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.