Entropy in the Universe

A common criticism of the eternal universe is that such a universe will suffer heat death trough entropy. All useful energy will at some point be spent, leaving the universe with nothing but lumps of cold matter, incapable of doing anything.

From experience, we know that all but the simplest of processes are irreversible. Once a log of wood has been burned in a fire, it cannot be put back together again. Fuel spent to drive a car from one place to another is lost in the process. The list of irreversible processes is endless.

There is an inherent tendency of matter to spend useful energy in an irreversible manner, and proponents of the eternal universe need to address this problem.

One way around the entropy problem is to give matter itself a life cycle.

If matter is something with a limited lifespan, we have a way around the problem.

In defense of such a position, we have Halton Arp's intrinsic red-shift and his ideas regarding matter and mass condensation.

Galaxy with a dying region giving birth to a quasar, which matures into a galaxy

We can imagine matter as something born from radiation. Something that becomes gradually more heavy over time until it collapses back into radiation.

With no energy ever lost due to the self contained nature of the universe, we have a perfect cycle. There is no dead end, only endless cycles of birth, growth and death.

Entropy becomes a non-issue as far as the universe is concerned because all its processes are ultimately reversible through death and re-birth of matter.

Energy on Mercury

Time goes a little faster on Mercury than it does on Earth. This is why Mercury makes its rounds around the Sun a little quicker than predicted by Newton.

Conventional theory attributes this difference in time to a curvature of space-time. The alternative laid out in my book is to attribute this to a difference in the composition of the aether.

The aether in the region close to the Sun is richer in photons and poorer in neutrinos than what is the case farther away from the Sun. This is due to gravity, which pulls zero-point photons towards the Sun at the expense of neutrinos.

The size of electrons and protons depend in turn on the abundance of neutrinos in the aether.

With fewer neutrinos close to the Sun than farther away, electrons and protons end up correspondingly smaller in size close to the Sun than farther away.

The smaller size of electrons and protons translates into smaller clocks, and therefore faster time.

Photon crossing an electron on Earth, compared to crossing it on Mercury

It takes a photon more time to cross an electron on Earth than it takes a photon to cross an electron on Mercury. As a consequence, energy distribution takes more time on Earth than on Mercury. All processes are therefore slower on Earth than on Mercury, which by definition means that time itself is slower on Earth than Mercury.

An interesting consequence of this is that energy, which is also related to the size of subatomic particles, must be smaller on Mercury than Earth.

Let us imagine a carefully designed explosive with enough energy to send a 1 kilogram projectile through space at a speed of 1 kilometer per second.

We test this on Earth, and we see that it is spot on. There is never a deviation. It is a perfect explosive.

We take this explosive to Mercury and try it out there. What happens?

Energy is stored as size in subatomic particles. These particles are reduced in size due the difference in composition of the aether. When the explosive fires, there is less energy to draw on.

We may from this expect the projectile to come out slower than was the case on Earth.

However, the size of subatomic particles in the projectile has also become smaller. This means that the projectile has less inertia.

Time, distance, energy and inertia are all related to the size of subatomic particles. Measured on Mercury, the explosive behaves exactly as it did on Earth.

It is only when viewed form Earth that we notice that things have changed. An observer on Earth, looking at the experiment on Mercury, using equipment on Earth for all measurements, will notice that time is faster, distances are shorter, inertia is less and energy is less.

None of this is detectable to the observer on Mercury. Using equipment on Mercury to make measurements, the energy in the explosive has not lost any of its qualities. It will still send the 1 kilogram projectile through space at a speed of 1 kilometer per second.

The Energy Puzzle

Energy is the capacity to do work, and by work, we mean moving things around.

When I pick up a wood block from the floor, I do work in order to put it on a shelf. Energy is transferred from me to the block.

If the block should fall from the shelf and onto a ball on the ground, energy will be transferred to the ball by the exact amount that the block gives to it.

All of this is easy to understand. Except, there's a step that is not fully accounted for. The block falling from the shelf down to the ball involves acceleration. Yet, there's no change in the block's energy.

There is no transfer of energy from the block to its environment before it hits the ball and the ground. There is a conversion of energy from potential to kinetic. But this conversion is merely a matter of Newtonian accounting.

We can use Newton's equation to calculate the exact speed that the block hits the ball, and the exact amount of energy that is transferred from the block to the ball through that interaction. But we cannot use Newton's equations to explain why the block is falling.

Whichever way we look at this, we come to the conclusion that there is acceleration without any overall change in energy.

Gravity accelerates things without adding or subtracting energy.

Looking into the electric force and the magnetic force, we discover that they too accelerate things without adding or subtracting energy. Any change in energy communicated through the electric or magnetic force is supplied from outside, as explained in the two chapters on motors and generators and radio transmission.

All three filed forces are accelerations of various kinds, communicated through high and low pressure areas in the aether. These pressure areas are not like high and low pressures in weather systems. They do not carry any weight or energy.

An electron in an aether of zero-point particles

High and low pressure areas in the aether are imbalances that nature inherently seeks to correct.

This is a fundamental attribute of nature, on par with entropy and the constant speed of light.

The block falling to the ground is merely responding to an inherent tendency towards equilibrium in the aether. The same is true for charged particles accelerating in an electric field, or magnetic materials responding to a magnetic field. There is acceleration with no change in energy, all due to various imbalances in the aether.

Mass-Energy Equivalence

The equation E = mc², made famous by Einstein, contains an important clue as to the true nature of  energy.

First thing to note is that the equation does not distinguish between different types of energy. It does not matter if the energy in question is kinetic or potential. All energies have the exact same effect on matter.

An increase in energy results in an increase in mass, regardless of energy type.

The natural conclusion to draw from this is that all energies, regardless of type, reside inside the particles that make up light and matter. If mass is a property of matter, and mass and energy is equivalent, then energy too must be a property of matter.

Next thing to note is the relationship to the speed of light, expressed by the constant c.

If inertial mass is a measure of time delay in energy distribution within particles, and time is a relationship between the speed of light and the size of particles, then there must be a relationship between energy, inertial mass and the speed of light.

This is exactly what the equation E = mc² is telling us.

Subatomic particles: neutrino, photon, electron, proton

Finally, if energy is stored as size of subatomic particles, so that an increase in energy is equivalent to an increase in size, then there is no mystery as to why an increase in energy will lead to more inertia.

The increased size of subatomic particles, due to an increase in energy, results in more time required for further increase in energy to take place.

The principle of mass-energy equivalence, as expressed by the equation E = mc², is fully compatible with the idea that energy is stored as size in subatomic particles.

Light, Gravity and Energy

The strict particle model proposed in my book has energy stored as size of subatomic particles. All energies, regardless of type, are stored as size.

When lifting a wood block from the floor up to a shelf, the size of subatomic particles in the block increase by a tiny bit. The same is true when throwing the block through the air. However, dropping the block results in no change in size, because the sum of potential and kinetic energy remains unchanged during the fall. There is no change in the total energy of the block before it hits the ground.

An alternative to this model is to have potential energy stored in the field between the block and the ground, and kinetic energy stored as motion. Lifting the block from the floor will in this model put potential energy into the field. Dropping the block will result in a transfer of potential energy stored in the field to kinetic energy in the block, with gravity facilitating this transfer.

The problem with such a field theory is that it is all pure math, with no simple mechanism to explain it.

However, the advantage with a field theory is that once we accept the idea of energy stored in a field, we have a ready supply of energy to draw on whenever needed.

This comes in handy when we are confronted with such phenomena as gravitational red-shift.

When light travels away from a massive body, it looses energy. When it travels towards a massive body, it gains energy. This is experimentally confirmed, and requires an explanation.

Photons passing by, moving towards and moving away from a massive body

Using a field theory, we can simply say that photons give up energy to the field when they travel  away from massive bodies, and that they absorb energy from the field when they travel towards such bodies.

However, a strict particle model cannot use such an explanation, because no energy is stored outside of particles. When particles gain energy, other particles must loose energy. There has to be interaction between particles.

The way to solve this problem, using a strict particle model, is to invoke the aether.

When we combine the aether with the idea that a pilot wave accompanies every photon, we can imagine a mechanism for energy transfer between the aether and visible light.

Zero-point photons, abundantly available in the aether, readily soak up any excess energy of an outgoing visible photon. The red-shift of outgoing photons are facilitated by a corresponding blue-shift of incoming zero-point photons.

Conversely, blue-shift of incoming visible light is facilitated by the red-shift of outgoing zero-point photons.

Note that there is no need for any direct contact between the photons for the energy transfers to happen. As long as the pilot waves associated with each photon brush against each other, energy can be transferred.

Note also that this explanation has as a consequence that the aether is somewhat "hotter" close to massive bodies than farther away. The stronger the gravitational field, the more blue-shifted is the aether close to the surface of the body in question.

Force, Inertia and Energy

Newton introduced several concepts into physics in order to label the various parts of his equations. He did so without giving any specifics as to their fundamental nature. The labels were all defined in terms of each other.

Some of the labels are easy to understand in terms of what we can actually see, others less so.

In the case of Newton's second law of motion, Newton stated that force is mass times acceleration:

F = m*a

While acceleration is easy to picture and imagine, force and mass are not.

Mass is not matter, but an attribute of matter that may refer to inertia or gravity, depending on context.

Force is an even more ambiguous term. It can mean anything from tension and pressure to something that does work.

By bundling the concept of work up with pressures and tension, all sorts of confusions can arise, so I like to restrict my use of the word force in much the same way I limit my use of the word mass.

Ideally, the word force should only be used when there is a transfer of energy from one object to another. In all other cases, pressure and tension should be used.

What would follow from such a labeling is that the magnetic, electrical and gravitational forces would be re-labeled as pressures, because none of these forces do any actual transferring of energy.

To illustrate this, we can take the case of a wood block laying on the floor.

If I pick the block up, it is I who transfer some of my energy to the block. Gravity is merely providing a low pressure environment.

When I put the block onto a shelf, I have given the block some of my energy. This energy is stored in the block.

If the block slides off the shelf, gravity pulls it to the floor. However, gravity does not add any energy to the block. The potential energy in the block is merely converted to kinetic energy.

It is only when the block hits the floor that energy is transferred from the block to its environment. The energy that I gave the block when I put it into its place in the shelf is transferred to the floor, mostly in the form of heat.

This same logic can be used to the magnetic force and electric force as well. They do not add or subtract energy in a system. The energy is always applied mechanically to the system, as explained in the chapter on motors and generators.

In the case of inertial matter, we always start by applying pressure in order to change an object's energy. If we are unable to change its energy, pressure is all we provide. It is only when the inert body starts to accelerate that force is provided. This is in fact what the equation F = m*a states. Without acceleration, there is no force.

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

What should be noted is that if we apply force over time, for an accelerating body, and we express this mathematically, we end up with the formula for kinetic energy.

If we apply force over distance inside a force field, we get potential energy.

This is only true if the word force is used to mean Newton's second law of motion. As we have seen, tensions and pressures do not facilitate energy transfers. They do not do any work.

By restricting our use of the word force to Newton's second law of motion, we avoid a lot of confusion related to energy and energy transfers.

Sunspot Cycles

Ever since Galileo's time, we have monitored the Sun closely. One thing that has been carefully registered is the number of sunspots visible at any given time.

What has been noted is that the number of sunspots vary in cycles of 10.8 years, and that climate and geology on our planet appear to be related to this cycle.

Cold periods in the past have coincided with periods of low sunspot counts. Volcanic activity and earthquakes have tended to pick up during these same periods.

We are currently seeing few sunspots, and true to form, we are seeing a lot of volcanoes blow their tops. There has also been some unusual weather registered. Many cold records have been broken.

Pāhoehoe lava flow on Hawaii

By Brocken Inaglory - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2764846

There is nothing controversial about this. It is well known that low sunspot counts coincide with reduced electromagnetic activity on our Sun. The reduced electromagnetic activity allows for more cosmic rays to penetrate the atmosphere and crust of our planet. Increased cloud cover and geological activity follow as a result.

The conventional interpretation of this is that our Sun has an internal dynamo that happens to oscillate at 10.8 years cycles. There is nothing interesting going on. There is no relationship to anything else. Any relationship that there might be is purely coincidental.

On the other hand, there are those who point out that the 10.8 years cycle is a good match for the combined orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.

Jupiter and Saturn lined up on the same side of the Sun, together with Mars, on March 7 this year. There will be a great conjunction in which Jupiter and Saturn line up almost perfectly with each other in 2020. That is the year the current sunspot cycle is expected to be at its minimum.

The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24

By David Hathaway, NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center - http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28557779

What is a little concerning is the fact that the last couple of sunspot cycles have shown a clear downward trend in overall activity. This happened before the Maunder Minimum, which coincided with the little ice age.

We are currently entering a period where all the big planets are located at the same side of the Sun. Last time this happened, was during the Maunder Minimum.

It remains to be seen if we are entering a prolonged period of low sunspot activity, and if this will affect climate and geology as much as last time.

The prediction by those who believe that planetary alignments have something to do with it, is that we are in for another little ice age.

Those who believe that planets have nothing to do with sunspot activity are not willing to make any such prediction. They do not have anything in their models to make this kind of predictions. It is all pure coincidence, and no predictions can be made beyond the fact that things oscillate over a 10.8 years average.

5.9 Year Cycles

Conventional physics has gravity as a constant force that depends on mass alone.

There is a constant G associated with the equation expressing the relationship between mass and force.

Every now and again, there are attempts at measuring G. However, these attempts have proven frustrating. They do not result in a fixed result.

The constant G is not behaving like a constant. Its value varies with time. Measurements sometimes come in above average, and sometimes below average.

So persistent is this deviation that we by now have enough data to say something about the variation in the measurements. We know that these measurements follow a 5.9 year cycle. We can accurately predict the kind of deviation a measurement of G will produce based on the date that the measurement is made.

From this we can conclude that there is some external factor affecting G. Either G is not in fact a constant, or the measurements are all made in such a way that they are affected by this external factor in the same way.

Most physicists have chosen to interpret the variation in measurements as something external to G. The alternative is to view Newton's law of gravity as a proxy for a more precise description, and G as a loose approximation.

In the physics laid out in my book, I have gravity as a function of total charge. Gravity depends on both inertia and capacitance. G is a proxy for the electric constant k in Coulomb's Law.

Coulomb's Law compared to Newton's Law

Since charge varies with capacitance, all that is needed for G to change is for our planet to change its capacitance ever so slightly. When capacitance goes up, Earth soaks up more charge and G goes up. When capacitance goes down, Earth releases charge back into space and G goes down.

Regardless of interpretation, we are stuck with the rather odd number of 5.9 years as the length of our cycle.

Adding to the mystery is the fact that the length of an Earth day is not constant either. It too varies in  a 5.9 year cycle, with days sometimes being a little longer than average and sometimes a little shorter.

There appears to be a link between the length of an Earth day and the strength of gravity as expressed by the constant G.

Could it be that our planet has a pulse of sorts in which it swells and shrinks ever so slightly over a 5.9 year cycle? A swelling would slow down the planet's rotation and at the same time increase its capacitance. Shrinking would have the opposite effect.

If Earth's rotation on its axis is kept steady by the Sun's output, the cycle may be related to the sunspot cycle. However, that cycle has an average length of 10.8 years. Divided by 2 it yields 5.4 years. That's not a very good match.

However, Jupiter takes 11.86 years to orbit the Sun once. This means that Jupiter is at its closest to the Sun 5.93 years after it is at its farthest away. That's almost exactly 5.9 years, and well within any error margin in measurements of G and day length.

Could it be that Jupiter, with its intense magnetic field, acts as a modulating force in the solar system, increasing and reducing the capacitance of the entire system? If so, we should be able to detect variations of G and day length on other planets too, and these variations should all follow the same 5.9 year cycle.

Ignored Facts

Contrary to popular belief, modern science is full of contradictions and unsolved puzzles, and it does not take more than mild curiosity to uncover these problems.

Reading about Snell's Law, we only need to take a quick look out of the window to determine that it does not apply to light. The textbook may say otherwise, but the evidence is right in front of us.

Nor does it take a genius to figure out that a solar system governed by gravity alone will be incredibly fragile. Some other force must be included to ensure stability.

All that is needed to realize that the Quetzalcoatlus could neither fly nor hunt with today's gravity and inertia, is a very basic understanding of torque and stress in materials.

Accepted truths about the dinosaurs are in direct conflict with Darwin's principle of evolution. No animal will evolve into a size and shape in conflict with its function. A sloth does not evolve into the shape of a speed monster. An animal that lives off of the foliage at the lowest branches of trees does not develop a long swan-like neck.

Taking a closer look at our planet, we discover that all the continents will fit nicely together on a globe with half the diameter of Earth today. No seafloor is more than 300 million years old, and the seafloor looks nothing like the continental crust. It is full of rifts and stretch marks. The natural conclusion from this should be that our planet is expanding. This is flatly denied without any good alternative explanation.

Looking out into space, we see a huge scar on the surface of Mars. There is an asteroid belt with supposedly left over building blocks. Gravity has somehow managed to compact a bunch of rocks, but failed to create a planet. No-one seems bothered by the fact that gravity does not work that way.

The list of things for which the official explanation makes no sense is very long. There's evidence everywhere we look. Yet, this is brushed lightly aside, as if it is all mere details. What really matters to scientists these days is the exact properties of the Higgs Boson, and the precise size of black holes.

The Emperor's New Clothes

By Vilhelm Pedersen (1820 - 1859) - English Wikipedia (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Emperor_Clothes_01.jpg ), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4038625

Never mind the feeble explanations presented for all the things that are close and obvious. What's really important is the details of things that we have never directly observed.

This seems to be the mantra of modern science, and it is reminiscent of the tale of the emperor and his new clothes. No-one mentions the possibility that there might not in fact be anything produced in the emperor's basement. All discussions are centered around the details of the fabrics, their fine colors, their texture, and their sheer brilliance.

Understanding the Rainbow

The rainbow is fairly easy to understand in terms of particles. Many people have explained this phenomenon excellently before me, so I'm not going to pretend originality on this point. This is merely another rehash of an old and well established interpretation.

The first thing to note about the rainbow is that it is a reflection of light coming in from behind the observer.

Furthermore, in order to diffract into multiple colors, the light has to enter the medium that it is reflected from. The reflection is off of the inside of the medium, not its exterior surface.

In the case of the rainbow, the medium is water in the form of spherical droplets.

Only light that penetrates into the droplet before reflection can produce the rainbow effect. Light that reflects off of the exterior of a droplet will not diffract into multiple colors. Light that goes straight through the droplet is lost to the observer.

The type of reflection that is required in order to produce diffraction with the use of water droplets is very peculiar and rare. It only happens at two precise angles relative to the observer.

We have the rainbow and the double rainbow, but not a third or a fourth rainbow.

To illustrate why the reflections required are as rare as they are, we must consider the raindrop, and the refraction and reflections that are required for the light to make the path from behind the observer, through the raindrop, and then onto to the observer.

Observer, rainbow and light reflecting off the inside of a raindrop

For light to enter a raindrop, it has to hit it at a near perpendicular angle. However, for light to reflect, the angle has to be slant.

Light has to enter the raindrop, and subsequently make multiple slant reflections before leaving. Any other scenario will either see the light fail to reflect towards the observer, or fail to diffract.

This, in short, is how the rainbow works and why we only have two and not a multiple of them.

If Light was Waves

If light is a wave and glass is something that changes the wavelength of light as it moves through it, then Snell's Law should apply.

Blue light, associated with short wave lengths, should refract more than red light. Blue light should therefore end up at a different relative location from red light. The result of this would be a rainbow effect in which colors get blurred and mixed.

Viewed at an angle, a stick painted red and blue would have the appearance of either splitting apart or contracting together into a shorter stick. Multi colored fishes in aquariums would appear blurred and miss-colored.

Applying Snell's Law to light going through a glass sheet

None of this happens, not even for very thick sheets of glass. Yet the tiniest speck of broken glass can produce a fantastic little rainbow. Diffraction of light is purely a function of relative surfaces. If the surface penetrated on entering the glass is parallel to the exit surface, no diffraction takes place.

Diffraction only happens when the surface of entry and the surface of exit are at an angel to each other. Diffraction only happens on exit from a medium. This is contrary to Snell's Law, and proof that light cannot be treated purely as waves.

Stability of the Solar System

The stability of our solar system is one of the oldest problems in theoretical physics, dating back to Isaac Newton.

Newton used his laws of force and motion to determine the motion of a single planet around the Sun. However, the actual solar system contains eight planets, each interacting ever so lightly with every other.

The number of stable configurations that can be achieved with gravity alone is extremely small, and there is no room for deviation. Even a tiny disturbance will cause the system to collapse into chaos.

The solar system

By Harman Smith and Laura Generosa (nee Berwin), graphic artists and contractors to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, with Pluto removed by User:Frokor - Based on Image:Solar_sys.jpg, with Pluto removed. Copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_sys8.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1535590

Yet, the solar system is stable. Orbits are near perfect circles. There's no sign of deterioration.

Newton's conclusion from all of this was that God must have a role in it. God must have set every planet and moon into their proper place, and then set it going. Every now and again, God has to return to our solar system to keep things in balance.

Without some additional force, far stronger than gravity, all orbital configurations will collapse if exposed to a sudden jolt. It is only in times of balance that gravity alone can keep planets and moons in their steady clockwork orbits.

In times of stress, an iron hand is required to put everything back into order. That iron hand is not God, but static electricity, as explained in the chapter on orbits in my book.

What we are observing in our solar system is not the absence of any force but gravity, but a system in harmony, where gravity alone is sufficiently strong to keep things going.

Static electricity is the iron hand that is ready to come in and put things back into place at the slightest upset. The reason we cannot see it, is that this fist is at the moment relaxed. It is not gripping onto any of the planets or moons, because all these bodies are presently in harmony with each other.

Magnetic Fields of Planets

Current understanding of planetary magnetic fields is that they are the products of what is loosely termed dynamo currents.

In the case of our own planet, the source of the magnetic field appears to be deep below the crust. However, currents in the ionosphere, high above our planets are also known to contribute.

The exact nature of the below ground current is unknown, but it is tempting to suppose that it is a plasma current, just like the one in the ionosphere. This is especially true for those who prescribe to the idea that planets may be hollow.

The fact that Earth's magnetic poles are erratic, sometimes deviating as much as 80 km from their average position, strongly indicates that their source are highly fluid.

The fact that Earth's south pole and north pole rarely position themselves at exact opposites to each other indicate that there is not in fact a single magnetic field. There is a field to the north and a field to the south that are loosely connected through magnetism. Together, they produce an overall magnetic field, and the appearance of being from a single source.

In actual fact, there is four major contributors to the overall field. There is an internal and external current producing the magnetic north pole, and a similar duo to the south, producing the south magnetic pole.

Plasma currents at the poles producing an overall magnetic field

There is no direct physical contact between the currents. They act together purely through magnetic interaction. This is evident on Jupiter which have magnetic poles that act fairly independently of each other.

Further evidence to support this view can be found on Uranus, which has at times more than two magnetic fields. It appears that the external and the internal plasma currents of Uranus are out of tune with each other, sometimes lining up and sometimes not.

Earth's Asymmetrical Expansion

Most of Earth's continents are located in the northern hemisphere. This may be mere coincidence, or it may have an explanation similar to that of the lunar south pole anomaly.

If there is a current going through the solar system from south to north, then there is a predominance of massive particles striking the south pole relative to the north pole.

This has the effect of carving out deeper craters on the south pole of our moon. Similarly, it will have the effect of softening up the crust on Earth's south pole more than the north pole. This would then lead to more expansion south of the equator than north of it.

300 million years of planetary expansion as seen from the south pole

From measurements, we know that very few particles coming in through the polar auroras actually hit the surface of our planet. Most particles return to space, so the difference in crustal massaging going on at the two poles is likely to be subtle.

However, even small differences can yield profoundly different outcomes over time.

Lunar South Pole

The south pole of our moon has deeper craters and taller ridges than the north pole. The processes involved in carving out the landscape of our moon appear to have been more forceful at the south pole, compared to the north pole.

Lunar south polar region as imaged by Clementine.

By NASA/JPL-Caltech - This image or video was catalogued by Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under Photo ID: PIA00001., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8941891

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

If moon craters are carved out electrically, as suggested by the electric universe crowd, we can deduce that the current responsible for the formation of these craters goes from south to north.

Currents in space are made up of positive ions and electrons, with ions moving in the direction of the current, and electrons moving in the opposite direction.

The ions are far heavier than the electrons. Their impacts are more destructive. It follows then that ions coming in from the south and leaving to the north will carve out deeper craters to the south than to the north.

Moon craters can therefore be seen as indicative of a current moving through our solar system from south to north.

Higgs Boson

The Higgs Boson is an essential part of the standard model of elementary particles. It is needed to explain mass and the extremely short range of the weak force.

Without the Higgs Boson, the standard model would have to be completely revised or abandoned all together. It was therefore a big deal when researchers found this particle some time back. There was much self congratulation, and presumably a lot of relief too.

However, it is far from clear that the famed Higg Boson has in fact been observed. Such things only exist in the standard model. There is no need for them in alternative theories.

From a theoretical viewpoint, it is doubtful that there is such a thing as mass. Mass is not a physical entity, but a convenient shorthand for inertia and gravity.

In the particle theory proposed in my book, short range forces are not forces but textures. Particles have uneven surfaces. It is this texture that explains their short range interactions.

Gravity is an imbalance in the electrical force, and inertia is time delay in energy transfer.

There is no need for a special particle for any of this.

The Higgs Boson appears to be needed for the sole purpose of solving problems internal to the standard model. The mind-boggling complexity required to explain such simple mechanisms as inertia and the electric weak force is a symptom of a model that has lost its way in its own internal maze.

By MissMJ - Own work by uploader, PBS NOVA [1], Fermilab, Office of Science, United States Department of Energy, Particle Data Group, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4286964

This is the sort of mess we end up with by making premature decisions on what theory to concentrate on.

Solar Neutrinos

The standard solar model has the Sun as a fusion reactor, compressing hydrogen into deuterium and subsequently into helium in its super-dense core.

Sun on February 18, 2015. Taken with Canon 60d, Coronado PST, 20mm eyepiece, Vixen Polarie, 1/8 second, iso 400, HDR wavelets in Pixinsight and sharpening in GIMP.

By HalloweenNight - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=44873108

Fusion reactions are known to produce detectable neutrinos, so the detection of such neutrinos on Earth from the direction of our Sun would be a great way to confirm the standard model.

An experiment was set up in the 1960s to look for solar neutrinos. However, very few neutrinos were detected.

This came as a great surprise to the standard solar model proponents. Something was not quite the way they had imagined.

After some deliberation, everyone agreed that the problem was not with the solar model, but with our understanding of the neutrino.

What was finally decided on was that neutrinos have the ability to change from one state to another as they move through space. By the time they reach Earth from the Sun, they are simply undetectable.

Everybody could now congratulate themselves on having used the standard model of the Sun to learn something profound about neutrinos.

Our current understanding of the neutrino is in other words based on the standard model of the Sun.

This means that if the standard model of the Sun at some point proves to be wrong, then our understanding of the neutrino will have to be revised too.

A lot of modern physics rests on the standard model of the Sun. It is therefore no big surprise that competing models of the Sun are met with skepticism and even outright hostility.

Promoting My Theory

It is now a year since I first published my theory on physics, and I have just completed a revision of it. This revision is now available in its entirety on a website dedicated specifically to it.

The website is called Universe of Particles, just like the title of the revised book.

Feel free to check it out.

Book cover of the original publication from a year ago

The One Theory Fallacy

Most people will agree that there can only be a single reality, and that there for this reason can be but one explanation to the physical world as we know it. Even if we believe in multiple realities, there has to be a single explanation to tie it all together.

There is no reason to object to this position. However, where things go astray is when this intuitive truth is used as an argument for focusing all attention around a single theory. The idea that we must all work within a set framework of ideas in order to make progress is at the heart of the troubled state of modern science.

In an eagerness to get to the truth, premature decisions have been made. Scientists have settled on a number of ideas from which any dissent is seen as counterproductive, or even treasonous. Originality is not awarded, but punished.

The Inquisition, no room for dissent

By Dr. Nuno Carvalho de Sousa Private Collections - Lisbon, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2674214

The idea behind this attitude is that things have by now been pretty much completely figured out, and that all that remains is a bit of tweaking here and there. Anyone who questions this is nothing but an ignorant or a troublemaker.

What people supporting this attitude fail to see is its destructive impact on the creative process. The idea that all has been figured out is mind-numbing and depressing. No-one with a creative streak will be attracted to a field in which only a few problems remain.

Even if it should in fact be the case that all has been figured out, making a point of this is the last thing we should do. New ideas and theories should be encouraged. Anything that fits and explains observational evidence should be met with curiosity. This may divert some energy away from other work, but it will have the benefit of sparking the imagination of creative minds.

The way forward in science is not to focus all attention on a single idea, but to let ideas run freely. A healthy scientific environment does not contain a single theory, but a multitude.

Mass is an Abstraction

There is a whole lot of confusion around the concept of mass in physics.

The most common mistake is to confuse matter for mass as if the two things are the same. However, mass is merely a property of matter. It is not matter itself.

Matter is the physical stuff that we are made of. In a pure particle model of physics, photons and neutrinos are types of matter as well. We have protons and electrons which we can term ordinary matter, or matter in the open state, and then we have photons and neutrinos which we can refer to as the aether or matter in the closed state.

The fact that only matter in the open state has inertia has caused considerable confusion. Since many equate matter to mass, the conclusion has been that photons and neutrinos are not matter.

But photons and neutrinos are matter, just as much as protons and electrons. The fact that they have no inertia, and only photons react to gravity, does not take away their status as matter.

The big error that has been made ever since Newton's days is to assume that the close link between gravity and inertia for ordinary matter is indicative of a single quality that joins the two things, and that this quality has to be a single phenomenon.

While it is true that the link between gravity and inertia is due to a single quality, it is not true that it is a single phenomenon.

The quality that joins gravity and inertia is charge. The more charged quanta a piece of matter consist of, the more it is affected by gravity, and the more time is required to change its energy when its constituent particle quanta are in the open state.

Proton, electron, photon and neutrino

• Protons are made up of thousands of charged quanta in the open state. They have much inertia and much gravity.
• Electrons are made up of three charged quanta in the open state, they have little inertia and little gravity.
• Photons are made up of six charged quanta in the closed state. They have no inertia and little gravity.
• Neutrinos are made up of a single neutral quantum in the closed state. They have no inertia and no gravity.

There is no mass as such. There is charged quanta, some in the open state and some in the closed state. Mass is merely a convenient, and very deceptive, shorthand for matter in the open state.

The Void

In a universe where all physical properties are associated with matter, space itself has no properties at all. To illustrate this point, consider the void which is an infinity of nothing.

A void does not have a box around it. It is not the mere absence of particles, it is the limitless absence of particles.

Since there is nothing in a void, and it has no boundaries, a void has no size, no dimensions and no time. To ask the size of a void is as meaningless as asking the size of Super Mario's hat. There is no answer to such a question.

To talk of size and dimensions, we need a reference. We can talk of Super Mario's hat in relation to Super Mario. However, we cannot talk about his hat in relation to ourselves. We are made of matter. Super Mario and his hat are made of bits and bytes. There is no meaningful relationship between Super Mario's universe and our universe as far as size and dimensions go.

This same logic applies to the void. Only when we bring some reference into it does size and dimensions come into existence as meaningful quantities. The number of dimensions that spring into existence is determined by the number of dimensions inherently present in our reference. Matter has three dimension, so we get three dimensions we can talk about in the context of matter.

Size and dimensions of an electron

For time to come into existence, we need matter that move at a variable speed and matter that move at a fixed speed. I.e. we need both ordinary matter and the aether. We need at the very least an electron and a photon.

Electron, with photon acting as a pendulum

To see why this is the case, we can ask ourselves a simple question related to the void. Imagine we put a few electrons and protons into it, but no photons or neutrinos. This allows us to construct a coordinate system. However, it does not allow us to construct a clock. We cannot in any way figure out the rate of the local time inside the void. The only clock we have is our own, which is outside of the void. There is no time inside the void if there is no aether in it to act as a pendulum.

Put another way, let us imagine that we could rid ourselves of the aether, so that there no longer existed anything that moved at a predetermined fixed rate of speed. This would stop all natural processes. Temperatures would be at absolute zero. Any mechanical clock would stop.

Let us now stay in this state for an hour, using our own local time.

This is of course impossible. The absence of the aether has removed the very existence of time. There is no way to know when an hour has passed in a space that has no aether.

Mistake of the Century

When modern physics got rid of the aether, all sorts of trouble emerged. The electric force, the magnetic force and gravity were suddenly mysterious actions at a distance. A whole range of phenomena at the subatomic level became probability weirdness in which things could be more than one place at a time. Space and time became something flexible that could bend and curve.

Since no-one can properly comprehend such concepts, everything became math and formulas. Physics became an exercise in advanced mathematics.

However, the moment the aether is allowed back into physics, things become at once more understandable and real. Forces become high and low pressure areas in the aether. Subatomic uncertainties become manifestations of interference with the aether. Space and time no longer need to curve and bend. Instead, it is the particles in the aether that change.

An electron in an aether of zero-point particles

Getting rid of the aether was probably the biggest mistake in modern science.

Planetary Alignments

There was a rare planetary alignment on March 7 this year. As expected, nothing out of the ordinary happened on that day, so everybody had another chance at mocking the astrologers and mystics for their beliefs.

However, there might be more to planetary alignments than meets the eye. They may not be as insignificant as some make them out to be.

Above the round domes of La Silla Observatory in Chile, three astronomical objects in the Solar System — Jupiter (top), Venus (lower left), and Mercury (lower right)

By ESO/Y. Beletsky - https://www.eso.org/public/images/potw1322a/, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26470687

Alignments are cyclical, and so is the Sun. Alignments may therefore have something to do with the state of the Sun. Certain alignments may make our Sun more active, others may make it less active.

We have had of late an uptick in geological activity. Spring has come late to the northern hemisphere this year. The red spot on Jupiter has become smaller and taller.

This may all be related. Especially in an electric perspective. If our Sun is powered by an external electrical input, then our entire solar system is a circuit in which energy flows change depending on the location of planets.

If all planets are clustered on one side of the Sun, the overall energy flow will skew towards the planets, making the Sun a little less active while making planets a little more stressed.

Isn't this exactly what we are seeing? Isn't the uptick in geological activity a sign of stress? Isn't the low solar activity a sign of less energy input? I'm certainly inclined to think so.