A NEW PARADIGM OF SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT – THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE (A VIEW FROM THE CAYMAN ISLANDS)
by Bishop Nicholas Sykes
We have already alluded to how evident it is that the inertia of a body, in other words its resistance to changing its state of motion, must have an electrical explanation. If we push, say, an empty cup across a very slippery table, we could (if we had the equipment) subject the area over which the hand that pushes is apparently in contact with the surface of the cup, to examination by a (notional) microscope of variable power.
As the power of the microscope increases, we would find, at some point of increasing power, the surface of the hand and the surface of the cup to be broken down into their constituent molecules, and it would become clear to the observer that the hand molecules do not in fact “touch” the cup molecules while yet setting up a repulsive force between them which acts to send the cup sliding on its way. Since both the cup molecules and the hand molecules possess electrons which comprise the outer part of the respective molecules, and since these electrons all have negative charge, it may seem reasonable to think that the force between the hand and the cup, which we have been used to thinking about as mechanical in nature, is in fact due to the electrical repulsion between the respective molecules, perhaps caused by their (negative) electrons being in closer proximity to one another than their respective (positive) nuclei.
As we look into the electrical nature of inertia and mass, we could find this concept needing adjustment, but for now the important point is that the basic nature of such forces seems to be electrical. Since a large cup of the same consistency of material is harder to set sliding along the slippery table than a smaller cup, this means that a greater force of electrical repulsion must be set up between the hand molecules and the molecules of the larger cup for it to move in the same manner as the smaller cup does. In physics we say that the “inertia” of the larger cup is greater than the inertia of the smaller cup, and we use for that “inertia” the name “mass”.
Now let us use the same two cups, climb a tall tree and drop them both from the same branch to the ground, which might have to be equipped with an inflatable swimming pool if we wanted to repeat the experiment with the same cups (unless the cups were made of unbreakable or rubbery material). Newton found in his equivalent experiments, as do we with the cups, that although the cups do not have the same inertia (or mass), they both move in exactly the same way. (There is a small error due to the fact that if one cup is larger in size than the other, the air through which they fall will push up on the larger cup a bit more than on the smaller cup, but let us ignore that for now. We can refine the experiment by using two cups of the same size but made from different materials.)
Both cups will reach the ground (or the inflatable swimming pool) at the same time. When subjected to the earth’s gravity, the inertia (or the mass) of the cups makes no difference to the way they move. And this simply means that whatever gravity is, it is pulling or pushing down on the bigger cup with a larger force, than does the gravity on the smaller cup. We note the similarity of the two experiments: when we pushed the cups across the slippery table with our hand, we had to exert a larger force on the “larger” cup to make it move in the same way that the smaller cup moved with the smaller force.
And if we are positing that the force between the hand and the cup is electrical in its nature, we should expect to find that the force that gravity provides is also electrical in its nature. Nevertheless, those who are familiar with electrostatics would be correct in pointing out that gravitational force cannot be electrostatic, because the bodies concerned – the cups in our example – are not electrically charged objects.
Ralph Sansbury has proposed a possible model of the fundamental particles (electrons, protons and neutrons) of ordinary matter, and Wal Thornhill of the Electric Universe team regards this model as the key to understanding the force of gravity electrically. Sansbury proposes that fundamental particles are resonant systems of orbiting smaller electric particles of opposite polarity that sum to the charge of that particle. Sansbury referred to the smaller electric charges as “subtrons”.
Let us take, for example, an electron. An electron possesses a negative charge. In Sansbury’s model, the electron is not just one single charged particle, but the summation of a number of orbiting smaller electric particles, some of which are positive and some negative. In the electron the negative subtrons must outweigh the positive subtrons because the summation is negative. It is important to note that each orbiting system of subtrons that constitutes the fundamental particle is a resonant system. The subtrons behave, so to speak, in an orderly way in sync with one another, so that a coherent entity – the electron, the neutron or the proton – is preserved. (This implies that the transfer of energy between the subtrons in their orbits must be nearly instantaneous, which like gravitational action in the solar system has devastating implications for the Special Theory of Relativity.)
The electrical model of mass and gravity differs from the Newtonian model in this way: in the Newtonian model, it is the mass of the particles of any object that generates (though without explanation) gravitational field. In the new electrical paradigm of mass, however, quantity of mass is a measure of how easily an electric field will distort the fundamental particles that comprise it into dipolar forms, because the more dipolar the particles comprising the body become, the more response will be apparent between that body and the presenting field.
Neutrons and protons differ from electrons, therefore, not only by the subtron summation charges, but also in that their resonant subtrons are distorted far more readily into a dipolar configuration than is the case for electrons. We are used to saying that neutrons and protons have “more mass” than electrons. So they do, but now we have an idea of what is meant by that statement.
If readers find this difficult to grasp, it is because of the unfamiliarity of the concepts being presented and not because of any inherent complexity. This article will benefit from a second read through, and also from being re-read after further articles have been written.
This and the other articles in this series have been published by Cayman Net News.