Antimatter, the EU & Tom Findlay
In response to the article I wrote on Plasma Physics, Tom Findlay, who is
known to the EU Thunderbolts Project team, sent me a very kind email.
Findlay is the author of "A Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe" and he
is offering his book as a free PDF download here:
http://www.newtoeu.com/downloadorbuy.html
So I proceeded to ask him a few questions, one of which was about the
existence of antimatter. What follows is his very interesting reply:
Dear Susan … you have touched a "general" hot button of mine, one which goes
beyond the subject of "antimatter" ... First, however, I'm going to set the
scene for my point of view ...
There is one overriding principle in play, this is that nature does things
or is seeking to do things in the least complicated way, always and
everywhere. The last thing I want to come across as is arrogant, but I truly
believe that we can take what follows, to the bank!
A fundamental fabric (framework) exists on which everything, everywhere is
built.
Everything in the physical realm, which we perceive as our reality, consists
of some form of matter. Matter
exists due to energy; therefore, everything everywhere represents a form of
energy. In the Electric Universe (EU) model, the fundamental force of
energy is electromagnetic; electro and magnetic; meaning one is present
because of the other; a form of ultimate co-dependency.
Electricity creates magnetic fields - i.e. - the flow of electric current
along any path creates a magnetic field around that path; this is fact, we
know this for certain, as this is fundamentally how electric motors work.
And in reverse. Magnetic
fields create electricity - i.e. - when a conducting path moves through a
magnetic field; a flow of electricity occurs within that conducting path.
Again, we know this for certain, as this is fundamentally how electric
generators work.
What is an electric current and why does it tend to flow in a particular
direction?
This is where the word "balance" enters the discussion.
Electric current flows in a particular direction that is dictated by an
"electric (electrostatic) charge imbalance" between that which is negatively
charged and that which is positively charged.
The flow of electric current is described as the flow of electrons
(these being negatively charged particles) from that which is more
negatively charged (i.e. where there is an abundance of electrons), towards
that which is less negatively charged (i.e. where there is a deficiency of
electrons, or in other words, where, relatively speaking, there is a more
positive charge). This "directional flow" is due to the overall electric
charge, seeking what that word represents … "balance" ... where in
electrical terms; this is the state of neutrality; no charge ... or one
could think of it as being at peace; at complete rest; the end of the line!
If all matter everywhere exists due to energy - in our case this energy is
the electromagnetic force - then everything everywhere is ultimately seeking
balance. Ours is a dynamic, electrically charged universe of unknown size
and unknown specific composition, so the chance of overall balance being
established throughout its entirety, should appear to us to be very slim
indeed. Therefore, it would
appear, if this analysis is basically accurate, then the equation required
to find the length of time it would take our entire universe to achieve
electrical balance, would have to take into account things that we have no
idea about. These are things
such as, the total charge differential that exists throughout the universe,
the distribution of that charge differential, and the overall size and
differential matter composition of the universe itself, all of which, of
course, we don't know.
What can we take from this? Only the certainty that we don't know
enough to say anything much about the overall state of our universe, its
likely age, and its likely lifespan.
This is true; apart it would appear from one major thing.
Since our entire universe exists and operates due to the existence
and interaction of electrical charges, from the microcosm to the macrocosm,
there does exist something to say about the overall composition of the
universe. Here we learn that
particles and collections of matter that are charged in some way, are
considered as matter that has been ionised, or in other words, ionised mater
is what we call, matter that is in the "plasma" state.
If we take this a step further to consider our universe in its
entirety, we can see that we live in a Plasma Universe.
A basic understanding of plasma, electricity and their relationship
are the doors through which one
can pass to appreciate the full power and implications of EU theories, which
together describe our Electric Universe model.
I am proud to say that I subscribe to the simple notion that everything
everywhere is based on the electromagnetic force (EM). It is the
characteristics of EM that give us our visible and apparently solid reality.
And from the smallest to the largest scales imaginable, EM is at the heart
of everything everywhere as it seeks to attain balance.
This notion of balance is intrinsic to everything from human behavior and
beliefs, to fundamental biology, and all aspects of science in our perceived
reality.
The exception to all of this, one that cannot be analytically dissected, is
that, forces exist beyond our awareness to trump the level of explanation
attempted here. I do not dismiss this notion, for everything, everywhere is
an illusion created by something that exists beyond our reality; I know
this. The journey I am on is towards an understanding of this, or at least,
to a place on the way to that greater understanding. I recognise that this
is likely close to the reason you give for asking the question about
antimatter in the first place. I hope that you are finding what I am writing
here is, at least, interesting.
I have come across too many situations now, where those who feel they should
or are expected to know, make things up to explain that which none of us
currently understands. What a shame that more acceptance for not knowing
about something is not more openly practiced. Our egos get involved and we
think it is a devaluing display of ignorance and/or inadequacy, to admit
that we don't know something, especially if people are being paid to know
and want to continue enjoying respect and the position they feel they have
earned in life. Such is the moral wrestling match they must take part in as
a fundamental aspect of their contract; that is, if they are aware they made
one.
A case such as this, for me, is the one to do with "antimatter". Why was
the term invented? It was a term invented and reified as part of the
explanation for the so-called big bang and the associated inflation event
that was supposed to have accompanied it.
I believe this story to be total codswallop. Sorry to be so blunt,
but if one subscribes to the EU model, while also having in one's back
pocket an intuitive awareness of what science is likely more accurate and
what science is likely not, in the story so far of our universe, then I feel
I am on firm ground with saying this.
Antimatter is a term invented by those who were in the position to do just
that, for the purpose of explaining -- on the basis of science which we now
strongly suspect (know) doesn't work -- that which could not be understood
through accepted knowledge at the time. I don't think that any reasonable
person could call this a form of "proper approach" to science discovery.
Nevertheless, this is what has happened in may areas, especially in
astro-science research. And to make matters worse, these invented terms and
the theories they come to underpin, have been used to create other, more
fantastic theories … woe is me!
Physicists claim that antimatter has actually been "created" … well, what
are they judging this claim on? ... the observation at sub-atomic level of
instances of "energy presence" that appear and disappear in amounts of time
that can hardly be measured (this is what is called the discovery of "new
particles"). Keep in mind here that today's theoretical physicists are
basing all of their observations, analyses, and conclusions, on a particular
model of particle physics, which appears now, far from being accurate, with
its zoo of particles and its building blocks of imaginary quarks, Higgs
bosons, and other exotica. Funding for the Large Hadron Collider must go on,
however; after all, too many important jobs depend on the search for
non-existent dark matter and its magical companions.
Antimatter as a term, is an invention
Antimatter as a term is an invention that has no place in that for which
there is available a far more simple explanation. I class the word along
with dark matter, dark energy, worm-holes, black-holes, white-holes,
multiverses, string theory, membrane theory, and all the other falderals of
modern theoretical physics. It really is very sad that mathematical
modeling, which all of these things are based upon, instead of being a tool
used to prove real life observations and results of experimentation, have
become the all-powerful and impressive, but sadly and predictably the
standard approach, for those of weak scientific research imagination and
drive. These "masters of
imaginative illusion", together with the stories they invent, and due to
their abdication of personal, independent thinking, have been allowed to
take over the driving of the bus from those who work with proven knowledge,
experimentation, logic, and common sense. You'll possibly be aware of
the first law of thermodynamics, Susan … which essentially states that
"matter cannot be created or destroyed" … This in itself cancels the idea of
antimatter. Either that or it proves that theoretical physics is in a total
state of confusion these days; which in fact, ironically, is true as well!
The URL you supplied that led to an "antimatter description" … let's look at
the language used in the text one is greeted by there …
"Antimatter is simply matter that is
made up of antiparticles. These are objects that have an opposite electrical
charge to their matter-based counterparts.
(What a sweeping claim to put forward as scientific fact.)
All subatomic particles have been proved to have their anti- equivalent
(bollocks - excuse my French!). Thus,
an anti-electron is the opposite number of an electron and has been called a
positron. (This is an odd statement, by using "opposite number"? This is
not scientific language, but it is a clue not to pay much attention to the
author.)
It is one of the greatest unanswered questions in physics, as to why there
is so much matter in the Universe and so little antimatter
(Who has measured what here? When did they do it? How did they do it? Did I
miss something?). At the time of the
Big Bang, it is thought (Ah, an admission! Rather contradictory is it
not for the sense of everything else he says.)
that there was an equal amount of
each. Any contact between the two would result in mutual annihilation, so
why is there, in the present Universe, so much of one and hardly any of the
other? (How can anyone claim this? This is so typical of the loose
language, which so many so-called "science writers" have used for so long,
and it's getting worse!)
The currently accepted theory is that, in the early Universe, a number of
mysterious
(Hmmm!) interactions occurred, which
resulted in tipping the balance in favour of matter. This is a bit of a
cop-out, I know, but there you go." (So everything that you "the
author" have just said, is pointless … oh, for heaven's sake!)
I know I'm being a bit OTT here, Susan, but I just want to clearly make the
point that so much is being claimed as fact in public these days, which is
either totally untrue, untestable, or unproven, and the public is lapping it
up as valuable information to be taken seriously. This is the whole
reason why I say at the beginning of my book … "We
should not surrender our judgment to others; we must reclaim our ability to
doubt and think for ourselves".
To round this off with some opinion from a source, which I staunchly
support, here is what Wallace Thornhill; lead scientist for the Thunderbolt
Project has to say on the matter of antimatter (mini-pun intended) … (The
following four extracts are taken from four different articles on Wal's
website at www.holoscience.com)
"In the Electric Universe model, there is no antimatter forming
antiparticles. An electron and a positron are composed of the same charged
sub-particles in different conformations. They come together to form a
stable neutrino, emitting most of their orbital energies in the process.
They do not annihilate each other. In that sense a neutrino embodies both
the electron and the positron. It can have no antiparticle. The bookmakers
would be wise not to bet on the Standard Model of particle physics."
www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neutrino-puzzle-is-solved/
"So, the good news for Star Trek fans is that Einstein’s speed limit is
repealed. But the Warp Drive and Teleporter are out, I’m sorry. They are
illogical. Space cannot be warped. And matter can neither be destroyed nor
created, despite the widespread misconception that the “m” in E = mc^2 means
matter, and that antimatter annihilates matter.
www.holoscience.com/wp/the-remarkable-slowness-of-light/
"The notion that matter can be annihilated when normal matter meets
antimatter is a confusion of language. Matter can neither be destroyed nor
created nor can matter be exchanged for energy. Einstein’s E = mc2 refers to
mass, a property of matter, not matter itself. The mathematical relationship
represents the restructuring of resonant systems of charge. What seems to
happen in “annihilation” is that the complementary resonant charge
structures of a particle and its antiparticle combine so that almost all of
the internal energy is radiated away and the combined charges form a new
collapsed particle of low internal energy."
www.holoscience.com/wp/a-real-theory-of-everything/
"At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the
work of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the
simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy
of the electrostatic force** in matter interactions. It also rests upon the
simple assumption that the proton, neutron and electron are composed of
smaller charged particles, orbiting each other in a classical sense in
stable, resonant orbits. That is, the energy exchanged between those
sub-particles in elastic deformation during each orbit sums to zero. Being
charged, the sub-particles interact via the electrostatic force. A simple
calculation shows that the sub-particles that form an electron must travel
at a speed far in excess of the speed of light – some 2.5 million
light-years per second, or from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy
in one second! So the electrostatic force must act at a speed which is
almost infinite on our scale for the electron to be stable. It is the stable
orbital resonances of these sub-particles, both within and between particles
that give rise to the phenomena of protons, neutrons, electrons and atoms.
Other denizens of the particle “zoo” are merely transient resonant states of
the same charged sub-particles. The so-called “creation” of matter from
energetic photons is an illusion in which pre-existing matter is reorganized
into new resonant states that give the impression that a particle has
suddenly materialized. Antimatter is a misnomer since it too is formed from
the same sub-particles as “normal” matter except that the total charge is
mirrored. Matter cannot be created or annihilated."
www.holoscience.com/wp/synopsis/synopsis-11-some-basics/
Where I personally might amplify things very slightly in relation to Wal's
words is that, I subscribe totally to the notion that all matter exists due
to frequency inter-relationships and the interference patterns (results of
phase relationships) and forces, which subsequently arise from those
interactions. I am describing here the thin end of the wedge into the notion
that we all live in a form of holographic reality, one that was instigated
and is now maintained by those forces I mentioned previously, the ones (or
one) which exist outwith our realm of current scientific and intellectual
understanding.
I thank Tom Findlay for being so generous with his time and knowledge. I
will leave you with this from the Sanskrit text, the Rig Veda X.129, which
is thousands of years old and the source of all the others:
6.
Who here can grasp the colossal
boundless far-reaching entirety?
This universe is only a fraction,
a single portion of the infinite forever
Oneness measureless.
Who can speak further of far away creation?
On this side of it the One that moved integrating
became the senses for perceiving,
thus sliding away afar.
7.
As we are ever in motion
opening unfolding the God-within,
so the axis of the universe is
undulating, two serpents embracing,
all pervading within the highest creation,
even far away space ever expanding,
stretched out and spreading in all directions.
We know not if it can be held,
the continuum - indeed
if it can be known at all.
http://www.metaphysicalmusing.com/articles/rigveda2012/rigveda004.htm
***
What Tom Findlay says about himself:
I have no academic achievements to parade for anyone to inspect. However,
through my career, I have knowledge and experience of electrical, electronic
and computer engineering, and radio communications, plus, I believe, a
measure of common sense and an ability to think logically.
Since then, a lack of funds and cold
and cloudy nights here in Scotland have steered my interest in astronomy
towards the mental challenge of understanding what I can about the workings
of our universe. Looking back, this could be considered the low-cost option,
because learning from the work of others through books and other sources,
does not necessarily come with the additional expense of buying equipment.
http://www.newtoeu.com/theauthor.html
...
|
Questions
or comments about articles on this site: |
Copyright© V. Susan Ferguson |
Technical questions or
comments about the site: |
|
|