Conclusion

Starting off with three particle quanta and the idea that nothing happens without direct physical interaction, we have successfully laid out a physics in which everything from forces and optics to distances, time and energy are explained.

In this physics, there is no need for any mysterious action at a distance or undetermined state of things. Uncertainty is purely a function of complexity.

Nor is there any need for a curved space-time. Instead, we have particles interacting with other particles.

This is not to say that the physics laid out in this book is how things necessarily must be. Things may be very different. All we have demonstrated is that there are more than one way to explain things.

The Necker cube and Rubin vase can be perceived in more than one way

By Alan De Smet at English Wikipedia - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2428267

The Mercury Anomaly

Mercury makes its rounds around the Sun a little faster than predicted by Newton.

This is currently explained using a formula in which time and space is bent. However, this can also be explained using the physics laid out in this book.

The only additional requirement to those already presented is for matter in the open state to be hollow and allowing for the aether of zero-point particles to flow freely into and out of their inside.

With this addition, we get electrical pressure on the inside of electrons and protons. Zero-point neutrinos will bounce about on the inside of open state particles.

The precise size of a particle in the open state is no longer only dependent on the energy it is carrying, but also dependent on the availability of neutrinos.

In regions of space where there is an abundance of neutrinos, particles in the open state will be larger than in regions with relatively fewer neutrinos.

When we combine this with the fact that zero point photons are dielectric, and therefore more abundant close to massive objects, we get that particles in the open state are smaller in such regions.

Zero-point photons close to massive bodies supplant neutrinos, making neutrinos relatively more scarce.

With particles in the open state being smaller closer to massive bodies, we get that our “electron clock” goes faster.

The “electron clock” on Earth is bigger than the one on Mercury

Time on Earth goes slower than time on Mercury, not because time-space is curved, but because particles in the open state are smaller on Mercury than on Earth.

Using a clock on Earth to measure Mercury's orbit, we find that Mercury takes the rounds a little faster than predicted by Newton's formula. However, if we use a clock on Mercury, things will be exactly as predicted. Relative to a clock on Mercury, it is all the other planets that are too slow.

Time, Energy and Speed

If energy is stored as size in subatomic particles, and the rate of time is related to the size of these same particles, then time can be expected to slow down for any particle that experiences an increase in energy.

This is because the “electron-clock” is bigger, and therefore slower.

Bigger electron = longer distance for photon to travel = slower time

Observed from outside, the natural processes associated with a speeding atom will appear to slow down.

This is exactly what we find. Radioactive particles travelling close to the speed of light decay less quickly than the same particles do when stationary.

However, there is more going on than just a swelling of matter in the open state. At the speed of light, time comes to a halt. If this is entirely due to a swelling of matter, then matter will have to be infinitely large at such speeds.

The solution to this lies in considering what it means for a photon to cross an electron. If this means a round-trip, either back and forth, or around the electron, we get the answer to the problem.

When a photon crosses an electron in motion, it does so faster in one direction than the other. The relative speed going against the electron is the speed of the photon plus the speed of the electron. The relative speed going with the electron is the speed of the photon minus the speed of the electron.

Time slows down due to vector sum of speeds

The overall round-trip slows down for particles in motion, even if there is no swelling. At the speed of light, time stops completely because the leg of the journey going with the electron takes for ever to complete.

Inertia

Inertia is a resistance to change in energy. The more massive something is, the harder we have to push to change its speed or direction.

There is a time delay in the energy transfer.

The fact that inertia only exists in matter in the open state is a huge hint as to its nature.

Energy transfers to and from matter in the closed state happens instantaneously because matter in the closed state is very small. It happens faster than can be registered.

However, the time it takes to transfer energy to and from matter in the open state can be registered. It takes more time to transfer energy onto an electron than it takes for a photon to cross it.

Energy transfers are about readjusting sizes of particles. For matter in the closed state, this happens faster than it takes a photon to cross an electron. For matter in the open state, it takes more time.
For an object to change its speed or direction, all its particles have to change size. For large objects, this requires a lot of energy and time.

Big ship, big inertia

By Wmeinhart - Foto wurde mit einem Panoramaprogramm aus drei Fotos zusammengesetzt, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=124261

Inertia is the time delay registered when energy of particles in the open state are changed.

Energy

We have on several occasions in this book noted the relationship between energy and size of particles. Large photons carry more energy than small ones. Electrons carry more energy than photons, etc.

This relationship between size and energy is no coincidence, and I will therefore propose that energy is in fact size of subatomic particles. The energy of matter in the closed state is carried entirely as size.

This is also true for matter in the open state.

What is strange about matter in the open state is that it can move at a variable speed. However, it is not the speed of particles that carry energy. It is their size. When we accelerate a particle in the open state, it grows in size by a tiny bit.

The bigger the particle, the more energy it carries

Energy is in other words entirely a function of state and size of particles. The state is either closed or open, while the size is variable.

Time

To measure time, we need a clock. We all carry our own biological clock inside of us, and that is the clock we normally use. However, when we want to be precise about time, we build ourselves a clock.

The way a clock works is that it takes something that moves at a very predictable speed and make it give off a tick every time it has moved an equally precisely measured distance.

A time unit is always between two ticks. A single tick is not a time unit. That's why we say that clocks go tick-tock or tick-tick.

The smallest possible time unit we can register is in other words a function of the smallest possible ruler and the fastest possible speed.

Since all matter in the closed state moves at the speed of light, we have a ready supply of stuff moving at a very precise speed.

Our smallest possible ruler is the electron.

The smallest possible time unit is therefore the time it takes a photon to cross an electron. If something happens faster than this, the time laps cannot be registered in any way.

An instantaneous event is anything that happens faster than it takes a photon to cross an electron.

The electron as a clock

Time is in other words a function of matter in the open state combined with matter in the closed state.

We get: Time = Size of matter in the open state / Speed of matter in the closed state

Distance

When it comes to the four physical quantities of distance, time, energy and inertia, it is tempting to treat them as if they are somehow outside of physics. We can imagine a god in the heavens holding a ruler and a clock, distributing energy and bestowing inertia onto matter.

However, that would not be physics, and this is a book about physics, so we must find another way to define these quantities if we are to include them in our model.

The way we can do this is as follows:

To measure distance, we need a ruler of some kind. In our daily lives, the ruler we use is ourselves. We measure everything relative to our own size.

However, when we want to be precise about our measurements, we use a carefully crafted ruler.

Such a ruler is something we can carry around with us. Its length does not change and it does not fly about on its own.

The smallest possible ruler we can make is therefore the electron. Things smaller than an electron moves about at the speed of light and can therefore not be used.

The electron as a three dimensional ruler

Distance is in other word a function of matter in the open state.

The Eternal Universe

Once we accept the idea that electricity, rather than gravity, is the main force in the universe, many things become easier to explain.

We no longer need a super-dense crystal at the core of our planet.

There is no need for dark energy, dark matter, black holes or a big bang.

There is no need for a beginning or an end to the universe.

Instead, we have an eternal universe with no start and no end. Some areas are young. Others are old. Creation and destruction happen continuously and everywhere.

Galaxy cluster IDCS J1426

By ESA/Hubble, CC BY 4.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46299179

Where exactly our region of the universe is in this cycle is hard to say, but I suspect we are somewhere in the middle, perhaps a little closer to the end than the start.

Life-Cycle of Matter

The overall progression of matter goes from light to heavy through mass condensation.

This makes matter more radioactive, and therefore more readily fissionable. This in turn extends the life of stars. The gradual increase in radioactivity allows stars to function as electrical accelerators for longer.

However, the process of mass condensation cannot go on for ever. At some point, all elements will become radioactive. There will only be hydrogen left, all with enormous protons.

It seems unlikely that this is a sustainable state of matter. Such a situation begs for some correcting mechanism. My guess is that protons have an upper limit to their size, and that the proton itself becomes radioactive once that limit is breached.

Once protons start to collapse on themselves, a chain reaction ensues, and we get a massive burst of gamma-rays.

Bundled up with these gamma-rays, we find electrons and positrons that soon start the process of mass condensation all over again.

This is how quasars are formed. Over time, they become galaxies. The galaxies develop regions of degenerate matter. The matter collapses into radiation, and the cycle repeats.

Life-cycle of a galaxy, from quasar to maturity

Supernovas as Endothermic Heat Sinks

Although extremely hot and bright, supernovas are most likely endothermic. The creation of a solar system pulls energy out of the environment. This energy is used to synthesize an abundance of heavy elements in the objects formed.

Supernova SN 1994D, lower left, outshines its home galaxy

By NASA/ESA, CC BY 3.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=407520

Stars as Electrical Accelerators

A thing to note about the above hypothesis is that nuclear fission is assumed to take place in the corona of the Sun, and most likely in the chromosphere and photosphere as well.

Sun's corona and chromosphere, visible to the naked eye during a total eclipse

By I, Luc Viatour, CC BY-SA 3.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1107408

Nuclear fission is an exothermic reaction for all materials heavier than iron.

This means that energy is added to the external environment through fission of heavy elements. The Sun is an electrical accelerator. It has a greater output of electric energy than its input.

This in turn goes a long way in explaining where the cosmic currents originate in the first place. The source of the currents that power our Sun is other stars.

The Electric Sun

Our Sun is thought to be a big ball of gas with a fusion reactor at its core producing all the heat that radiates from it. However, at closer inspection, the Sun does not look anything like what this theory suggests.

The surface of the Sun, the so called photosphere, looks suspiciously like a liquid. It can produce giant fountains and arches that drip back onto its surface.

When there is a hole in the photosphere that we can peek through, there is nothing to suggest that there is anything going on underneath. Sunspots are black and cool compared to the photosphere.

Sun with sunspots

By Geoff Elston - Society for Popular Astronomy, Solar section, http://www.popastro.com/solar/solarobserving/chapter.php?id_pag=30, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=35976640

The hottest part of the Sun is not close to its core, but in its corona, thousands of miles above its surface.

This is all indicative of electricity. A big difference in voltage potential can accelerate charged particles to enormous speeds, making them increasingly hot as they accelerate towards space. A surface bombarded by charged particles can get so hot that it melts.

It appears then that the current that created the solar system in the first place continues to flow, and that it powers our Sun.

The photosphere is not a gas but liquid rock.

Under the photosphere, where it is relatively cool, stars are solid.

Stars are not made of material significantly different from planets, comets and meteorites. There's no real difference between a star and a planet except for size.

Stars are hotter than planets, simply because they are bigger and therefore the focal point of interstellar currents.

The mistake that has been made regarding the chemical composition of stars is the same that was made for comets. The abundance of water in the tails of comets is due to nuclear fission. Comets are rocky bodies, not dirty snowballs.

The abundance of hydrogen and helium seen in the light spectra of stars is also due to fission, and not due to an abundance of these elements in the star itself.

All the large bodies in our solar system are predominantly made of rock of various kinds. Large planets like Jupiter and Saturn are able to hold onto thick atmospheres, but it is a mistake to think that they have no solid surface. They too have rocky surfaces, just like our Sun.

Birth of Stars and Planets

There is no lack of evidence for plasma currents in space, and these currents come in all sizes.

There are the truly huge ones, stringing galaxies together like pearls on a string. Then there are the big ones that do the same for stars. Then there are the relatively small ones connecting planets to their central star. These are responsible for the auroras that we see in the atmosphere of planets.

The overall impression is that of a neural network with stars and galaxies forming the nodes and the plasma currents forming the synapses.

In all of this, there are the occasional bright flashes. These are the so called supernovas.

Standard cosmology attribute these flashes to the death of stars. However, Donald Scott suggests otherwise. He sees them as the births of stars and planets.

As we have already discussed regarding Jupiter and Venus, large planets with thick mineral rich atmospheres can give birth to smaller objects by ejecting a highly charged body the size of a planet or moon.

Stars can do this too. But when they do, the size of the object ejected is that much larger. Large stars can sweat off objects the size of gas giants or small stars.

This explains why binary star systems are relatively common, and why gas giants can be found very close to stars.

All of this is accompanied by bright flashes. However, only the brightest of them are categorised as a supernova, and to explain the most energetic flashes, something much bigger must be going on.

The biggest supernovas are most likely due to short circuiting of large plasma currents. The technical term for such a short circuit is a z-pinch, and it has the effect of pulling matter together.

A z-pinch can easily be produced in an electrical laboratory.

Pinched aluminium can, produced from a pulsed magnetic field

By Bert Hickman, CC BY-SA 3.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28083081

As can be seen in the above picture, a z-pinch can crush an aluminium can. If the can had been made of something more fluid, it would have been crushed completely.

Keeping in mind that electricity scales very well from the very small to the positively enormous, we can now imagine a dusty, mineral rich plasma current with a diameter many times that of a solar system.

Such a current would be like an enormous cylinder with several layers of positively and negatively charged tubes nested inside each other.

In balance with itself, the current will be cold and invisible, only detectable by the fact that there is a star at each end of it.

However, should such a current short circuit, there would be an enormous flash, followed by a lingering glow.

The glow will be visible as an hourglass shape similar to the crushed aluminium can depicted above.

The Hourglass Nebula (MyCn18), a supernova remnant

By NASA, R. Sahai, J. Trauger (JPL), and The WFPC2 Science Team - http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/opo9607a/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1849193

The pinch takes only a few hours to form. At its centre is a brand new star, quite possibly surrounded by planets with moons.

Currents in Space

In a picture taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, a jet of matter can be clearly seen ejected from the centre of a galaxy. The jet is 4,400 light-year long.

Plasma jet ejected by a galaxy

By NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
HubbleSite: gallery, release., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=102873

The fact that the jet hardly disperses over such a long distance suggests that it is highly charge. A strong magnetic field is required to keep something like this together over such a long distance, and the most likely source of that magnetic field is the jet itself.

Charged gases such as these are generally referred to as electric plasma. Their behaviours are different from electrical neutral gases. For one thing, they can keep together for enormous distances without dispersing.

Donald Scott, a contributor to the Thundrerbolt Project, has a very insightful lecture on this topic, worth looking up on the web for those interested in more information on this. In the same lecture, he discusses the mechanisms behind planetary formations.

The Electric Universe

In the physics laid out in this book, gravity takes a side-role to electricity. Gravity is due to a tiny imbalance in the electrical force. It is of little importance in monumental events, such as those described in the chapters above.

Gravity is only a significant force when there is electric stability. It is therefore a mistake to assume that all we see in the universe is primarily due to gravity.

This is not a new idea. Kristian Birkeland recognized the importance of currents in space as early as the late 19^th century. He explained both the auroras and Saturn's rings in terms of electricity. In his terella experiment, he reproduced Saturn's rings in his laboratory.

Kristian Birkeland and his terrella experiment

Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=307997

Following in Kristian Birkeland's footsteps, Hannes Alfvén received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970 for his work on magnetohydrodynamics, one of his many theories related to electric plasma in space.

The idea that Venus is a relatively new body emanating from Jupiter was first suggested by Immanuel Velikovsky in his book Worlds in Collisions, published in 1950. Velikovsky's version is more elaborate and reliant on ancient myths than the version presented in this book. However, the basic premises and conclusions are the same.

Inspired by Velikovsky's work, Ralph Juergens proposed an electric model for the Sun in 1972.

Today, Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott are the main proponents of the idea that the universe is driven by electromagnetic forces. Through their Thunderbolt Project, they have produced a wealth of easily accessible material that they have made readily available on the web.

Many others have also come to the conclusion that electricity, rather than gravity is the driving force of the cosmos.

Jupiter's Daughter

The rogue planet that once roamed our solar system appears to have been a stray child of Jupiter.

According to Greek legend, that child is Venus. Born from a storm, and able to throw punches like her father, she caused all sorts of trouble. Beneath her brilliant exterior hides a wild child with a mind of her own.

Could it be that the Greeks had it right? From what we have been able to deduce about the rogue planet, it certainly seems so. The planet we are looking for is a relatively large rock planet, most likely with a thick atmosphere. That sure sounds like Venus.

Taking a closer look at Venus, we notice something odd.

She's rotating very slowly, and she's rotating the wrong way.

All planets in the solar system rotate the same way. Their speed of rotation is related to their size and energy level. Big planets with thick atmospheres spin quicker than smaller, rocky planets.

But Venus is hardly spinning at all. In fact, she's slowing down. She's being slowed down by the Sun and ordered to spin the other way. It is as if Venus is a newcomer to the solar system, still trying to learn the rules of the game.

But most telling of all is what she's hiding under her thick atmosphere. There are all sorts of scars on her surface, as if she's been in several fights with other planets.

Global radar view of Venus (without the clouds) from Magellan between 1990 and 1994

By NASA - http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00104, Public domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11826

The scars are softened and rounded off by the heat and the acid atmosphere, but they are still visible.

It appears that we've found our culprit. Venus was the rogue planet that caused so much damage to our solar system, and she really is the daughter of Jupiter, as Greek mythology has it.

Jupiter's Children

There is a lot of energy associated with Jupiter. Everything about it is colossal. It rotates faster than any other planet. There are strong winds and enormous storms. Its famous red spot is a storm the size of a planet that has raged for centuries. The whole planet is under intense stress, and the way it alleviates this is by spinning fast and generating storms.

However, these two actions may not always be sufficient. If Jupiter comes under sufficient stress it must find a third way to rid itself of surplus energy.

An effective way to do so would be to shed some of its atmosphere.

As we have seen, meteorites explode when under sufficient electrical stress. Comets shed matter by growing a tail. This is how electrical stress is alleviated. Matter is ejected from the stressed body.

The way Jupiter will do this is by first producing a big storm, rich in minerals. This storm will have a dark brown or red colour. It may last for centuries and it may never be ejected. However, under sufficient stress, Jupiter will eject the mineral rich storm.

The famous red spot on Jupiter is not just a storm. It is an embryonic moon.

This embryo can either return into nothing, absorbed by Jupiter itself, or it can compact into an intensely hot and charged ball the size of a moon or a planet.

Large storm ejected from Jupiter in the form of a moon

At the moment, the red spot on Jupiter is becoming smaller in diameter, and at the same time taller. If this continues, Jupiter will give birth to yet another child.

Should that happen, we must hope that the birth is relatively uneventful and that the child quickly settles in among its siblings as yet another moon of Jupiter, because a white-hot extremely charged body emanating from Jupiter is a very accurate description of the rogue planet we have been looking for.

Putting all the evidence together, we get the following description of the fateful events that led to the destruction of Phaeton.

Already under considerable stress, Jupiter was antagonized by the smaller planets closer to the sun. They lined up in the direction of Jupiter, allowing for a freer flow of energy from the Sun to Jupiter.

The additional energy provoked the birth of a planet with sufficient momentum to escape the gravitational pull of Jupiter. The new planet raced towards the Sun, following the electric current set up by the planetary alignment.

Planetary alignment and path of rogue planet

The rogue planet was on a collision course with Phaeton, Mars and Earth.

Unloading the bulk of its charge on Phaeton, it obliterated it. On its way passed Mars, it scarred it badly. By the time it reached Earth, it had unloaded most of its charge. Yet, it was still able to zap Grand Canyon into our planet's surface.

Ceres, Phaeton and the Asteroid Belt

Between Jupiter and Mars, lies the asteroid belt. It is a large collection of rocks of various sizes that orbits the Sun together with the dwarf planet Ceres.

Ceres

By Justin Cowart - Ceres - RC3 - Haulani Crater, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49700320

Ceres is not much of a planet. It is a good deal smaller than our own moon.

Current theory holds that the asteroid belt is left over rubble from the creation of our solar system. Too much gravity from Jupiter prevented the successful creation of a proper planet, so all we got was Ceres and a bunch of unused building material.

However, there is an older theory that tells quite another story. This theory harks back to the ancient Greeks, and was the accepted theory up until the 20^th century. In this theory, a planet called Phaeton was destroyed in a squabble with Jupiter.

The discoveries of Ceres and the asteroid belt by 19^th century astronomers were taken as proof that Phaeton had indeed existed. Ceres was either a large part of Phaeton or it was its moon.

This older theory fits very well with the hypothetical rogue planet. On its way from Jupiter into the inner solar system, it blew up Phaeton, scared Mars, and zapped Earth.

A trail of destruction leads us to Jupiter. The closer we get to the gas giant, the more monumental is the destruction observed.

Exploding Planets

Capacitors are known to explode when charged too much. This means that if a highly charged planet comes in contact with a smaller planet, the bigger planet may cause the smaller one to explode.

Rogue planet blowing up a smaller planet

The effect would be like connecting a fully charged industrial capacitor to a much smaller capacitor.

Again, we are struck by the enormity of such an event. It seems impossible. However, the laws of electricity scale perfectly. What is true for capacitors in laboratories on Earth is also true for planet size capacitors in space. Charged too much, they explode.

Not only is such an event a theoretical possibility. There is evidence to suggest that it has happened in our own solar system, quite possibly due to the same rogue planet that scarred Mars and zapped the Grand Canyon into the crust of our planet.

Grand Canyon

Here on Earth we have the Grand Canyon, our own mini-version of Valles Marineris. Seen from space, it looks like an electrical scar.

Satellite picture of Grand Canyon

By Erthygy - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=66479110

The official explanation for it is that it has been carved out by water trickling through it over millions of years. However, it does not look like any other valley anywhere else on Earth. No other river has carved out an electric scar shaped valley.

If we stick with our hypothesis that there has been a rogue planet in our solar system, it seems more likely that the Grand Canyon is the product of a close encounter with this planet. The same planet that caused enormous damage to Mars came dangerously close to Earth as well.

If the Grand Canyon was created through discharge between Earth and a rogue planet, the entire canyon may have been carved out in less than an hour.

Such an enormous event is hard to comprehend. It is hard to even begin to imagine the power required to perform such an act of destruction in such a short time. However, we are not talking about a meteorite or a comet. We are talking about an object the size of a planet.

For perspective, we can look up industrial capacitors on YouTube to see what sort of damage such devices can do. A capacitor the size of a beer keg can easily vaporize bits of a coin or a pebble. It can blow watermelons to bits. All sorts of fun can be had.

A capacitor the size of a planet can without doubt do some serious damage to other planets. If the planet was sufficiently large and charged, it could even have blown up a planet or two on its destructive way through the solar system.

Valles Marineris

Mars has a scar. It's called Valles Marineris.

Mars with Valles Marineris clearly visible

By NASA / USGS (see PIA04304 catalog page) - http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-mars.html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mars/marsglobe1.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19400

This scar is either a rift due to planetary expansion or the result of a prolonged electrical discharge between itself and another planet. Which one of the two it is can be determined by taking note of certain tell tale features.

The edges of the scar have the characteristic zigzag pattern that electricity produces.

The scar is widest in the middle by quite a lot. This is also where a number of smaller scars are formed, indicating a widening out of the current flow at the moment the two planets were the closest together.

The scar is wide all the way. It does not taper into a very fine line, which we would expect from planetary expansion.

To the left in the picture, we can see a round pattern. The discharge has been lingering at this point as the two planets moved away from each other. This is what discharges do. Once an arc has been established, the connection is not immediately broken by pulling away. It sticks.

Valles Marineris can therefore be taken as evidence of a rogue planet that once roamed our solar system. This rogue planet may have been Mars itself. It may also have been some other planet, possibly one that was successfully ejected by Mars.

It appears then that some great battle took place in the heavens in some distant past. It may not be entirely coincidental that Mars is known as the god of war.

Rogue Planets

Just like comets, roaming the universe, there are planets that do not belong to any solar system.

When such planets enter an established solar system, forces are unleashed to either capture it or to eject it permanently from the system. This can easily be understood in terms of what has already been said about orbits, meteorites and comets.

First thing to note is that a rogue planet, although gravitationally attracted to other planets, and the central star, will have an electrically charged surface that makes direct collisions highly unlikely.

We don't have to worry about rogue planets crashing into Earth. However, that is not to say that a close encounter with such a planet would be entirely harmless.

At the very least, there will be a very strong ion wind associated with such an event. This will cause severe storms on Earth, way worse than anything anyone alive has ever experienced.

If the encounter is sufficiently close, there will be a discharge between the two planets as they seek to equal out their charge difference. This will be extremely destructive, wiping out all life wherever the discharge hits. A valley will be carved into each of the two planets as the discharge moves along their surfaces.

Electric discharge between two planets

The net result of this will be repulsion. The rogue planet will either be ejected from the solar system or captured by it.

If captured, the newcomer will push and jockey for position. It will seek an orbit in harmony with all the other planets. This may require other planets to change their orbits to allow for the newcomer.

There will be chaos, but it will be relatively short lived. The combination of electrical repulsion and gravitational attraction acts like a shock absorber. The rogue planet will be rained in. It may not take more than a few decades to integrate the newcomer into the solar system.

After a few thousand years, it will be as if the rogue planet has always been a member of the family. However, some evidence of a violent past will remain.

Comets

If the voltage potential of our atmosphere is a few hundred thousand volts, then something similar should be true for the solar system as a whole. The electric potential between the inner and outer solar system should be enormous. An object moving from the outer to the inner regions, or visa versa, should experience electrical stress similar to that experienced by meteorites entering our atmosphere.

Comets, with their oblong orbits around our Sun, should display evidence of electrical activity, which is exactly what they do.

Long before comets enter regions warm enough to melt water, they develop long tails rich in water.

However, comets are not icy bodies. They are rocks. Space probes that have observed comets up close, and even landed on them, have found no source of water, only barren rock and dust.

Comet 67P in January 2015 as seen by Rosetta's NAVCAM

By ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/europeanspaceagency/16456721122/, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=40847079

The electrical explanation this is that the water observed in the tail of comets is synthesized through nuclear fission. Atoms of heavy elements are ripped apart by electric stress. Oxygen and hydrogen is in this way synthesized.

This also makes the abundance of deuterium in comets' tails easier to understand. Heavy elements have a larger proportion of neutrons in their nuclei than lighter elements. Ripping heavy elements into parts would result in a general abundance of heavy isotopes in the elements produced.

Moon Craters

If craters on the Moon are solely due to impact, as many believe, then we should expect craters to be randomly distributed. Some shielding from Earth would be expected, but for the rest, the craters should appear with no clear pattern.

However, this is not the case. Small craters are predominantly located on peeks and ridges. It is quite common to see them on the edge of older, bigger craters, or lined up neatly along a ridge.

Electrical cratering on exposed edges

Larger craters are uniformly spread out. Viewed from the north pole or south pole, a spiralling pattern of large craters can be seen.

All of this indicate some sort of continuous process in which craters are excavated slowly over time.

The prime suspect in this case would be ion winds. Charged particles move along the surface of our Moon until they find a suitable escape point, usually on a ridge or other high point. They spiral around the escape point a few times before leaving the surface.

Over time, craters appear, evenly spaced out, themselves forming a spiralling pattern.

Lunar north pole

By NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University - http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse/view/npole (see also http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA14024), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31697472

The craters on the Moon are not proof of a violent past, but mostly the result of dust and other particles fluttering along its surface.

Impact craters are relatively rare in comparison to electrically excavated craters.

Impact Craters

Most meteorites, when we see them in the night sky, come in at an angle. Rarely do we see them come straight down from above.

This mean that such bodies would leave oblong craters if they were to strike the crust of our planet.

However, all impact craters are circular. There is not a single oblong impact crater on our planet, nor is there any such crater on the Moon.

This suggests strongly that all meteorites explode before they hit ground. Only tiny objects can make it all the way to ground without exploding.

Impact crater produced by exploding meteorite

This is true on Earth, on the Moon, and everywhere else in our solar system. Since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, we must assume that these explosions are electrical in nature.

Meteorites

When a meteorite enters Earth's atmosphere, it soon starts to glow. This goes on for a short while before it vanishes, either quietly, or in a flash.

Conventional theory claims that this is due to friction between the meteorite and the atmosphere. However, the magnitude of the explosions observed when large meteorites enter the atmosphere makes it hard to believe that this is all due to heat convection. The difference in electric potential between our atmosphere and the incoming object is a more likely source of such enormous energy.

Large meteorite glowing before exploding

The glow and the explosions associated with meteorites are most likely electrical discharges. Small objects manage to equalize their electric potential with the atmosphere by sparkling brightly. Larger objects explode.

Stability of Orbits

Electric repulsion due to similar charged surfaces is what keeps orbits from collapsing or flying apart at the slightest disturbance.

To see how this works, consider our Moon and what would happen if some external force were to push it hard towards our planet.

Without electric repulsion, our Moon would speed up, the force of gravity would be stronger on average, and the orbit would be elongated. Pushed hard enough, our Moon would crash into our planet.

Conversely, if the push was away from us, our Moon would start following a wider orbit, also more elongated than it is today.

However, as soon as we include the effect of electric repulsion, we see that things will quickly stabilise.

Electric repulsion and gravitational attraction

Contrary to the gravitational force which is calculated from the centre of objects, the electrical force is calculated between the surfaces of objects.

This means that electrical repulsion increases more quickly than the attraction of gravity for bodies that approach each other. It also means that electric repulsion decreases more quickly than gravity for bodies that move apart.

The net result of this is that we get a buffering effect. If our moon is pushed towards us, repulsion kicks in. If our moon is drawn away from us, repulsion decreases more than attraction. Oblong orbits are thereby restored to near perfect circles.

This is true for all astronomical bodies and the reason why collisions between such bodies are very rare.

Furthermore, we can make the prediction that if an expanding planet is changing its gravity primarily due to an increase in charge, orbiting moons will be pushed farther away. The increase in charge will trump the corresponding increase in gravitational mass.


As it happens, our Moon is receding from us by a few centimetres a year. This is attributed to tidal forces. However, it may also be due to ongoing changes in our planet's total charge.

All orbits may be changing over time, with young orbits being generally closer together than older ones.

Gravity Anomalies

The gravitational force is not equally distributed across our planet. Some places have more gravity than others. This is true, even when measurements are adjusted for height above sea level and the centripetal force of our spinning planet.

These gravity anomalies are not randomly distributed. They coincide with geological activity. Places with a lot of geological activity have stronger gravity than areas that have little geological activity.

It does not matter if the geological activity is due to uplifting of mountains, or formation of rifts.

Iceland, situated on the mid-Atlantic rift, has stronger gravity than normal. The same is true for the Himalayas and Andes where there has been a lot of uplifting.

North-east Canada and Tibet have very little geological activity, and they both have relatively less gravity than other areas.

Conventional theory holds that mass alone is the source of the gravitational force. The anomalies are therefore explained by a greater abundance of especially dense matter in the geological active zones. Dense matter floats up through less dense matter in both regions of rifting and uplifting.

However, this theory violates the law of buoyancy. Dense matter sinks. It never floats upwards. Uplifting should therefore result in less gravity, and the same should be true for rifting. In both cases, light matter should bubble up towards the surface.

But if gravity is due to capacitance as well as matter, the mystery of gravity anomalies solves itself. Especially if our planet is hollow.

All else being equal, the capacitance of a thin capacitor is greater than the capacitance of a thick capacitor. An expanding hollow planet would therefore be increasing its capacitance, and this would be especially noticeable in areas where the capacitor is cracking.

If the role of capacitance as a source of gravity in our planet is greater than the role of inertial mass, then surface gravity will increase with expansion. The reduction in overall density due to a thinner crust will be made up for by greater capacitance.

An expanding planet will display two types of cracks. There will be rifts where the old crust is pulled apart, and there will be mountains where the old crust breaks in order to fit onto the larger sphere. In both cases, we end up with a thinner crust along the cracks than in areas where there is no cracking. The geologically active areas will have more capacitance, and therefore more gravity than the geologically inactive areas.

Geologically inactive Tibet and north-east Canada have thick crusts

Rift zones like Iceland have thin crusts

Uplifting cracks like the Himalayas and Andes have thin crusts

It appears then that our planet is a charged body that is both hollow and expanding.

Origin of Water in the Oceans

If all ocean floors are newly formed due to expansion, then we need to explain how these enormous rifts have been filled so perfectly with salt water. The amount of water is neither more nor less than what has been required to fill the rifts.

Ocean-centric view of Earth

By Serg!o - File:Oceans.png, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11691840

The only way this could be the case, short of a miraculous coincidence, is that the water has come from inside our planet. If it came from outside our planet, the coordination between expansion and water supply would be impossible. There is no way the heavens could be coordinated in such a way that they supply water at the exact rate of planetary expansion.

Furthermore, comet tails have water rich in deuterium. They are therefore not the source of water on Earth.

The abundance of salt in our oceans is further evidence that the water came from within our planet which has huge salt domes hidden deep below its crust.

If the expansion of our planet is due to radiation, as suggested in this book, then water may even be synthesized inside our planet as a part of the expansion process. Heavy elements split off hydrogen and oxygen atoms as they decay through radiation. The result is water.

From observing rifts and volcanoes, water vapour appears to be an abundant component of their venting. All evidence point to Earth as the source of salt water in the oceans.

Expanding Planets

Assuming that an increase in radioactivity is a side-effect of mass condensation, and that mass condensation is real and ongoing, all astronomic bodies will experience an increase in internal pressures over time.

This is because radioactivity results in an increase in the number of atoms in a given space. Where there was once only one atom, there are suddenly two. With more atoms occupying the same space, pressure builds up.

A planet may stay unchanged in size for a very long time. However, at some point, the internal pressures will become so great that it will crack and start to expand.

From evidence available to us, it appears that our own planet stayed pretty much unchanged in size up until about 300 million years ago. Our planet had at that time a diameter roughly half of what it has today.

However, ever since then, our planet has expanded.

This is based on the fact that continental crusts are about 4000 million years old, while no ocean floor is older than 300 million years.

Also, if we cut away all the oceans on our planet, the continents fit perfectly together onto a sphere half the diameter of present day Earth.

South pole view of the expanding Earth

Oceans are rifts produced by the expansion of our planet, while continents are the original crust.

It appears then, that mass condensation can explain both the size of the dinosaurs and the expansion of our planet.

Gravity and Capacitance

If the gravitational force is communicated by neutrinos in the manner suggested in this book, then this force is dependent on four factors:

1. The distance between two objects
   
2. The total number of charged quanta involved (mass)
   
3. The availability of neutrinos (gravitational constant)
   
4. The magnitude of the in-print communicated by each charged quantum

The first three factors are all included in Newton's universal law of gravity. What is not included is the possibility that charged matter may be different than neutral matter in respect to the gravitational force.

This relates to point 4. The magnitude of the in-print communicated by neutrinos may be dependent on the electrical environment in which the in-print is made.

Since our planet has a charged surface, it is by definition a capacitor. Most likely, our planet is fully charged, which would make the total charge carried by our planet truly enormous.

This charge exerts stress on the crust of our planet. Positive quanta are pulled towards the negative surface. Negative quanta are pulled towards the positive surface.

Since both protons and electrons are dielectric, an internal stress develops. The negative hoops and the positive hooks of these particles get pulled further out than normal.

Uncharged and charged capacitor

When neutrinos hit these stressed particles, they get in-printed with a more pronounced footprint. This in turn translates into more forceful collisions between neutrinos in the surrounding space, and therefore stronger gravity.

Hollow Planets

We know from measuring the electric potential gradient of our atmosphere that our planet is negatively charged relative to the ionosphere. The potential difference is about 300,000 volt.

It is the potential difference between the ionosphere and the surface of our planet that keeps our atmosphere from escaping into space. The much weaker gravitational force would not be able to do this on its own.

The negative charge on the surface of our planet is most likely matched with a corresponding positive charge at its centre. This would mean that there is a repelling electrical force inside Earth.

Since gravity is measured from the centre of astronomic bodies, and not from their surfaces, as is the case with the electrostatic force, there can be no net gravity at the centre of planets, moons and stars.

This means that there is nothing to prevent astronomic bodies from being hollow. There is no force at the centre of such bodies to counter the effect of internal electrical repulsion. Nor is there anything to counter centrifugal forces due to spin.

If a cavity was to develop inside an astronomic body, there would be no way to make it disappear.

Cross section of a hollow planet with repelling electric force at its core

This was first recognized by Isaac Newton in his mathematical work on gravity. In his shell theorem he demonstrated that there is nothing to stop astronomic bodies from developing empty cavities.

When the astronomer Edmond Halley suggested to Newton that our planet may be hollow, Newton did not object. There was nothing in Newton's theory to counter Edmond Halley's suggestion.

Now that we know that there most likely is a strong repelling force inside all astronomic bodies, there is even less reason to object to such a notion.

The enormous pressure that undoubtedly exists at the core of all astronomic bodies is no argument for a solid core. The pressure inside the walls of a tunnel does not make tunnels collapse. The same is true for any cavity inside our planet.

Seismic evidence for a solid core is often used as an argument. However, reconciling seismic data with a solid core is extremely difficult. Using a hollow Earth model is much easier. Jan Lamprecht demonstrated this in his work on the subject.

Even NASA appears to accept the possibility of hollow planets. According to their own measurements, Jupiter's core is considerably less dense than its outer layers.

The only serious objection to a hollow Earth model is the fact that gravity at the surface of our planet indicates that it must be made up of something extremely dense.

The latest estimate is of a super-dense crystal at Earth's core. This material, which only exists in theory, and no-one has ever been able to produce in a laboratory, has all sorts of fantastic properties. This is all required in order to reconcile observed seismic and gravitational data with current theory.

However, there is a simple way around this. By recognizing that our planet is a gigantic charged capacitor, we can make the proposition that the dielectric material inside capacitors will add to the gravitational force when sufficiently charged.