Stars and photons

[biknewb]

There is of course the possibility that the atom is more complex than chain theory proposes, but unfortunately all the observationally-specific knowledge is interpreted in terms of particles and simply correlated mathematically. Nobody is analyzing the mountains of data in terms of chains and the theory remains in its infancy at present.

The same problem arises when interpreting satellite data in an Electric Universe context. The NASA published conclusions are always based on the Standard model. To get any EU compatible data it is necessary to know the exact configuration of a satellite's instruments and decipher the results accordingly.

[altonhare]

There is of course the possibility that the atom is more complex than chain theory proposes, but unfortunately all the observationally-specific knowledge is interpreted in terms of particles and simply correlated mathematically. Nobody is analyzing the mountains of data in terms of chains and the theory remains in its infancy at present.

The same problem arises when interpreting satellite data in an Electric Universe context. The NASA published conclusions are always based on the Standard model. To get any EU compatible data it is necessary to know the exact configuration of a satellite's instruments and decipher the results accordingly.

Exactly. The chain theory, however, beats the pants off of any particle or aether theory in terms of an actual scientific explanation for the basic observations of light, gravity, and magnetism. So far, as near as I can tell, the aether theory is just the particle theory under a different name. JL is the only one to explicitly state a structure for the aether:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... ate#p13759

Where he states explicitly that the aether is particulate. He qualifies this statement as being based on Tesla's thoughts. As near as I can tell, though, Tesla's aether is "the aether". It's hard to tell in general as I can't get a lot of straight answers.