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.