14611Fw: [thoth-l] Thoth VII-2
- Mar 31, 2003
> A Catastrophics Newsletter
> VOL VII, No 2
> March 15, 2003
> EDITOR: Amy Acheson
> PUBLISHER: Michael Armstrong
> LIST MANAGER: Brian Stewart
> 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
> down the Columbia River valley to the sea. Later, the river cut a newRiver
> channel (or flowed into a new channel), resulting in today's Columbia
> Gorge, with high lava cliffs on each side.bones
> In one of those cliffs, a group of geologists discovered a cavity with
> at the bottom. The bones, they found, were those of an extinct species ofwere
> 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,
> lava tubes whose roofs had collapsed.that
> Later, Gene Shoemaker studied crater-like features on Earth and showed
> they couldn't be volcanic; they must therefore be the result of impacts.But
> Astronomers immediately adopted this impact theory of crater formation.
> they retained the lava-tube theory of rilles, creating an ideationallava
> landscape in which impact craters were the source of rhinoceros-shaped
> Another long-standing assumption in astronomy is that the redshift
> in the spectra of galaxies arises from a velocity of recessionproportional
> to the galaxies' distances. This assumption, called the cosmologicalmuch
> redshift distance, lies at the heart of the Big Bang cosmology. When
> quasars were discovered and it was found their spectra were redshifted
> more than most galaxies', the quasars were thought to be situated in thegalaxies.
> outback of the universe and therefore unrelated to the foreground
> 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
> galaxies' cosmological redshift distances, exposing a cosmological-sizedbottom.
> cavity of consonance, with quasars and their parent galaxies at the
> 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
> on display as the Chronology of the Earth. Each stratum is tied to avarious
> particular date with a knot of radioisotope dating, which in turn assumes
> constancy of decay rates and uniformity of isotope ratios. But when
> theories of catastrophic change were accepted by several schools ofnot
> 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
> These stories are meant to illustrate three imperatives of speculative
> 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
> only pay attention to the answers which the universe gives to ourquestions,
> we must also pay attention to the limits, to the blind spots, to theconcepts
> 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
> which are mistaken for facts.not
> Second, we need to recognize that knowledge is not a destination but the
> footprints we leave behind during our journey of learning. Knowledge is
> an end in itself but a by-product of human learning activity, just as anest
> is a by-product of avian reproductive activity. We produce knowledge asphysical,
> needed in learning to co-adapt with new and changing environments,
> 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 Truthmatter.
> 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
> The metaphors with which we understand it must be non-mechanistic andactive
> 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
> 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?
> Mark Korsky
> 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
> 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
> poster on the young people's catastrophism list) offers some great CMBtrue
> arguments against Big Bang Theory on his web site here:
> 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
> to the theory, can disprove it.] All a correct prediction can offer isfirst
> 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
> theory to correctly predict it, then it will have to go to the 3Heating byin
> Starlight2 theory. Birkeland's colleague, Charles Edouard Guillaume
> calculated the temperature of space from starlight at 5.6 degrees Kelvin
> 1896. You can see his article here (it's in French) Go to Tony Peratt's1990
> page of downloadable papers and scroll down to Guillaume's article "The
> Temperature of Space":
> (There are several other articles on the same page about CMB, all dated
> or earlier, before they finally discovered irregularities in the CMB, sothe
> articles mostly focus on the lack of predicted irregularities. When theycounting
> "finally found" irregularities, they were 100 times smaller than those
> predicted by the Big Bang theory -- but that doesn't stop them from
> the irregularities as another proof of the Big Bang.)_Progress
> 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
> in New Cosmologies_ 1993, pg 25.important
> MORE CMB TIDBITS FROM ARP's ARTICLE: [Amy says: I find #2 a very
> point that is seldom mentioned.]black
> 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
> body energy curve would be smeared out unrecognizably by Doppler recessiontemperature
> 3) " ... In the nonexpanding universe an obvious, and much simpler,
> explanation of the observation is that we are simply seeing the
> of the underlying intergalactic medium."once
> AMY AGAIN:
> If the prize goes to the first one to see and report the CMB, then
> again the steady-state wins. It was observed in the late 1930's and earlyin
> 1940's. McKellar published a paper identifying the background radiation
> 1941. But it was war-time and the observatory publication was a minor onethe
> -- 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
> late 1940's, but they (i.e., primarily George Gamow) kept "upping" thediscovery,
> energy level of their prediction until, just before the actual discovery,
> they were predicting a background temperature of 50 K. After the
> they immediately reverted to their earliest predictions, then obnoxiouslypoor
> claimed they were the only ones to get it right.
> Which doesn't disprove their theory -- it only shows what incredible
> sports they are. The CMB doesn't prove our theory, either. Both theoriesThe
> 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.
> findings, announced in September by researchers from the University ofwith
> 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
> the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer, a microwave telescope near thesignal.
> 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
> "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
> fits better in plasma cosmology and call it their own. Then when it'scertainly
> found, Violé! their theory has been verified again. Polarized is
> what's expected with magnetic fields and electric currents.(accurate
> Another press release that came out recently about the CMB. It was picked
> up by APOD Feb 12:
> 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
> to 5 percent), underwent episodes of rapid expansion called inflation, anddata
> 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
> shows variations in background temperature at 380,000 years after the Bigtelling
> Bang (the variations are 100 times weaker than they first predicted, but
> nobody mentions that.) And from this photo, without bothering us by
> us anything about the observations, they make a whole bunch of outrageous23%
> 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".
> is dark matter, and 73% mysterious dark energy. They neglect to mentioninto
> 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
> what we see today.motion
> 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
> a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. In turn, the patterns aretheir
> 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
> interpretation (the clarity of the observations) is itself evidenceagainst
> an expanding universe and the Big Bang.of
> 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
> the CMB is anomalous. It appears as if "we" (the observers) are moving(Virgo
> 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
> 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
> Cluster? One of the active galaxies or quasars in the Virgo Cluster?) OrThornhill's
> 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
> COLUMBIA: QUESTIONS OF SOME GRAVITY
> Wal Thornhill
> [ed note: this full article, with pictures, can be found on Wal
> website at:when
> 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
> space flight has come to seem almost routine, it is easy to overlook thetechnology
> 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
> far outpaces science. In fact a faulty understanding of the electricalFrancisco
> nature of the cosmos may have been responsible for the tragedy.
> In that context, a report, published on the west coast in the San
> Chronicle, makes interesting reading:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/05/MN192153.DTL&typ
> 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
> 5: 53 a.m. Saturday as sensors on the doomed orbiter began showing thefirst
> indications of trouble. Seven minutes later, the craft broke up in flamestoward
> 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
> it from below. As it merges with the plasma trail, the streak itselfwing
> 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
> upon takeoff from a piece of lightweight foam.it
> 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,
> could provide a far cheaper method of reaching space. But is thistechnology
> too far ahead of the science?different
> 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
> approach to reaching outer space: the space elevator.recent
> More information about the space elevator at:
> <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
> years along with leaps forward in the design of carbon nanotubes. Usingthe
> lightweight, strong carbon material, it's feasible to talk of building aup
> 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 --
> into space. The project could become a reality as soon as 15 years fromnow,
> experts say. "Technically it's feasible," said Robert Cassanova,ago,
> director of
> the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. "There's nothing wrong with the
> 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
> the tethered satellite experiment suffered a plasma discharge that severedchemical
> 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
> and aerodynamic forces in order to overcome the weak force of gravity. Theof
> 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
> leaving the Earth and returning. Until that time, manned space travel willNo.
> remain ridiculously expensive and hazardous.
> But wait a minute, didn't Einstein give us our understanding of gravity?
> The physicist, Herman Bondi, put it most succinctly: "Wherever gravitationmakes
> 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
> the gravitational field a property of space, rather than matter. It isbetween
> little wonder that after close to a century of concentrated effort,
> including that of Einstein himself, no connection has been possible
> gravity and the quantum behavior of matter or between gravity and thegravitational
> 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
> force. He was wrong when he wrote that no relevant experiments arepossible.
> The famous Millikan oil drop experiment was one in which the gravitationaldone
> 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
> in anti-gravity experiments.gravity
> 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
> and the powerful electromagnetic forces, which may repel as well asattract.
> So it seems the clue about the true nature of gravity has been available
> chemists ? who are not interested in gravity ? and unavailable tophysicists
> ? who are not interested in physical chemistry (and view the world throughforces.
> Einstein's distorting spectacles). Look at any average general physics
> textbook and you will find no reference to Van der Waals' or London
> What a different story might have been told if London's insight had come aslight
> 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:
> The London force originates in fluctuating electric dipoles caused by
> distortion of otherwise electrically neutral atoms and molecules. The tinyinstant,
> electric dipoles arise because the orbiting electrons, at any given
> cannot shield the positive charge of the nucleus equally in alldirections.
> The result, amongst a group of similar atoms or molecules is that theconstituents
> electric dipoles tend to resonate and line up so that they attract each
> 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
> of each atom? Of course, this is heresy because the electron is supposedto
> be a fundamental particle, with no smaller constituent particles. However,in
> 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
> the form of varying electric dipole distortion. So a stable orbit isslightly
> 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
> 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
> from the Earth's radius. See "Antigravity?" at:that
> 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
> may lead to charge separation and stratification in the conductinginterior
> of a body, particularly stars and gas giants. In that case, electrostaticsuch
> 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,
> powerful electrical forces will prevent gravitational collapse and thepresented
> formation of mythical neutron stars and black holes. The evidence
> for the existence of such objects is already explained by cosmic electriclook
> discharge activity.
> A new technology based on the obvious electrical nature of matter will
> quite different from our Victorian vintage science. As Arthur C. Clarke
> "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
> 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:
> Other suggested Web site URL's for more information about
> http://www.science-frontiers.com <http://www.science-frontiers.com/>
> 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.
> 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:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/