It's generally assumed gravity is a fact. It's not. It's a theory, invented by Newton and barely three centuries old.
It's generally assumed gravity is a universal law. It's not. The prominences on the sun don't obey it. Neptune scoffs at it. The stars
repudiate it. Galaxies ignore it. Its jurisdiction is pretty much limited to Newton's falling apple at the surface of the Earth. Even there the
constant of gravitation refuses to be constant and wiggles around like a plasma in a magnetic field.
Newton said, "Gravity steers the universe." Heraclitus said, "The thunderbolt steers the universe." Who're ya gonna believe?
nothing about electricity. Heraclitus knew nothing about gravity. Newton had seen lightning, and Heraclitus had seen falling apples. But neither
thought it was something that needed to be explained.
Because he didn't have a theory that enabled him to imagine the possibility, Heraclitus was unable to send a space probe to Mars. What electrical
possibility was Newton unable to achieve because he didn' have a theory that enabled him to imagine it? Newton not only didn't explain electricity,
his theory of gravity didn't allow him even to perceive it. And to this day astronomers have not been explaining it or even perceiving it. They
talk about a "rain" of ions on Europa and a "wind" of charged particles from the sun. But moving charged particles are better known as an
Except for the surfaces of half a dozen planets and moons, all we see of the universe is electrical: filaments and jets, accelerated and accelerating
ions, synchrotron radiation and bremsstrahlung, polarized emissions, magnetic fields, Birkeland braids, Peratt instabilities, inverse linear force
relationships, ...and that "wind" and "rain" buffeting the planets accompanied by radio "noise" typical of double layers. The electrical nature
of those phenomena goes unperceived for want of a theory that will make it "make sense", that will make it sensible.
It's not that a theory doesn't exist. Electrical plasma physics (EPP) has been developing for over a century. It's properties and principles have
been discovered and described by such illustrious experimenters as Birkeland, Langmuir, and Alfven. EPP is to be distinguished from
magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), which also uses the term "plasma". What MHD means by that term is not electrically active assemblages of charged
particles but masses of hot air. It's MHD that brought us the meteorological image of the solarsystem. EPP flips the switch to turn on the light of
Unfortunately, EPP is widely ignored. It's not mentioned in standard textbooks. The training of most physicists leaves them unaware that many of
the words they use are euphemisms for (and obfuscations of) electrical currents. For people wedded to a mechanistic view of the cosmos, EPP is
frightening. Electrically active plasmas behave as though they were alive. They self- organize into complex forms that twist and turn and change
states. They're mathematically messy. They're anarchic.
But they're conceptually elegant. The theory of gravity is surprised by each new discovery of space probes and space telescopes. Each surprise has
to be patched with another ad hoc excuse. EPP accounts for the many surprising features of the cosmos with a single coherent theory. It can often
point to a lab demonstration or to a computer simulation that mimics the newly discovered form. What EPP may lack in mathematical elegance is more
than made up for in generality.
The Age of Gravitational Mechanics has achieved many impressive feats: It's taken people to the Moon. It's sent a robot to Mars. It's put
satellites into orbit around Venus and Jupiter and Eros. It's put SOHO into orbit around nothing more than a mathematical point. It's also
discovered the data and collected the facts that require a new, larger theory to explain them. So the time has come to question the relevance of the
cogs-and-wheels theory of gravity from the gas-light era. It's time to plug in to an electrical cosmos with an electrical theory.
Ask a physicist how gravity actually works, or how mass 'bends' space, and they will be pretty much stumped. The EM force is 10^39 orders of
magnitude stronger, and gravity is likely a left over aspect of that which arrises from atom geometry and other factors.
well, thats my opinion on the matter.
And no, i'm not going to get into an argument with it you over it Buddha, this is my first and last comment on this particular thread, i have already
discussed my opinions on gravity with you elsewhere.
[edit on 30-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]