The Nature of Neutrinos and Aether
physicists can’t agree on the properties of empty space,
they won’t be able to explain the physics of planets or
particles either." – Physicist
James Owen Weatherall
The EU has been primarily focused on the things that we can
apprehend with our senses from the microscopic level to the
telescopic level, but mostly on the directly tangible level. On just
these three levels, there is an overwhelming abundance of phenomena
and structure that show the universe—galaxies
down to cells—works electrically.
Much if not most of this should be obvious, and would be if a
wrong paradigm didn’t obscure the thinking. For instance, welders and
machinists familiar with EDM get the electrical cratering and
scarring parts immediately, usually exclaiming that it’s obvious.
EEs often find other aspects to be easily assimilated and accepted.
But many plasma phenomena on this triune level are NOT that
familiar, for examples, Birkeland currents, double layers and cells,
and Peratt instability formations, and these haven’t been widely
understood. And plasma phenomena can be very complex beside being
outside of our normal experience.
Let me say a few honest words about our limits. It should be
understood that, below the level of the various microscope tools or
beyond the various telescope tools, when thinking about the material universe, aspects and
attributes of phenomena and structure CANNOT be apprehended
“directly.” We can ONLY do experiments and get “CLUES” as to what we
are dealing with and then we can ONLY build models for and/or
project metaphors FROM OUR TANGIBLE EXPERIENCE on these. I suggest
that we don’t know what we think we know.
restricted domain on the lower level includes the basic atomic particles, and we can
only get blurry visual patterns of nuclei shape and where they are located and
arranged in material. To this point theory has claimed that atomic
nuclei must be symmetrical in three dimensions, either spherical,
flattened or elongated spherical, as in discus or rugby ball shape.
Now we can confirm that some nuclei are pear shaped and oriented in
a specific spatial direction. This development sweeps away much
current cosmological theory. Even the orbital model of the atom has NOT
been confirmed, and part of the time it must be discarded in atomic
On the other end of the spectrum we should be mindful that
we have ONLY electro-magnetic radiation given off by radiating
bodies or structures that we can access through our telescopes. No
direct chemical analysis to determine material or molecular
structure, no physical analysis to determine density, specific
gravity, index of refraction, hardness, viscosity, etc., no
application of tape measures, scales, hydrometers, or reagents—JUST
and ONLY patterned radiation to work with.
Soooo....down on a more “fundamental” level, concepts that we have
can be little more than pure speculation. We have a tendency to project
the orbital metaphor down to this level but this is probably
unwarranted. Mainstream thinking has imagined quarks on this level,
and the EU talks about sub-sub atomic particles as positive or
negative subtrons. The point is that beyond sensationalism there is
little justification to present these “physics phlights of phancy”
to the public as knowledge!
Let’s also be mindful that all of our relevant observations have
taken place from a platform within familiar distances within the helio-pause,
and essentially within a platform perpendicular to the axis
of the sun. When considering bodies outside of our platform, in more distant “outer space” and beyond
that, we are projecting from our own environment and then speculating. We don’t know enough about
the true distances, the true sizes, and the attributes of the regions such as any charge differentials, aether density, field
strengths etc,. to confidently extend meaningful values on the decrease of force with
distance of the three distance squared formulas. Thornhill is even suggesting that
the attractive force that we call gravity actually turns repulsive at some point.
The EU lays a theoretical foundation for all of this on the
atomic particle level by positing just and only TWO electric charge
carriers—negative and positive
matter particles—and just and
only two forces—electric attraction and repulsion. These
fundamental things along with motion—which
includes oscillation—and the
aspects and constrictions of the geometry of 3 dimensions—the
basis for polarity—account for
or undergird ALL other physical phenomena. Also, in the EU
paradigm the definition of energy is that it is always MATTER IN
MOTION, not something mystical nor a thing in and of itself.
If you build a universe of 3 dimensions that can't have any voids, then
you have only two regular polyhedrons that can fill or "tessellate"
a volume, those being tetrahedrons and cubes. So, if we must think
of shape we should probably think of aether particles as having one
of these two forms (At this point we have crossed the border into a
different realm and are deep into projecting a topological shape
metaphor into it). But since other more substantial particles and
objects apparently move without friction through this aether medium,
the particles must be quite flexible if not compressible and their
"surfaces" must be without friction. Their vanishingly small mass
would generate vanishingly small viscosity.