A NEW PARADIGM OF SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT - THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE

   Article 15 : Pointers towards explaining mass and gravity electrically

   by Bishop Nicholas Sykes

   We have already alluded to how evident it is that the inertia of a
   body, in other words its resistance to changing its state of motion,
   must have an electrical explanation. If we push, say, an empty cup
   across a very slippery table, we could (if we had the equipment)
   subject the area over which the hand that pushes is apparently in
   contact with the surface of the cup, to examination by a (notional)
   microscope of variable power. As the power of the microscope
   increases, we would find, at some point of increasing power, the
   surface of the hand and the surface of the cup to be broken down into
   their constituent molecules, and it would become clear to the observer
   that the hand molecules do not in fact "touch" the cup molecules while
   yet setting up a repulsive force between them which acts to send the
   cup sliding on its way. Since both the cup molecules and the hand
   molecules possess electrons which comprise the outer part of the
   respective molecules, and since these electrons all have negative
   charge, it may seem reasonable to think that the force between the
   hand and the cup, which we have been used to thinking about as
   mechanical in nature, is in fact due to the electrical repulsion
   between the respective molecules, perhaps caused by their (negative)
   electrons being in closer proximity to one another than their
   respective (positive) nuclei. As we look into the electrical nature of
   inertia and mass, we could find this concept needing adjustment, but
   for now the important point is that the basic nature of such forces
   seems to be electrical. Since a large cup of the same consistency of
   material is harder to set sliding along the slippery table than a
   smaller cup, this means that a greater force of electrical repulsion
   must be set up between the hand molecules and the molecules of the
   larger cup for it to move in the same manner as the smaller cup does.
   In physics we say that the "inertia" of the larger cup is greater than
   the inertia of the smaller cup, and we use for that "inertia" the name
   "mass".

   Now let us use the same two cups, climb a tall tree and drop them both
   from the same branch to the ground, which might have to be equipped
   with an inflatable swimming pool if we wanted to repeat the experiment
   with the same cups (unless the cups were made of unbreakable or
   rubbery material). Newton found in his equivalent experiments, as do
   we with the cups, that although the cups do not have the same inertia
   (or mass), they both move in exactly the same way. (There is a small
   error due to the fact that if one cup is larger in size than the
   other, the air through which they fall will push up on the larger cup
   a bit more than on the smaller cup, but let us ignore that for now. We
   can refine the experiment by using two cups of the same size but made
   from different materials.) Both cups will reach the ground (or the
   inflatable swimming pool) at the same time. When subjected to the
   earth's gravity, the inertia (or the mass) of the cups makes no
   difference to the way they move. And this simply means that whatever
   gravity is, it is pulling or pushing down on the bigger cup with a
   larger force, than does the gravity on the smaller cup. We note the
   similarity of the two experiments: when we pushed the cups across the
   slippery table with our hand, we had to exert a larger force on the
   "larger" cup to make it move in the same way that the smaller cup
   moved with the smaller force. And if we are positing that the force
   between the hand and the cup is electrical in its nature, we should
   expect to find that the force that gravity provides is also electrical
   in its nature. Nevertheless, those who are familiar with
   electrostatics would be correct in pointing out that gravitational
   force cannot be electrostatic, because the bodies concerned - the cups
   in our example - are not electrically charged objects.

   Ralph Sansbury has proposed a possible model of the fundamental
   particles (electrons, protons and neutrons) of ordinary matter, and
   Wal Thornhill of the Electric Universe team regards this model as the
   key to understanding the force of gravity electrically. Sansbury
   proposes that fundamental particles are resonant systems of orbiting
   smaller electric particles of opposite polarity that sum to the charge
   of that particle. Sansbury referred to the smaller electric charges as
   "subtrons". Let us take, for example, an electron. An electron
   possesses a negative charge. In Sansbury's model, the electron is not
   just one single charged particle, but the summation of a number of
   orbiting smaller electric particles, some of which are positive and
   some negative. In the electron the negative subtrons must outweigh the
   positive subtrons because the summation is negative. It is important
   to note that each orbiting system of subtrons that constitutes the
   fundamental particle is a resonant system. The subtrons behave, so to
   speak, in an orderly way in sync with one another, so that a coherent
   entity - the electron, the neutron or the proton - is preserved. (This
   implies that the transfer of energy between the subtrons in their
   orbits must be nearly instantaneous, which like gravitational action
   in the solar system has devastating implications for the Special
   Theory of Relativity.)

   The electrical model of mass and gravity differs from the Newtonian
   model in this way: in the Newtonian model, it is the mass of the
   particles of any object that generates (though without explanation)
   gravitational field. In the new electrical paradigm of mass, however,
   quantity of mass is a measure of how easily an electric field will
   distort the fundamental particles that comprise it into dipolar forms,
   because the more dipolar the particles comprising the body become, the
   more response will be apparent between that body and the presenting
   field. Neutrons and protons differ from electrons, therefore, not only
   by the subtron summation charges, but also in that their resonant
   subtrons are distorted far more readily into a dipolar configuration
   than is the case for electrons. We are used to saying that neutrons
   and protons have "more mass" than electrons. So they do, but now we
   have an idea of what is meant by that statement. If readers find this
   difficult to grasp, it is because of the unfamiliarity of the concepts
   being presented and not because of any inherent complexity. This
   article will benefit from a second read through, and also from being
   re-read after further articles have been written.

   For more information on the new paradigm, see 

   www.holoscience.com and www.thunderbolts.info

   Previous articles may be seen at www.churchofenglandcayman.com and
   through the "thunderblog" link in www.thunderbolts.info