TIMESICK

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
                               TIMESICK                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                               
                               another work in progress                                                                                                                        
                               by graham52sinclair                                                                                                                                  
                               begun 15th October 2011 ` Hold on a minute.....I'm not ready yet. This is fun isn't it? We're communicating and I haven't even started yet. I feel as though I know you already. You're very friendly. Oh, shit, I feel as if I have to watch what I say now.                                                                                             I start to wake up. I'm walking along K'Rd and I can feel the mattress pushing into my back. I try to turn around but something stops me. I'm lying down and I can't open my eyes. I go straight from being asleep to wide awake without the half-awake/half asleep bit inbetween. I know I dreamt about swimming through trees with hippos and penguins but I can't remember how it fits with K'Rd in Auckland. I listen down into myself to see what my body is saying today.                                  
                                                                                                                                                                           I feel as though I haven't slept. I've had a hectic night of swimming through the air and water, jungle and rainforest. Another hippo floats through my mind, little nubby tail like a propellor on a motorboat spreading half-digested khaki coloured grass fibre as it goes. The room is filled with a yellow light and the sounds of the afternoon filter in through my preoccupations.                                                
                                                                                                                                                                    I think I'll take it easy today. I'm looking for my inner boredom. I'm at my most creative when I'm tolerably bored. It's an indicator of my level of confidence and security. Anxiety is mostly anathema to boredom. In many people anxiety and depression can be  hard to even notice. Everybody feels differently about comfort. Some appear to be naturally at ease. Others only seem to be at ease when they are un-comfortable.  My anxiety seems custom designed especially for me personally. Not being able to find comfort in anything - even powerfully comforting narcotics - is what you might call the long pain. It builds and builds without letting up. Even the slightest change in temperature can leave you sweating and freezing. Too hot and too cold all at once. It's like suddenly cold turkey but nothing will touch it. Dreaming the junky's dream night after night when you have all the smack you can use. "Do you want to hear my list of famous junkies? People are seldom aware of the truth in these matters. JFK was a champion. There went one heroic junky. Was there a major narcotic group that he didn't sample from on a daily basis? Methadone, demerol, ritalin, various barbiturates and steroids and when he could manage to get in touch with the famous Doctor Feelgood - benzedrine......"                                                                                                                                                                                                                     I must admit to a certain curiosity over the effect of combining stimulants with hypnotics or sedatives. I wonder whether the combination would produce a kind of stimulation without anxiety or if one or the other would pravail to produce a partially cancelled out response. Either a weak stimulant or a weak sedative effect depending   on which was the more active. In my pleasure seeking mind I imagine them both working at once. Like a cheap speedball. How about codeine valium and ritalin? Oh God the thought of it makes me feel queasy. It's kind of what JFK was doing though. Except that all of his ingredients were top drawer for their day. I've had proper speedballs but they can be a bit dangerous. The coke wears off and suddenly you're going blue. Fuck I hate coke.                                                                                                                               Society seems to have the attitude that if you have a job to do then by all means take whatever you need to enable you to get it done. Like in sports matches and long-haul trucking. "Drugs are bad" and you should "Just say no" but the stands are full of paying customers and goods don't deliver themselves so if a little taste of something is going to get the job done then by all means go ahead and get on with it. And they talk about mixed messages!                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                  Actually, I seem to remember experimenting along similar lines with tenuate dospan and valium (retch). It was in the early 80's. I ended up vomiting on Bruce MacIntosh's lawn at 555 New North Rd.  I think from memory it was too many levels to get right at the same time. Methadone, valium, cannabis and tenuate dospan.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                  In fact I have long since kept my resolve to not use stimulant narcotics. I think drugs like cocaine and the benzedrine derivatives like dexamphetamine fit much better into the model Burroughs talks about in "The Naked Lunch". There is a strong law of diminishing return at work. Some people may remember the old song and poster that proclaimed "Speed Kills".                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                Tubular hips and a mouth from ear to ear. If she lay down on a hillside and opened up she'd slide right out, extra naked, all pinky white and lying on the wet grass with her hair stuck to her face. Whenever he imagines his feet dangling metres above the ground he gets the shivers. He always thought sneakers hanging from the phone lines were either an esoteric joke or something to do with UFO abduction. Perhaps it was a joke about UFO abduction. Which would just show how sick some people can be.                                                                                                                                            
Everything has that 80's Twin Peaks/Blue Velvet look to it. The black is really black and the colours are all really saturated. Where are my black 501's. God, they feel so tight after twenty years of dressing "dude" style. If you can call that a style.  I wonder if people realise how loudly they're thinking? Can't they shut up? Lookout! It's the Enterprise... Captain slog... Start... Rec... arrow, two arrows, dot, square. This is heavy going...mmmm...interesting. Why isn't anything happening? It's been twenty minutes at least!                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                 My old Aunty May used to live in Clovelly. She had a whole room I was sometimes allowed to explore that was packed full of seashells, fossils, rocks and minerals. Aunty May  used to tell me stories about Uncle Wilf and the old days. How he would go out in a little dinghy and bring home a lovely big trevally. How the fish in the shops was all shark but that was okay so long as it was fresh but it never was. I couldn't understand her hatred of even toy guns until she told me about her brothers showing off and fighting over an air rifle when they were kids.  One of them permanently lost the sight of an eye in the accident that followed.   Aunty may used to know who was walking past outside her house from the sound of their feet on the footpath. She wasn't blind or anything. She'd just been living in the same house for most of her long life. In a Sydney where people and architecture could stay the same for as long as they wanted to, was change any less likely? Was it less desirable? Apparently not.  
                                                                                                                                                                    I hate Chief O'Brien!!! Colm Meany. Is that his real name or did he make it up to annoy me? It's as though his character was specifically designed to get up my nose. Compared to chief O'brien I don't even mind Riker's gay walk or that look that Data gets that's supposed to say "I'm superior" in a similar vein to Hal in 2001. He's going for a kind of machine cool but instead it looks more like he can smell something unpleasantly human in the air. Why do they walk all the way down to the transporter room when they could so easily be beamed to their destination straight from where they are?  

                                                                                                                                                    Aaaaaah....finally. God's own medicine kicks in and I feel as if I've done a hard day's work, had a shower and a good meal and I'm in my pyjamas ready for TV and bed. It's disgusting that people get to feel this good on excercise or hard work. Fucking endorphine junkies make me want to puke." He remembers so many faces and not as many names. The seventies were strange. Most of the time he spent trying to work out what was happening to him. There were so many strong elements at work at the same time. Allergic reactions partially obscured by opiates of various types and strengths, anxiety, lust, love, depression and a kind of lysergic optimism. He remembers a string of Christmas days in a string of houses. Beautiful houses full of beautiful food. Mothers and young daughters with absent fathers. In the days of late summer his allergic reactions abated as the pollen subsided and his mood improved with the change. Clouds of various exotic cannabis floated past in those days before home grown and hydraponics. It was Guy Fawkes 1972 and he had nearly everything ready for the coming night's party. The trip to Wah Lee's yielded a big cardboard carton half-full of coloured paper and gunpowder. There was plenty of acid but nothing to smoke. People were phoned and people were visited but nothing had come to hand. It was getting dark. Smudged looking kids were throwing double-happys at passing cars. Anxiety moved around in his stomach. The acid was called "ice nine" and came in the form of little soft gelatine squares strung with a sewing needle onto a length of nylon fishing line. It was after six and there was still no sign of any pot. He felt as though he were climbing out on to a bit of a bio-chemical limb but he sometimes did this if there was a concert or a party or something. Unless he had opium. Opium was like certainty you could measure out into doses. It was so discrete. He preferred to take it orally. It relieved his allergies dried out his sinuses and gave him the feeling of well-being he so sorely lacked without it. Who was it that saved the party for them that night? Was it Alan Murray? It might have been. Was it Michael Stephenson? Whoever it was, at about the time they'd all given up on ever seeing another joint again, parties were summoned quietly to Sarah's room and before the very eyes of the small circle there gathered, a joint was revealed. It was of the usual length but very, very thin. The moment was tense. Lips were licked and then put away. There were seven people in the room. A match. The room fell silent. They had all eaten trips that were starting to tickle but after just one lungful it was as though, if they'd eaten a handful of acid, it would only have been barely noticeable next to that pot stone. The party seemed to erupt from that moment. Suddenly it got dark and they were letting off handfuls of fireworks at a time. Picking up "the pretty ones" and waving them quickly from side to side so that they looked like peacock tails of fire. Their eyes filled up with coloured light. Swirling scribbles burnt into their retinas like the filament in a light bulb. Deep magenta and emerald green or pale pink and blue. Inside on the walls of Sarah's room were the faces that had looked back at them as they lay and talked that summer. Drawings in brush and ink by Dean Buchanan. Faces that launched whole clouds of thought in his still impressionable mind. The sun shone through the big poplars and plane trees that surrounded the house outside. The summer breeze made soft soughing frou frou against their leaves as it passed. They were still in bed. It was late morning or early afternoon. It was warm and Sarah looked like one of Modigliani's reclining nudes. Her breasts looked perfect when she slept on her back like that. "Picasso was a pot smoker and an arsehole. Ask John Cale. All someone has to do in court to discredit a witness is to suggest they have a history of drug addiction and yet it must be that at least half of the world's rich, famous and powerful have used illicit drugs. From JFK to Coco Chanel. From Errol Flynn to Bob Mitchum. Some of the biggest surprises can come from knowing who does and who doesn't. For instance, during the early Velvet Underground days Lou and John were experimenting with royal jelly and ginseng." Wouldn't he ever shut up!? They were often getting stuck in bed like this. As soon as the others knew they were awake someone would come in and sit on the bed and they'd talk. It would go on for hours if they weren't politely asked to leave the room while Sarah got dressed. At least they weren't as bad as Cass. He'd follow you to the toilet once he got talking to you. Girls had to tell him to rack off. He used to time himself when he took a shot with a big old Westclox alarm clock clattering away next to him. One day they found him sitting, immobilised in Vulcan Lane. "Guys, guys, can you shield me from the sun?" His body would lock up if he got too hot. One night they got home to find him trying to crawl away from the electric heater in the lounge. "Guys, guys can you switch it off, please?" If Cass was putting it on it would only make him more impressively fucked up because who would bother to spend every waking moment doing things to make himself look mad. Whenever he went anywhere he would have to walk one lampost, run one lampost. To keep fit. There was actually a kind of mad speedfreak logic behind the strange things Cass did. The clock was to keep him from talking too long after a shot without putting away his stash. This exposed him to unnecessary risk. He suffered from a form of paranoia common to afficianados of speed. Not out in the bushes screaming "I know you fucking pigs are in there somewhere and I'm going to fucking kill you"paranoid. More planned out than that. He thinks he's being cautious and discreet but it doesn't take long to see he's lost it. He was a blur of tics and twitches endlessly cleaning his glasses. Very tall with a slight limp, a tightly curled, greasy black mullet and thick-rimmed black spectacles. Nobody I know of looked more like a real live Don Martin cartoon except perhaps Sam Hunt. Actually there was something of John Clease about the way he moved. Sarah looked a bit like Betty-Boop. Big eyes and bow lips under a strong forehead. Numdah rugs and she wore ballet shoes on her Suzuki 50. She had her mother's laugh. It tinkled like a little bell he never grew tired of. She was a respected potter but pottery always made him think of field drains and road cuttings. When he and clay collided in her mother's studio one day it was a slowly unfolding disaster but when Sarah made a pot she did so with a delicacy and a strength that were plainly visible in her work. A fragility that defied and contradicted the medium. Her work was all around that house. So were the brush sketches Dean Buchanan made with the sculptural form of a Modigliani and the whimsical mood of Jean Cocteau. There were no frames. No plinths or pedestals. Just art in the raw. They lived in and out of old black and white movies except that they watched them on TV so they were more blue and white. The '30's and '40's would seap into their minds and they'd be transported back to those times before Anslinger and his new prohibition. Drugs still seemed so exotic to them in the global backwater that was 1971 New Zealand. Had they only known what they were doing they were probably surrounded by worthwhile substances. If only they'd been better educated. It always seemed a bit too sleazy even for them. Everybody has a line they won't cross. It was too "Nutmeg George". Like hitting up over-the-counter codeine or injecting alcohol. If it didn't come with a "reliable" street name they weren't interested. A "name" meant an approximately reliable word of mouth guarantee that you wouldn't be ripped off or poisoned. "What is it, mate?" "It's fucking dope mate. Are you stupid or what?" "Well yeeeeeeaah! Obviously, but what is it called?" "It's Turkish Gold", "Ahhh! Excellent, Turkish Gold. Just so long as it's not that Chocolate Fish hash. It tastes really nice but it does fuck all!" This stuff could keep hundreds of anthropologists in grants. The party had been a success in the end. Everyone was still asleep. It hadn't rained in the night so he took a cardboard carton and quietly slipped out into the back yard. There was still a lot of undetonated ordnance lying about. Chinese gunpowder and the smell of sulphur and wet cardboard. Blue Morning Glory really did cover the old outhouse. He finished picking up the remnant fireworks and took the carton inside. He boiled some water to clean his fit then took a cup and spoon out to the toilet and locked himself in. He carefully removed a small salmon coloured rock from his stash and dropped it into the spoon, added a little of the boiled water and filtered it with a small piece of tampon. He ritually tapped out any bubbles of air and slipped the needle into his eager vein. It was still quiet. The day had not yet begun. The dull familiar ache of worn out pleasure. The sweet mercy of relief mixed up with the solid certainty that such relief will always be fleeting and retreating.

MY EXPLANATION Part 3

 Is that everything? Is that all of the things we currently ascribe to the action of an invisible force due to mass and in inverse proportion to distance? We jumped in at the deep end a bit with proto-stellar disc and star formation. Gravity is supposed to cause hydrogen clumping. I don't see it. Dust particles can coalesce under static electricity and when they do inside the huge nebulae they create focal points within themselves. Here the transition between positive and negative charge can be so steep it deforms the local electromagnetic phase of free space sufficiently that permanent standing waves of positive and negative charge are formed. These are protons and electrons and they unite to form light and hydrogen. More on this shorly, when we look at things on a subatomic scale.                             We've looked at star formation, black holes and the way the earth acts as a giant generator and capacitor such that its powerful internal electromagnetic field is propagated through a silicaceous mantle. The resulting electrostatic field is what we call terrestrial gravity. We've looked at the oceanic tides and at the forces involved in keeping the earth and planets in their orbits around the sun. Then we saw that the same forces are at work in a slightly different way keeping moons and other objects in their orbit around planets.         Do any advantages come from understanding things this way?  Apart from the simplicity and elegance of resolving all the forces we know about into points along a single  line representing the electromagnetic spectrum. Well, for one thing, there's the problem of the expanding universe. My thinking around gravity was that if it existed there had already been plenty of time for it to make some sort of visible impression on the universe. I read the arguments around cosmological expansion and contraction. The idea is that the "big bang" was an explosion that sent everything flying outwards in all directions. This is why things in space appear increasingly red-shifted with distance.  Thinking was apparently divided between those who postulated a "big crunch" as gravity slowed everything down and then pulled it back to its point of origin and those who predicted a sort of big bang-crunch-bang-crunch universe.  My own thoughts were that in a gravity free universe the pressure of light and the osmotic pressure exerted by the vast vacuum of empty space would constantly be adding momentum to all bodies such that the longer they have been moving the faster they will be going. This predicted that the expansion would go on, that it would accelerate and that it would not result in an "empty sky" universe. Then I heard that acceleration had been proven. For me it was confirmation I was on the right track. For the standard model it was a bad blow. For about a year I heard physicists and astronomers admitting they were lost while I hopped from toe to toe in front of the TV waving my arms shouting "Hello! Answers over here!" Then I heard those five little words that have spelt an end to sensible mainstream cosmology ever since...."dark matter and dark energy". They've taken what Einstein said was the worst mistake of his life and they're promoting it as the greatest scientific achievement of all time.                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                             You don't need to invent ways of selectively counteracting gravity when we don't need it to explain what is being observed in the first place. The whole idea of gravity acting as a kind of cosmic rubber band  was problematic on its own terms anyway. For one thing theres the difficulty of all the energy. Where does the energy come from to kick off the initial expansion phase? Then when the universe reaches the supposed end of its expansion period what would there be to cause it to snap back to its starting point again?  All the matter would have left there long ago so gravity would be no help even if it did exist.  
                                                                                                                                                                "Nature abhors a vacuum". That's all that's required to explain cosmic expansion. Space goes on forever but the objects that make up the universe occupy a finite volume within it. There is something astronomers haven't found yet and that's the universe's central vortex. Sinclair's law predicts that it's there.  We'll find a positively charged vortex at the center of the universe. If it began in one place it makes sense that the universe is presently expanding outwards in all directions from there and if you keep in mind that space presents very little resistance to a flow of charge it's possible that a part of all the fields in the universe intersect there. The central vortex will be a spectacular object carrying stupendous amounts of charge violently bending the space around it into masses of protons and anti-protons, electrons and anti-electrons. These all sort of queue up into a ball of plasma while they wait to join with eachother. That's what happens with our sun as well. The standing waves of charge can't all join up at once so they oganise into a sphere while they're waiting . It's the same as when you take the plug out of the bath. All the water can't get out at once so it forms an orderly queue in the form of the little spiral that goes fnahwggggle. I had to laugh when they "recorded" the sun's "audio" and got a similar sound because the physics is very similar. Of course you can't hear the sun in the vacuum of space. You can't feel the sun's heat through a vacuum either.  I get so annoyed by talk of Goldilocks planets. Astronomers and physicists should know better than that. The heat we feel relies on the sun but it's made here on earth. The EM radiation that arrives here from the sun is cold and dark. Only when it causes the gases in our atmosphere to fluoresce does it produce light and only when it excites the same gases into motion does it produce heat. This is precisely why we must look after our atmosphere. We need it for breathing as well. Carbon dioxide is poisonous to life. Breathing only a 10% concentration of co2 is FATAL in humans. Living systems are affected by very small variations in their bio-electrical environment. I'd like to know the effect of small variations in atmospheric co2 on the ability of human adipose tissue to burn fat. I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear that the current rise in obesity is due to climate change. For years they said the radiation emitted by a cell phone was too low to cause adverse health   That's that off my chest anyway. When I talk about space being bent or deformed I'm talking about the electrical phase of space. It has nothing to do with a so-called "space time continuum". Einstein's theory of an underlying space time being bent by gravity is a nice idea but it's not what's happening. People are likely to accuse me of having delusions of grandeur but I can't help that. Einstein was a person like anyone else but he had the humility to admit that he didn't have all the answers. It must have been hard for him to do when so many of his colleagues insisted that they were right about quantum theory.  Relativity is illogical in its implications and quantum mechanics is the result of some very wooly thinking. More on all this when we look at what stuff is made of and science's obsession with finding bits of stuff somewhere.                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                   In fact, time is just an artifact of our mortality. If we were immortal time would be irrelevent to us.
More to come when I explain how things work at the subatomic scale.

MY EXPLANATION Part 2 What about the tides? They're supposed to be due to the gravitational effect of the moon. Why are there two tides for each moonrise? There are two a day and they peak on a full moon.  Does the moon's mass increase and decrease each month?  There is a lot of variation between the tides on any one day and between one day and the next.  The solution lies in the fact that light has a measurable pressure that we currently ignore. This pressure of light is at work in the universe depite our ignorance. It pushes down on one side of our planet depressing the ocean in one place and causing it to pile up in two others.  

At the same time the light reflected from the moon adds to this effect by varying amounts depending on its phase. The new moon adds a little and the full moon adds the most. This is enhanced by the fact that the full moon occurs directly opposite the sun. As far as I know the official version is that while the moon attracts the tidal waters so that they stand up on one side of the planet, for some strange and unknown reason, they also stand up on the opposite side, 180 degrees away .

        When David Attenborough accidentally tipped me to how silly it was I couldn't help wonder why more people hadn't spotted that there are two tides a day and only one moonrise.                                                                                                                                                                                                       Let's look at some other things we use gravity to explain.  The orbit of the earth around the sun is a case in point.  I used to think about this all the time because to me gravity just didn't seem to fit the facts. The analogy that is often given is the parable of the bucket on a string.  How can this model the solar system?  The fact that water stays in a bucket when you swing it around over your head is all down to centripetal force. Gravity is supposed to be to be represented by the string in the famous analogy but no mention is made of where the earth or the bucket get their angular momentum. The bucket has a person turning it what does the earth have?  The main problem I can see with gravity as a motor to drive terrestrial rotation is that it just isn't logical. How can a force acting at right angles to the observed motion be responsible for it. The main factor, though, is that a gravity based model for planetary orbit and rotation is just not robust enough and relies on too many special conditions at the outset.  It amounts to a kind of wind up universe in which every moving part has been carefully placed in exactly the right place relative to all the other parts. It's not really feasible and it creates the necessity for an absolutely massive amount of energy to get the universe started. None of this is necessary.                                                                                                                                                                 
      A more robust and satisfactory model exists in the equilibrium set up between two opposing electromagnetic forces that we've already encountered and that we already know to exist.  One is the attraction that exists between the negative charge on most of the surface of a planet and the powerful positive charge on the vortex lying close to the centre of the solar system.  The other is the pressure of light from the sun. If these forces seem weak or insignificant compared to the "crushing" strength of terrestrial gravity it helps to remember that our experience of the universe is not universal. We live within the terrestrial field. If we were to live constantly on board the ISS the evidence of our senses might more closely resemble the actual physics that goes on in 99% of the universe.  All objects in space are weightless. This includes the planets and stars. Hard to get your head around but true. Weight is an illusion charged bodies within an electromagnetic field effectively constitutes a generator of electrical current and two is that the propagation of lines of current or flow in space simultaneously produces a scalar electromagnetic field at right angles to the direction of that flow.  I explained above the way in which the proto-stellar disc or nebula organises itself using static electricity. The negatively charged particles of dust and debris on the outer edge of the disc begin to circle around each other trying to reach the positively charged centre.  The motion imparted by static charge to the proto-stellar disc is like a kick start. Once moving, the system begins to generate its own light and power.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         All objects carry a static charge and static electricity obeys the inverse square law.  A further example of this kind of organisation of objects in space into solar systems can be seen in the gas giants?  Likewise, the rings of Saturn show beautifully the factors influencing their orbits. Contrary to popular belief, these factors are charge and reflectivity.  Saturn and Jupiter are like suns that don't have enough energy to fully come into focus and shine. They produce gas and heat but not in the correct conditions.  In the rings of Saturn you can see that there is a kind of order but that it has very little to do with mass.  Gravity theory  predicts a simpler arrangement of debris in the rings with size as the main differentiating factor. What we see is a number of groups of rings with each group appearing to display a variety of sizes ranging from large to small. This is because the debris within the debris field is arranged according to its reflectivity to light and its ability to hold electric charge.                               The main problem with the gravitational model of planetary orbit, as far as I can see, is its lack of a propelling impulse. It has to assume, from a cosmological viewpoint, that all of the orbiting bodies in the universe had their motions imparted to them at some time in the past. This might be simple enough while we're only really aware of a handful of planets but I can see problems for the future of any cosmology that depends on or includes gravity. Every planet and moon would have to have exactly the right velocity imparted to it to allow its continued orbit. Anything that slowed them down would cause them to eventually come to rest somewhere.  Without the equallibrium that exists between the pressure of light pushing outwards and the electromagnetic attraction  between the orbiting bodies and the central vortex pulling inwards the universe would lack its observed stability.   A system as universal and robust as the one we can see can't be wind-up or clockwork. It must be self organising and self sustaining and I think I've shown how that can be.                                                                                                                                                         To digress slightly - the fact that the solar system is a huge dynamo of the kind I have described is bad news for those pinning their hopes on nuclear fusion. What looks like fusion to science at the moment is in fact the formation of protons and electrons across the boundary between two areas of intensely powerful electromagnetic charge.  As these are generated through work done by the rotation of the entire solar system it is unlikely that we will ever generate sufficient power to propagate a star of our own. We would be better employed looking at the enormous amount of energy already in our environment and finding ways of putting it to use.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Continuing with my description of the mechanism for planetary orbit there is one more motion integral to this that we haven't yet touched on.  I am unaware of any official explanation for the earth's axial rotation . I may have missed it but I'm sure I've never seen a theory put forward to explain the way planets and moons rotate on their axes.  I was tipped off when I walked past a shop in Mt Eden Rd in Auckland and saw a number of little radiometers spinning away busily in the afternoon sunlight.  Just as very high altitude parachutists can get into an uncontrollable spin in the thin upper atmosphere so the earth, moon and planets are effectively radiometers.  A potential difference exists between the side of the planet that is in darkness and the side that's in the light.  If the earth was to stop spinning for some reason, perhaps the close approach of a comet holding it in place electro- magnetically, it would slowly start up again once the comet moved on.  It could turn in either direction but sensitivity to initial conditions also known as the "butterfly effect" will determine which way. The fact that most of the bodies in our solar system rotate on their axes and orbit the sun in the same direction is most likely because due to the fact all of these motions began within the same galaxy which is itself rotating.  Also, most of the orbiting material acquired an impetus when it was still negatively charged dust particles rotating around the positively charged system centre trying to get to the central in the protostellar disc .                                                                                                                                                                                           To summarise the case of our mistaken belief that gravity holds the moons and planets in orbit we so far have the following.   All spherical objects in space are charged negative in relation to the space around them. The orbit of all these charged bodies within the system's  magnetic field constitutes work done by what is effectively an enormous natural generator.  The scalar field this propagates focuses into a vortex at the system's centre of gravity. Very close to this vortex a plasma bubble grows from the protons and electrons created around it.  With enough rotating bodies the energy levels are sufficient for the plasma bubble to go to photon emission and this is the difference between a star and a gas giant. (I feel I should also mention that although light is not visible in a complete vacuum it still exerts a pressure on anything it comes into contact with.) We have the pressure of light from the sun pushing the planets etc. outwards away from the centre at the same time as the positively charged central vortex attracts them inwards. These two opposing forces create a tension that is the main driver behind planetary orbit. They produce an equilibrium that is far more robust than the model gravity requires. It also has a driving force such that if the system were to somehow be prevented from turning, once the impediment moved away it would start to turn again.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

       There are a couple of secondary forces that require identification in the orbit of planets.  One is the combined role of the sun and central vortex in a kind of push-pull arrangement a bit like the con rod in a car engine or an old steam locomotive and the other is axial rotation. The pushing and pulling occur simultaneously but from two separate positions which allows these opposing forces to gain purchase on the surrounding planets.
      You can see in the diagram below that the sun orbits around the vortex in the same direction as the earth and planets. If the pressure of light from the sun and the attraction between the the vortex and the planets originated from the same point in space they would cancel eachother out. The fact that they originate from points at some remove from one another means they can create a potential difference that causes bodies within the field to begin circling around "looking for" a way to get closer to the center but all the time being kept at bay and in orbit by the pressure of the sun's light. In the diagram the long blue arrows represent the lines of the scalar field that intersect at the central vortex. These are produced by the circular motion of the earth and all the other material moving in orbit around the central vortex.  In our solar system the sun takes about the same length of time to orbit the system centre as the earth takes. About a year. This means the earth is constantly being pushed from just slightly behind by the sunlight and pulled from just slightly in front by its electromagnetic attraction for the vortex. What it means for the other planets is another thing. There are times when the push of the light will come from behind and others when it comes from in front of the other planets. This causes them to speed up and slow down making their orbits irregular and eliptical.

I appreciate it can be hard to get your head around a lot of this stuff. I still have trouble with one of the simpler aspects of orbital rotation - the moons in their secondary orbits. I don't know why, it's probably my conditioning because it really isn't very complicated. A good analogy can be seen if you join a pair of ping-pong balls together with a length of light thread, holding it in the middle so that the balls hang down about a foot or so and touch eachother. Now if you put the balls (stop snickering) in front of an electric fan you will see them move apart with each ball starting to spin on its own axis.                                                                                  

        In the diagram above you can see that in the gap between the moon and planet the reflected light creates a pressure that pushes the bodies apart like the ping-pong balls in front of the fan. The pressure of light at these angles is not countered other than by our length of string which represents the attraction due to gravity. Except that while I go on calling it gravity for convenience we could just as correctly call it the earth's electrostatic field.                      

MY EXPLANATION Part 1

   My explanation for the way stuff appears to work in the universe                                                                                                                                                                                             Graham Sinclair  Tuesday, April 17, 2012  ·Friday 29 June 2012
                                                                                                                                                                       
I suppose two things got me started thinking about how everything works. The first was when Mr.Evans, our physics teacher, told us that gravity is NOT density dependent. If you drop a lead ball and a polystyrene ball of the same dimensions they will fall at the same rate. Everyone feels intuitively that a lead ball will fall faster but it doesn't. The second was when I found out that we were NOT going to be learning how everything works because nobody really knew!  People had their ideas and theories but nothing was proven.                                                                                                                                                    For years I chewed it over. If a monkey lets go of a branch at the same time as a man on an identical branch hundreds of meters distant pulls the trigger of his rifle then, providing the monkey is at the very end of the gun's range and the ground is perfectlly flat, the bullet will still hit him.  It takes the same time for a dropped bullet and a fired one to reach the ground.  Nothing really seemed to even start making sense. The rational isn't always true, though many things can be made to seem so in certain situations. For instance. People appear to have completely forgotten the existence of the first four words of each of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Those words are "In a closed system.......". Entropy increases IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. The universe we live in is not a closed system. In fact, one wonders what is really meant by the term other than "In a hypothetical situation". I can't think of an example of one. In an imposed or man-made system it's true that entropy increases but Nature could be characterised as that system which, upon breaking down repeatedly always renews or replaces itself.                                                                                                                                        
From a purely aesthetic viewpoint and assuming that beauty is in the perception of certain kinds of order in the universe I had to go along with the idea that our knowledge of gravity was incomplete or wrong in some way. Not in the observed data, of course, but in the place we usually cock it up: thinking through the implications of things. All the forces we observe except gravity exist along a line on the electromagnetic spectrum. For years I looked at alternative theories of gravity that while sometimes making some sense of their own nevertheless said little to shine a light on the problem at hand. At the same time I started to feel that if gravity existed the way it was supposed to the universe should look quite different from the way it does.  For one thing black holes may well appear to exist next to stars but they can't have anything to do with gravity for one simple reason. It was the very first thing I ever learned in physics. Gravity is NOT relative to density. It doesn't matter how dense a material might get it must still obey the inverse square law. Crunch the whole of the earth down into the size of a soccer ball and if it had any gravity in the first place it wouldn't have any more for being squashed.  If we lived in space it would be much easier to understand. We would be used to the absence of gravity and things having no weight. The first so-called law of thermodynamics would simply confirm the evidence of our eyes that weightlessness and perpetual motion are actually normal and found in evidence in  99% of the universe. There's a very simple reason for that as well. Gravity as we presently understand it does not exist. There is no force due to mass that results in the attraction of bodies in space for one another. It isn't semantics either. I can explain what is actually happening using just the forces on the electromagnetic spectrum and without recourse to gravity which we can't actually find or understand. Dark matter and dark energy are just employment schemes for physicists and physics writers.  Astronomers only seem to talk about gravity and light, have they never heard of the EM spectrum?
Where do they plug in their laptops and telescopes?                                                                                                              
I have David Attenborough to thank for accidentally cracking it all wide open with his remark to the effect that the increased gravity of the full moon is responsible for the spring tides. I suddenly thought the what?  The moon doesn't gain and lose mass so what's going on?   Now, I think it was Aristotle who committed suicide because he couldn't understand the tides or how they worked.  Actually, once you see for yourself that there is no gravity or mass in the universe, it does simplify things enormously. Gravity and matter have never been scientifically identified but we go on looking for them when we don't really need them to explain what we observe.  Everything is made of little bits of space that have been "bent" or charged positive and negative by some kind of local action or "work done". These points in space are are in a permanent state of oscillation and are called "standing waves".  Physics was on the correct course in the 1930's but for some reason, although men like Velikovsky thought that space itself would be found to be the "Ether" that the EM spectra existed in, when no new or special substance was identified by early space launches the whole theory was abandoned.  I'd like to find out why and by whom. They discovered that space was full of EM radiation so what did they think those waves were waving in?  For them to be there at all space had to be able to carry a charge.  My 1936 physics book makes more coherent sense than those I have from the 1970's. These later books surprised me by including a chapter on standing waves. Why I have no idea. Everyone ignores standing waves.( For some reason I want to quote brian eno's 'sky saw' here. "All the clouds turn to words, All the words float in sequence, No-one knows what they mean, Everyone just ignores them.")    
       Quantum Mechanics is supposed to be the best model we have for the very small. It doesn't work for most real world problems but it must be fun to play with because lots of grown men just will not put it down. I guess it's the standard thing to say if you want to sound brainy. "I 'm just a humble quantum mechanic". It's like looking for something where you know you won't find it but you keep on looking there because the light is better and it's warmer and more comfortable. Standing waves exhibit the sought for characteristic of both wave and particle but they do it in the real world not hiding in a cat box playing peek-a-boo with Schrodinger and the other paranoid scientists who thought for one embarrassing moment that individual photons could somehow communicate with each other.                                                                                          
What put it all in place for me was when I read the following in my Newenes Electrical Pocket Book edited by E.A.Reaves (16th ed.)1960 1st printed 1937 under 'Electrostatics' p.6 that... "All bodies are able to take a charge of electricity and this is termed static electricity. The charge on a body is measured by means of the force between the two charges, this force following the inverse square law {ie.the force is proportional to the product of the charges and inversely peoportional to the square of the distance between them). This is fundamental electronic theory read by every kid that ever wired up a radio. Unfortunately I wasn't one of those kids but when I saw it in the early 90's it spoke volumes to me and it shouted them out loudly so I could hear them clearly and get the message.                                                                                                        Now comes the hard part. Explaining the way all the things we presently use gravity to explain can better be explained without it.  It's not hard because it's complex, it's relatively simple but I may have to resort to diagrams. Words can be so clumsy and ambiguous sometimes.                                       Let's begin with star formation. Gravity is supposed to cause hydrogen to, well er ......clump together. It's supposed to do this in a vacuum. Somehow the lightest element in the universe is going to clump together under its own weight and ignite under the pressure. What pressure? Even if gravity was real it's hard to see how it could possibly achieve hydrogen clumping. I wouldn't put it on a T-shirt anyway. 
Not unless you're being ironic.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
       In understanding the cosmos it helps to know a little bit about static electricity. Static electricity obeys the inverse square law.  Any object can carry a static charge but charge always wants to seek out a higher dielectric flux or ability to carry charge. It prefers objects to empty space and objects with a greater capacity for holding charge to those with less. Static charge as the name implies is like an electrical current that isn't flowing because it occupies a substance that either doesn't conduct or doesn't conduct well. What we experience as the grounding or earthing effect means that in space all objects are charged negative in relation to the space around them. It's because all the negative ions are attracted to the positively charged centre. Positive charge is associated by convention with the ground or earth. A proto-stellar cloud can be comprised of millions of tiny dust particles but because it has a higher flux density (ability to carry charge) than empty space it looks like a single object to static charge. It behaves this way at first by carrying a positive charge at its densest area towards the centre and a negative charge at its  periphery. Then, because they are individual particles as well as parts of an object, the negative dust particles start to move under the attraction from their positive neighbours and they move toward the centre.  As the later arriving negative particles get there they find negative charge between themselves and their destination and they begin to go around the outside. Static charge is the mechanism by which first shape and then motion are imparted to the proto-stellar disc . In fact, I've noticed that everything in nature is charged positively at the centre and negatively towards the outside.  From an atom to a galaxy and from a cell to a whale. (I call it Sinclair's law in case nobody else has noticed it.) The phenomena that causes late arriving negatively charged particles to try and go around the outside I call the Proximity Effect. It imparts the initial rotation to the proto-stellar disc and thus it starts whole solar systems turning.                                                                                                                                                                              

A big enough cloud of dust can create sufficient potential difference that standing waves of equal and opposite charge begin to form. Protons and electrons in other words. These are free to move and they combine to form clouds of hydrogen.  The solar system is a dynamo.  Millions of cubic miles of material, all negatively charged to the space around it rotates in an enormous magnetic field. This constitutes a generator. The negative charge moves around circles within the solar system's field. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A scalar field extends at right-angles to the tangent of the circular motion of all orbiting material. Its lines of force trace out a spiral around its circular path such that every 360 degrees it passes through the center of the circle. The coincidence of all these lines of scalar force crossing eachother at the system's centre means that they form a vortex with an intense positive charge.  The sun and all the planetary bodies orbit it. In our system the sun is about three solar diameters from it and takes about a year to go around it. The Official Model currently sees the earth and planets orbiting around the sun and it imagines that this central vortex, when visible in other parts of the universe, is best explained by gravitational black holes. There is one at the centre of the galaxy. Of course it's enormous due to the focus of the rotational energy of the entire galaxy on that single central point.                                                                                                                                                         Science asserts that sub-atomic particles are little bits of stuff but this presents far too many problems to be true. To my mind we went wrong with the two slits experiment. Brilliant bit of laboratory work followed by some very shoddy thinking. If you put a generator in a sealed vacuum it will go on producing electrons till the cows come home without deteriorating in any way. No part of the metals employed gets used up. It's all to do with the nature of space itself.  It is able to carry a charge and it can be set to permanent oscillation in standing waves. Standing waves possess the observed characteristics of wave /particle duality. When work is done and electromagnetic fields move through one another they deform the local space and set tiny little bits of it to permanent oscillation. These are protons and electrons.                                                                                                                        
I've been getting ahead of myself.  In order to complete a description of stellar formation I've had to stray into sub-atomic physics. Hydrogen results when protons and electrons combine around the boundary of the scalar vortex.  I have explained the mechanism for this above.  Essentially, the self organising  effect of static electricity imparts the initial structure and motion to any solar system.  In the case of larger stars the forces are so immense that they cause light to be refracted  and this is mistakenly attributed to gravitational black holes.                                                                                                                                                 Black holes are another phenomena we attribute to gravity. I can't imagine why.  It was the very first thing I learnt.That density has no bearing on gravity. You could shrink the earth down to the size of a soccer ball and it would still have the same amount of gravity. As far as I know, black holes were suggested as a means of explaining so-called "gravitational lensing". I never felt very convinced by it. If gravity was responsible for bending light near stars the images wouldn't exhibit the polarity we can clearly see. the force we call gravity is in our observation of falling objects here on the surface of  earth. The first thing people say when I tell them that gravity doesn't exist is "Don't be ridiculous. It's obvious." What I'm arguing is that there is no force due to mass because there is no mass either. Everything exists as standing waves in electromagnetic space, there is no stuff and no gravity.                                                                                           When it comes to the force that keeps our feet on the ground it's the same. The earth has a strong magnetic field. It's rotating on its axis in the solar magnetic field. This makes it an enormous dynamo. Where is the enormous amount of EM energy it produces going? The earth has a metal centre and a semi-conducting silicaceous mantle. This renders it an imperfect but effective spherical capacitor.  A charged capacitor demonstrates an attraction at its surface due to static electricity. In the case of the earth we call this gravity. The electical nature of the planet is also responsible for the weather, vulcanism, gravitational anomalies and the fact that the atmosphere doesn't just drift off into space. Gravity, as they keep telling us, doesn't work at the atomic level. That's why hydrogen could never clump together under its own gravity and it's why the air doesn't drift off into space.  We all know lightning discharges outwards into the upper atmosphere since sattelite photos showed it happening. Now you know why. The terrestrial capacitor discharging into space is one of many ways the earth processes energy.