Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
Wal Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity | EU2015 | The Thunderbolts Project | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: Wal Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity | EU2015
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
The Long Path to Understanding Gravity Wallace Thornhill
Thank you and welcome and congratulations
because the Electric Universe conferences are perhaps
the only real conferences to come to if you want to learn about science.
So, I congratulate you on having the initiative and the curiosity
and the open mindedness to come here,
and also to be involved in the live streaming of this conference.
Annis's talk actually was a very good introduction, because
I wasn't going to say great deal about this long path to understanding gravity.
The early days, my story,
started after I read Velikovsky's 'Worlds In Collision', as a teenager.
This was before going to university.
When I got to university I thought this was an ideal time to
ask questions of lecturers and try and interest other students in the subject.
I was amazed at the lack of interest on the part of most people
and also the sometime hostility of lecturers
to being asked questions they couldn't answer.
This caused me, as a science undergraduate, to look in the shelves of the library
in the sections on the myths and legends and stories of peoples from around the world.
And it was there that I became convinced that Velikovsky had made
a leap forward and he posed questions which must be answered, they couldn't be ignored.
The response, of course, of the astronomy community was that
what Velikovsky proposed, that Venus was a comet, that Mars moved close to the Earth
in historic times was absolutely impossible it disobeyed Newton's law.
So, it was in 1979, long after
I visited Velikovsky at his home and my question to him was,
and this was based on the hostility towards his idea that he could break Newton's law,
"What is it we don't understand about gravity?"
He was kind enough to give me a slim volume where he had written back in the 1930's
'Cosmos Without Gravitation'
and in that, he actually looked at the behavior of matter in trying to produce gravity.
This is quite distinct from the way it's being done right now
which is mathematical, purely mathematical.
So, that gave me an idea and also I had formed the opinion that
science had 'left the rails' 100 years ago
and that to regain the path forward - the path of discovery -
we had to go back to get to the future,
we had to go back to the classical physics approach,
the great experimenters, those who had intuition about the behavior of matter,
and also to revisit Newton himself.
It was only two years after that in 1981,
that I was reading the Scientific American
and there was a tiny advertisement by chap called Ralph Sansbury
who was publishing the Journal of Classical Physics,
which immediately caught my eye, and the first topic was Electron Structure.
Now, according to particle physics an electron has no structure,
it's a fundamental particle,
but that's a mathematical concept which has no physical reality because
if you try to reduce electron to a point particle
and give it charge you end up running into infinities,
and of course, once you do that the theory breaks down.
Scientists have a way of getting around that these days,
they call it, 're-normalization' where when your theory breaks down
you open the window and see which way the wind is blowing,
plug that into your equation and keep going.
They do that repeatedly for theories about the Sun.
So, what's the situation today?
And this is a statement by Martin Rees the former Astronomer Royal
and Fellow of the Royal Society, well-known figure,
and it's one of the few things I agree with that he has said.
He asked the question, "What causes gravity and mass?"
"These questions still baffle all of us.
Rather than the 'end of science' being nigh,..."
in other words we're almost at a theory of everything,
"...we are still near the beginning of the cosmic quest." and I agree with that.
Also, Richard Feynman has said:
"There is no model of the theory of gravitation today other than the mathematical form."
and this, I think,
when you watch the shows on television about the mysteries of modern science,
it's all about mathematics.
While I was flying over here from Australia, I watched the show by Morgan Freeman
on 'The Mysteries of the Universe'
and that just evolved into a show of mathematical equations that no one understood,
and it ended up with some guy saying that, "reality is just mathematics".
Well, this shows how far away we've moved from classical physics;
experiment, observation, testing of ideas, and verification by experiment.
So, mathematics isn't physics.
The guy on the right in that picture is Peter Higgs.
I call him the 15 billion dollar man because I think that's what
the Large Hadron Collider had cost up until a year or two ago.
(speaker gathers notes for next screen)
So, the first step on the path of discovery is to find where we left the path and got lost.
As I said, it happened a century ago.
Now, pictures like this are the favorite media cliche for 'genius'
have you noticed? It's an illusion.
Now Peter Higgs, like the whole reason for the Large Hadron Collider,
was to show the existence of a hypothetical particle called the Higgs boson
which was supposed to give all other particles - the one's that make up you and I - mass.
That's the most incredible nonsense idea I've ever heard!
The particles that make us up, we know, have mass and they contain energy.
An atom bomb can tell you that, you can see the energy released
by those particles when they messed around with.
They must have energy, they must have mass themselves
it's got nothing to do with something outside.
So, what gives matter it's gravitational mass and mass is measured by it's weight.
So, the phenomenon of mass relies on understanding gravity;
you push or lift a mass and the mass is the same.
Why is that so?
Whatever the mechanism involved, it must be the same in both cases.
And when you push something, what's happening, really?
It's the outer electrons in your finger and the outer electrons in the object
that you're about to push that are reacting to one another electrically,
it's the electric force.
So, particle physics is in as big a mess I would suggest, as astrophysics,
it's completely lost the plot.
They say particles are made up of quarks that's apart from the electron, I should say.
But these quarks you can't see, because why?
We're told they're confined in the nucleus, so you can't see them.
This is a typical trick of both astronomers and planetary scientists
who, when they're explaining where (gravitation, sorry) magnetic fields come from,
its always hidden out of sight inside the body.
There's no concept of it being due to something on the surface or exterior to the body.
So, the Large Hadron Collider didn't confirm the Higgs boson concept.
It found something, whatever short-lived matter resonance it hinted at
has nothing to do with the question of why matter has mass, it's totally irrelevant.
The answer has to be found in the structure of matter itself,
not some external cosmic treacle particle called the Higgs boson.
Meanwhile, gravity is lost in the mystic rubber sheet of the non-physical fourth dimension;
you've all seen that picture of the rubber sheet
which has got a heavy object on it, and so it sort of forms a funnel.
That's using gravity to explain gravity,
because you will not form a funnel unless gravity is pulling that mass downwards.
What's more, this is supposed to be 'warped space'.
Nothing is going to fall down that hole if you have to place it on that funnel.
There is no force involved, space can't exert a force.
So ... here's an equation. Everyone, I think, has seen it.
It's the most easily identifiable equation in physics.
What does it mean?
It says that energy is somehow tied up in matter
that energy and mass are undefined in terms of matter.
So, what does mathematical equality mean?
This is the point: an equation is a way of describing reality and it's a shorthand.
Unless you know exactly what those symbols mean, and what they entail,
you cannot even tell or explain what the equal sign means.
That's a mathematical symbol. What does it mean physically?
If you haven't got an answer, you have no understanding
and that's the situation in physics right now.
Instead, we've witnessed this crazy search
for a mythical boson beast to impart mass from outside.
Clearly, what this equation is telling us is that
energy, mass and the speed of light are all properties of matter,
you have to repeat that and repeat that until it sinks in.
And of course, when I say that, it means that the speed of light depends on a medium
if there's no medium, there is no light transfer, it's not possible
and 'C' is supposed to be a universal constant, one of these physics constants,
but it depends on the medium, which means the vacuum is a medium
and Einstein did away with that medium.
He discarded with what they called the 'ether',
that was the medium through which light was supposed to move.
Maxwell's equations require it.
Einstein discarded it and never said how he could do that and get away with it.
It's been found that speed of light is not a constant, it varies.
So, what happened?
They now define the meter in terms of the speed of light, so they forced it to be a constant.
So, even though an equation works,
it describes reality sufficiently so that you can build things and do science,
so to speak, unless a physicist can explain the meaning of each symbol
and operator on the board in real physical terms (plain language),
the equations remain merely descriptive with no real meaning.
Newton was honest, he said he had no explanation for his the law of gravity.
However, he made the mathematicians' mistake of raising it to a universal law.
In that way, the math game can continue and you can invent dark matter
and black holes or any other unobservable 'fairy at the bottom of the garden'
to keep the fictional story alive, and this is what has happened.
So, we don't understand gravity.
Newton described it with his equation that force equals the gravitational constant 'G',
multiply that with the masses of two objects, the question is not answered.
How does this mass know about that mass, how can this be so?
And the equation says you divide by the distance between them squared and it works.
NASA use this equation to navigate the solar system.
You'll note it's the same force as the electric force
you just substitute the masses with the two electrical charges,
as we saw yesterday with Jerry Pollack's talk,
that force is enormous compared to the gravitational force!
So, this suggests that mass may be understood electrically.
If you can substitute charge for mass and you come up with an electrical force,
then perhaps mass can be understood electrically.
So, to understand gravity we must understand why matter has mass and,
as I've pointed out with the Higgs boson, they've got no idea!
You'll notice that Newton's equation does not refer to time
- it's instantaneous - and this is glossed-over.
In the Electric Universe however,
this instantaneous connection is absolutely essential for coherence.
For coherence of atoms, so they're stable particles,
for coherence of planetary systems, so that the Earth knows where the Sun is right now,
and in galaxies, so it can form aspiral.
If the stars on one side had no idea where the other stars are until a 100,000 years later,
how do you form a beautiful spiral, and even at the sub-atomic level.
Now this universal gravitational constant 'G'
has the peculiar dimensions and this is a mathematical term,
it has nothing to do with the three dimensions of space of length, mass and time.
But time has no length or direction in space
this is where you can get this confusion when the word 'dimension' is used,
and you get into all sorts of mystical talk.
In fact, I would suggest it was science that started
the kind of new age ideas where people talk about extra dimensions and so on.
In the Electric Universe there's no need for that,
the universe can be as wonderful and mysterious
as we observe in the three physical dimensions we have
- but that goes much deeper ...
So 'G' actually should not be a constant
because it refers to mass and as I said before
mass is the energy tied up in a particle, it's an electrical variable.
So, 'G' is not universal.
That means 'G' (which we measure on Earth) is neither universal nor a constant,
and in fact, it's the worst defined constant in physics.
Every time it's measured it's different, and even using the same equipment it varies!
So, what I would suggest is,
there is more complexity in the effects attributed to gravity,
and I say 'attributed' because in some cases we're looking at actual electromagnetic forces
- and I'll talk about that, and it's mistaken for gravity.
It has more complexity than any equation yet devised can explain.
It depends on the context whether it's actually valid or not.
It's not universal.
We repeated the mistake of Earth-centrism.
In other words, we measure G on Earth and then apply throughout the Universe.
What gave us the right to do that?
So we have selective blindness towards conflicting evidence,
and we invent dark matter and dark energy, all this stuff.
For example, these pictures that I've got here, and as Annis said in her talk,
we ignore the fossil record of impossibly huge creatures.
The Ultrasaur, in today's terms, would have weighed 180 tons.
And the maximum force exerted by any muscle is independent of body size,
and is the same for the mouse as the elephant.
In the Antediluvian world, 350 pound flying creatures soared the skies,
which no longer permit flying creatures about 30 pounds, or so.
And the Ultrasaur's neck, in today's gravity,
would have caused the 430,000 foot pound torque where it attached to the body!
Even a steel girder of the same mass as that neck
would have 'sagged' (buckled) under that weight.
Also, we know observationally that spacecraft show anomalies in Earth flybys
and comets exhibit what's called 'non-gravitational forces'.
That's what makes it difficult to predict their returns
and people who have measured gravity
or the change in gravity as you go down deep mine shafts, and so on,
actually said it looks like there's a '5th force',
it's not changing the way we expect from Newton's law.
And people who've measured gravity going up towers have said,
maybe there's a 6th force because that doesn't conform to Newton's law, either.
It was pointed out to me a few months ago,
that if you calculate using Newton's law
the force of the Sun on the Moon and the force of the Earth on the Moon,
when the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, the new Moon,
the Sun is pulling on the Moon twice as strongly as the Earth.
And the question is, why do we have the Moon?
It's a good question.
None of these questions are answered by Newton's simple equation.
Of course, if 'G' is universal.
If we use 'G' measured on Eath's surface, the Comet 67P looks like solid rock,
while it's density appears to be that of highly porous dust and ice,
and I have repeatedly, in the Space News on the Thunderbolts website, pointed this out.
The planet Suturn appears to have a lower density than water.
It could float in water according to using 'G' as we measure it on Earth
and the composition of the Sun is calculated to be
mostly hydrogen right down to the very core.
Now, what body the size of the Sun, would have hydrogen gas in it's core?
If you were to look at the Earth and if it's ionosphere was lit brightly,
rather like the Sun, and you saw oxygen and nitrogen and so on in the atmosphere,
would you say that the core of the Earth was then oxygen and nitrogen?
No, you'd say, more likely to have heavy elements.
Michael Faraday
And this is where we get to the principles of the classical physics
and that is that good physics needs to be simple.
If I can't explain to you in physical terms what I'm talking about,
and simply, then you have every right to go and ask somebody else.
Michael Faraday, the great experimentalist,
could see the possibility of an electrical nature of the force of gravity.
Remember, I said the two equations are the same form.
And he wrote: "The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent,
having one common origin (that's the Electric Universe position)
or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, ..."
(Once again, the Electric Universe idea)
"... has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment,
a connection between gravity and electricity ..."
And he went on to say, "no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish".
Precisely.
Now, if people had followed Faraday's intuition
we would be several centuries advanced, I would say, in our science.
But, of course, this poses the key question, the electric force is both
attractive between opposite charges and repulsive between similar charges,
the gravity seems to only attract.
Why is that so?
And here's a character who was around at the time of Einstein,
Sir Oliver Lodge was a British physicist and writer,
best known for his contributions to the development of wireless telegraphy.
He perfected a radio wave detector and the heart of the early radio telegraph receiver.
He was the first person to transmit a radio signal one year before Marconi did
and received international recognition for his work.
Lodge is also remembered for his work on the ether, which had been proposed as
the wave-bearing medium filling space
and, of course, which the Electric Universe relies upon.
Other scientific work included investigations on lightning,
the source of the electromotive force in the voltaic cell (or battery),
electrolysis, the application of electricity to the dispersal of fog and smoke.
He also invented electric spark ignition for the internal combustion engine.
He was a practical man, rather like Faraday.
He is prepared to experiment and try things.
He was critical of the new theories of relativity proposed by Einstein.
I would suggested if education was done properly,
his arguments against Einstein would be placed against Einstein's arguments
and students allowed to judge for themselves.
Referring to Isaac Newton he wrote,
"...what is really wanted for a truly Natural Philosophy
is a supplement to Newtonian mechanics,
expressed in terms of the medium which he suspected and sought after,
but could not attain, and introducing the additional facts, chiefly electrical
- especially the fact of variable inertia - discovered since his time ..."
That was in Nature, 17 February 1921.
Lodge seem to be fully aware that Newton's mechanics
needed to take into account electrical effects on the masses involved.
This is a pivotal idea for gravity!
Understanding gravity is essential to be able to express
mass in terms of weight in kilograms.
So, he was a guy (another one) who was well on the way.
Once again, good physics needs to be simple.
Sir Oliver wrote: "it may be that, when the structure of an electron..."
(remember, at present it has no structure)
once it's "understood, we shall see that an 'even-powered' stress in the surrounding ether is necessarily involved.
What I do feel instinctively is that this is the direction for discovery,
and what is needed is something internal and intrinsic,
and that all attempts to explain gravitation as due to the action of some external agency,
whether flying particles or impinging waves" (or Higgs bosons, he could have said)
"are doomed to failure...".
He's probably spinning in his grave at the waste of the LHC experiment.
He showed insight and uncommon sense
with his idea that the electron must have structure.
All sub-atomic particles must have a charged sub-particle structure
and orbital motion to have self energy, (or mass)
and exhibit magnetic polarization which is called (confusingly) 'spin' by particle physicists.
This is where language gets into the way physics today, as well.
Now, if we're going to talk about particles and matter, we have to look at
the scale of the atom to give you some idea of what we're talking about.
The first step then, is to give some idea of scale
as I said before, modern particle theory is no help
because specialists were still arguing over what is really 'real', in Nature last month.
This picture gives an idea that the classical atom is mostly empty space
with the charged particles invisible on this scale.
It is easy to see how an electron orbiting the nucleus
can only shield the nuclear charge from a nearby atom
for a fraction of the time it takes in it's orbit,
becuase at some points, or most of the points in the orbit the proton,
for instance the charge in the proton is visible to a nearby atom,
and the same thing for the other atom.
So, it gives you the idea that if those two atoms can synchronize their orbits,
they can then come together and form a molecule.
So, as it says there, if the nucleus was the size of a ping pong ball
electrons will be the size of a flea orbiting outside this stadium which is
Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) in Australia which is one of our famous institutions.
Here's another guy you don't hear about these people.
I think Newton had said that,
"If you'd seen far, it was because you'd stood on the shoulders of giants".
I would suggest that you have to be very careful in your choice of giant
because he may be facing the wrong way.
These are the people who should be in our science education curriculum.
Fritz London was a philosopher of science,
a visionary logician and dedicated theoretician.
In 1930 Fritz London explained
the weak attractive dipole electric bonding force between atoms,
known as the van der Waals' dispersion force
(it was named after him also, is the 'London force')
which causes gas molecules to condense and form liquids and solids,
in other words, planets and you and I, and everything in the visible universe.
The 'London force' originates in oscillating electric dipoles
caused by slight distortion of otherwise electrically neutral atoms.
So, here we're talking about the kind of stuff that the Earth
and the planets and the Sun are made up of.
The tiny electric dipoles arise because the charges within the atoms are separated,
as shown in the last slide, by effectively a huge distance.
The electric dipoles reasonate, as I said, they sort of tune into each other
and orbit in such a way, that they combine.
It's always attractive, just like gravity so there's a clue.
In fact, Fritz London said that it seems that gravity
maybe this kind of interaction between neutral matter.
So, it seems, that the clue about the real nature of gravity has been available to chemists
(who are not interested in gravity)
and unavailable to astrophysicists
(who are not concerned with physical chemistry or electricity).
Obviously, gravity has the distinction of being much, much weaker
than the force between atoms (the 'London force'), but that should be a clue.
We are bonded to the Earth by a similar
but far weaker version of the 'London force' between atoms
and here we get into the idea of repeated patterns in the Electric Universe.
So, like gravity, 'London force' is always attractive
and operates between electrically neutral atoms and molecules
very much like gravity, so we can talk about matter and mass.
The second step on the Path to Discovery about 'what gravity really is',
is to look at the particles that make up matter.
Newton's law multiplies the masses of two objects together.
So, the first requirement is to define what is meant by mass.
The electron is defined as a fundamental, indivisible particle,
but it must be a composite of smaller orbiting charged particles,
shown here (in blue) to store energy.
The energy is stored by the motion of those charged particles with respect to one another,
and also with respect to all other particles in the universe.
The same goes for all sub-atomic particles,
doesn't matter what it is, including the neutrino.
The neutrino also is included, and there was a report that I got yesterday
that they have now shown that the neutrino has mass.
Now, the very idea that it didn't have mass
meant that it couldn't have been a real particle anyway,
because there's no such thing as a particle with no mass.
Problem then was, that according to the standard particle
- or standard model of sub-atomic particles -
the neutrino doesn't interact with the Higgs field, as it's called.
That meant that there was something seriously wrong with the standard model.
So what has happened?
They said, this gives us the opportunity to modify the standard model.
In other words, please send more money! (audience laughter)
The electron is defined, as I've said, a fundamental, indivisible particle.
And it goes for all sub-atomic particles
and this simple repeated atomic model is at a far smaller scale,
you remember the ping pong ball in the middle of that Ground,
and the flea on the outside, that means within those tiny objects,
there's also spinning charged smaller objects.
Who is to say where we stand in the cosmic scale of things?
Now, Ralph Sansbury who was the fellow I mentioned earlier
who published this idea of electron structure
showed that you could actually derive the magnetic force from this structure
(in other words, it's a version of the electric force)
and gravity from this structure
(it's another weak form of the electric force).
So, here we are, we're doing what classical physics was designed to do: simplify.
Now, if they hand out Nobel Prizes for inventing more forces and more particles,
and we know less and less, the more they do that.
Ralp Sansbury though, said if you calculate the speed
of these orbiting little sub-particles inside the electron,
it's phenomenally faster than the speed of light.
He calculated that if those tiny little sub-particles were to be released from the electron
they could travel from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second.
This comes back to Newton's law which doesn't involve time
- in other words, it says it's instantaneous.
Well, that kind of speed is instantaneous on our scale, and on a galactic scale.
Tom van Flandern did his own astronomical calculations
to point out that the Earth orbits the Sun and it knows where the Sun is right now,
and it's fairly easy to determine that.
And by using a more stringent test, he calculated that the speed of gravity exceeded
20 billion times the speed of light.
So, the difference between that and Ralph Sansbury's was about of the order of a 1,000 times.
Ralph Sansbury's is probably more accurate.
So, the electric force between matter (particles)
must operate instantly on our scale of things for the electron to be stable.
The something that comes out of this is, that
once you have the speed of information exchange,
almost infinite, then time is universal.
Time has nothing to do with Einstein's clocks.
Clocks are physical things that are made of atoms and so on,
and their environment can change the way they tick.
So, to use the clock as a surrogate for the concept of time is completely inadmissible.
So, Einstein's special theory of relativity, I'm afraid, is discounted immediately.
So, Newton was right, gravity is effectively instantaneous,
and Einstein strayed from the path of discovery
by postulating the speed of light as the maximum speed for information transfer.
When he did that, he disconnected everything
- he made an unworkable universe.
To have a workable universe, all the components of the universe
must know what all the other components are doing, in real time.
The difference between this idea and Einstein's is rather like
you drop a pebble into a pond and you pick up the sound wave,
which is a compressional direct wave,
it's much faster than the ripple itself (which takes time).
Light is a ripple
- it takes time to pass through the ether (the medium) to the receiver.
With the real meaning of mass, we can attempt to give real meaning to energy
as represented by the equation that everyone has seen but no one understands.
Energy is charged matter in motion, relative to the charged matter in the rest of the universe.
That's the first physical definition I think you'll ever see
because if you look up encyclopedias and text books they give examples
of how one changes from one form to another
they don't actually explain at a fundamental level what it is.
Electromagnetic energy is stored in the resident orbital structure of all sub-atomic particles
- it's matter in motion.
The mass of a particle is a measure of how much energy is absorbed internally
and it's deformation rather than it's acceleration.
It's rather like having a balloon full of water and you poke it,
it resists moving and deforms instead - these particles do the same
and this is why the chap earlier who I mentioned,
he said that we had to look at the electrical
or the idea that when you put electrical energy into a particle,
like in a particle accelerator, the mass of that particle seems to change.
It's that concept that you really have to focus on.
So, what causes gravity?
The gravitational mass equals the inertial mass (that's lifting and pushing)
so much the same mechanism is responsible for gravity.
Now, atomic electrostatic dipoles as I've talked about with the London force and so on,
are formed by most atoms inside the Earth,
with the inner pole positive and the outer pole negative.
The reason is that gravity is pulling on the nucleus
you can not shield gravity, that's the point.
So, the fact that the electron is down there doesn't matter so much,
except that it holds the nucleus back from moving in the gravitational field.
The nucleus is about 1,800 times heavier than the electron,
so if it moves in the direction that gravity is pulling it,
then the atom is distorted (as I've shown there)
which means that the bottom end of that atom is more positive
than the end nearest the surface, which is more negative
- simply, because the electron spends more time at the top of the curve
and a short amount of time at the bottom.
So, the electric field produced within the atom distorts the sub-atomic particles
so the particles within the atom and the nucleus and the electron
are all distorted similarly by a very tiny amount
and this is the distinction between the gravitational force and the electric force,
the amount of distortion is infinitesimal,
10 to the minus 38~39 times the gravitational force.
It is the sum of all the aligned sub-atomic dipoles
that produces the profoundly weak force of gravity.
And the fact that they're held by the molecular forces (which is far stronger),
means the atom can't move and the nucleus just sits there and everything is in balance,
but there is this weak electric dipole force which is transferred through the body.
And gravity cannot be shielded electrically because this dipole force -
it's like a whole string of magnets,
if you have a string of magnets on a slippery surface and jostle them around,
they'll all connect, one to the other (a chain of them)
and this is exactly a similar process here.
Now here we go, gravity has two poles, like a bar magnet
this answers the question about why is gravity always attractive
it's because we stand on the surface of the Earth.
And this is the third step on the path to discovery.
Gravitationally induced atomic dipoles set up an internal gravitational field that is weakly repulsive,
you have got all the positive ends of these dipoles facing one another inside the Earth.
So, on stars and planets, the attractive force between atoms is strong enough
to hold these tiny dipoles in place (they can't fall).
And so, the internal pressure inside these large bodies like planets, and so on, is relieved.
There is a kind of antigravity effect inside, and this is probably why
measurements taken down deep mine shafts don't conform to Newton's law.
All stars and planets in the universe repel each other
with an inverse square law force because this is like a charged particle.
It may have significance for understanding charged particles themselves
and suggest even lower levels of structure.
Now, this is interesting I mean, all stars and planets in the universe repel each other.
Newton's attractive force has a limited sphere of influence.
This may explain many anomalies.
In fact, as I mentioned the mines and towers and the 5th and 6th force
the complex structure and odd features of an inner core found inside the Eath
by seismologists may have an explanation based on such a model.
This is very recent, they found this odd structure to the inner core of the Earth.
We are part of the Earth, it's like the molecular force at a very low level.
The fact that we're attracted to the Earth is the same process,
but at a different scale.
We are 'bonded' to the Earth by the dipoles induced in us,
the effect is like that of a magnet on an un-magnetized steel ball.
We, therefore, assumed that gravity is always attractive,
and also it's a mistake to assume that G measured on Earth is a universal constant
- it depends on the polarization of the Earth itself,
and that can be varied by adding or subtracting charge from the surface.
The mass of a body varies with it's surface charge.
So, when the Thunderbolts of the Gods were hurtling around and
the planets were on orbits which meant that they came close to one another,
enough to exchange charge strongly, their masses were changing.
So, gravity repels this is an odd idea, but it's not new.
In fact, Newton considered it as a possibility
because there was a theory which seemed to work.
The pushing theory of gravity was originally proposed by Newton's colleague,
Nicholas Fatio de Duillier, in 1690
and later by Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748, a long time ago.
They said that an omni-directional flux of small particles
permeates space and tends to push objects together,
and because they mutually shield each other
it gives the effect that looks like gravity, and mathematically it works.
It was known later as Fatio - Le Sage theory
and it was considered seriously by many scholars, including Newton,
where it was discarded for very good reasons
- if you have particles impacting a body, you are releasing energy
and the energy to keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun would have been enough to vaporize it.
However, more recently Halton Arp, also known as the modern Galileo,
discovered intrinsic redshift of quasars (and Annis talked about that)
and he came up with, once you get rid of this redshift equals speed of recession
which gives you the distance, once you got rid of that,
he found out that the universe was fairly static.
But then he had a problem:
if it's static, how can that be so if gravity is an attracting force?
Everything should be falling in towards one another, but he didn't observe that.
So, he actually (as he said here in this paper) he had an observational
requirement to consider what he called Le Sage gravity pushing gravity.
He said, "For many years I never questioned the obvious fact that the masses attracted each other.
The 'attraction' was so blatant that it required no thought".
This is unfortunately the situation in astronomy right now - requires 'no thought'.
"But then observations of galaxies and quasars forced me to accept the fact
that extragalactic redshift were primarily intrinsic
and not the result of recessional velocity in an expanding universe."
So, he went on, "It is interesting how the crumbling of one fundamental assumption
can have reverberations throughout the whole underpinning of science".
I have the greatest respect for that man, he was prepared to go
wherever the observational requirements led him - the sign of a real scienist.
This is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field of 2014, an exposure time of 600 hours.
It's merely the visible part of what's pushing, what's pushing in on us.
Arp showed that these faint redshifted objects are not distant objects necessarily,
so even though this is a deep field that doesn't mean that they are far away.
This is just looking with very long exposure at things,
the redshifted objects in there are relatively close,
mixed up with all of the bright, nearby stuff.
In other words, there was no big bang - the big bang was just a religious rewrite.
So, astronomy has a massive problem.
With repulsive gravity, collisions tend to be avoided
but the problem for astronomy is that with attractive gravity
all you have is attraction, collisions and explosions.
That's why a big bang was necessary in the beginning.
You'll notice in this picture too, there are no lightning bolts - that's a grave mistake.
Is there a method to stabilize the chaotic nature of many-bodied gravitational system?
(this was alluded to also by Annis)
What happens to orbits if we vary the mass of a planet electrically?
(remembering the dinosaurs, and the sudden change)
Well, as we've seen, and with the Birkeland currents and so on,
we can transfer electric currents through plasma and, of course,
the solar system is bathed in the solar plasma.
And here, the Electric Universe model meshes with the plasma universe
and all of the peer reviewed literature on plasma cosmology.
Now, I've presented this in more detail and it's available on YouTube,
so I won't go into detail here,
but the idea is to show that the radius of the orbit of the planet of mass, say M1,
the radius and the mass are proportional for constant orbital energy.
That means that if the mass of a planet via an electrical discharge
- thunderbolt of the gods -
was to double it's orbit, the radius of it's orbit would double and it would move out.
And this is important because you can then establish order out of chaos.
Now, in the case of Venus, they've already detected these 'stringy things'
(in other words, Birkeland currents)
flowing between Venus and the Earth during conjunction there. - (refers to diagram)
In other words, that tail you see behind Venus has been detected by a spacecraft
(I can't remember which one)
many decades ago - I think this was back in the 1980's when it was reported.
Now, in the Electric Universe each planet is a small cathode in the solar discharge
and the electrons are actually transferred from Venus towards the Earth.
(it was the SOHO spacecraft, by the way)
So, the Birkeland currents transfer electrons from the inner planet to the outer one.
The result is to increase the mass of the outer planet
- remember the outer pole of those little gravitational dipoles is negative -
if you add more charge (negative charge) to that body,
it increases the strength of that force.
In other words, the mass of the body appears to increase,
it's gravitational field increases but, in this case,
because of what I'd done in that earlier slide of high school physics
the outer planet will move away, get out of harm's way - seems like a pretty good idea.
So, the tendency is for the orbits to change in such a way
that this exchange of charge is minimized.
Even now, when Mars is behind the Earth they get what they call
the blue clearing in the ionosphere of Mars and those huge dust storms
- all electrical effects.
So, the Earth still tickles Mars and Venus still tickles the Earth.
But in prior times, during close approaches those effects would have been
far more powerful and marked - so stability was achieved rapidly
which was a requirement of course, for mankind to survive.
The important thing to recognize is that the Electric Universe model
doesn't discard gravity, it does what Faraday wanted,
to explain gravity in electrical terms.
And so, inertial mass equivalence is simply explained by this because it's all electrical.
When you push an object, it's electrical repulsion
and gravity operates by electrical distortion of particles in the same way.
So, it is simply because the effect of acceleration upon an atom
is to produce the same offset of the heavy nucleus within the atom,
as does gravity upon an atom fixed in a gravitational field.
So, when you're falling, actually all of the nuclei in your body move to the center of the atom
- you are weightless, 'massless' so to speak.
This little video I enjoy because this raises the question about gyroscopes.
Gyroscopes spin the atoms in the periphery at many times the force of gravity,
in fact they measure the... remember the centrifuges
where they put the astronauts for training and higher gravity?
All of the nuclei and atoms of the astronaut's body will shift towards the periphery,
and the same in a gyroscope.
Now this guy, while he was Professor of Electrical Engineering at Imperial College in London,
Professor Laithwaite was invited to give a Royal Institution lecture.
He chose to demonstrate his observations on gyroscopic force,
coming to a series of false conclusions on gyroscopic motion.
False conclusions (this is taken from the actual report about this).
These Royal Institution lectures used to be broadcast after the event
- his weren't and the reason was, he came up with 'false conclusions'.
That's usually 'weasel words' for
'he gave or performed an experiment which we can't explain'.
Now, there are mathematical equations which appear to explain it,
but it uses mass and acceleration and gravity and so on, in those equations
and since they're not understood or defined properly,
you've got to ask whether the mathematics really works
- the scientists were so uncomfortable with this demonstration
that they prevented it from being sent because it was 'false conclusions'.
These can actually be seen on the web at gyroscopes.org
But here's an opportunity to analyze gyroscopic motion from a new physical standpoint,
and doing so, may give clues to defeat gravity
using materials science, as well as physics.
The offset of the atomic nuclei in a spinning gyro maybe many times stronger
than that induced by Earth's gravity, and of the opposite polarity,
because here the outer part of the gyro is more positive
- it's the positive end of the gravitational dipole.
The experiment suggests the gyro becomes more strongly influenced
by cosmic attractions than by the Earth.
Watch this (Professor Laithwaite speaks) - "I'll balance that like a see-saw (balance point)
when I take this out here of course, then the balance point is upset, it should dip down.
We know that given the opportunity, it's going to do this, if it can
but now we've balanced it, and we've balanced it around it's center of mass.
So, if this gyro transfers it's mass center to the pivot, it should stay balanced.
The question is, will it?
(Aplause)
Let those who say I can not make a body appear lighter than it is
come and put hands in that one."
What I'd suggest here is using the Electric Universe model
is an opportunity for mathematicians to apply the Electric Universe model
to try and explain that because, this gyro appears as a positive charge, if you like,
in the presence of the negative charge of the rest of the universe and the negative charge of the Earth
and it seems to be more strongly influenced by the rest of the universe.
Maybe this is why you can use gyroscopes for inertial guidance?
They tie themselves to the rest of the universe.
And also, with these experiments which show an apparent loss of weight,
they may be better understood using the Electric Universe approach
Electrogravity
The path since Faraday to the discovery of the electrical nature of gravity
has been lost in the 20th century by a return to mathematical mysticism
assisted by computer-generated virtual reality.
The path is regained, as Peter Moddel
(who I think maybe here in the audience)
he writes in his book Making Sense, "By describing carefully our experience
of processes that deliver meaning we can arrive at an understanding of what is involved".
The intuition of the experimentalist, Faraday,
should have carried more weight than later mathematical speculation
because he had the experience of electromagnetic processes
that delivered sufficient meaning for the invention of the electric motor.
Electric currents in plasma naturally form repeated rotating patterns of matter
- from galaxies to stars and rotating weather systems on Earth.
Science needs to be simple.
Resonant orbital systems of charged particles at different levels of scale
within the atom may account for the nuclear force, magnetism and gravity.
That is, one force to rule them all. (audience laughter)
The Electric Universe suggests a repeated pattern of electric forces
organizing matter at vastly different scales.
On the galactic scale, it's the long-range electromagnetic force
due to Birkeland currents that dominates.
Plasma cosmology empirically duplicates the galactic rotation curve in detail
and radio astronomy has confirmed very recently the spiral arm electric currents.
It's the electromagnetic forces and the concentration of electromagnetic energy
in the galactic core that gives rise to an apparent gravitational mass equivalent to billions of stars.
There are no gravitational black holes.
As you saw, it's repulsive inside an object but at the stellar and planetary scale,
molecular forces form stars and planets and induce a weak gravitational field
with a sphere of influence limited by nearby bodies and the repulsive force
of the matter in the rest of the universe.
By making Earthly G a universal constant, we compute invalid masses for all other bodies.
Being born in the same electrical discharge event inside molecular clouds,
stars and planets will have much the same initial composition and structure, Sun included.
Stars do not have a thermonuclear core because they too have Marklund convected
(I won't go into detail here)
it draws the matter in over a vast volume
and all of the heavy elements end up in the core.
So, the radiant energy is due to reactions at the surface,
in the glowing ionosphere driven by electric current from the galactic circuit.
So, this is an extension of Ralph Juergens model,
the output of stars is not solely due to electrical input,
there's something else going on - obviously nuclear reactions.
So, the complex beauty of the non-expanding Electric Universe
is the result of electrical matter resonances and a balance between
electrical attraction and repulsion at very different scales.
Having a real physical model of the fundamentals
- mass, energy and gravity - is the path forward.
Looking back it shows mathematics is a discipline
both ancillary and subordinate to natural philosophy,
as physics was known before the 20th century.
We are not within the grasp of a theory of everything
when the real meaning of the symbols on the board are a mystery.
We are not a few percent contamination in a dark, unknown universe.
Obviously, 'the architects' of the Electric Universe were far more than mere mathematicians.
The Electric Universe shows more clearly where the real mysteries of physics lie
in the ultimate nature and origin of charged matter itself and the electric force.
As Etienne Klein and Marc Lachièze-Rey wrote in their book - The Quest for Unity;
"The tell-tale sign of the unification in depth is a more complete understanding of
... is a more complete understanding of...
elementary objects and a wider reach to other fields and objects of physics".
Welcome to the real adventure! Thank you.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
Chrome Extension