AuthorsDen.com  Join Free! | Login 

 
   Popular! Books, Stories, Articles, Poetry
Where Authors and Readers come together!

Signed Bookstore | Authors | eBooks | Books | Stories | Articles | Poetry | Blogs | News | Events | Reviews | Videos | Success | Gold Members | Testimonials

Featured Authors: David Litwack, iBob Mitchley, iRoger Vizi, iJames Boyle, iGerald Grantham, iGary Rodriguez, iRobin Leigh Miller, i
  Home > Action/Thriller > Stories
Popular: Books, Stories, Articles, Poetry     

Lonnie Hicks

  + Follow Me   

· 681 titles
· 1,108 Reviews
· Share with Friends!
· Save to My Library
·
Member Since: Jan, 2010

   Sitemap
   My Blog
   Contact Author
   Read Reviews

Books
· Einstein, Religion, Politics and Literature-461 pps

· The Obama Chronicles: Stories From the Heartland

· Letters From the Earth: Faint Hopes and Lamentations

· Love: Its Wonderments, Sufferings and Consumations (Free Audio Samples-41)

· Politics, Poetry and Love in the Obama Age

· The Gospel According to Lilith: Fantasy (10) free audio chapters) & Videos


Short Stories
· Illusion's Love

· Fire Flies Blink

· Bedtime Stories

· Hard Town Trucking

· Careening

· Copying

· A Sea of Melancholy

· Gerunds

· Love's Remains

· Finance: Foreclosure; What To Do About It and When


Poetry
· You Can Have Me

· Picture Falling

· Solstice

· July 4th Fire Works

· Loss

· Womanhood

· BarFly Queen

· The Flower

· Body Quakes

· Falling

         More poetry...
News
· Coming Soon: The Sun The Galaxy and Cosmic Rays

· Upcoming Soon: Anatomy of A Forceclosure. The Real Story

· Upcoming Essay: The Next 50 Years: Whither Weather Population & Technology?

· Ferguson: The Book: Now on Immediate Kindle Download

· UFO's, Time Travel, and Aliens: What Are The Facts? Updated: 10/17/14

· Coming Soon: How Safe Are Cell Phones?

· Upcoming Book: The Problem With Mr. Freud

Lonnie Hicks, click here to update your web pages on AuthorsDen.



Books by Lonnie Hicks
Einstein: A New Theory of How The Universe Works-12/18/12
By Lonnie Hicks
Posted: Thursday, June 24, 2010
Last edited: Sunday, February 24, 2013
This short story is rated "G" by the Author.
Share    Print   Save   Become a Fan
Recent stories by Lonnie Hicks
· Illusion's Love
· Fire Flies Blink
· Music I Love-Updated 8/5/15
· Bedtime Stories
· Hard Town Trucking
· Abandoned Hearts
· History of Human Societies: Two: What Are The Facts? Updated: 9/2/14
           >> View all 439
This is part of the Einstein essay series. See the ongoing series on this site.

Updated: The Higgs Field and the Idea of a Magnetic Plasma Universe
Updated: 7/9/12 The Higgs Field and Plasma Theory-How do they relate?
Updated: 7/8/12 Toward A New Theory of The Universe, Black Holes, and Brane Theory
Updated 6/25/10: White Holes and Dark Energy
Updated 6/27/10 The Idea of Dark Space and God as embodying the Universe. (Free Popcorn for the show.)
Updated 6/28/10: A New Theory of Black Holes and Their Role in the Universe
Updated: 6/28/10: Living in Two Universes At The Same Time?
Updated: 7/1/10 The Dynamics of the Mergered Universes Idea and Supersymmetry
Updated: 7/2/10 The Merger Process -Retro-Engineering the Merger Process
Update: 7/4/10 Views and Critiques of the Standard Model of Physics
Updated: 7/5/10 Critiques of Einstein-Is the Relativity Theory Wrong?
Updated 7/6/10 Superfluids and Ether
Updated 7/7/10 A Entirely New Model of Physics--What is that?
Updated: 7/8-9/10
Updated 7/10/10 Who is Hannes Alfven and Why Is He Saying Those Terrible Things About Physics?
Updated: 7/12/10 Was Hannes Alfven Persecuted in Physics?
Updated: 7/13/10 Let's Have A Closer Look At Plasma Theory in the Last Ten Years.

Updated: 7/15/10 The Electric Universe Ideas About the Nature of Matter, Gravity and Light

Updated 7/17/10 Photos of the Electric Sun
Updated 7/18/10 Just When You Thought You Understand Things Someone Comes Along And Applies Another Big Bang To Your Hard Won Wisdom.
Updated: 9/12/10 Superwave Theory
Updated: 9/13/10 Elementary Wave Theory- And What, We Ask Is That?
Update: 11/10/10 Looks Like the Plasma Theory of the Universe Might Be the Correct One
Updated: 11/11/10 One Would Hate For Plasma Theory to Be Correct.

Updated: 4/4/12 Latest Updates-Plasma Theory, Elementary Wave Theory and The Unstated Danger to the Earth--Superwave Theory

Updated:5/8/12 Are their ways to protect the Earth's Magnetic Shield?

(Continued from the blog "Einstein:Time, Space, Buddha and Poetry also on this site)

We have in other blogs alluded to the importance of space in attempting to understand how black hole processes beyond the event horizon correlate with events at the quantum level. The idea here is that the space factor at the sub-atomic level can also be seen as filled with an energetic soup of energetic particles popping in and out of existence. The question is popping from where to where and what is driving the process.?

Aside from the electromagnetism theory there is no explanation of the Space itself which exists in that micro-sub-atomic realm. After all most of the volume of an atom is "empty space."

The proposal here is that dark energy and dark matter may be involved at the sub-atomic level as well as the galaxy level. Since both Einstein and Quantum have no explanation otherwise, let us explore this idea for a moment.

Just as virtual particles come into and out of existence at the quantum level let us postulate that the model we see at work at both the micro and the macro level is identical and that the two-universe model I have proposed exists and that particles-waves in both meet and interact at both levels.

Bear with me, now.

I do not find that electromagnetism alone can account for what is transpiring at the quantum level nor at the below event horizon level with black holes. So-called empty space exists at both levels.

Let assume that at the mico-level:

1-energetic processes involving dark energy and dark matter are at play.

2- The interplay involves exchanges at the boundaries between the two membranes I postulate.

3- The interplay involves the annihilation of particles, as currently believed, but more, some of these particles actually move over and into the other universe and back and this is a process whereby a dynamic tension is at play and is maintained between the two membrane universes.

This becomes the real reason electrons stay in place, not just from electromagnetism alone. Let’s further  assume that quantum gravity also exists but it a predominately one-way residual gravity coming at us from that other universe.

It is weak as a result but the process at the macro level also involves space itself creating dark energy from that interaction as well and hence universe expansion on the macro level. Since this dark energy is negligible at the micro level and doesn’t have to be particularly strong to hold particles in place there but is much stronger at the macro level.

At the macro level the exchanges occur below the event horizon level and what is being ejected is not just Hawking radiation or gamma rays but also dark energy and dark matter as the result of a fusion process occurring below the event horizon and the latter two energies are ejected at speeds faster than light and the universe expands as a result of not just dark energy but of Space itself expanding as well as a function of the interchanges between the two membranes in the context of the millions of black holes we know are in the Milky Way alone. This is a two way exchange. This process keeps the tension between the two universes at manageable levels and things are more stable as a result, except for the dark energy part because our gravity in this universe does not balance off the dark energy processes coming through from the other.

I propose this because it would give us the same model of interaction at both the micro and the macro level—why would nature waste a perfectly good model if it can be used in both places, the very small and the very large?

Now interestingly the Cern experiment might provide some proofs or hints.

But the larger point, is that we are postulating that dark energy and matter are just facets of Dark Space which has its origins in the merged membrane we keep alluding to.

Now that would be interesting, if it turns out to be a valid way of looking at things.

But, by the time this never ending blog is finished I will be old and tottering and perhaps you as well. But we solider on, don’t we?

Next time let's look at the notion that if our universe is part of a larger structure and has exponential growth as its characteristic, are we foolish to rule out that this whole structure might be alive--especially if we take Susskind’s “string division” ideas seriously and push them just a little bit to ask: who are we to say that we do not exist inside a universe, (the mind of God) that is alive?

Now that would be truly interesting. Next time, let’s examine that idea.

Don’t touch anything; we are on delicate premises here.

 

But first, a detour which is not really a detour. That detour is to have another look at black holes (they keep coming up) and relate them to the idea of the "living universe" (this is just for fun, ok? We just want to push this idea and see where it leads. After all who knows anything for sure these days)

Now we know that black holes exist in their millions in our very own galaxy and it is safe to say they exist in other galaxies as well. Every galaxy, it seems, also, has a massive black hole at its center and black holes may in fact create those galaxies and such creation may go all the way back to the big bang. So black holes were present very very early.

So what, we may ask, accounts for this phenomena? Why all these black holes? We see that they are not anomalies but seem to be central features of the universe and galaxy-making. Most of the stuff and matter our universe exist in black-hole dominated galaxies.

So here we go:

Let's assume that our merged universe idea is true and that these two merged universes collided and produced the big bang. Since both membrane universes were wavy or had ripples, contact created the equivalent of tides and rip-tides as they began the process of merging. Like fluids the two universes had several forms of interaction at this point:

1-A rip tide motion is created as matter from both universes intermingled

2-Tectonic plate like motions occurred continuously where one ripple in a membrane perhaps dived below a ripple in the other membrane causing an earth-quake like responses and constructive and destructive wave patterns.

3-These crashes created disequilibriums between matter and energy in both membranes and the two systems sought almost immediately to both "wall off their matter and energy structures, one from the other, and establish some sort of equilibrium between the two.  (Membranes in this theory seek equilibrium and resist total emulsion and this is accomplished by a "safety value" function which explains the creation of black holes as boundary keepers between the two and where some exchanges, for equilibrium purposes, are in fact happening.

Moreover, after the collision, tensions between the two universes remain, and over time black holes emerged as both boundary maintainers but also to facilitate energy and matter exchanges between the two universes which would not de-stablize either.

We have mentioned another kinds of interactions such as rip tides and plate interactions between the two membranes. Could black holes be the rip-tides produced as a part of the merging process and interaction points? Maybe.

4- This would explain quantum mechanics and Einstein's field theories in that the energy soup I have postulated includes boundary particles moving between the two membranes. An imbalance of  forces between the two membranes, such as the strength of gravity, has effects in both. Now what would be interesting is to deduce the nature of the dominant membrane by its effects on our own.

5-Black holes perform these boundary and matter and energy exchange functions between the two membranes, and may be typical of such functions between dimensions as well.

After all, how is boundary integrity maintained between dimensions anyway?

So now you ask what in Hades does this have to do with the "living organism" idea anyway?

Well, here goes; and hold the derision for a sec; can black holes be the equivalent of "cell structures" inside a living organism of gigantic proportions? Is this on the quantum level analogous to "string division?"

Probably not; but an interesting idea. But more importantly it gives us some new ideas to work with. Here they are:

1. String theory, cosmic theory, and even Einstein ignore the issue of boundary making in discussing how the universe and dimensions work. The Cern experiment is essentially an experiment at testing those boundaries; so what I am saying is not entirely true . Boundary testing is coming to the fore.

But once you focus on boundaries at the micro and macro levels you have to play the cards you have: to wit what roles do black holes play in boundary and equilibrium maintenance between the dimensions we postulate and in our own universe? Put simply, at the quantum level, the simplest question is how are the boundaries of the atom ( electrons in their orbits) maintained if we discount the assertion that it is all electromagnetism?

So with this view, we get our Physics back and everyone goes away happy.

But no. (Did you think it would be this easy?)

There is more to this tale.

Tomorrow.


 Now we look at another of our examinations of black hole interactions in the context of galaxy formation. We want to know because there might be analogs at the quantum level.

Let's say my merged theory is correct and black holes in fact pre-date galaxies and that galaxies were in fact created by these very same black holes. Black holes are also exchange points and now I am guessing are the real engine of the inflation process and perhaps even dark energy expansion.

If contact is made, let say there was not one big bang, but perhaps millions as the contact process proceeded between the two membranes. The product was millions of black holes as forces from the two membranes intermingled, repelled in some cases and attracted one another but tremendous amounts of energy spewed instantly into our universe as part of an equilibrium-seeking process. Black holes are these entry and interaction points in the early two-membrane contact process.

Inflation instantly occurs as a function of dark energy pouring into our universe moving at speeds which exceed the speed of light. Thus inflation happens simultaneously at millions of points.

This model explains why stars at the outer rim of a massive black hole galaxy are moving at the same velocity as stars closer in. That is to say that massive black holes at the center of galaxies seem to be affecting stars way beyond their gravitional pull. This tight relationship apparently exists in most galaxies and are not explained in Newton models, Einstein or quantum models.

I have proposed it makes sense if we see space itself as an actor in this phenomena as well as black hole processes involving dark energy transfers between two branes. I have added a third aspect at this point: that of early inflation process from membrane contact and suggest that such contact is still going on.

Finally I end the blog today with two additional thoughts: suppose our universe is not expanding but being "blown up" (like a balloon) or expanded by dark energy interacting with in-coming dark energy from another universe? Now this would make sense and I officially abandon the "mind of God" notion for now. We, should, I think, explore this idea's utility as regards other mysteries in Einstein and quantum mechanics. As always, we want to know what theories explain best what we see happeing at the micro and maco level. And of course, how such ideas can be tested.

Well I have had enough for one day, how about you?


Continuing with our investigation of "empty space" I have been vague but vague is all we really have now. My argument is that I am vague in a better way than others I have read.

One candidate of super vague is supersymmetry. I don't pretend to understand it (few do) but I propose not to look it it from a physics point of view but from the point of view of a central organizing principle. Much of physics in my view has gone to a way of working where physicists discover or create new particles every day but do it from a bottom up point of view rather than from some central concept which is then tested.

Einstein did this. He conceived a new theory of gravity and then conceived how it could be tested. In his later years in search of a theory of everything he sought merely mathematical solutions instead of asking what kind of idea or organizing principle can explain what we can currently observe. That tack proved fruitless and he hit a dead end for the remainder of his career. His earlier work was around organizing principles (gravity, light, relativity etc, not particle finding and mathematical conception-making.

To complicate matters even more the Nobel Prize people started handing out the prize to anyone who could claim they had discovered a new particle and viola, physicists started chasing or hypothesizing new particles in unprecedented numbers. But where has all this particle inflation (couldn't resist the pun) gotten us? Deep into the black hole. (smile)

Inventing new particles creates a process of punting when these particles cannot be detected except by increasingly more expensive equipment until finally at the Cern the biggest machine in history has been built to tackle the problem.

This had better work.

Super symmetry is perhaps a whole new example. It produces great equations and mathematical models, but has, as well, invented whole new supersymmetrical particles and models of the universe in seeking a unified model of the universe. The number of particles doubled. It invented an entire universe of particles to match the observable one, much like anti-gravity was postulated to explain quantum dynamics.

This is tantamount to saying "the check is in the mail" in that solutions to theoretical problems get buried by inventing another particle or class of particles or indeed whole unseen worlds and dare I say dimensions-particles which may not be verifiable. Supersymmetry does this with particles with names too exotic to name here. But the point of creating these particles is to create equilibrium in the micro and macro systems. If that is the case better to go to the root of the problem--equilibrium rather that constantly seek to examine its parts without identifying the nature of the whole.

Such systems keep chasing the carrot without verifying if the carrot exists at all.

My suggestion is a simple one, which is of all of our ways of looking at the universe a merging of  membranes presents the best idea in terms of creating an organizing principle for observable effects and for proposing components which are testable. (There are other candidates which I will examine later)

My suggestion was the merged universe idea with a motivating or driving tendency toward equilibrium. This fits with:

1- The principle conservation of energy--all systems seek some sort of equilibrium

3- It assumes a dynamical relationship with all matter and energy and this matches with both quantum and Einsteinian physics. (The aforementioned energetic soup idea)

4- It can potentially be verified at Cern.

5- It uses the precepts of both gravity and electro-magenetism which argue there are balancing forces in nature which can overcome intertia

What I have added is the two universe notion, which look like they might be described with simple electromagnetic and theory of fluid laws. Research would then focus on the functions of dark energy and space in our universe as a corollary and just might explain the Higgs field ( or mass creating Ether) as having originated from the merging process which is described here as an on-going process

Now, of course, there are as yet undiscovered particles and forces involved but the ones I postulate actually do exist, ie., dark matter and dark energy and the only new assumption is that the Higgs field is an entangled membrane. Note field, not particle)

My argument is that we have to identify how this functions at the micro and macro level. Process, not particles and waves, might be a better approach, especially in a dynamical system--and that is, after all, is what quantum and Einstein physics have in common and both contrast with Newton.

So my last argument in these regards are that while I don't have all the answers I know where they live. (smile)

Maybe.

We will not know for Cern-tain until next year.

Now as an example of the above approach I offer the following:

Let's try to understand our universe in terms of process as it relates to the merger process.

I propose we examine the Pre-Universe characteristics of both membranes as a way to understand what processes we currently see at play in our own four dimensional universe and then back up the tape and see what we have.

(By the way what is slightly embarrassing to me, a lay person, is that modern physics seems to be in the business of postulating more and more particles, and indeed discovering some of them, but having to theorize to explain how the remaining undiscovered particles all fit into an over-arching theory, hence robbing us of the understanding such activities are supposed to produce. And to boot we are asked to swallow the idea that light itself is both a particle and a wave or can function either way, depending upon circumstances and probabilities.  Really.

Also  take the Hierarchy Problem where the strong force, weak force, electro-magnetic force and gravity are hypothesized as once being unified but that re-unification only can take place at temperatures never theoretically possible. Really. (Forgive this diversion.)

Back to the issue at hand:

Here are the parameters of any merger theory.

1- The merger process must result in a Goldilocks world, that is, once the two membranes start the merger process it must result in a universe where the forces involved result in a universe capable of supporting life.

Us.

2- Second it must explain why at short distances the weak force is so much stronger than gravity.

3. It must hypothesize the temperature at which all of the four forces were unified and then have become separated in our universe.

4- It must explain the nature and role of black holes.

5. It must not result in more particles which are never detectable.

So off we go. (We will have to do this in stages and not all in one day.

Let's take gravity first:

Gravity is very weak at the quantum level and apparently also at the macro level as well.

Let's assume the Lisa Randall theory that the incoming membrane is a strong gravity universe where gravity is indeed very strong, so strong such that, as a result of the merger, (she did not assume merger as far as I know, I am the one guility of that assumption) there are enough gravitons left over so as to provide gravity, in the right amounts, for our universe.

Now this is interesting

First it means that the In-Coming is a heavy gravity membrane. What would that look like?

Let's speculate for moment:

1- It could mean that Incoming could be a membrane of black holes the most extreme gravity environment we know of .Or that the incoming is a gigantic black hole itself; or last simply a heavy gravity environment.

This heavy gravity membrane might, if similar to our black holes, be composed of heavy, compacted neutrinos, massless or of the low mass variety or of photons and electons and that is all.

Upon collision (remember that) a soup ocean of these initial particles spew into our universe. (I can just see the photons flying.)

Further, let’s hypothesize that our own pre-universe had the following traits.

1-It is a weak force universe with little or no gravity.

2- The collision with In-Coming generates faster than the speed of light movements in the soup which is now defined as space itself. So space itself and it's sea of energetic particles also pour into our universe in an initial collusion which generates temperatures approaching a trillion degrees.

3-So our pre-Universe did exist with just the strong nuclear force, the weak and the electro. But how and in what configurations, and with what strengths? It is a possible that this universe is likely composed, however, of only thin particles including atoms, flying around in a great magnetic cloud with lines of force providing to it all some structure. Gravity enters the  our brane and changes all that.

Under specified high temperatures at the collision, all four of the forces combine and become one source. Under cooling conditions gravity separates out because its source is not in our pre-Universe. It is coming from the other.

But this process has made life possible in our universe where it had not been possible before.

More tomorrow- establishing equlibrium in the joined and merging universes.

Note:

According to our present understanding, the electromagnetic field itself is produced by photons, which in turn result from a local gauge symmetry. But is this pre-or post collusion? And which universe had the photons, in-coming or native?

 

 But first another diversion. In response to some of your emails it is proper to look at the counter-views to all of this. You will recall I have stated there was a crisis in physics. It became clear that when Einsteinian and Quantum field equations failed in the black hole example; other discrepancies in these two models (collectively known as "The Standard Model"  also have become apparent.

This has spawned other alternative views and rebels in the ranks. Of course, the Physics establishment has ignored both the newly proposed models and also the critiques of its own model. The massive response was to create more particles without dealing with the central critiques being made.

In fact, the theory of inflation was created as a response to the many questions created by particle physics.

The nature of these counter models are detailed and I won't bore you will them, instead I will focus on the discrepancies in the Standard Model these models sought to address. The three areas I will address include:

1- The nature of space, the vacuum, and the battered notion of Ether

2- The nature of gravity and its relation to the other forces of nature.

3- The nature of the electomagnetic force, superfluids, and crystalization theories and the idea that even our three dimensional world is actually a five dimensional universe shaped like a box. (Yes, box.)

4. Arguments over the nature of light and its so-called speed limit.

Well as you can see there are a lot of rebels in the woods. We will, in the coming days, have a look at some of them. My take off on the Lisa Randall idea isn't exactly rebel in the woods but it does live on the edge of the woods.

Watch your dimensions--three, four, or five and don't forget number two.


A lot of the problems and critique of modern physics ultimately centers on the question of is space empty? If it is not (and it certainly is not) what is its nature? The idea of a vaccuum in space now turns out to be inaccurate. Space is not empty and as we have seen can move at the speed of light and has huge influences on galaxies as well as atoms. So again what are the properties of space. What is in there?

Interestingly, this is precisely where we can demarcate the boundary line between so-called modern physics and so-called classical physics. And wouldn't you know it Einstein was in the center of it all.

4/4/12
The True Einstein Story

This is a juicy story and I know how you all out there love a good juicy, true story.

Get the popcorn out and give a listen.

Einstein in his earth-shaking new theory did not create it in a vacuum (smile) He was aiming to disagree with an existing theory of space that said space was filled with an Ether that acted like a fluid. Einstein, who was working at the time on how light propagates argued that light could not propagate in a fluid. (Yes, we saying these folks were making the argument that empty space is actually a fluid and behaves like a fluid and we are affected by the motion of this Ether fluid which is all around us.)

Einstein comes along and basically joined the gang who argue: "There is no Ether at all because as everyone knows liquids can diffuse and refract light and light does not behave that way, hence there is no fluid or Ether.

This was big news back in the day. Physics quickly choose sides in the controversy. Who to support,: the new upstart or the old professionals who needed to have explained what do you put in the place of Ether, if you drop the concept altogether?

Einstein and the quantum folks had an answer. They put quantum mechanics in the place of the Ether on the atomic level, and Einstein solved the problem by simply ignoring it and stated axiomatically that light moves at the speed of light and at a constant rate since there is no Ether to hinder its propagation.

Gravity, Einstein said is  related to space-time which is moving around, not any fluid. Wow, talk about turning things on its head.

Einstein's antagonist in all of this was Dayton Miller, a well-known and respected scientist in his day who set out to prove the existence of ether by measuring its effects on the absolute velocity of the earth and as affected by this ether. This would disprove Einstein's whole edifice that everything is relative and dependent upon the vantage point of the observer. He was trying to prove there ain't no relativity at all and that light has no constant speed because space is really filled with fluid or ether.

The line of conflict was drawn. Miller published the results of his experiments in 1928 which showed there was an ether which the earth and all matter in the universe floats in and it moves. The absolute velocity of the earth and the speed of this moving ether itself could be computed and its velocity he said was moving toward a specific constellation. Wow again. This story is riveting.

You can see the threat to Einstein here who claimed; no everything is relative and the quantum folks added to all this, "therefore we can never know the position of particles at the quantum level with any certainty." Einstein's relativism on the macro level now had an analog on the micro level although later there was to be real problems with simply assuming that relativity worked the same on both levels.

Einstein's view prevailed and he actively sought to bury the Miller data and that point of view. He knew upon which slice of bread his Nobel prize lay.

In July of 1925 Einstein, writing to a friend stated:

 "My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

Cited from Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift  Experiments: A Fresh Look* by James DeMeo, Ph.D.

 But as quantum mechanics took hold in the world of physics it, apparently had to re-invent the notion of ether fluid, calling it "Quantum Foam" and many other labels which essentially re-introduced the notion proclaming that because of the foam (I have called it an ocean-soup of particles) only probablities can exist at the mico level. Think about it: if elemental particles dissapate upon observation that could be someone interrupting the flow of a wave through a fluid, couldn't it?


Einstein had his doubts about quantum mechanics and even though he helped to create it he never really accepted it wholeheartedly.

But note, in later life, he seemed to doubt most of his relativity work as well. In a  letter to a friend he wrote:

  — Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)

"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."

So quantum mechanics gives us ether without calling it ether. Interesting, even the string theory people are backing into a fluid like notion of space filled with strings, of course which vibrate and above all else, properties and characteritics of matter flow from these strings. For example Andrew Strominger says that space itself is composed of strings and behaves like a wave.or something close to it. Here comes those pesky fluid notions back again, one more time. Pardon me, critics say, but don't waves move in a fluid, elastic or otherwise?

So what is the difference we may ask betweeen this quantum ether and classical notions of ether and a modern notion of ether which is often referred to as superfluids.

So you thought this story would be simple huh?


Well like many theories in Physics we will see an initial attempt to distinguish a new theory from old ones, but then we see movements where the new tries to incorporate the old ideas after having declared them defunct or full of fundamental errors; but then later still make the claim that should new facts arise, claim," yes I was saying that too; my theory is consistent with what the facts that I now see emerging. It is is just that you and I were saying it differently; and by the way; a minor difference I will stress as a way of trying to maintain my ideas are also different than yours still, especially if I blow up this minor difference and pretend it is of greater import than it really is. And besides, just as you can't produce your particle, neither can I and last, but not least, I will hide my ideas in a blackboard filled with equations with terms I have not defined, and, in which I have hidden doubtious terms which I am having my graduate students try to figure it out for me, and since that takes time--lets say thirty years to clarfy what I was talking about in the first place. I proclaim now new knowledge is difficult to obtain and takes time, urging my students and colleges to be patient while I try to figure out what the hell went wrong with my ideas and while I secretly nurse a dry bitterness about those who don't appreciate the mathematical beauty of what I have been trying to do all these years.

But the above is a typical process not only in academia but also in many professions. I do not undervalue the work being done in advancing our knowledge  in Physics and many other fields. It is just I see the humor in it emanating from the capacity of human beings to move peas and shells around when pressed for conrete answers to complex questions.

This is life and life only.

Tomorrow: Let's look at crystalization theories, more on fluid theory and  the "We all live in a big box theory" and sundries. Oh, I am tired already.

Will fluid save us? Let's just say that for now we can only describe the situation in Physics as very fluid. The Ghost of Ether is everywhere.


So here we are at ether, like Einstein, we have to deal with it. We know what he did, he dismissed it and invented an arbitary speed limit for light and there by elminated the problem of ether. Now this is an indication of how difficult the problem is for Einstein to have made this manuver.

I am no Einstein and don't have the brains even to dismiss ether so, I too, want to through up my metaphorical hands and invent something entirely new.

Well I don't and can't do it but others have re-tacked the problem.

Now what would that be, you ask?

Well there are many alternatives out there and I can't go over all of them. But let's take a few conceptual ideas and see what categories they fall into.

First let's just take a huge idea totally different from the standard model then we'll let the idea sit for 24 hours.;

Here is the idea:

Einstein said let's see what happens to our thinking if we see space-time as one concept. Here is one he missed: What would happen to our thinking if we see matter-space as a single entity and related in such a way so as to explain everything we see in the universe. That is a a very interesting idea.

But first a hint: Why is the speed of light constant? Einstein said so and its speed is a constant but he never had an answer as to why.

Answer to ponder: Space is the inverse of  matter and matter is the reciprocial of space--each aspect of this single reality interact with one another via disturbances in the two different electrical fields they propagate and all of that interaction can be described by wave functions in this (dare we say ether) along with vortex and superfluid like characteristics.

One variety of this view says that particles are merely aspects of wave functions and vortex interactions and condensates. A similar pattern exists they say in Helium 3 experiments where normal liquid helium interacts with superconductive Heliium3.

To summarize matter is enfolded space and space is expanding matter. These are the two major forces at work in the unverse. Gravity becomes a disturbance created in the Space-Matter continum (we don't need Einstein's time component) Light is a wave propagating in space defined as having superfluidity components. Light does not move but excites waves like a ripple in a pond propagating outward. These waves quantum folks call "quanta" all of this existing in a quantum soup or in the "quantum vacuum.' 

Finally these superfluid aspects of matter found at the quantum level are also found in the core of neutron stars. Finally one theory (Scoce) identifies light as the manifestation of photons embedded in this elemental space and propagation is via wave functions across the medium of space which is defined as the ultimate superfluid.

Matter becomes congealed space. Note here E=mc2 is to be understood that matter as congealed space can be transformed back into it's space component and it is the dark energy of space itself expanding from the dynamics of the Einstein equation. Matter equals condensed space and can be transformed into energy or exploding space moving at speeds up to and exceeding the speed of light squared. And, then you can also read the equation backwards. Add to this the concept of space as a plasma-like superfluid and you have the basic idea.

Now that is a clever turn on Einstein, don't you think?

We end up in this category of theories with basically only two elemental particles in the universe:  photons and electrons  and ions out of which everything else is built via a process acting in this vortex- interacting model and all other elements are created via "condensation" processes operating between the two processes, one positive and the other negative involved as wave functions. Goodbye particles--which in the end are wave condensations.

The argument, this group says, is that Physics got off on the wrong track with quantum mechanics and Einstein where causality was severed from effect and we have ended up with non-intuititive notions tied to math models which custom fit the results and produce the Uncertainty Models. If everything is uncertain then nothing can be known. They argue that we were better of with minor corrections to a previous model of ether, even as we notice that quantum folks in fact inch back toward that model while denying that they are doing  so.

So the past is re-introduced via superfluids theories which are ether by another name.

Finally, they point out that the original equations around ether pointed out that the expansion of space as ether was infinite and Einstein's generation revolved against that outcome. Einstien's equation also ended up with infinity as a result in the context of a black hole.  Now, point out the critics,, the expansion of space infiniitely is not so fantastic as it once seemed. After all superfluids under laboratory conditions are frictionless and once set in motion can continue to move forever. Humm, this is getting more and more confusing. But we like that don't we? It must mean we are on to something.

I know.

This is a lot to absorb at a single sitting.

Let's sleep on it.

 

Now many of the alternate theories of how the universe works center on two of the most glaring problems that the standard model face:

1- The first is why is it that galaxies do not seem to obey Newton or Einstein and those black holes as well present problems.

2- The second is the astounding fact that the entire universe is expanding exponentially. The further out the galaxy the faster it is receding from us.

These two problems were answered by the Standard Model with the postulation of dark matter, dark energy, and a myraid of particles with strange names like MACHOs WIMP's, neutrinos with mass etc.

After all it is embarassing to note that 95% of the universe is made of up stuff nobody knows and can't detect.

Into this intellectual breach ride still other alternative views which offer the following answers:

1-The galaxy problem can be solved if we conceive of space as a superfluid. This kind of behavior has been observed in the lab with He3 and this might be the case on the macro level as well.

2-The galaxy problem might be "electric plasma.".Space is gigantic electrical fields and can be understood so as such to explain the galaxy problem. Gravity becomes a function of electrical field interactions. Particles and their interactions become photons and electrons interacting within these electrical fields and within this plasma, which by the way ,has some of the same characteristics as a superfluid.

The expansion of the universe in the one example is due to the capacity of space to expand infinitely propelled by the mass within space to transform itself into space which can travel at or above light speeds.

In other alternative theories the interaction of these plasma fields account for expansion in ordinary electrical and charge terms--although this is little vague in terms of what I have read. The idea though is that just as lightening strikes powerfully, it is the power of electricity which drives the great movements we see in the universe. The same would be true on the quantum level as well. The electric plasma group has a petigree. See the work of Hannes Alfven who virtually created the field won a noble prize and basically challenge all of the major premises of the Standard Model:

To wit:

1-There was no big bang.

2-There is no expansion of the universe

3- There are no black holes

4-The universe is infinite, always was and always will be

5- The Sun does not produce energy by nuclear fusion

6- Stars are not created or destroyed by "collapsing gravity"

5- Most of the process we see in the universe can be explained and, indeed predicted, by electro-magnetism and positive and negative gas plasma clouds clearly visible in the universe. I will give some citations next time for those wanting to track down this gentleman most of us have never heard of. Meantime:

Here are links describing the filaments Alfven predicted dominated the galaxy and others on the role of magnetism and the gradual realization of some astronomers that magnetic clouds create stars not gravity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111116132119.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100317101340.htm

 

Now of the groups of theories above only the superfluid example addresses the quantum issues. And superfluids are being accepted by mainstream physics at this point, and quantum theory itself is slowly backing into adopting the experimental results. I have argued that I am not seeing much difference between superfluids behaviors on the macro and the micro levels but that has to be verified experimentally.

How? Well we will always have Cern. Isn't that in Paris?

Next time--what about my merging universe theory; and who are those electric plasma people and why are they saying those terrible things about the Standard Model?

 

The challenger with all of the above assertions is Hannes Alfven. His student writes on a website devoted to Aflven:

"Alfven's approach to physics was based on insight and intuition. He was quick to understand how nature works and he was able to place new observations into a framework larger than that required to explain the observations themselves. For example, in the early 1930's, cosmic rays were commonly thought to be gamma rays filling the entire universe. However, when they were discovered to be charged particles, Alfven offered in 1937 the novel suggestion that the galaxy contained a large-scale magnetic field and that the cosmic rays moved in spiral orbits within the galaxy, owing to the forces exerted by the magnetic field. He argued that there could be a magnetic field pervading the entire galaxy if plasma was spread throughout the galaxy. This plasma could carry the electrical currents that would then create the galactic magnetic field.

See the following website: 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081121140526.htm

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/alfven.html

Alfven was a Nobel prize winner (1970)  and the list of his credentials are quite impressive for someone few have heard of.

He is credited generally which discovering: electrons and ions moving in orbits through gigantic galaxy-sized magnetic fields in space create electric current flows and argues that this is the real explanation for galaxy behavior and missing matter better than gravity or dark matter.

He apparently, according to his supporters discovered:

1- The explanation of the Van Allen radiation belt

2- The cause of fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field during magnetic storms

3- alternative explanations of the birth of our galaxies, stars, our solar system and the universe itself in terms of these gigantic magnetic fields where electrons and ions fly sometimes exceeding the speed of light in what has been dubbed the "electric plasma" which dominate space.  Ether is apparently magnetic and has current flows.

4- He predicted  the filamentary structure of the universe in 1963 saying that space is filled with current flows and essentially operates like the familiar dynamo we know on earth.

5- He presented explanations of a large magnetic field which dominates our own galaxy and connected that to the behavior and creation of our Sun; identifying nonthermal astronomical radiation sources. He argued that nearly all radiation recorded by radio telescopes derive from these gigantic magnetic clouds and their radiation. (I am reminded of "black body radiation" experiments Einstein sought to explain in his photoelectric experiments, for which he received a Nobel prize. This is important because his answers in that regard was designed to explain away black body radiation which Alfren explains. The attempt to explain away black body radiation and its experimental findings gave us quantum mechanics, such experiments show that heat is generated to infinity up and down the spectrum. Unacceptable this was, so the concept of "quanta" in light and Planck's theorems were get around the problem. Alfren counters that was a wrong turn. The black body radiation is particles moving in galaxtic magnetic fields and understood today; all of this is moving in a gigantic magnetic field, nothing more; -- all of Einstein's and quantum theories are overkill and incorrect.)

See link for latest findings verifying Alfven's ideas.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100218092850.htm

The principle is the same as in a linear accellerator--magnets can move particles to speeds approaching light. This is happening in our universe as well according to Alfven. 

Alfven 's supporters claim every day measurements of his claims are available but are discounted by the Physics establishment even as it uses his tools and concepts everyday. Giant magnetic clouds are discovered every day in astronomy but their meaning is never discussed.

Well, this is quite a bit. Reality all around me is changing. Alfven sounds like another Einstein critic and, by the way, what does Alfven have to say about relativity and quantum mechanics? That on tommrow.

Me?  I am going to have another look at that suspicious magnet on my refrigerator. Apparently a lot more than I thought is going on there.

Note for tommorow:

Alfven is generally given credit as the father of Magnetohydrodynamics, for which he won an Nobel prize.

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magnetofluiddynamics or hydromagnetics) is the academic discipline which studies the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water. The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived from magneto- meaning magnetic field, and hydro- meaning liquid, and -dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén[1], for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.

From Wikipedia

More Notes for Tommorow:

In 1937, Alfvén argued that if plasma pervaded the universe, it could then carry electric currents capable of generating a galactic magnetic field.

[1]

After winning the Nobel Prize for his works in magnetohydrodynamics

he emphasized that:

In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents. Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure.[2]

His theoretical work on field-aligned electric currents in the aurora (based on earlier work by Kristian Birkeland) was confirmed by satellite observations, in 1974, resulting in the discovery of Birkeland currents.

 

 So here we are dear reader ready to explore more of the electric plasma idea and to evaluate it.

There can be no question that many if not most of Alfven's ideas about magnetic and electrical stellar fields have been actively accepted and a whole new field of magnetohydrodynamics has evolved to examine the nature of the universe and the stars from that vantage point

A cursury look at Science Daily and other sources show discoveries which seem to verify his ideas of how the magnetic-electrical universe works.

What would be the summary of it in terms of what has been verified independently?

1- The Universe indeed is populated by plasmas of huge size which include particles (hyrdogen ions and charged electrons mostly) which interact with star and planetary magneto-electrical fields of immense size and these are likely the cause of star formation and even destruction. Gravitational effects are much less. (Those wanting citations for this can email me.) But you can search on "electric plasma" in ScienceDaily and there are over three thousand results. His results are now given names like "magnetic reconnection" "pinching in magnetic fields" but they are predicted by his writings. Huge magnetic dust clouds funnel particles along magnetic lines of force and pinch or reconcile at some points of interaction with other glalaxy sized fields and help create stars and planets, not gravity alone. In fact these fields have cosmic rays and ions orbiting entire regions hundreds and thousands of light years in diameter. In dense ion areas these concentrations light up in the visible light range in others they are dark until these ions become energized by entering magnetic fields.

The four-satellite Europeon Cluster group more or less verified these processes at work in connection with the earth's magneto-sphere and plasma, beginning in 2001 and again in 2004.

2- His ideas are accepted in electro-magnetic fluid dynamics and a particular wave behavior in these type fluids are called Alfven waves.

Therefore, much of Alfven's work has been verified.

What is stiil controversial is his conclusions from the above observations and theories. Let's see what his conclusions were and why he came to them, and how they constitute a serious challenge to the Standard Model, Einstein's views and those of quantum mechanics.

We will take them one blog at a time.

The first is that Alfven challenged the notion that the universe is expanding; (and just when I was getting used to that notion.) His reasoning was that the famous Hubble experiment was erroneous and Hubble himself later in life said so and so did his assistant. (More detail on this later.)

The universe is not expanding Alfven says (the redshift analysis of the light of stars was made without understanding the role of the electro-magnetic plasma at work. Alfven makes the assertion that this is an error. The red shift in fact is a gas plasma indication a young star being born not a receding star or cluster.  He indicates that the idea that the further away a star or galaxy is the faster it is receding does not makes sense and is not backed up by any real data other than this so-called red-shift data. Others of his followers also indicate that "gravitational lensing" techniques which are used to buttress this proposition makes no sense either.

For those who may not know, "gravitational lensing" is the purported process where by light from distant galaxies, say ones from the youth of the universe, "bends" around intervening and younger galaxies allowing us to observe them. The rationale is that light is affected by the gravity of these intervening galaxies and this "bending" allows that light to continue on to us as opposed to being blocked. Einstein is cited to account for this effect.

Alfven and his later supporters point out that this lensing would require such precise lining up of the near and far galaxies so as to be exceeding rare and probably not exist at all. After all how many galaxies must be between the earliest ones and our own? Lots. So lensing would be broken up at some point along the way and all we would get is a distorted view at best.

This second technique of measuring the receding is also flawed.

Here we go. Does this mean that Einstein's "cosmological constant" is being dusted off and brought back in to the conversation? Yes, indeedy.

The implication of an non-expanding universe? Hold your hat. They are;

1-No expansion, no dark energy

2-No expansion ,no big bang, no inflation theory, and a whole new theory of cosmic radiation is needed because that is supposed to be what was discovered in the 60's and the smooth texture and temperature of the cosmos therefore, doesn't make sense.  Something, the Alfven people say, is wrong with that map.

Let's have a look tomorrow at the Hubble data and also at Alfven's own description of how the now-expanding universe works.

Tommorow: Oh boy. What do we do now?

Well lets evaluate Plasma and Electric Notions of matter and ether (yes we are back to that never-ending discussion of ether or aether.

What do the electric universe people have to say about the major issues we have discussed? Lets take gravity first and it's nature.

Newton gave up on understanding it. Einstein ridiculed it as "spooky action at a distance" in classical terms and offered an explanation of gravity as space-time interacting with mass and the former bending- creating gravity. I and others have placed gravity as an external force from another membrane universe, still others postulate gravity as part of a unified field of particles but don't offer much more insight as to what it is. Quantum mechanics has nothing real to add to this.

Desperate for answers we turn to electric plasma theory people and see what they have to say.

Here goes: Wal Thornhill and Donald Scott "the latter a leading string theorist and Nobel prize winner) appear to agree on some main electric universe ideas on gravity.

I will quote Thornhill at length since any attempt on my part to paraphrase will likely fail.

"The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass implies that gravity is also an electrical force. Before Einstein, some noted scientists were suggesting that the gravitational force between neutral particles might ultimately be due to electrical polarization within the particles. In 1882, Friedrich Zöllner wrote in the introduction to his book, Explanation of Universal Gravitation through the Static Action of Electricity and The General Importance of Weber's Laws, "we are to conclude that a pair of electrical particles of opposite signs, i.e. two Weberian molecular pairs attract each other. This attraction is Gravity, it is proportional to the number of molecular pairs." Indeed, gravity can be represented as the sum of the radially aligned electric dipoles formed by all subatomic particles within a charged planet or star."

Gravity here is the electrical components of particles reagligning (like iron filings to a magnet?) and this true as well as in planets and stars. Wow, again. Gravity in this is a measure of the charge of sub-atomic particles in what we call matter. The distributions and intensity of the charge sub-atomically and at the star and indeed galaxy level determines the currents in space and its effects are seen as what we describe as gravity.

Humm, this is getting interesting. Go on Mr. Thornhill.

"This new electrical concept suggests that Newton's "universal constant of gravitation," or "G," is a dependent variable. G depends upon the charge distribution within a celestial body. Highly charged objects like comets look like solid rock, yet they have a gravitational field that suggests they are fluff-balls. And as they discharge they suffer what is euphemistically called "non-gravitational" accelerations. The extreme weakness of the force of gravity, compared to the electric force, is a measure of the minuscule electric dipolar distortion of nucleons." 

Thornhill goes on to say that magnetism is also a manifestation the charge distribution in matter. He comes to a startling conclusion from all of this:

"This simple electrical model of matter has the great virtue of reducing all known forces to a single one – the electric force."

So all four of the fundamental forces end up being one-the electric force. But, we are warned, this comes at a price:

"However, it has a price. We must abandon our peculiar phobia against a force acting at a distance. And we must give up the notion that the speed of light is a real speed barrier. It may seem fast to us, but on a cosmic scale it is glacial. Imposing such a speed limit and requiring force to be transmitted by particles would render the universe completely incoherent. If an electron is composed of smaller subunits of charge orbiting within the classical radius of an electron, then the electric force must operate at a speed far in excess of the speed of light for the electron to remain a coherent object. In fact, it has been calculated that if released, the subunits of charge in the electron could travel from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second!

We have direct evidence of the superluminal action of the electric force, given that gravity is a longitudinal electric force. Indeed, Newton's celebrated equation requires that gravity act instantly on the scale of the solar system. It has been calculated that gravity must operate at a speed of at least 2x1010 times the speed of light, otherwise closely orbiting stars would experience a torque that would sling them apart in mere hundreds of years. Similarly, the Earth responds to the gravitational pull of the Sun where it is at the moment, not where the Sun was 8 minutes ago. If this were not so, the Earth and all other planets in the solar system would be slung into deep space within a few thousand years. Gravity is therefore an electrical property of matter, not a geometrical property of space.

What is the nature of light? Einstein's special theory of relativity was disconfirmed right at the start by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed a residual due to the æther. This was later confirmed by far more rigorous repeats of the experiment by Dayton Miller. But by then popular delusion and the madness of crowds had taken hold and contrary evidence would not be tolerated. The Dayton Miller story makes interesting reading. If it weren't for the extraordinary power of self-delusion, commonsense would tell us that a wave cannot exist in nothing. So Maxwell was right, light is a transverse electromagnetic wave moving through a medium, the æther."

Sorry for the long quote here but I thought you should get the argument direct from the horse's mouth so to speak. But here comes another long quote. After that I promise no more.

"But what is the æther?" Thornhill says:

"In the vacuum of space, each cubic centimetre is teeming with neutrinos. And since neutrinos are resonant orbiting systems of charge, like all matter, they will respond to the electric force by distorting to form a weak electric dipole aligned with the electric field. The speed of light in a vacuum is therefore a measure of the delay in response of the neutrino to the electric force.

What about the bending of starlight by the Sun, which discovery raised Einstein to megastar status? The residual found in the Michelson-Morley experiments shows that the Earth and all ponderable bodies "drag" the Æther along with them. The bending of starlight near the Sun is simply the effect expected of an extensive neutrino atmosphere held to the Sun by gravity. Light will be slowed in the denser medium – causing normal refraction or bending of light.

What about time? With all bodies in the Milky Way galaxy communicating their positions effectively in real time through the electric force of gravity, it means there is a universal time. There can be no time distortion or time travel – something that common sense always told us.

What about black holes? They are a mathematical fiction, a near-infinite concentration of mass, required to explain concentrated sources of energy seen at galactic centers, by employing the weakest force in Nature – gravity. It is the high-school howler of dividing by zero. Plasma cosmology shows that where electrical energy is concentrated at the center of a galaxy, gravity can be ignored in favor of far more powerful electromagnetic forces. The collimated jets of matter coming from that focus are also replicated to scale in plasma labs. The jets are inexplicable if a black hole is supposed to be a cosmic sink for matter."

All quotes from http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df

Well these ideas are far-reaching indeed. I am far-reaching for the Maalox because the story is getting scarier and scarier.  Let's try to recover by tomorrow. See you then. But before that here is a defintion of plazma:

Definition of Electric Plasma:

"Plasma has been called the "fourth state" of matter, after solids, liquids and gases. Most of the matter in the universe is in the form of plasma. A plasma is formed if some of the negatively charged electrons are separated from their host atoms in a gas, leaving the atoms with a positive charge. The negatively charged electrons, and the positively charged atoms (known as positive ions) are then free to move separately under the influence of an applied voltage or magnetic field. Their net movement constitutes an electrical current. So, one of the more important properties of a plasma is that it can conduct electrical current. It does so by forming current filaments that follow magnetic field lines. Filamentary patterns are ubiquitous in the cosmos."

July 17,2010

IMAGE
>> This diagram is from The Sun e-book. The simplistic estimate of the size of the body of the Sun is intended to show that the atmosphere of a star can contribute a substantial amount to its apparent size, given by the thin yellow photosphere.

The idea of a cooler core for our sun is now verified by observation. See Link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100721132407.htm

From http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac

This diagram purports to make a radical statement about the stars, our sun, our solar system and the universe. To wit:

1-The existence of large scale, galaxy-sized electro-magnetic fields in space drive the star formation process, not hydrogen and helium. Stars are not nuclear reactors. Rather they are formed by galaxy-sized magnetic fields in what is described as z-pinch and double-layer formations. More, this energy from stars comes from these external galaxy-sized magnetic fields which stream particles at light speed speeds, resulting in a discharge of particles (neutrinos and the solar wind for example) outward. These neutrinos, winds and cosmic rays interact with the Earth's magnetosphere and, indeed, with the magneto-spheres of all of the planets in our solar system. But note this is all part of a galaxy wide electro-magnetic field which has particles in orbit--all within this galaxy-wide plasma.

Numerous citations are given for this view. It goes on to assert:

1-Stars do not follow nuclear fuel exhaustion cycles which can take millions of years but, instead, say the Plasma Model, stars can form and die in a single life-time and they offer examples from current astrological observations of stars doing just that. Stars are not nuclear reactors.

2-Stars emit huge magnetic x-ray and gamma rays filaments because these discharges are electrical in nature and origin, not soley coming from black holes. Recent observations show huge comic dust trails from recently exploding stars. This is the normal expulsion via z-pinching and electrical discharge which is part of the evolution of stars. To be clear, depending upon the strength and density of the ion field and the magnetic field, a given star can explode at any time and evolve very quickly to its demise, even in as little as forty or fifty years.

3- They argue that the famous redshift is way overstated. The redshift is a measure of the youth of a star (young stars will emit a red-shift and even stars rotating away from us will emit a red-shift. The idea that the red-shift means only a receding star ends up with a prediction that the stars furtherest away from us are moving away from us at speeds exceeding that of light, an absurd claim.

4- The issues around Dark Flow are best explained by a huge magnetic cloud field. Current theory has no explanation of Dark Flow.

5- There is no need for dark energy, dark matter theories, all are explained by the plasma theory in the view of its adherents.

6- No need for elaborate big bang and inflation theories.

In short the universe is relatively static and is probably infinite.

The best fit, in my view, with the Plasma theory is the membrane theory which does postulate a huge influx of plasma from one membrane to another, upon contact. But we shall in a later blog compare the Plasma theory with all others and try to judge which explains current observations and experimental results.

But first you may ask does Plasma Theory have to say about Quantum mechanics. What role does Plasma play at the quantum level?

I thought you would never ask.

But hold your Plasma until tomorrow.

 

Well at the quantum level the answer is all electric. Gravity is the attraction between the elemental particles, the electric force is prevalent, electrons can be easily placed within the "black body radiation" matrix but what has to be added is that the elemental particles exist inside galaxy-wide field currents driven by huge magentic fields these currents themselves help generate.

Gravity then at the quantum and the galaxy level is the instantaneous realignment of the charges of ions and electrons which indeed exceed the speed of light. All of the universe is connected, as quantum holds, and entangled and these charged particles operate in pairs as quantum theory holds.

Einstein here is considered incorrect. String Theory is considered incorrect. Current astrological theories of what is happening with galaxies and stars are considered incorrect. Big bang and inflation theory is considered incorrect .Quantum theory is misapplying the role of electric forces at the quantum level. Superfluid theory does seem to have utility because superfluids are a kind of plasma.

So with this kind of house cleaning what is left for Plasma to explain? They argue that the so-called search for the theory of everything, black holes, unified field theories, eleven dimensions is also flawed.

So what is left we ask again?

For that we have to wait until tomorrow, where we will examine the questions of how does Plasma theory answer questions which physicists today don't seem to have answers to.

 

Plasma theory has new adherents and some of it tenets seem to have ice core empirical confirmation.

Superwave Theory

Research findings from other scientists seem to be consistent with Plasma theories. The researcher I am familiar is Dr. Paul La Violette (his book is "Earth Under Fire") who was conducting ice core analyses in Antarctica and in Greenland. Dr. Paul, as he is known, while working on his Phd. discovered evidence of regular huge cosmic ray bombardments in the ice cores occurring at regular intervals. These cosmic ray bombardments are routine and of course and are generally related to solar flares climate change and ancient extensions. See link below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oURVtGKW420

But Dr. Paul is saying some thing very different:

He argues:

1-These bombardments originate from explosions from super novas and pulsars and quasars in our galaxy and even other galaxies.

2-This occurs regularly in "Superwaves"

3-They are related to earth extinctions, our ice ages and climate changes.

4-He produces ice core evidence of their frequency and categorizes them as falling into four categories of strength from one to four.

5-The evidence he offers are high levels of irridum, nickel and gold in these ice samples and connect these concentrations to mass extinctions, star explosions and ice ages here on earth alternating with periods of climate warming.

Now I am not sure if Dr. Paul ( a John's Hopkins graduate in physics and a Phd from Portland) subscribes to Plasma theory but his ice core findings are consistent with Plasma theory data and theories.
 

Cosmic rays bombardments originating in our galaxies and others fit with the idea that these star explosions are electro-magnetic in origin and the cosmic storms reach our solar system and the earth itself.

The consequences Dr. Paul warns, of even a category one bombardment would be devastating now because since the last large one 700 years ago we now have satellites and other technology which now which would be effected. The whole planet, he argues, could be brought to its knees. Repairs might take months or years. Moreover, he argues we have solar flares and bombardments of a less intense nature often-every 11 years in the case of solar flares; and other bombardments from outside our galaxy virtually every day.

This is gloomy stuff.

This is all the more gloomy since we are generally being told that such cosmic rays come from our sun. But Dr. Paul argues that is not the case entirely.  They come from exploding stars as well and can activate the sun to produce more rays than it normally does. So the bombardments come directly from our galaxy and other galaxies and the stronger waves can and have induced our sun to emit more rays than it normally does. Note these outbursts are electrical in nature. 

Plasma theories of huge magnetic fields, galaxy-sized, sending huge moving currents of charged particles in orbits which regularly impact the earth is the up-shot of all this.

Now there is physical evidence of such occurances being offered in the ice core samples.

Large superwaves can last 100 to a thousand years.  There have been over 14 events, he states, in the last 5 thousand years. The large ones appear to occurs every 13 to 26 thousand years. The last occuring about 14,000 bc according to the ice samples. You do the math.

Several groups are apparently monitoring the lesser events which last from 300 to 700 seconds and can occur without warning.

So what we may ask can be done?

More in the coming days.

Elementary Wave Theory of Dr. Boyd

Now there is yet another theory which we might consider. Yes I know this is all getting complicated. But not that all of it is now seeming borrow from one another. See the website: http://elwave.org/nonphysicists/

In brief this theory states that quantum mechanics theory is flawed in that it resorts to math models and probabilities. He called the findings of quantum physics "weird." and counter intiuitive. While some of the findings make sense but some of the basic ideas do not make sense.

He argues the following "peculiar" ideas:

1- Ether exists and heretofore undetected waves exist at all wave lengths and frequencies. And more, these waves travel in both directions with electrons responding to these waves. For example he argues that waves propagate from for example the human body and photons from the sun become excited and travel back to the body. Electrons  excited by waves create photon reactions. These elementary wave (none dare call it ether, permeate the entire cosmos and are neither matter nor energy but form the backdrop medium in which  matter and energy interact.

2-Using the famous split experiment he seeks to demonstrate the differences between his theory and the explanations offered by quantum theorists who argue that an electron gun firing electrons at two slits in a board mounted between it and a plate will initiate with a particle but end up after passing through the slits looking like a wave function.

3- This outcome is explained in quantum mechanics as the observational effect. An electron exists in a quantum cloud until observed and then it becomes a particle when measurement is sought. Boyd states this arguments makes no sense.

4- He argues that it makes more sense to see the behavior of the electron as propagating within a two way wave field in which the electron excites a wave reaction from objects and are pre-existing.

Yes I know. This is mind-tingling.

More on this tomorrow since it feels like my brain has just been administered a super strong Altoid.
 Meantime see: http://physics.prodos.org/stephenspeicherexplains/

 

The Plasma-Electric Theory of the Universe received a tremendous boost as can be read in the Nov 9 issue of the New York Times. There scientists report they have discovered two huge bubbles of energy at the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way.

Tremendous in size, they cover half of the galaxy and contain tremendous amounts of energy. This is consistent with the Plasma theory and has tremendous import for our understanding of how the universe works.

It means that these highly energetic, galaxy sized bubbles fit perfectly with Plasma theories. (See above) To wit:

1-There are huge magnetic clouds moving electrical currents in huge orbits around the entire milky way galaxy as predicted by Plasma Theory. To find one in the very center of the galaxy is astonishing.

2-The corollary proposition to this empirical data, in Plasma Theory is that these huge currents dominate the universe, are the real incubators of stars and impact our very sun, where these electrical currents in orbit, can and has caused the sun to emit huge bursts of cosmic rays. These cosmic rays bombardments are documented in ice core samples going back thousands of years in 700 year cycles, the last being about 700 years ago.

While in the past these bombardments did little damage, in today's highly electronic and computer environments such a bombardment now could effectively end our way of life.

3- The argument is that modern physics and astronomers have ignored the evidence of this threat and now need to urge upon us the necessary steps to protect the earth.

As you can see this is not of small import.

But what would be those steps you say?

 

For those of you who think I am gluttonous for recently deceased equines see the link below to prove your point.
 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090215151457.htm

5/8/12
Starting in Feb Solar Mass Ejections have impacted the Earth. See the Nova special on the Sun "Secrets of the Sum" done in 2012. I will give a citaiton later.

The meaning of such events is made clear. Our own earth produces a magnetic field from a core of nickel and iron and acts just like what I have been claiming-the earth is a dynamo producing the Earth's very magnetic shield.

This magnetic shield protects up from the "solar winds" where charged particles from our sun collide with the charged particles in our magnetic shield and in our atmosphere.

Magnetic fields sun or earth fire of charged particles and can propel them as tremendous speeds, become "cosmic rays" just as a magnet and coiled wire can produce an electric current.

This the very nature of the universe as Tesla proved with his "Tesla Coil"

The danger is that modern communications from satellites to war machines to cars, tv, cell phones all depend upon the fact that the magnetic field of the earth remains stable. A world with electricity would put us instantly back into the stone age.

But what to do? We will explore possible solutions using some of the experiment results that Tesla demonstration.

That tomorrow. Hint: One way to protect the earth's magnetic shield is to build up a counter-charge in our own atmosphere.

7/9/12
Now we turn to the possible relationship between the Higgs field and Plasma theory.
 

The discovery of the HIggs boson derives its importance not from the the particle but that the particle implies the existence of the Higgs field. Now you see we have come full circle.

Once we postulate that space is not empty but has a field we need to know what is the nature of the field which is everywhere-on the macro and on the micro level.

I am reprinting below the discussions and citations on the Higgs Boson discovery for those who have not read it. (It is available on this site under the title "Einstein Was Wrong Maybe." But just in case I have republished it below for the rest of us.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 6/20/12
The Higgs field sounds just like Aeather?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/science/new-data-on-higgs-boson-is-shrouded-in-secrecy-at-cern.html?_r=1


"The particle is named for the University of Edinburgh scientist Peter Higgs, who was one of six physicists who suggested that a sort of cosmic molasses pervading space is what gives particles their heft. Particles trying to wade through it gather mass the way a bill moving though Congress gains riders and amendments, becoming more and more ponderous.

It was Dr. Higgs who pointed out that this cosmic molasses, normally invisible and, of course, odorless, would produce its own quantum particle if hit hard enough, by the right amount of energy, and so the branding rights went to him"

7/3/12 The Bosons are coming. The Higgs are in the Field

See six videos at:

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewnews.asp?id=38005

 7/4/12

So what is a Higgs Boson anyway? 10 videos on this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2012/jul/03/what-is-a-higgs-boson-video


The home of the Large Hadron Collider is hot with excitement about what two teams of physicists will report this week

The canteen at Cern, the particle physics laboratory and home of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on the outskirts of Geneva, is always abuzz with conversation and rumour, but in recent days one topic has dominated the hubbub more than ever.

"At lunchtime at Cern you can hear conversations going on in every language, and that's normal, but there's one word coming up all the time: Higgs," said Tara Shears, a particle physicist from Liverpool University who works at the lab.

The excitement comes as two teams of physicists at Cern prepare to announce their latest efforts to discover the Higgs boson at a press conference at the laboratory on Wednesday morning. Details will be unveiled by Fabiola Gianotti and Joe Incandela, the respective leaders of teams that use the giant Atlas and CMS detectors to search for new particles...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/03/higgs-boson-cern-particle-peo


Look these over and I will discuss after the announcement is made in terms of its significance.

Get some popcorn. The show is about to start!
The fate of the planet might be hanging in the balance.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/04/higgs-boson-cern-scientists-discover?intcmp=239

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/04/higgs-boson-discovery-real-work?intcmp=239

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/04/higgs-boson-cern-q-and-a?intcmp=239

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2012/jun/22/higgs-boson-particlephysics?intcmp=239

Come back tomorrow when I will discuss what all this means that you will not read about in the press. I have written for years on this topic. See over eight blogs on the Higgs, Einstein and light on this site. See also blogs on the Plasma theory of the universe which the Higgs may in fact validate which is NOT the standard model. In fact I argue that the HIggs field verifies plasma theory and may deflate Einstein's Relativity theories. Wow you say. ( I heard you)

The article below stresses what is the real news. The Higgs Field is much more important than the Higgs particle.
See what you think.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57466392-76/understanding-the-higgs-boson/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

Curious? come back tommorow.

7/5/12

Live video press conference on the Higgs; go down to center of the web page.

http://www.slashgear.com/cern-higgs-boson-conference-video-goes-live-04237140/

Direct  Feed:

http://vmsvideo.slashgear.tv/1883_mobile.mp4

 7/6/12
So how are we to understand the significance of the Higgs Boson finding?

I propose to examine the finding with the following questions in mind.

1. Which is of more import the particle or the implication of the Higgs field?
By far the field is of more significance and in the coming weeks I will explain this opinion. But if you read the above entries in this blog you can guess why.

2. What is the difference between the Higgs field and "Quantum Foam" of the quantum people, the Ether of the pre-Einstein era, between Relativity theory, its relation to dark matter, and dark energy, and string theory?

3. Does this find imply or not imply other dimensions?

4. The idea of a field which condensates into a particle sounds  familiar.

5. What is the relationship of the Higgs field idea and that of Plasma Theory?

6. How might a Higgs field relate to the work of Nicolas Tesla?

7. How does this relate to the "Summary of Physics" article on this site and alternative theories of physics on this site?

8. How does the idea of a Higgs field relate to the work of Hannes Alfren?
Does the Higgs boson and field "complete" the Standard Model, or is this an overstatement?

And we still have the problem of gravity.
 

You see much to talk about.

Meantime, listen to the best podcast on the Higgs  I have heard on the net

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2012/jul/05/science-weekly-extra-podcast-higgs-boson

See also this related article as it relates to the Higgs field, indirectly.

A point I will make is that space is a power-keg of forces and in equilibrium, and the Higgs Boson is a disruption of that equilibrium and therefore CERN may be dangerous in atempting to do this deliberately.
For the powder-keg analysis see the  the Through the Wormhole show
"What is Nothing" Sounds like the Higgs field, if it is out there, it is dangerous to mess with.

http://science.discovery.com/tv/through-the-wormhole/episodes/season-three/what-is-nothing.html

show whole planets disappeared in 2.5 years. How is this possible?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120705201330.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_the_Higgs_field


 http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2011%2F09%2F110913195555.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFCSuidGiC0ekN7Gx5ExV9iBUvUxQ

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110822102057.htm

Stay tuned.

 7/7/12

 Not much time today but note some introductory remarks are in order. We will have to stay with the above topics to do them justice over the next several months.

But the first point is to review the above posts and also see "Einstein-The True Story of Relativity" for reference along with several other blogs
and then we talk.

But the first point to make and ponder: The Universe is an unstable entity and uncertainty is an apt description. The Universe maintains a precarious equilibrium in the context of the Higgs field, if we accept that premise, then note that this can be disrupted by what is going on CERN.

No? Well let us see in the coming days if this idea makes any sense.

But read all of blogs on this site with begin with "Einstein" for background.

Then see what you think.

 7/8/12
Note the the CERN people are hesitant to declare "THE" Higgs boson has been discovered.  The answer given is that this is due to caution. But the fact is that their math predicts five different kinds of bosons. That's correct five-but only one of the five is the predicted Higgs boson. Or not?
This needs to be clarified.

This complicates matters a lot-especially when they have postulated only one will be the Higgs Boson predicted at the mass predicted. Let's explore these other four bosons and their relationship to the Higgs boson and more importantly to the Higgs Field and the rest of the fields now extend in Physics theory.

Meantime here are articles on five kinds of Higgs Boson. Perhaps you can figure it all out.
 
http://www.gizmag.com/higgs-boson-cern-alternative-particle/23319/

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/01/23-03.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100616-large-hadron-collider-lhc-higgs-boson-god-particle/

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:xHf7kqlE2uYJ:ws.elance.com/php/files/main/download.php?crypted%3DY3R4JTNEcG9ydGZvbGlvJTI2ZmlkJTNEMjQwMDM1MjElMjZyaWQlM0QtMSUyNnBpZCUzRDI2NzQ3NzQ%3D+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESimbgl0d6nVT7QUTz1-9sfgtD0RJxBySfK6MKPLocn1ViRIermAs_3lg5hx_YqRRulZ0mW3R2f0eCQgOnhK3jJcnwd3Ult6e6uF3P5wJyjm08YtjpzfXBiPQ7FKWDSpxkYNceVE&sig=AHIEtbTywOVHDGHZ55Y8O5w1b6vCrVGgGw&pli=1

Let's get busy. Tommorow.

 The Higgs Field and the Magnetic Plasma Universe- We explore how these related. First the magnetism issues

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091016112630.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100218092850.htm


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111116132119.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101125202011.htm
 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100930121000.htm
 

Doubting the Higgs
http://rdfrs.com/news_articles/2012/7/18/why-some-physicists-bet-against-the-higgs-boson#.UAcbszGe5AM

12/18/12

For a quick summary of the Miles Mathis view and my own--see:

http://milesmathis.com/galcharge.pdf

 Gravity found not to be the major force in certain star clusters?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130220163631.htm


Web Site: Lonnie Hicks Website  


Want to review or comment on this short story?
Click here to login!


Need a FREE Membership?
Click here to Join!


Popular Action/Thriller Stories
1. Being Dead--The Story
2. The Shamblers - FULL VERSION
3. What Will the World Look Like in 20 Years?
4. Illusion's Love
5. America's Health Care System: What are the
6. Homicide Hunter: Lt. Joe Kenda
7. America's Health Care System: What are the
8. History: Psychopaths and Institutions
9. Einstein: How do Galaxies Work? Updated 6/
10. Movies I Love


Authors alphabetically: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Featured Authors | New to AuthorsDen? | Add AuthorsDen to your Site
Share AD with your friends | Need Help? | About us


Problem with this page?   Report it to AuthorsDen
AuthorsDen, Inc. All rights reserved.