Thursday, March 31, 2022

5000 Rubles per Gram

According to this and many other articles on the web, the Ruble has been pegged to gold at a rate of 5000 Rubles per gram as of March 28. At the current rate for the Ruble, it is now possible to buy gold in Russia for a mere $1600 per ounce, instead of the $1950 demanded in the US, which means that this would have been a silly move if there was a lot of Rubles washing around in the financial system. People would go to Russia to get their gold for $1600, only to sell it in the US for $1950.

However, Putin has made sure there's a shortage of Rubles among people by insisting that all Russian gas must be bought for Rubles, so there will be no drain on the Russian gold reserve. The opposite will happen. The West will sell their gold to Russia in order to get Rubles.

Russia has just put the world back on an official gold standard that ties the price of gold to the price of Russian gas. The result of this will be a stronger Ruble and higher prices for gas and gold measured in Western currencies.

Vladimir Putin (2018-03-01) 03 (cropped).jpg
Vladimir Putin

By Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, Link

Wednesday, March 30, 2022

Measuring Vacuum Permeability on Mercury

The laws of physics are assumed to be universal. This means that experiments performed on Earth should yield identical results when performed on Mercury even though Mercury is more influenced by the sun than we are. The fact that Earth and Mercury are different reference frames shouldn't effect locally measured results.

But how does this work when we make experiments related to the reference frame itself? Will we still get identical results on Mercury and Earth? For instance, will vacuum permeability (μ0) be measured to be different on Mercury?

Vacuum permeability is a measure of how much drag charged particles experience per unit of magnetic force they produce when moving through a vacuum. This makes μ0 a measure of space; the reference frame within which all things are measured.

Given an aether made up of low energy photons and neutrinos, μ0 is an indirect measure of the number of photons available. My theory predicts that this number is higher on Mercury than on Earth. But this doesn't necessarily mean that μ0 ends up with a different value when measured on Mercury. This becomes clear when we consider how μ0 is measured, and how the aether's composition influences the various parts of the experimental setup.

Drag per unit of magnetic force can be found with a setup that measures speeds of ions and their associated magnetic fields. If we know the inertial mass of our ions, we can calculate their drag from their deceleration.

We don't have to measure everything exactly to find out if vacuum permeability is equal on Earth and Mercury. As long as every step is identically performed, we only have to note whether our ions decelerate differently and whether the magnetic field produced is different. If there's any change in either of these two values, we've been able to detect a difference in the properties of space, aka aether.

For our purpose, we need a vacuum chamber through which we can send carefully manufactured ions of homogenous mass, charge and velocity. This can be used to measure the deceleration of our ions as well as their magnetic fields.

Positive ion moving from right to left
Positive ion moving from right to left

First, we make the experiment on Earth. Then, we send the equipment to Mercury for an identical run. All input factors are identical, so the only possible differences will be in measured results.

At this point, we need to keep in mind the Mercury anomaly, and how we solve this problem by having the aether change the size of things. Everything is a little smaller and a little faster on Mercury, including the astronaut in charge of the experiment and the experimental setup. But this is not noticeable by the astronaut. This change is only detectable by observers on Earth.

Everything is a little smaller and faster on Mercury because the aether is a little richer in photons than on Earth. Also of importance to this experiment is the hypothesis that photons and neutrinos don't change in size due to changes in the aether. Photons are not only more numerous than on Earth, they have slightly more momentum as well. But aether particles are not directly detectable, so we cannot measure this difference directly. This is why we're measuring μ0 rather than counting and weighing particles in the aether.

Let's now consider what the setup does, and what it measures on Mercury to see if results come out different. Seen from Earth, everything is a little quicker and shorter. The ion is also a little less massive. But this is as expected. What we're interested in is what the observer on Mercury sees, and what our setup registers in terms of deceleration and magnetic force.

Our theory tells us that the aether on Mercury is relatively rich in photons, and that each photon has slightly more momentum relative atoms and electrons. This means that our ions will experience more drag if they are unchanged in size. However, our ions are particles of inertial matter, so they are not unchanged in size. They are smaller, and this makes it more likely than not that there's no measurable difference in drag.

The magnetic field produced would also have been greater if the ions were unchanged in size. But again, we can argue that the most likely outcome is no change. If so, we can can conclude that μ0 is a universal constant. Its exact value is determined by the overarching principle in physics that tells us that local measurements are independent of reference frames. Even experiments where the reference frame itself is being measured will yield identical results regardless of where we are in the universe, or how fast we are moving.

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

Measuring Forces on Mercury

Mercury makes its rounds around the sun faster than predicted by Newton. A consequence of this is that Mercury's orbital precession is greater than expected by 43 seconds of arc per century.

The mainstream explanation for this is that space-time curves in the presence of massive bodies. Time and space are distorted near the sun, and we get the observed discrepancy. However, an alternative solution can be found if we assume the existence of an aether. Instead of curved space-time, we have differences in densities in the aether. In the case of my proposed aether, which is a mix of low energy photons and neutrinos, there's a higher density of photons close to massive objects, and this causes rulers to become shorter and clocks to run faster.

Since curvatures and gradients are mathematically equivalent, we can assume that the math will be similar for the two solutions. However, I haven't derived any equations. I'm confident that my solution works only because formulas derived from my model will be similar to what's already developed from the curved space-time model. But is my solution sufficiently similar to represent a valid alternative? To answer this question, we'll have to home in on some formulas.

Let us first look a little closer at the Mercury anomaly. My solution is based on the idea that clocks run faster on Mercury, and by clocks, I mean anything that moves, including human heartbeats, chemical processes and radioactive decay. An environment in which clocks run faster will be observed from outside as a place where things happen quicker. Speeds are higher, including orbital speeds.

Not only are speeds higher on Mercury, rulers are shorter as well. Anything made out of inertial matter is slightly smaller on Mercury than on Earth. But since clocks go faster as well, no-one notices anything unusual about their local environment.

This can be illustrated by analyzing the formula for force F related to inertia: F = ma, where inertia is represented by m and a is an acceleration.

Our model tells us that m on Mercury is less than what it is on Earth. However, a is correspondingly quicker. Plugging our numbers into the formula for force, we get that F is unaffected by the changes in m and a due to Mercury's proximity to the sun.

Using measurements gathered on Mercury, we get that nothing has changed. This is because our measuring equipment has changed relative to what they were on Earth. These changes correspond exactly to changes to the weights used for our experiments. An observer on Mercury is unable to detect any change in m or aF is therefore exactly the same as on Earth.

However, an observer on Mercury will notice that Mercury's orbital radius is greater than what it is when measured from Earth. It follows that Mercury is going around the sun at a higher speed than measured from Earth.

The centripetal force that keeps Mercury in its orbit is what we commonly refer to as gravity. Hence, we can calculate the strength of gravity between Mercury and the sun by using this formula:

F = mv^2/r, where F is gravity, m is the mass of Mercury, v is the speed of Mercury and r is Mercury's distance from the sun.

Local measurements of Mercury's mass indicate no change, so the only two factors that changed, according to observations made on Mercury are v and r. These two variables are linked in that they both relate to distance, but the speed is squared while radius is not, and we get that our calculation based on measurements made on Mercury yields a stronger gravity between Mercury and the sun than what we get when using data gathered by observers on Earth.

From our analysis of F = ma, we see that measurements of force, local to a single reference frame, yield identical values regardless of where the measurements are made. But this is not the case for gravity which acts between reference frames. We get different results depending on where we are as observers. It follows from this that there's no such thing as a universal gravitational constant.

Sir Isaac Newton by Sir Godfrey Kneller, Bt.jpg

Sir Isaac Newton 

By Godfrey Kneller - one or more third parties have made copyright claims against Wikimedia Commons in relation to the work from which this is sourced or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof. This may be due to recognition of the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, allowing works to be eligible for protection through skill and labour, and not purely by originality as is the case in the United States (where this website is hosted). These claims may or may not be valid in all jurisdictions. As such, use of this image in the jurisdiction of the claimant or other countries may be regarded as copyright infringement. Please see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for more information., Public Domain, Link

Sunday, March 27, 2022

Magnetism, the Electric Force and the Speed of Light

When I developed my theory of physics back in 2017, I came to the conclusion that space must be filled with an aether consisting of low energy photons and neutrinos. These particles cannot be directly detected due to their low energy, but their existence would explain magnetism as well as the electric force and gravity.

However, there's a remarkable phenomenon that I've skipped lightly over even though it seems to support my theory, and that is the relationship between magnetism, the electric force and the speed of light.

The formula for this is:

c0=1μ0ε0

where c0 is the speed of light in a vacuum, μ0 is vacuum permeability, and ε0 is vacuum permittivity.

The remarkable thing here is that the speed of light can be calculated from two seemingly unrelated values. One relating to magnetism and the other relating to the electric force.

This fits well with my model, because my aether is a mix of two types of particles. One relating to magnetism and the other relating to the electric force. The speed of light is in turn related to the aether. The above formula seems to be saying exactly this. However, I haven't been able to translate this formula into a simple story, and I have therefore skipped it in my latest books.

The problem has two sides to it. First, we have to understand what μ0 and ε0 represent, and how they relate to my model. Second, we have to come up with a straight forward story to explain why these values relate to the speed of light in the way they do.

Without a clear understanding of μ0 and ε0 we can obviously not explain their relationship, so we start with these variables to see what we can make of them:

First, there's μ0 which denotes vacuum permeability. This is a measure that relates the drag that a charged particle experiences when it moves through free space, relative to the magnetic field that it produces.

The relevant illustration for this is as follows:

Positive ion moving through the aether
Positive ion moving through the aether

We have a positive ion moving from right to left, and this sets photons in the aether spinning, thereby creating the circular magnetic field associated with electric charge in motion.

Moving ions loose momentum due to μ0, which is precisely what we would expect, because ions transfer some of their momentum onto nearby photons when they move through the aether. This cannot happen without some loss to the ions. Thus, we have a simple model to explain μ0.

Second, there's ε0 which denotes vacuum permittivity. It tells us how strong an electric field must be in order to produce an electric current through free space.

The fact that an electric current can pass through free space is both remarkable and indicative of an aether. My explanation for it is that a strong electric field will produce electron-positron pairs by tearing apart photons in the aether.

Photon ripped apart to produce an electron-positron pair
Photon ripped apart to produce an electron-positron pair

This allows electrons and positrons to migrate to the positive and negative pole of the field respectively, causing a current to flow through space. However, positrons are unstable. They react with just about anything.

Especially violent reactions occurs when positrons meets electrons. Such collisions result in gamma-ray radiation.

Electron-positron annihilation producing a gamma-ray photon
Electron-positron annihilation producing a gamma-ray photon

Currents produced by strong electric fields in free space are therefore associated with intense radiation.

The fact that ε0 is a finite number suggests that space is a dielectric medium that functions in the same way that regular dielectric materials function in capacitors. This makes ε0 a threshold value. When an electric field is stronger than this threshold, space becomes a conductor, no longer capable of keeping currents from flowing.

From this, we see that μ0 and ε0 are both relatively easy to explain in terms of an aether of neutrinos and photons. The problem is not what these two values represent, but how it is that they are related to c0, the speed of light in free space.

The formula for c0 tells us that it can be calculated by multiplying aether drag (μ0) with the aether's permittivity as a dielectric (ε0). The square root of this multiplication can be inverted to give us c0.

One thing to keep in mind is that light is made up of photons. These photons are only different from the photons in the aether in that they carry more energy. They are therefore just as susceptible to electric fields as are the photons in the aether. They are also likely to experience drag as suggested in the tired light hypothesis. This means that light is influenced both by drag (μ0) and permittivity (ε0).

Another thing to note is that permittivity (ε0) is a threshold value. Electric fields in free space cannot be stronger than this threshold without causing a current to flow. The speed of light (c0) is likewise a threshold. Nothing can move faster than this speed.

A big clue in all of this is that Coulomb's law involves a constant k, which is defined as 1/(4 π ε0). My theory sees k as a number indicating availability of neutrinos, which means that ε0 is a number related to a lack of neutrinos.

Coulomb's law
Coulomb's law

This makes sense in that a high value for ε0 would correspond to a situation where space is a better dielectric. If the electric force is communicated by neutrinos, a lack of them would make it harder to rip apart photons in the aether. An aether with few neutrinos would be a superior dielectric to an aether with many neutrinos.

Similarly, we get that an increase in the number of photons in the aether would result in a stronger magnetic force for the same amount of drag. We can in other words associate μ0 and ε0 with photons and neutrinos in the aether. An increase in photons would make μ0 smaller. An increase in neutrinos would make ε0 smaller.

Keeping in mind that the aether cannot see an increase in photons and neutrinos at the same time, we see the contours of the formula for c0. In regions of space where the aether is rich in photons, there's a corresponding lack of neutrinos, and visa versa. Hence, the product of μ0 and ε0 can be expected to remain constant regardless of the aether's composition.

However, this does not explain why the formula is exactly the way it is. The story is not complete.

Friday, March 25, 2022

David Esker and the Shape of Dinosaurs

David Esker has a dinosaur theory. He thinks they grew as large as they did due to a buoyant atmosphere. I don't think he's right in this, but he defends his theory well. Esker points out all sorts of facts that fit his conclusion. One such fact is that Venus has an atmosphere 91 times more dense than here on Earth. He concludes from this that Earth might well have had an atmosphere that was several hundred times what it is today back in the days of the dinosaurs. A thick atmosphere would also explain why the climate was more uniform across the globe back then than it is today.

Another interesting fact has to do with the shape of dinosaurs. The fast ones had large hind legs. Their tails were also large, and Esker makes the argument that this is due to a thick atmosphere. Dinosaurs were half swimming, half walking, through Earth's thick atmosphere, and an aerodynamic shape helped in this. He suggests that their long tails helped them propel their bodies forward. However, all of this can be explained quite differently.

If our planet was half the size it is today, as suggested by geologists like James Maxlow, Earth's climate would've been different too, with a more uniform climate the most likely consequence.

Expanding Earth seen from the South Pole
Expanding Earth seen from the South Pole

When it comes to the shape of dinosaurs, it's true that Darwin's law dictates that form follows function. No animal develop into a shape for no reason. When we look at dinosaur skeletons, we know from their shape whether the animals were fast or slow, whether they could fly or not, and so on. However, the shape of fast dinosaurs can be explained just as well with low gravity as with atmospheric buoyancy.

Walking and running involves a use of gravity in which moving land animals lean forward. We are constantly falling forward, and walking is mostly a matter of preventing ourselves from falling over by putting our feet forward.

Running involves more forward propulsion, and it's the hind legs that does this most effectively. Hence, fast animals always end up with stronger hind legs than front legs. However, the extent to which this is required depends on the strength of the force pulling us down. The stronger that force is, the less we need to lean forward. In cases where the force is very light, leaning forward is no longer effective. Jumping becomes the most effective way to move, as was quickly discovered by the astronauts who visited the moon.

All we can say from the shape of fast dinosaurs is that they must have leaned farther forward when running than is presently required. The force pulling them down was not as strong as it is today. As for their tails, they're useful for other things than propulsion.

Scotty Tyrannosaurus.jpg
Tyrannosaurus

A big tail functions as a rudder, giving a fast moving dinosaur stability as well as the ability to turn on a dime. When going in a straight line, the tail steadies the motion. Flipping the tail to the side allows the animal to change direction even at high speeds. It's therefore natural for fast animals to develop tails that are as heavy as gravity will allow them to be. Fast land animals have relatively long tails, even today. It's the slower animals that drop their tails. However, this is only because of gravity.

A light gravity environment with low atmospheric density would allow all animals to develop a big tail for defense. Such a tail could develop a club at its end, as happened with the Ankylosaurus, indicating that this dinosaur existed in a low gravity and low atmospheric density environment.

Semi-posterior view of Ankylosaurus, with tail club prominent
Ankylosaurus
By Mariana Ruiz Villarreal LadyofHats - Own work, Public Domain, Link

A big tail would also function as a good counterweight for dinosaurs with long necks. Such tail can also be used as an extra hind leg for animals to lean back on, as Kangaroos do in Australia.

Another problem for Esker's theory is the fact that some animals have grown smaller without changing their shape. They have not changed their aerodynamic properties, and we can therefore assume that air resistance has remained fairly unchanged. Only the pull of our planet has changed.

Life size model of the Meganeura
Life size model of the Meganeura (from the Land of the Dead blog)

However, this is not to say that I think Earth's atmosphere has undergone no change at all since the time of the dinosaurs. It may have changed quite a lot, and Esker provides plenty of evidence for this. However, I doubt that it ever was much thicker than what we have on Venus, and an atmosphere 91 times thicker than what we have today would only reduce our weight by ten percent, not the fifty to eighty percent required to explain the dinosaurs. For that to happen, we would need an atmosphere that's 500 to 800 times thicker than what we have.

On a final note, it's worth noting that large animals have gone extinct quite recently. There's a pattern in which large animals go extinct before smaller ones of the same type. Large Mammoth's went extinct before smaller ones. Lions were larger in Roman times than they are today. Sabre tooth tigers are long gone, but not their smaller relatives. If this is due to a change in how heavy things are, it's either due to a big change in our atmosphere or a subtle change in gravity.

For things to have been lighter by a factor of one in a thousand in Roman times, our atmosphere must have been 2g per liter instead of 1g per liter as it is today. That's twice as dense as it currently is. However, gravity needs only to have increased by a factor of one in a thousand to have achieved the same effect.

Thursday, March 24, 2022

Thinking About Gravity

The theory of physics that I developed during the summer of 2017 came about as a result of some intriguing problems related to gravity. The enormous size of many dinosaurs indicate that gravity was less strong in their time, and on a related note, Earth seems to have expanded over time, also since the time of the dinosaurs.

Earth's expansion as seen from the South Pole
Earth's expansion as seen from the South Pole

But according to Newton's formulas, an expanding Earth would result in lower surface gravity unless mass has been added. However, very little mass has been added over the eons. There's also the problem of our moon's orbit, which would have been greatly impacted. Our moon would have been drawn closer to Earth. But the opposite is currently the case. Our moon is receding.

All of this combines into a confusing riddle, made all the more confusing by the fact that no-one has a good explanation for what gravity is. I was attracted to various electric explanations, preferring to think of gravity as related to the electric force rather than a curvature of space. However, the electric explanations weren't very convincing either, so I started playing around with various solutions of my own making.

I concluded that there has to be an aether for magnetism, the electric force and gravity to act without direct physical contact.

I was determined to avoid inventing new particles, so I figured the aether had to be a combination of low energy photons and neutrinos, and I was delighted to discover that magnetism can in fact be modelled entirely as a phenomenon related to polarized photons. Then I discovered that the electric force can be modelled as something communicated by neutrinos.

Having discovered early on that the large difference in size between protons and electrons can be explained as the result of a tiny imbalance between positive and negative charge, I realized that gravity too could be a result of this imbalance. However, since I came to this conclusion via an elaborate chain of thoughts, my explanation for gravity ended up rather technical.

Reading about gravity in my books without first reading about stable particles, the aether and the electric force, is confusing. But I'm reluctant to change the chapters because they're accurate and to the point for anyone who've read the preceding chapters. However, for the ones solely interested in my conclusion, gravity can be summed up as the result of a tiny imbalance in the electric force. Electric repulsion is weaker than electric attraction by a tiny factor. Since all matter is made up of electrically charged particles, we end up with an attracting force between neutral bodies, and that force is what we call gravity.

Having found a simple model for what gravity is, other things fell into place. I could explain stability of orbits in terms of gravitational attraction, which acts from the center of bodies, and electric repulsion that acts from the surface of bodies. I had an explanation for how our moon can remain in a stable orbit, even if gravity increases.

Gravitational attraction and electric repulsion
Gravitational attraction and electric repulsion

Adding to this that gravity may be in part a function of charge, and hence capacitance, I had a solution for how a planet can expand and still increase its surface gravity without any added mass. The original puzzle was solved, and a whole lot of other issues turned out to be explained as well. The overall result is the theory I first presented in late 2017.

This is not to say that I'm convinced that I've found the solution to all problems in physics. What I've found solves all the problems I'm aware of, and this demonstrates that there's at least one alternative explanation to what's presented in standard textbook physics. However, I would be delighted to see others present their own solutions, and the problems related to gravity are good starting points for anyone determined to do so.

Wednesday, March 23, 2022

The Petro-Ruble

Putin has just announced that Russian gas will soon be traded in rubles for customers located in hostile states such as the US, EU and UK. Dollars, pounds and euro will not be accepted.

This means that the states in question will either have to buy gas from other sources, or find a way to get hold of rubles. If they choose to find alternative sources, they will have to pay a premium to what Russian gas would cost. But if they choose to trade in rubles, as demanded by Russia, they will have to deliver goods or services demanded in Russia. Alternatively, they'll have to go to places like India or China and trade with them in order to get rubles that those countries have in reserve. Either way, Russia will benefit from increased trade.

The move by Putin is an obvious one, considering the situation Russia is currently in. The ruble is under attack, and the best way to strengthen it is to make people demand it.

Whatever sanctions are currently in place will soon fade in face of reality. The world doesn't produce enough gas for us to drop Russian gas. Market forces will find ways to get gas out of Russia. If states hostile to Russia remain steadfast in not taking Russian gas, other's will take it at a discount. This will lead to increased trade via neutral nations such as India and China. Goods and services will find a way to flow via middlemen.

All of this is so obvious that only a staggering lack of foresight can have convinced anyone to go along with sanctions. Not least because the consequences of what's now happening will be a permanent shift in how things are done. Once gas is traded in rubles, there will be no way back to dollars, euros or pounds. Only countries that have a trade surplus will have the luxury of paying in their own currencies.

The next big move will be China demanding yuan payments for their products. Deficit nations will no longer be able to live off of their ability to generate reserve currency through fiat, and that's terrible news for the UK and US which are currently running record trade deficits. It's probably also the end of the euro, because Germany is pretty much the only country that's running a surplus in the EU, and there's a limit to how much longer they will continue to subsidize their parasitic neighbors.

Vladimir Putin (2018-03-01) 03 (cropped).jpg
Vladimir Putin

By Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, Link

Pure Energy Nonsense

Energy is often talked about as if it is a thing rather than a property, and this leads to a lot of confusion, with some people talking about pure energy as if such a thing exists.

I was reminded of this the other day when I came across a comment making the bold statement that "everything is pure energy". That's a profound sounding statement. But it holds no meaning. If everything is pure energy, then what more is there to discuss? No model can be devised. Nothing can be explained.

In a world where everything is pure energy, matter is energy, motion is energy, forces are energy. My fingernails are pure energy, and they grow because of energy. It's a nonsensical model from which nothing can be devised or constructed.

The confusion surrounding energy is due to the fact that it's a property that takes a wide range of forms. There's potential energy, kinetic energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, etc.

Energy can also be transformed into mass, which is often confused with matter. Since matter is a thing, the logic goes that matter must be energy. But this logic is based on the false assumption that matter and mass is the same thing. But mass is not the same as matter. Mass is a property of matter, and it's not even a well defined property. It's an abstraction, sometimes meaning inertia and sometimes meaning gravity.

No-one has ever seen energy. It's mysterious, and therefore something that attracts the attention of ethereal thinkers. Everyone from Yogi gurus to science experts talk about energy as something essential and profound, which of course it is. But that doesn't make energy a thing in itself.

Energy is a property of particles, and to talk of energy as anything separate from particles is a little like talking about height or width without reference to anything material. There is no pure height or pure width anywhere, nor is there any pure energy, and energy is never converted into anything but a different kind of energy.

Nuclear processes never convert energy into matter, nor do they convert matter into energy. A nuclear reactor doesn't convert uranium into energy, it converts uranium into lighter materials, and high energy photons are released in the process. It is the high energy photons that heat the water that powers the nuclear reactor. Nuclear binding energy is transferred from uranium onto photons.

There's also the process of electron-positron annihilation where an electron and positron meet to form a high energy photon. But here again, we see that energy is merely moved from a potential state in the electron-positron pair, to a kinetic state in the high energy photon. At no point is energy in a pure state, separate form particles.

Electron-positron annihilation
Electron-positron annihilation

There simply aren't any situations in which energy is observed in a pure form. Energy is always associated with particles. The idea that it's a thing rather than a property is wrong and leads to nonsensical statements that have no bearing on reality.

Saturday, March 19, 2022

The Nice Model of Solar System Evolution

Consensus building is a way to approach problems in which mediocrity of outcome is pretty much guaranteed. Anything original is tossed out as too radical. Only ideas that fit a pre-existing notion of how things work are allowed into the consensus. The end result is never anything but an extension of what is already widely believed to be true.

This is as true in science as it is in business and politics. Interesting ideas are almost always peripheral, and they are often radically different from the consensus.

Peer reviews and conferences that aim to build consensus are hindrances to originality. They protect the Status Quo at the expense of diversity. A better way of organizing science would be to encourage the development of many different theories, and to have rivaling factions defend these theories while pointing out weaknesses in other ones.

This would produce a large number of theories on any topic, complete with lists of strengths and weaknesses. Instead of a single unified theory for everything, we get many such theories. Strengths and weakness would be widely known and accepted as such, and there would be a continuous stream of new and original ways of looking at things.

It would no longer be possible to brush aside inconvenient facts as irrelevant. Weaknesses would be highlighted by opponents, and defenders would have to explain discrepancies between theory and observation.

Consensus building and peer reviews have crippled theoretical science to such an extent that hardly anything new has come to the forefront over the last hundred years. Scientific work has been limited to tinkering with existing ideas. Anything else is considered fringe and radical. Originality is labeled pseudo-science with hardly anyone bothering to look beyond the title.

The result of this has been a number of remarkably weak explanations that exist purely because they are considered valid by consensus. As an example, we have the Nice model of solar system evolution, developed in 2005 through general consensus.

This model takes the accretion disk model of solar system formation as a given, and builds on this in order to explain our current solar system. Looking at it superficially, the theory makes sense. The early solar system is conventionally thought to have been teaming with rocks and planets, and something must have cleaned this up to form the solar system as it is today.

The Nice model proposes that big planets tossed out smaller ones. The big ones roamed the solar system until they found their present stable orbits. Using computer models, scientists have worked their way backwards to the hypothetical beginning, and from this they concluded that their model is correct.

However, there is a glaring weakness in this explanation. No less than 99% of all matter thought to have existed in the early solar system has been ejected, leaving us with a mere 1% of the original. That means that almost everything that was created early on has been ejected into space.

If we combine this with the increasingly popular assumption that our solar system is nothing special, we have to suppose that all stars have undergone similar processes in their past, throwing 99% of their original mass into space. Almost all planets ever created are rogue ones. But observation tells us otherwise. Rogue planets are not unheard of, but they're not common either.

Some may argue that debris from the early solar system was tossed out in all directions, and that the vastness of space makes it perfectly possible to have 99% of all planets roaming around without this being noticed. However, galaxies don't have huge clouds of debris around them. Rogue planets must therefore be moving in the plane of the galaxy, and this would make encounters with them common.

It seems to me more likely that solar systems are created stable from the start, and that there never was a violent period of great upheaval some 600 million years ago. The craters on the moon are not ancient scars, but the result of ongoing electrical activity.

This is not to say that nothing upsetting ever happens in our solar system. Something violent appears to have happened a mere 10,000 years ago. But it was nothing like the Nice model suggests, and things returned to stability in decades rather than millennia.

Path of rogue planet
Path of rogue planet

Mainstream astronomy fails to consider electric forces in their analysis of things, and their theories are therefore lacking a powerful mechanism for stability. Things are perpetually unstable, and processes take millions of years to complete. That's in stark contrast to Donald Scott's model where solar systems are created in a matter of days.

But consensus will have it that Donald Scott is a pseudo-scientist and that we must dismiss his simple explanation in favor of an elaborate tale in which gravity first pulls things together into planets, only to throw 99% of everything back into space.

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

Friday, March 18, 2022

Sahara Dust Storms

The weather forecast was for sunny weather and temperatures reaching 20C, but instead we got three days with clouds and max temperatures of 17C. This hadn't been anything to write about if it wasn't for the fact that the clouds were yellow with dust from Sahara. Everything was tinted yellow as a consequence.

The reaction from the global warming crowd has so far been muted, maybe because the event has shown that dust storms cool things down. If we are seeing more dust storms as a consequence of climate change, we're going to see a lot of days with relatively low temperature. Maybe sufficiently many to offset the predicted increase in temperatures. Climate models that don't include Sahara dust cloud can be dismissed. It would be back to the drawing board for a lot of climate experts.

However, the climate does in fact seem to be changing. Weather patterns in Portugal, where I live, are shifting towards less stability. Summers have not been uniformly sunny with blue skies, as they used to be. There has been clouds and rainy days too, and this has been going on for several years. Dust from Sahara, although not that unusual in countries farther east, hardly ever reached Portugal. Three days of yellow clouds is simply unheard of.

It's interesting to note that the storm that caused this event isn't described as particularly strong. It wasn't the ferocity of winds that caused the clouds to become as widespread as they were. Something else kept the dust in the air long enough to spread as far north as England and Scandinavia.

With news of Sahara dust storms becoming increasingly common, it appears that the mechanisms involved are becoming stronger. If Gerald Pollack is right in his theory that clouds are kept in the air by mutual repelling charge between Earth and clouds, we can pose the hypothesis that Earth is becoming more charged as of late. Dust that is swept up from ground is kept suspended in the air for longer due to stronger electrostatic repulsion between ground and clouds.

This hypothesis is not as easy to test as it may seem because electric instruments regard Earth as neutral, regardless of its actual charge. If Earth has become more charged as of late, no instrument would have picked up on this. It's only through careful measurements of the electric gradient of our atmosphere that this hypothesis can be tested, and I don't think this gradient is sufficiently well monitored for anyone to have noticed a change.

However, if there is a link between charge and gravity, as I believe there is, the above hypothesis can be verified indirectly if the gravitational force, which is closely monitored, should give an unusually high reading. The orbit of our moon would also be impacted. An increase in Earth's charge would push it farther away from us, while an increase in gravity would push it closer to us. The moon is known to drift slowly away from us. That too is presumably monitored closely, and there too, there should be a change.

Stability of orbits
Stability of orbits

Thursday, March 17, 2022

God's De Facto Gold Standard

The big difference between proper religions and false religions, such as party politics, is that a good religion seeks to explain the true nature of the world, while politics seeks to redefine it. This conflict between reality and the wish to redefine it is described in the Bible as the rivalry between God and Lucifer. We are advised to side with God, and trust in Him and his creation. The temptation to do something clever for short term gains may be great, but it always ends in tears. The same goes for easy options like going along with the majority in times of moral decadence. Cheap thrills, and a lack of foresight is also a sin. The list goes on and on.

Making this all the harder is the fact that we must always plan ahead. We must use our intellect and our intuition. Lucifer is not wrong in recommending that we do the smart thing. God has no issue with that. God's only problem with Lucifer is that he keeps coming up with clever tricks that go beyond what nature can support, and that's why Lucifer was eventually thrown out of God's court.

When we view things in this perspective, we come to realize that we live in very artificial times. Lucifer's tricks are everywhere, and a lot of people are setting themselves up for a world of pain.

One of the most widespread misconceptions currently in vogue is the idea that value can be created from nothing. Central banks print money like there's no tomorrow. There are also privately run money printing schemes, like Bitcoin and NTFs. God's own money is seen as hopelessly old fashioned. However, gold and silver will return with a vengeance once Lucifer's trickery falls apart.

In retrospect, people will wonder how we came to believe that God's own money was somehow going to be supplanted by artificial constructs. To think that the world went off a gold standard, simply because Nixon closed the gold window back in 1971, is akin to thinking that men can be girls simply by declaring it to be so. Such ideas reflect a deeply Luciferian world view in which ideas are more important than reality.

Truth is that the world was on a gold standard from the very beginning. Gold is a metal that anyone can possess. It does not fade. It does not rust. It's eternal and pliable into all sorts of things. Anyone can own a piece of gold for any number of years, only to trade it for something else when the time is right to do so. That's the definition of money. No artificial construct can replace this. Nothing has the durability of gold. Nothing else remains valuable regardless of what others may say about it, and irrespective of third party networks and systems. A piece of gold can be handed over to anyone in return for some product or service, and absolutely no-one but the parties involved have any say in the matter.

The world is on a de facto gold standard, and will always be on a de facto gold standard. This has been provided for by God himself, and there's nothing anyone can do about it, no matter how powerful they deem themselves to be. No amount of laws and regulations can stop two people from engaging in a private exchange of gold for something else.

1959 sovereign Elizabeth II obverse.jpg
Sovereign

By Heritage Auctions for image, Mary Gillick for coin - Newman Numismatic Portal, Public Domain, Link

Wednesday, March 16, 2022

The Primary Nature of All Things

Philosophy and religion has since the dawn of time dedicated much attention to questions related to the true nature of things, and many concepts in modern theoretical physics can be traced back to these early ideas. Ancient Greeks talked of atoms and prime movers. Norse mythology talks of a void and polarity of forces. Christianity has the word and light as primary to all things.

There's this idea that we need to know the essence of things in order to truly understand the world we live in. Things have to be reduced to their bare essentials. With modern physics obsessed with mathematical formulas, this exercise has become one of mathematical simplification.

We have various constants that relate to forces in nature. These are studied and analyzed with the aim of finding some common constant that can join them together. Whenever theorists find such a relationship, we have a break through. What was once explained using two different constants is explained using some common constant. However, nothing is explained. The constants are merely there to relate one equation to another. Hardly anyone tries to explain what these constants are in physical terms. They are explained in terms of what they do rather than what they are.

The aim of my books on physics has been to break through this reluctance to put things into a proper physical frame. I'm not writing about formulas, but about the sort of things that may explain the formulas we already have, and I've landed on a model in which things in the universe, including time, space and energy, can be explained in terms of four stable particles. These are the proton, electron, photon and neutrino.

Proton, electron, photon and neutrino
Proton, electron, photon and neutrino

To explain unstable particles like positrons and anti-matter, I break things down to three particle quanta, first proposed by Morton Spears back in the 1990s. They are the size of neutrinos and distinguish themselves by their charge. There are negative, neutral and positive charge quanta.

Morton Spears' three particle quanta
Morton Spears' three particle quanta

Negative and positive charge quanta are so reactive that they combine into photons, electrons and protons. But neutral charge quanta do not bind to other quanta. They remain single and largely neutral. Rarely are they sufficiently energetic and charged for us to detect them, but when they are detected we call them neutrinos.

The phenomenon of charge is explained in terms of texture. Particle quanta with a woolly texture are associated with negative charge, and particle quanta with an abrasive texture are associated with positive charge. Neutral charge is an equal mix of of the two textures.

Energy is explained as size at the subatomic level. The more energy something has, the larger it is. Blue photons are larger than red photons. Protons are larger than electrons. Hot stuff has larger particles at the subatomic than cold stuff. The same is true for things that move and things possessing potential energy of various forms.

Energy is size at the subatomic
Energy is size at the subatomic

Additionally, we have the unexplained fact that all neutrinos and photons move at a semi-constant speed. The speed of light is constant within any given reference frame. It may be different between reference frames, but not inside one and the same reference frame.

From this, I build my entire theory. Everything from quantum-entanglement to gravity is explained. Space and aether is shown to be two sides of the same thing. I have yet to be presented with an observation that cannot be explained in terms of this model. However, that is not to say that I'm right, I've merely demonstrated that this particular model is valid, and that it may represent an accurate description of how things work at a fundamental level.

My theory was laid out without any speculations into the primary nature of things. My model doesn't go beyond Morton Spears' particle quanta because I never need to do this in order to explain my physics. However, I do end up with some elaborate mechanisms, in particular when it comes to what happens when radiation transforms into matter through electron-positron pair production.

Electron-positron pair production from photon
Electron-positron pair production from photon

I also need my electrons and protons to be hollow, and there's the unexplained nature of the neutrino as a mix of positive and negative texture. All of this begs for something more fundamental, and my thinking is that particle quanta can best be modelled as bundles of tiny strings.

Norse mythology talks of a void into which strands of opposing polarity come into contact with each other. There are strands of cold and strands of hot. Where they meet, existence emerges, and reality as we know it is formed.

My thinking is similar. There are strands of wooly strings, and there are strands of abrasive strings, and they bundle together in various ways. Some bundles are purely negative, others are purely positive, and others still are a mix. Each particle quantum is a mix of two strands. Hence, we get the particle quanta proposed by Morton Spears.

Additionally, we have the condition that all of this moves.

Putting this together into a single statement, we get the following: Bundles of tiny strings, moving perpetually in a void, is the primary nature of all things.

A bee visiting the flower of a wax plant
A bee visiting the flower of a wax plant

Tuesday, March 15, 2022

A Letter from the Bank

I received a letter from my old bank in Norway today. They need updated information on all their customers due to new rules and regulations. It's all for our safety, of course. Terrorism and organized crime was mentioned as reasons for the new rules. However, I closed my accounts with my bank in 2017, so I see no reason to provide them with any information. I got my savings in physical metal at my direct disposal. I don't have to share anything about myself in order to access it.

The only reason I received a letter from the bank is that I have a small amount locked in a savings account, and I was therefore not able to sever all ties with the bank. However, with the new rules, this savings account can soon be confiscated by the bank in the name of fighting terrorism.

This goes to show how dangerous modern banking has become. Step by step, they're circling in on their clients' funds, and a lot of people will soon realize that they cannot access these funds without proof of good conduct. Everything is set up for a Canada-style money grab from whomever the elite wants to rob.

With just about everything now registered with a bank or some similar office closely associated with the state, physical metal is becoming the only true safe haven for our savings. Not even real-estate is safe. Anything bigger than a small farm is in danger of exorbitant taxation, or right out confiscation. Any form of paper asset can be seized. Anything going through a broker or a bank account is beyond our control.

The only safe place for our savings is at the bottom of a chest somewhere unknown to all but a very limited number of people. Once people fully wake up to this reality, prices of physical gold and silver will shoot up relative to all other assets, and prices will remain high until the elite give up on their dream of total control. Until then, prudent investors should remain in metals, and only invest in goods under our direct physical control, or things with rates of return sufficiently high to offset the dangers of confiscation.

Antique furniture
Antique furniture

Sunday, March 13, 2022

The One World Currency Paradox

Totalitarians love to be in charge of currencies because it allows them to cut off access to life's essentials to whomever they deem reprehensible. This was on full display in Canada a few weeks back when truckers were cut off from their bank accounts for the crime of wanting autonomy over their own bodies.

Considering that it took nothing more than a harmless flu to bring out the worst in the psychopaths in charge, it's hard to imagine a global electronic currency as anything but dystopian. The people at the top will turn switches for the slightest of reasons, and they will positively enjoy the rush of power that comes from this. The glee with which Trudeau and his buddies implemented sanctions against the unruly will pale in comparison to what will come from total control of all bank accounts and all transactions on the planet. However, this will never happen. The plot to subjugate us has already failed.

While it is true that most politicians are psychopaths, eager to control their subjects, they are also aware of the hierarchy of power. If they are not at the top, they don't want a top node, and the reason for this is now on full display.

Putin and his oligarch buddies are being shut off from transacting in dollars and euros, and must therefore find other ways to finance their operations. If it wasn't for the foresight of Putin in this matter, they would be forced to surrender at this point. However, Putin liquidated all dollar assets in June 2021, and Russia is today on a de facto gold standard.

Whatever reserves Russia accumulate is traded for gold. Russia runs a trade surplus with the world, and the state is lean compared to that of its adversaries. Taxation is therefore moderate.

Brazil, India and China are sympathetic to Russia's financial situation, while neutral as to Russia's motives in Ukraine. They will therefore continue to trade with Russia, and an age old solution for this presents itself. Anyone who wants to trade with Russia can do so with gold-backed letters of credit. If a trade surplus arises, gold is shipped between the trading partners, but for the most part, Russian products and commodities will be traded for other products and commodities.

If trade is balanced, no gold flows. Everything is taken care of through accounting, exactly the way trade was done in the olden days. Richard Cantillon wrote about this in his book. He considered it the only legitimate purpose of banking, and this is where we're heading.

In retrospect, we'll see our politicians' impulse to reach for the off buttons as our current banking system's death knell. Not only are ordinary people exposed to the whims of top level psychopaths. The same is true for top level politicians opposed to a one world order under the direct control of western bankers.

The rational response to this danger is to separate ourselves from it, and gold and silver is the logical response. Everyone are now aware of the dangers associated with modern banks, so there will be a migration out of savings accounts and into precious metals. Ordinary people will start doing what Putin did nine months ago, and from the look of it, this is already happening. Physical gold is becoming hard to find. A reprising looks imminent.

A centrally issued one world currency will not emerge. Instead, we're heading for a new gold standard where every bank note is a letter of credit, easily converted into physical gold.

And in case anyone wonders what's the big difference between a global gold standard and a global one world currency, we need only to remind people that it is God who issues gold, while unbacked currencies are issued by bankers. Who do we trust the most? The answer should be obvious.

1959 sovereign Elizabeth II obverse.jpg
Sovereign

By Heritage Auctions for image, Mary Gillick for coin - Newman Numismatic Portal, Public Domain, Link