Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14611Fw: [thoth-l] Thoth VII-2

Expand Messages
  • Darren-George: Walker
    Mar 31, 2003
      > THOTH
      > A Catastrophics Newsletter
      > VOL VII, No 2
      > March 15, 2003
      > EDITOR: Amy Acheson
      > PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong
      > LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart
      >
      > CONTENTS
      >
      > RHINOMORPHIC LACUNAE . . . . . . . . . . . Mel Acheson
      > COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . Amy Acheson
      > COLUMBIA: QUESTIONS OF SOME GRAVITY . . . . Wal Thornhill
      > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > RHINOMORPHIC LACUNAE
      > Mel Acheson
      >
      > Long ago, a flood of molten basalt spread over eastern Washington State
      and
      > down the Columbia River valley to the sea. Later, the river cut a new
      > channel (or flowed into a new channel), resulting in today's Columbia
      River
      > Gorge, with high lava cliffs on each side.
      >
      > In one of those cliffs, a group of geologists discovered a cavity with
      bones
      > at the bottom. The bones, they found, were those of an extinct species of
      > rhinoceros. It was then they realized the cavity bore the shape of that
      > rhino. The flooding basalt had overrun the rhino and had solidified around
      > its body. The body had decayed, leaving the bones, and erosion later had
      > exposed the cavity.
      >
      > The moral of this story is that you shouldn't leave the rhinoceroses of
      > assumption to graze in the meadow of the unconscious when the flood of
      > molten imagination lays down a new theory. When the new ideas crystallize,
      > they will encase the old assumptions, which will leave rhinoceros-shaped
      > voids of explanation in the new theory.
      >
      > Not so long ago, astronomers assumed the craters on the Moon were extinct
      > volcanoes. This assumption led naturally to the conclusion that the
      > river-like channels, called rilles, often extending away from craters,
      were
      > lava tubes whose roofs had collapsed.
      >
      > Later, Gene Shoemaker studied crater-like features on Earth and showed
      that
      > they couldn't be volcanic; they must therefore be the result of impacts.
      > Astronomers immediately adopted this impact theory of crater formation.
      But
      > they retained the lava-tube theory of rilles, creating an ideational
      > landscape in which impact craters were the source of rhinoceros-shaped
      lava
      > tubes.
      >
      > Another long-standing assumption in astronomy is that the redshift
      observed
      > in the spectra of galaxies arises from a velocity of recession
      proportional
      > to the galaxies' distances. This assumption, called the cosmological
      > redshift distance, lies at the heart of the Big Bang cosmology. When
      > quasars were discovered and it was found their spectra were redshifted
      much
      > more than most galaxies', the quasars were thought to be situated in the
      > outback of the universe and therefore unrelated to the foreground
      galaxies.
      >
      > Then Halton Arp discovered statistical and physical connections between
      > quasars and galaxies. The assumption that redshift was an indicator of
      > distance was undermined. But proponents of a non-cosmological redshift
      > sometimes continued to place the galaxies and their connected quasars at
      the
      > galaxies' cosmological redshift distances, exposing a cosmological-sized
      > cavity of consonance, with quasars and their parent galaxies at the
      bottom.
      >
      > Geologists since the time of Lyell have strung together rocks and
      > fossils on
      > a thread of assumptions about the constancy and uniformity of tectonic and
      > erosional forces. The resulting bracelet of explanatory charms has been
      put
      > on display as the Chronology of the Earth. Each stratum is tied to a
      > particular date with a knot of radioisotope dating, which in turn assumes
      > constancy of decay rates and uniformity of isotope ratios. But when
      various
      > theories of catastrophic change were accepted by several schools of
      > geological theorists, such assumptions of constancy and uniformity were
      > discarded. Nevertheless, the Chronology of the Earth continued to be
      > used to
      > date the catastrophes which disrupted that chronology, creating a
      > catastrophic timeline punctuated by rhinoceros-shaped cavities of
      > continuity.
      >
      > These stories are meant to illustrate three imperatives of speculative
      > thought:
      >
      > First, we need not only to seek the novel experiences and ideas that lie
      > before us in our own time, but we need to see our own seeking. We must
      not
      > only pay attention to the answers which the universe gives to our
      questions,
      > we must also pay attention to the limits, to the blind spots, to the
      > rhinoceros-shaped cavities inherent in the questions. The internal
      > tyrannies of assumptions can ossify imagination. The dead hand of
      > continuity with past knowledge can choke the spontaneous speculations of
      > present vitality, curiosity, and insight. Sensation-sensibility
      > coordination is disrupted. We need to wake ourselves to the rituals of
      > words and to the catechisms of terminology that have alienated us from the
      > immediacy and the intimacy of experience with mystified and reified
      concepts
      > which are mistaken for facts.
      >
      > Second, we need to recognize that knowledge is not a destination but the
      > footprints we leave behind during our journey of learning. Knowledge is
      not
      > an end in itself but a by-product of human learning activity, just as a
      nest
      > is a by-product of avian reproductive activity. We produce knowledge as
      > needed in learning to co-adapt with new and changing environments,
      physical,
      > social, and cognitive. The knowledge of the past deserves our respect:
      It's
      > how we got here. And the knowledge of the present is not some Final Truth
      > that justifies spurning the past or blockading the future.
      >
      > Third, we need to reevaluate all our fondest theories in the face of the
      > present transition in learning environments. Most currently accepted
      > theories were produced in an electrically inactive environment of solids,
      > liquids, and gasses, with mental machinery geared to mechanical metaphors.
      > Now we have stepped off the Earth with technologically enhanced senses and
      > out of our previous geocentric and anthropocentric context. We recognize
      > the realms both of space and of the mythic gods are environments of
      > electrically active plasma, with properties unlike those of familiar
      matter.
      > The metaphors with which we understand it must be non-mechanistic and
      > non-local, organic and emergent, adaptive and innovative.
      >
      > Cognitive knowledge must be reconceived and reborn in forms appropriate to
      > our new domain of sensation and sensibility. Failing to chase away the
      > rhinoceroses of "secure knowledge" will trap us in cavities of
      > undiscerningness as the Age of Plasma floods over us.
      >
      > Mel Acheson
      > thoth@...
      > www.dragonscience.com
      > ********************************************************
      >
      >
      > COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND
      > A Discussion with Amy Acheson
      >
      >
      > Hi Amy and all,
      >
      > I'm giving a series of lectures to our physics class about general
      > relativity and cosmology. In the last lecture, I'll describe the electric
      > universe theory as an alternative to the standard big-bang model.
      >
      > Can someone tell me how the electric universe theorists interpret the 3
      > Kelvin microwave radiation? Before Monday, please?
      >
      > Thanks!
      >
      > Mark Korsky
      >
      >
      > Mark,
      >
      > As it happens, I recently discussed this with another amateur astronomer,
      > and I can clean up the discussion we had for your benefit. At this time,
      > it1s more arguments against the mainstream interpretation than counter
      > proposals.
      >
      > Did you read _Aeon Vol. VI #3_? My "Intersect 2001" article is printed
      > there. I devoted a brief section to the CMB. Jason Goodman (the most
      active
      > poster on the young people's catastrophism list) offers some great CMB
      > arguments against Big Bang Theory on his web site here:
      > http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/BBT.html
      >
      > The claim that the CMB proves the Big Bang is a logical fallacy, and
      > intellectually dishonest, as well. A correct prediction is NOT proof of a
      > theory, ever! [Although an incorrect prediction, if the prediction is
      true
      > to the theory, can disprove it.] All a correct prediction can offer is
      > verification, which is "evidence in favor of", not proof.
      >
      > Now let's look at the specifics of the CMB. If the "prize" goes to the
      first
      > theory to correctly predict it, then it will have to go to the 3Heating by
      > Starlight2 theory. Birkeland's colleague, Charles Edouard Guillaume
      > calculated the temperature of space from starlight at 5.6 degrees Kelvin
      in
      > 1896. You can see his article here (it's in French) Go to Tony Peratt's
      > page of downloadable papers and scroll down to Guillaume's article "The
      > Temperature of Space":
      >
      > http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
      >
      > (There are several other articles on the same page about CMB, all dated
      1990
      > or earlier, before they finally discovered irregularities in the CMB, so
      the
      > articles mostly focus on the lack of predicted irregularities. When they
      > "finally found" irregularities, they were 100 times smaller than those
      > predicted by the Big Bang theory -- but that doesn't stop them from
      counting
      > the irregularities as another proof of the Big Bang.)
      >
      > If the "prize" goes to the most prestigious astronomer to predict the CMB,
      > then you'll have to give it to Eddington, who calculated the CMB at 3
      > degrees K (for an infinite steady-state universe) as early as 1926 (this
      > came from Halton Arp's article "Fitting Theory to Observation" in
      _Progress
      > in New Cosmologies_ 1993, pg 25.
      >
      > MORE CMB TIDBITS FROM ARP's ARTICLE: [Amy says: I find #2 a very
      important
      > point that is seldom mentioned.]
      >
      > 1) "In April 1992, enormous publicity was given to the announcement
      > that a satellite observing in the microwave region ... had detected
      > irregularities in the sky. ... said to have proved (once again) the
      > correctness of Big Bang theory.
      >
      > 2) " ... there was never any discussion of how the evidence is very
      > difficult to reconcile with the Big Bang model. The point is that in a
      > universe expanding faster at each further distance observed, the 2.7 K
      black
      > body energy curve would be smeared out unrecognizably by Doppler recession
      > velocities.
      >
      > 3) " ... In the nonexpanding universe an obvious, and much simpler,
      > explanation of the observation is that we are simply seeing the
      temperature
      > of the underlying intergalactic medium."
      >
      > AMY AGAIN:
      >
      > If the prize goes to the first one to see and report the CMB, then
      once
      > again the steady-state wins. It was observed in the late 1930's and early
      > 1940's. McKellar published a paper identifying the background radiation
      in
      > 1941. But it was war-time and the observatory publication was a minor one
      > -- the Dominican Observatory in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. The
      > discovery was ignored by the astronomical community. (reference for this
      > story: Hoyle Burbidge and Narlikar's _A Different Approach to Cosmology_)
      >
      > If the prize goes to the theory that predicted the CMB last and was
      > farthest off the exact calculation, then the CMB proves the Big Bang. The
      > Big Bang prediction started about the same temperature as the others in
      the
      > late 1940's, but they (i.e., primarily George Gamow) kept "upping" the
      > energy level of their prediction until, just before the actual discovery,
      > they were predicting a background temperature of 50 K. After the
      discovery,
      > they immediately reverted to their earliest predictions, then obnoxiously
      > claimed they were the only ones to get it right.
      >
      > Which doesn't disprove their theory -- it only shows what incredible
      poor
      > sports they are. The CMB doesn't prove our theory, either. Both theories
      > need closer investigation and less political haggles.
      >
      > Joy Perry noted a recent press release about the CMB:
      >
      > >From the press release:
      >
      > "Scientists using a radio telescope atop the 10,000-foot-high Antarctic
      > ice sheet have detected a 14-billion-year-old pattern from the Big Bang.
      The
      > findings, announced in September by researchers from the University of
      > Chicago and the University of California at Berkeley, support the leading
      > theory of how the universe came to be....
      >
      > "Large-scale flows in the early universe should have polarized the last
      > round of scattered radiation, causing the waves preferentially to line up.
      > That radiation, now seen as microwaves, should still show traces of
      > alignment in some spots of the sky. Pryke searched for polarized waves
      with
      > the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer, a microwave telescope near the
      > South Pole. He and his team examined two patches of sky, each about seven
      > times as wide as the full moon. They found a faint but unmistakable
      signal.
      >
      > "The discovery came as a relief to cosmologists, whose theories
      > increasingly incorporate such speculative elements as invisible matter and
      > energy. 'Even though we don't know what dark matter and dark energy are,
      > we've made assumptions about the way they behave and put that into our
      > model,' says Pryke. 'So measuring the polarization we expected from the
      > model says we know what we are talking about. Had we not found it,
      > cosmology would have been thrown into chaos.' "
      >
      > AMY COMMENTS:
      >
      > They are still playing the same old game. They make a prediction
      that
      > fits better in plasma cosmology and call it their own. Then when it's
      > found, Violé! their theory has been verified again. Polarized is
      certainly
      > what's expected with magnetic fields and electric currents.
      >
      >
      > Another press release that came out recently about the CMB. It was picked
      > up by APOD Feb 12:
      >
      > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030212.html
      >
      > EXERPTS FROM THE APOD CAPTION: WMAP Resolves the Universe
      >
      > Explanation: ... present analyses of above WMAP all-sky image indicate
      > that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (accurate to 1 percent),
      > composed of 73 percent dark energy, 23 percent cold dark matter, and
      > only 4
      > percent atoms, is currently expanding at the rate of 71 km/sec/Mpc
      (accurate
      > to 5 percent), underwent episodes of rapid expansion called inflation, and
      > will expand forever.
      >
      > AMY COMMENTS:
      >
      > As far as I'm concerned, this is the most intellectually dishonest
      > report I
      > have ever seen about the CMB. The photo referred to is data from the new
      > WMAP satellite which is in orbit at the Lagrange 2 point (the point beyond
      > the earth's orbit where the earth's and sun's gravity are balanced.) From
      > this orbit, they are always near enough to return data to earth, while not
      > actually going around the earth.
      >
      > Why do I think the press release is dishonest? See for yourself. The
      data
      > shows variations in background temperature at 380,000 years after the Big
      > Bang (the variations are 100 times weaker than they first predicted, but
      > nobody mentions that.) And from this photo, without bothering us by
      telling
      > us anything about the observations, they make a whole bunch of outrageous
      > claims. That the BB theory is right, that they know the exact Hubble
      > constant and age of the universe, that stars formed by 200,000 years after
      > the BB. In short, they have completely nailed down the universe. Time to
      > close up astronomy and go home. We have it solved.
      >
      > Of course, only 4% of what they think they are seeing is "real atoms".
      23%
      > is dark matter, and 73% mysterious dark energy. They neglect to mention
      > that both of these concepts were invented to patch up inconsistencies that
      > would simply vanish if they rejected the recessional velocity and
      > redshift/distance yardstick. Neither have actually been observed. The 1
      > and 5 percent errors that they calculate come AFTER the 96% fudge-factor
      > they use to explain away discrepancies.
      >
      > One of the reference links shows the flaw in their argument (click on the
      > phrase "above WMAP all-sky image" at the APOD website and scroll down to
      > "Cosmic History."). This diagram is an artist's conception of the Big Bang
      > universe at 4 different epochs. First, the Big Bang. Second, inflation,
      > which happened in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang and
      > changed what the Big Bang universe was "predicted to look like" into "what
      > it actually looks like." [Or, as one famous scientist put it ... "Here's
      > where the frog jumps in the pond." or "Here a miracle occurs."] Third, we
      > see the universe as observed by WMAP, and fourth, the universe evolves
      into
      > what we see today.
      >
      > It doesn't really matter what happened "in the beginning". That second
      > magic step can be adjusted to fix any discrepancy between observation and
      > prediction, especially if you have dark matter and dark energy to patch up
      > the chinks.
      >
      > Caption on reference page diagram:
      >
      > "Cosmic History
      >
      > WMAP observer the first light to break free in the infant Universe, the
      > afterglow of the Big Bang. This light emerged 380,000 years after the Big
      > Bang. Patterns imprinted on this light reflect the conditions set in
      motion
      > a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. In turn, the patterns are
      > the seeds of the development of the structures of galaxies we now see
      > billions of years after the Big Bang."
      >
      > AMY AGAIN:
      >
      > As Arp pointed out above, the very thing they are claiming as proof of
      their
      > interpretation (the clarity of the observations) is itself evidence
      against
      > an expanding universe and the Big Bang.
      >
      > So what does the CMB mean in an electric universe? According to Arp, the
      > simplest explanation is background starlight. The calculations work.
      >
      > But there is another mystery that needs explanation. The spectral shift
      of
      > the CMB is anomalous. It appears as if "we" (the observers) are moving
      > through the CMB at a rate 3 times as fast as the sun is orbiting the Milky
      > Way. The blank-check mainstream explanation is that somewhere between us
      > and the Virgo Cluster there is an enormous "great attractor" made of
      > undetectable dark matter pulling both "us" (Milky Way, Local Group? Solar
      > System? Earth?) and the Virgo Cluster in. Here's an all-sky view of the
      > anomaly:
      >
      > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030209.html
      >
      > What do I think it is? I don1t know. Perhaps it's the glow of the Milky
      > Way's jets, or the connection between the Local Group and its parent
      (Virgo
      > Cluster? One of the active galaxies or quasars in the Virgo Cluster?) Or
      > the orbital motion of our Local Group of galaxies around the Virgo
      > Supercluster. That's a mystery that Arp and his colleagues should be paid
      > well to investigate. The rest of astronomy lost a valuable sanity check
      > when they elbowed him out.
      >
      >
      > ~Amy Acheson
      > thoth@...
      > ********************************************************
      >
      >
      > COLUMBIA: QUESTIONS OF SOME GRAVITY
      >
      > Wal Thornhill
      >
      > [ed note: this full article, with pictures, can be found on Wal
      Thornhill's
      > website at:
      >
      > http://www.holoscience.com/news/columbia.html
      >
      > On February 1, 2003, the space shuttle, Columbia, met its fiery end in the
      > dangerous manoeuvre of supersonic re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.
      > Sadly, the crew of seven was lost. U.S. President Bush said, "In an age
      when
      > space flight has come to seem almost routine, it is easy to overlook the
      > dangers of travel by rocket, and the difficulties of navigating the fierce
      > outer atmosphere of the Earth."
      >
      > This is a prime example of the difficulties we must endure while
      technology
      > far outpaces science. In fact a faulty understanding of the electrical
      > nature of the cosmos may have been responsible for the tragedy.
      >
      > In that context, a report, published on the west coast in the San
      Francisco
      > Chronicle, makes interesting reading:
      >
      >
      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/05/MN192153.DTL&typ
      > e=science
      >
      <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/05/MN192153.DTL&am
      > p;type=science>
      >
      > FROM THE CHRONICLE ARTICLE:
      >
      > "Top investigators of the Columbia space shuttle disaster are
      > analyzing a
      > startling photograph -- snapped by an amateur astronomer from a San
      > Francisco hillside -- that appears to show a purplish electrical bolt
      > striking the craft as it streaked across the California sky.
      >
      > "The digital image is one of five snapped by the shuttle buff at
      roughly
      > 5: 53 a.m. Saturday as sensors on the doomed orbiter began showing the
      first
      > indications of trouble. Seven minutes later, the craft broke up in flames
      > over Texas."
      >
      > "In the critical shot, a glowing purple rope of light corkscrews down
      > toward the plasma trail, appears to pass behind it, then cuts sharply
      toward
      > it from below. As it merges with the plasma trail, the streak itself
      > brightens for a distance, then fades."
      >
      >
      > WAL THORNHILL COMMENTS:
      >
      > It is not a surprise in an electric universe to have lightning from space
      > follow the ionised trail of Columbia. The Earth is enveloped in a cosmic
      > discharge, centered on the Sun.
      >
      > [See more in Thornhill's newsbreak at:
      > http://www.holoscience.com/news/balloon.html ]
      >
      > Further evidence about discharges from space was actually provided by the
      > ill-fated astronauts when they photographed a huge arc of light above
      > thunderstorms in Africa.
      >
      > It is quite possible that conditions in the ionosphere led to a lightning
      > discharge to Columbia, which may have damaged a critical component or
      > surface of the space shuttle. The lightning would be silent and burn
      > like a
      > plasma torch.
      >
      > I agree with NASA experts who discount the possibility of damage to the
      wing
      > upon takeoff from a piece of lightweight foam.
      > ________________________________________________________
      >
      > The Columbia disaster seems to have prompted an opportunistic article in
      > _WIRED_ magazine. The article highlights a new technology that is said to
      > make possible a science-fiction idea publicized by Arthur C. Clarke in his
      > 1978 novel, _Fountains of Paradise_ ? the space elevator. Theoretically,
      it
      > could provide a far cheaper method of reaching space. But is this
      technology
      > too far ahead of the science?
      >
      > FROM THE _WIRED_ ARTICLE:
      > TO THE MOON IN A SPACE ELEVATOR?
      > By Steve Kettmann
      >
      > Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57536,00.html
      > 02:00 AM Feb. 04, 2003 PT
      >
      > The COLUMBIA disaster could spur faster development of a radically
      different
      > approach to reaching outer space: the space elevator.
      >
      > More information about the space elevator at:
      > http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm
      > <http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm> ]
      >
      > Long imagined by science-fiction writers but seen by others as hopelessly
      > far-fetched, the space-elevator concept has advanced dramatically in
      recent
      > years along with leaps forward in the design of carbon nanotubes. Using
      the
      > lightweight, strong carbon material, it's feasible to talk of building a
      > meter-wide "ribbon" that would start on a mobile ocean platform at the
      > equator, west of Ecuador, and extend 62,000 miles up into space.
      >
      > An elevator could be attached to this ribbon to ferry materials such as
      > satellites and replacement parts for space stations -- or even people --
      up
      > into space. The project could become a reality as soon as 15 years from
      now,
      > experts say. "Technically it's feasible," said Robert Cassanova,
      > director of
      > the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. "There's nothing wrong with the
      > physics."
      >
      > THORNHILL COMMENTS:
      >
      > Here we have another example where technology has outstripped science.
      >
      > So, when Robert Cassanova says "There's nothing wrong with the physics" we
      > may be sure that he means the old, electrically sterile physics applied to
      > the cosmos.
      >
      > The continual cosmic discharge, which powers the storms on Earth, must be
      > considered when placing long conductors radial to the Earth. Some years
      ago,
      > the tethered satellite experiment suffered a plasma discharge that severed
      > the tether cable as it was being reeled out from the space shuttle. That
      > phenomenon will be repeated on a grand scale in any attempt to stretch a
      > conducting elevator cable from Earth into space. The power that drives
      > regional thunderstorms will be concentrated into a single cataclysmic
      > thunderbolt, destroying the elevator cable like a thin fuse wire. In the
      > worst scenario, the 50km high ground station will be replaced by a neat,
      > circular crater, like those seen elsewhere in the solar system and
      > attributed, erroneously, to meteoric impacts.
      > ________________________________________________________
      >
      >
      >
      > GRAVITY IS THE PROBLEM: UNDERSTANDING IT IS THE SOLUTION.
      >
      > The space shuttle is a technological marvel that must harness brute
      chemical
      > and aerodynamic forces in order to overcome the weak force of gravity. The
      > reason for such an approach is that we do not understand gravity. When we
      > finally understand it, it is likely that we will find much gentler means
      of
      > leaving the Earth and returning. Until that time, manned space travel will
      > remain ridiculously expensive and hazardous.
      >
      > But wait a minute, didn't Einstein give us our understanding of gravity?
      No.
      > The physicist, Herman Bondi, put it most succinctly: "Wherever gravitation
      > can be seen in action, it is well described by the theory, but its logical
      > contact with the rest of physics is dubious." Bondi also asked a crucial
      > question, "if it [gravitation] is something so fundamental to matter, one
      > might hope that one day it will throw light on the constitution of matter
      > and on the nature of the elementary particles and forces from which it is
      > composed. However, no relevant experiments are possible because the
      > gravitational forces due to minute particles are so utterly minute."
      >
      > That is a curious insight, given that Einstein's theory of gravitation
      makes
      > the gravitational field a property of space, rather than matter. It is
      > little wonder that after close to a century of concentrated effort,
      > including that of Einstein himself, no connection has been possible
      between
      > gravity and the quantum behavior of matter or between gravity and the
      > electromagnetic atomic forces. Einstein's view dismisses the idea that
      > anti-gravity is possible and has powerfully discouraged serious
      > investigation of the subject.
      >
      > I believe Bondi was both right and wrong. He was right in that we should
      > look to a fundamental property of matter for the origin of the
      gravitational
      > force. He was wrong when he wrote that no relevant experiments are
      possible.
      > The famous Millikan oil drop experiment was one in which the gravitational
      > force of the entire Earth upon a tiny oil drop was balanced by the
      > electrical force on a single electron. Sensitive gravitational experiments
      > on atomic particles are possible when we use the entire mass of the
      > Earth as
      > the source of the test gravitational field. This is essentially what is
      done
      > in anti-gravity experiments.
      >
      > Einstein published his theory of gravitation, or general theory of
      > relativity, in 1916. And so a new paradigm, or set of beliefs, was
      > established. It was not until 1930 that Fritz London explained the weak,
      > attractive dipolar electric bonding force (known as Van der Waals'
      > dispersion force or the "London force") that causes gas molecules to
      > condense and form liquids and solids. Like gravity, the London force is
      > always attractive and operates between electrically neutral molecules. And
      > that precise property has been the most puzzling distinction between
      gravity
      > and the powerful electromagnetic forces, which may repel as well as
      attract.
      >
      > So it seems the clue about the true nature of gravity has been available
      to
      > chemists ? who are not interested in gravity ? and unavailable to
      physicists
      > ? who are not interested in physical chemistry (and view the world through
      > Einstein's distorting spectacles). Look at any average general physics
      > textbook and you will find no reference to Van der Waals' or London
      forces.
      > What a different story might have been told if London's insight had come a
      > few decades earlier? Physics could, by now, have advanced by a century
      > instead of being bogged in a mire of metaphysics.
      >
      > An excellent illustrated lesson on the London force, or Van der Waals'
      > dispersion force is given at:
      >
      > http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/vdw.html
      > <http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/vdw.html>
      >
      > The London force originates in fluctuating electric dipoles caused by
      slight
      > distortion of otherwise electrically neutral atoms and molecules. The tiny
      > electric dipoles arise because the orbiting electrons, at any given
      instant,
      > cannot shield the positive charge of the nucleus equally in all
      directions.
      > The result, amongst a group of similar atoms or molecules is that the
      > electric dipoles tend to resonate and line up so that they attract each
      > other.
      >
      > Obviously, gravity is distinct from the London force. It is much, much
      > weaker. That should be a clue. What if we are looking at gravity being due
      > to a similar electrostatic distortion effect in the far smaller
      constituents
      > of each atom? Of course, this is heresy because the electron is supposed
      to
      > be a fundamental particle, with no smaller constituent particles. However,
      > there are experiments that challenge this belief. What is more, this model
      > of an electron offers a simple mechanism to explain quantum theory and the
      > relationship between magnetism and the electric force.
      >
      > This explains the puzzling observation that electrons don't simply radiate
      > their orbital energy away and crash into the nucleus. It is because
      > electrons in an atom store and release internal energy during each orbit
      in
      > the form of varying electric dipole distortion. So a stable orbit is
      > achieved simply when the energy exchange between the electron and the
      > nucleus sums to zero over each orbit. It is the resonant electron orbits
      > that determine the quantum nature of atomic interactions.
      >
      > The same resonances apply within the compound atomic nucleus. If we apply
      > the London force model, both protons and neutrons form resonant structures
      > of electrostatic dipoles that are powerfully attractive because of their
      > closeness, unlike a simple Coulomb electrostatic model that would have the
      > positively charged nucleus fly apart. It explains the need for neutrons to
      > give stability to a compound nucleus. And in the process, it allows the
      > normally unstable neutron to adopt a stable resonant configuration. Such a
      > model suggests that a neutron star is a theoretical figment of overzealous
      > mathematicians.
      >
      > If gravity is an electrostatic induced dipole-dipole force between the
      > fundamental particles of normal matter, then it cannot be shielded because
      > all matter, whether charged or not, will participate. And herein lies the
      > difficulty for antigravity devices. How to modify the strength of those
      > fundamental particle dipoles, or better, to invert them? I have discussed
      > some attempts that seem to have succeeded in offsetting the dipoles
      slightly
      > from the Earth's radius. See "Antigravity?" at:
      >
      > http://www.holoscience.com/news/antigravity.html
      >
      > There is another important consequence of taking into account atomic
      > electric dipole effects. A ponderous body will introduce an additional
      > dipole effect, that of the gravitational offset of the heavy nucleus from
      > the centre of the atom. This effect can set up a radial electric field
      that
      > may lead to charge separation and stratification in the conducting
      interior
      > of a body, particularly stars and gas giants. In that case, electrostatic
      > repulsion between similar charges will serve to offset compression due to
      > gravity. The usual determination of density will therefore tell us nothing
      > about the internal structure and composition of such a body. Certainly,
      such
      > powerful electrical forces will prevent gravitational collapse and the
      > formation of mythical neutron stars and black holes. The evidence
      presented
      > for the existence of such objects is already explained by cosmic electric
      > discharge activity.
      >
      > A new technology based on the obvious electrical nature of matter will
      look
      > quite different from our Victorian vintage science. As Arthur C. Clarke
      > wrote,
      >
      > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
      >
      > We are long overdue for some magic!
      >
      > © Wal Thornhill 2002
      > author of The Electric Universe:
      > A Holistic Science for the New Millennium
      > See www.electric-universe.org
      > ********************************************************
      >
      >
      > PLEASE VISIT THE KRONIA GROUP WEBSITE
      >
      > http://www.kronia.com
      >
      > Subscriptions to AEON, a journal of myth and science, now
      > with regular features on the Saturn theory and electric
      > universe, may be ordered from this page:
      > http://www.kronia.com/library/aeon.html
      >
      >
      > Other suggested Web site URL's for more information about
      > Catastrophics:
      >
      > http://www.aeonjournal.com/index.html
      > http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/
      > http://www.flash.net/~cjransom/
      > http://www.knowledge.co.uk/velikovskian/
      > http://www.bearfabrique.org
      > http://www.grazian-archive.com/
      > http://www.holoscience.com
      > http://www.electric-cosmos.org/
      > http://www.electric-universe.org
      > http://www.science-frontiers.com <http://www.science-frontiers.com/>
      > http://www.catastrophism.com/cdrom/index.htm
      > http://www.dragonscience.com <http://www.dragonscience.com/>
      > -----------------------------------------------
      >
      > The THOTH electronic newsletter is an outgrowth of
      > scientific and scholarly discussions in the emerging
      > field of astral catastrophics. Our focus is on a
      > reconstruction of ancient astral myths and symbols in
      > relation to a new theory of planetary history. Serious
      > readers must allow some time for these radically
      > different ideas to be fleshed out and for the relevant
      > background to be developed. The general tenor of the
      > ideas and information presented in THOTH is supported by
      > the editor and publisher, but there will always be plenty
      > of room for differences of interpretation.
      >
      > We welcome your comments and responses.
      >
      > thoth@...
      >
      >
      >
      > New readers are referred to earlier issues of THOTH posted on the Kronia
      > website listed above.
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > thoth-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >