that the EU considers the latter three to be aspects of
electromagnetism and dipolarity. Linear motion, orbital motion and
reciprocal motion, oscillation, vibration, resonance also have a fundamental role.
Finally we have the aspects and constrictions of the geometry of three
dimensions, which is the basis for polarity, Along with sequence of events, what we
call time, these generally account for or undergird all other physical phenomena.
Also, in the Electric Universe paradigm, the definition of energy is that it is always matter in motion.
And, like time, not something mystical, nor a thing in and of itself. So, let's deal with the Michelson-Morley
experiment of 1887, that has been widely interpreted as proving there is no ether.
The overlooked phenomena in the Michelson- Morley experiment by Paul Marmet.
Abstract, ”We show that Michelson and Morley used an oversimplified description and failed
to notice that their calculation is not compatible with their own hypothesis
that light is traveling at a constant velocity in all frames. During the last century, the Michelson-
Morley equations have been used without realizing that two essential fundamental
phenomena are missing in the Michelson-Morley demonstration.” ”We show that the velocity of
the mirror must be taken into account to calculate the angle of reflection of light.
Using the Huygens principle, we see that the angle of reflection of light on a
moving mirror is a function of the velocity of the mirror. This has been
ignored in the Michelson-Morley calculation. Also, due to the transverse
direction of the moving frame, light does not enter in the instrument at 90
degrees as assumed in the Michelson- Morley experiment.” “We acknowledge that
the basic idea suggested by Michelson-Morley to test the variance of space-time, using a comparison between
the times taken by light to travel in the parallel direction with respect to a
transverse direction is very attractive. However, we show here that the usual predictions are not valid, because of
those two classical secondary phenomena, which have not been taken into account.”
”When these overlooked phenomena are taken into account, we see that a null
result, in the Michelson-Morley experiment, is the natural consequence,
resulting from the assumption of an absolute frame of reference and Galilean transformations.
On the contrary, a shift of the interference fringes would be required in order to support Einstein's relativity.
Therefore, for the last century, the relativity theory has been based on a misleading calculation.”
Well, I certainly agree with that. There is at least one other explanation
for why the Michelson-Morley results are invalid. If the ether with increased density is
somewhat partially entrained by either the solar system or the Earth, Michelson- Morley would be invalid.
Of all the violations of philosophical concepts and metaphysical principles,
probably the worst and most insidiously pervasive, concern ‘nothing’ and ‘infinity’. ‘Infinity’ cannot
be applied to any aspect of the physical universe. Of course, there is no such thing as ’nothingness’.
On a fundamental-philosophical level, there can be no voids of nothingness in the material universe.
Thus, because of both sound evidence and reasoning, the Electric Universe paradigm
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 axiomatic. Currently, the thinking is that this
ether is composed of polarizable neutrinos, where these are all but empty
matter/particles or packages that have vanishingly small amount of mass, energy, dipolarity and friction.
If you build a universe of three dimensions that can't have any voids of nothingness, then you have only two
regular polyhedrons that can fill or tessellate, volume with no voids. Those being tetrahedrons and cubes.
So, if we think of shape, we should probably think of ether particles as having one of these two forms.
Note, holographic universe enthusiasts would say at this point that 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 significant friction through
this ether medium, the particles must be quite flexible and compressible. ’Squidgy’ in my words.
Try not to think of fish swimming through water. Their frictionless surfaces, along with
their vanishingly small mass, would generate vanishingly small viscosity. We also need to think of force as
something tangible and not as something theoretical. We should also note that when we feel a
substance with our fingers, it is not the atomic material that we feel with our
tactile facility, but rather the electric repulsive force from the material.
So the bottom line in this page of the EU ledger is that, since there is no
’nothingness’ between objects or particles, and when there is no contact between
atoms in this instance and every other one, force is transmitted across distance
by contact between the ether particles. The EU model sees the ether medium as a
key part of a proper construction of physical reality.
[Music]