A NEW PARADIGM OF SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT – THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE (A VIEW FROM THE CAYMAN ISLANDS)
By Bishop Nicholas Sykes
The Electric Universe paradigm affects far more than cosmology, which is where we have started in this series of articles. I now intend in the next part of the series to tackle some of the unsolved and covered-over issues of basic physics, such as the true nature and meaning of mass and inertia, issues that have gone virtually unnoticed in mainstream physics since the time of Henri Poincaré in the early twentieth century. Although the EU paradigm flows on, so to speak, far beyond physics into areas such as biology, geography and geology, my intention is to leave others (when such can be found) to write on those enormous areas, since they are outside my personal fields of study. The wide-ranging nature of the EU paradigm seems to advertise to us that it may become the basis for a renewed Natural Philosophy, and that one day in the future all the sciences may once again, as they were in the past, viewed as aspects of such a Philosophy.
In Article 7 CS Lewis’ prescient comment was noted that just as the existing “model” of astronomy succeeded to the medieval model, so it was not at all impossible to imagine that the existing model of cosmology might one day give way to another. Electric Universe researchers consider the Electric Universe paradigm, which embraces the idea of the electric force having a key role to play in the workings of the universe, to be set to overthrow the existing model, which is wedded to the unjustified concept of an electrically neutral cosmos.
Immediately before we proceed “back to earth”, however, it will be well to make a summary of where the EU paradigm has so far taken us, so that we might not be tempted to forget or put aside what already we have had the opportunity to learn. A careful reading of the previous articles should help us in the following ways:-
Not to take Albert Einstein’s work as divinely inspired (Art.1, Art 7, Art 10)
To recognise Sir Isaac Newton’s work as very great but with areas acknowledged as incomplete (e.g. the physical nature of gravity) (Art. 2);
To take notice of and carry forward the work of Kristian Birkeland (Art 3) and Hannes Alfvén;
Not to accept the “magic” of what is termed magnetic reconnection, but, rather, to view cosmology in the light of plasma discharge physics (Art 4, Art 10);
To examine critically models of the Sun and the solar system which assume electricity has no role, when electricity is well known to provide a vastly stronger force than gravity (Art 5, Art 9);
To compare the standard nuclear furnace model of the Sun with the electric model in terms of predictive value (Art 6, Art 8);
To examine critically concepts that appear to be irrational, fictional or unnecessary, such as Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes and the Oort Cloud (Art 11, Art 13);
To examine critically the foundations of the widespread Expanding Universe and Big Bang theories (Art 12).
It will be necessary to refer to these matters from time to time as we enter the world of a more earth-bound physics armed with the insights of the new paradigm. So now let us proceed to the “mystery of mass“.
As so often in the new paradigm, we build on the work of those who left us their legacy in the earlier part of the twentieth century. These words of the mathematician and philosopher Henri Poincaré were published posthumously in his book “Science and Methods” in 1914:-
“What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin.”
Yet mass has been regarded as an absolute measure of what physics textbooks – as well as NASA releases – call “quantity of matter”. Using the word “quantity” as a definition, however, obscures the issue of “what kind of quantity?” (For in modern physics, “quantities” have units, and if you give this “quantity” a unit of mass – say kg – you have produced a circular argument. You have used mass in your explanation of what mass is.) Is it the space that is occupied by this matter? Is it its weight (heaviness)? In that case the attraction of gravity has been made part of the definition of the quantity. It would follow that any laws which involve the force of gravity upon an object and its mass are a product of circular reasoning. The mass of the object would already have been defined to take into account the pull of gravity upon it.
Then is mass the sum of all the various particles that make up the body – considering these particles to be fundamental particles? It does not appear, however, that such a calculation would give a result consistent with our understanding of mass as we normally measure it. In that respect, such a measure of mass is no better than seeing it as the space or volume occupied by the body.
Mass is seen also in Newtonian physics as Inertia, and this can start us on a fruitful track. Wal Thornhill has pointed out that if we apply force (for example, a push) to a body, which then moves (or at least reacts to the force), the interaction between the force and the body is an electrical one, pure and simple. Whatever attractive forces might exist are more than overcome by the forces of repulsion, chiefly those between the outer electrons in the atoms closest to the points of contact. As Poincaré pointed out a century or so ago, inertia (and therefore inertial mass) is an electromagnetic quantity.
This suggests that if the weight or heaviness of the body is proportional to its inertial mass, as Newton states and his (and our) experiments have confirmed, the pull of gravity is likewise an electrical (or electromagnetic) effect. As Thornhill says, “if we can explain inertia, gravity and magnetism in electrical terms, the electric force would become the only one required in the universe.” The pertinent so far unexplained piece in this intriguing science story is how to explain gravity in electrical terms. And this we will be moving on to in succeeding articles.
This and the other articles in this series have been published by Cayman Net News.